View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Realizing Reciprocity in Community-University Partnerships When Addressing Complex Societal Issues

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Realizing Reciprocity in Community-University Partnerships When Addressing Complex Societal Issues
Language: English
Authors: Marijke Visser (ORCID 0000-0002-5082-576X), Geertje Tijsma (ORCID 0000-0002-9939-2686), Marjolein Zweekhorst (ORCID 0000-0001-7015-4951)
Source: Innovative Higher Education. 2026 51(1):407-440.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 34
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Partnerships in Education, School Community Programs, Universities, Social Problems, Institutional Mission, Action Research, Foreign Countries, Alignment (Education), Educational Practices
Geographic Terms: Netherlands (Amsterdam)
DOI: 10.1007/s10755-025-09820-1
ISSN: 0742-5627
1573-1758
Abstract: In this study, we focus on engaged education as a means of exploring how reciprocity can be manifested through Community-University Partnerships (CUPs) and contribute to the universities' third mission. Reciprocity, characterized by mutual benefit and active collaboration between universities and communities, is foundational to CUPs in engaged education. However, realizing reciprocity in CUPs becomes particularly challenging when addressing complex societal issues -- being multifaceted, dynamic, and which require long-term commitment -- as curricular activities are traditionally monodisciplinary, and short-term in nature. This paper presents the findings of three years of action research at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, exploring how reciprocity can be realized in CUPs addressing complex issues. Three CUP-Approaches emerged: course-driven, partner-driven, and theme-driven, each leveraging specific strategies -- complexity reduction and flexible deliverables, iterative learning, knowledge accumulation and integration. These strategies fostered transactional reciprocity by delivering tangible outcomes for all stakeholders involved and supported transformational reciprocity by transforming CUP processes and outcomes, and participants' perspectives on the complex issue. Our findings highlight the importance of aligning CUP structures with the interconnected and long-term nature of complex issues. This study contributes to the increasing demand on universities to purposefully address complex societal issues through engaged education practices.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1508354
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF8YS-uKjIxA45wn3aqtwGrAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCRZgqFyEmpiJj9E1QIBEICBm_sRN5C4_v_vTUsJJvBTlDnxbqbV2By1yet2lrBVzsBV_29DHCkv5yMeOsr18uv41T0z4NiDRbJFs1043-L3bpDb7fylDMG0CjcMMLnOlGn9QmyhsKJgK2IGgDyKUdVGPssihp88Tgg9o9Pp1AFVjus3pABk0PL0yu9l_ZgyykoDwJxRclo_bWSnjMoOfoKPfUoF_k7JD4HrZOCq
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191658347;ihe01feb.26;2026Feb20.06:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191658347-1">Realizing Reciprocity in Community-University Partnerships When Addressing Complex Societal Issues </title> <p>In this study, we focus on engaged education as a means of exploring how reciprocity can be manifested through Community-University Partnerships (CUPs) and contribute to the universities' third mission. Reciprocity, characterized by mutual benefit and active collaboration between universities and communities, is foundational to CUPs in engaged education. However, realizing reciprocity in CUPs becomes particularly challenging when addressing complex societal issues – being multifaceted, dynamic, and which require long-term commitment – as curricular activities are traditionally monodisciplinary, and short-term in nature. This paper presents the findings of three years of action research at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, exploring how reciprocity can be realized in CUPs addressing complex issues. Three CUP-Approaches emerged: course-driven, partner-driven, and theme-driven, each leveraging specific strategies – complexity reduction and flexible deliverables, iterative learning, knowledge accumulation and integration. These strategies fostered transactional reciprocity by delivering tangible outcomes for all stakeholders involved and supported transformational reciprocity by transforming CUP processes and outcomes, and participants' perspectives on the complex issue. Our findings highlight the importance of aligning CUP structures with the interconnected and long-term nature of complex issues. This study contributes to the increasing demand on universities to purposefully address complex societal issues through engaged education practices.</p> <p>Keywords: Community-University Partnerships; Reciprocity; Complex issues; Engaged education; Third mission</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Universities are under pressure to include 'third mission' activities in their core functions of teaching and research (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref1">12</reflink>]; Pinheiro et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref2">42</reflink>]). The third mission can be understood as conscious and strategic actions to enhance the universities' contributions to society (Vargiu, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref3">57</reflink>]). This includes activities involving the generation, use and application of knowledge and other capabilities in collaboration with public sector organizations, NGOs, or community-based groups, all of whom are working toward addressing societal challenges (Compagnucci & Spigarelli, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]; Jongbloed et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref5">32</reflink>]). Taking a holistic perspective on the third mission, contributions to society can be manifested <emph>through</emph> institutions' core functions of either research or education (Fitzgerald et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]; Ogunsanya & Govender, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref7">40</reflink>]). Taking this perspective, community-based research, participatory (action) research, applied learning, engaged education, just to name a few, can all contribute to the universities' third mission (Aramburuzabala et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>]; Bekele et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>]; Compagnucci & Spigarelli, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]; Tijsma et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref11">55</reflink>]). As part of this third mission, <emph>reciprocity</emph> between universities and their community partners is increasingly stipulated (Clifford, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref12">11</reflink>]; Hammersley, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref13">23</reflink>]; Sors et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref14">50</reflink>]). Reciprocity emphasizes at least a <emph>two-way exchange</emph> in Community-University Partnerships (CUPs), fostering active collaboration instead of mere knowledge dissemination (Weerts & Sandmann, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref15">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this paper, we focus on engaged education as a means of exploring how reciprocity can be manifested through CUPs, thereby contributing to universities' third mission. We follow the definition of service-learning as proposed by Hatcher and Bringle ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]) as a form of engaged education, in which students contribute to addressing societal issues as part of their curricular activities, working in collaboration with community (partners). Various benefits related to engaged education have been reported for all stakeholders involved: students (e.g., Warren, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref17">60</reflink>]), faculty or teachers (e.g., Harrison et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref18">25</reflink>]), and community (e.g., Rinaldo et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref19">45</reflink>]). In general, engaged education offers a valuable means for developing CUPs (Bringle, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref20">6</reflink>]; Enos & Morton, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref21">19</reflink>]). Reciprocity within CUPs is most successful when the community's issue aligns with the disciplinary and professional learning objectives of an educational program, as seen in student-run law- or health clinics where community members receive services, and students gain practical experience (e.g., Marcilla-Toribio et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref22">37</reflink>]; Stewart & Wubbena, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref23">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>In today's globalized and interconnected world, however, communities face increasingly pressing <emph>complex</emph> societal issues such as climate injustice and social inequality. These complex issues are multifaceted, dynamic, and challenging to define, with unpredictable outcomes (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>]; Head, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref25">27</reflink>]). Addressing complex issues requires integrating diverse perspectives from academic and societal stakeholders, as well as long-term commitment, and adaptability to unfolding circumstances (Klein, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref26">35</reflink>]). Yet, most engaged education typically occurs within single disciplines or programs, restricting the inclusion of diverse perspectives and long-term commitment, thus challenging the extent in which reciprocity can be safeguarded when addressing complex issues. This underscores the need for innovative approaches to effectively address complex societal issues with engaged education (Fitzgerald et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref27">21</reflink>]; Ramley, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref28">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>To better understand how CUPs can address complex issues within engaged education in a way that benefits all stakeholders (community partners, faculty, and students), we assess a case study from Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam. VU aims to offer all students the opportunity to conduct an engaged education activity within their educational program (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref29">59</reflink>]). To realize this aim, a central team was established to develop a sustainable culture and structure to implement engaged education across the university. Over three years of conducting action research, this team developed strategies for addressing complex societal issues through CUPs, leading to the emergence of three CUP-approaches: course-driven, partner-driven, and theme-driven. In this paper, we focus on understanding how reciprocity was realized in each approach when addressing complex issues.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-3">Reciprocity and Complex Issues</hd> <p>Reciprocity is a foundational concept in CUPs within engaged education, emphasizing mutually beneficial outcomes for all stakeholders involved (e.g., Hammersley, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref30">23</reflink>]). This concept is rooted in Boyer's <emph>Scholarship of engagement</emph> (Boyer, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>]), which emerged in the 90 s as a critique on the traditional academic model focusing on one-directional knowledge delivery from universities to communities (Sandmann, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref32">48</reflink>]). This one-directional approach was increasingly considered self-referential and disconnected from the real-world, and unresponsive to society's most pressing issues (Boyer, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]; Weerts & Sandmann, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref34">61</reflink>]). Boyer's work sparked a shift towards two-directional approaches that pursue reciprocal CUPs (Saltmarsh, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref35">47</reflink>]; Sandmann, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref36">48</reflink>]). Since then, universities have explored ways to integrate Boyer's scholarship of engagement, including engaged education, fostering collaborative processes in CUPs to address societal issues (Ogunsanya & Govender, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref37">40</reflink>]; Sandmann, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref38">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>While reciprocity in CUPs within engaged education is often framed as creating value for all stakeholders (Hammersley, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref39">23</reflink>]), its realization is challenging given the intricate networks of stakeholders from both <emph>university</emph> – including faculty (teachers, staff, and administrators) and students – and from <emph>community</emph> – including community leaders, community organization personnel, and community members (hereafter referred to as <emph>partners</emph>) (Bringle & Hatcher, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]). Each bring diverse (and often diverging) knowledge, goals, interests, values, and power dynamics to the table, making realizing reciprocity multifaceted and challenging (Davis et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref41">14</reflink>]; Eddy & Amey, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref42">18</reflink>]; Hammersley, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>]). Furthermore, although the value of CUPs within engaged education for university stakeholders is well-documented, with research focusing on students (e.g., Santos Rego et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref44">49</reflink>]), faculty (e.g., Karasik, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]), and institutional benefits (e.g., Nicotera et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref46">38</reflink>]), the value for community stakeholders remains underexplored (e.g., Janke et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref47">31</reflink>]). This gap in the literature hinders a comprehensive understanding of CUPs and limits efforts to establish reciprocity (Visser et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref48">58</reflink>]).</p> <p>Reciprocity in CUPs within engaged education is often categorized into two types: transactional and transformational. <emph>Transactional</emph> reciprocity focuses on exchanging tangible outcomes and are typically specific and short-term, with participants remaining relatively unchanged (Butcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref49">9</reflink>]). These partnerships rely on clear agreements, deliverables, and timelines to ensure mutual benefits (Clayton et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref50">10</reflink>]). In contrast, <emph>transformational</emph> reciprocity aims for long-term, collaborative change by co-producing knowledge and pursuing common goals (Enos & Morton, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref51">19</reflink>]; Hammersley, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref52">23</reflink>]). These partnerships foster growth and adaptation, in which participants collaborate to explore and adapt to emergent possibilities (Butcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref53">9</reflink>]; Clifford, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref54">11</reflink>]), leading to deeper shifts in processes, outcomes, and even participants'perspectives or identities (Dostilio et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref55">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>When addressing complex societal issues, CUPs in engaged education must navigate the inherent complexity of these issues. Complex issues are considered "complex" as they are inherently ambiguous, entwine diverse stakeholders, and defy straightforward solutions (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref56">24</reflink>]; Head, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref57">27</reflink>]). The complexity is exacerbated by the unpredictability of interactions between actors and events and the continuous change of circumstances, which complicates straightforward definitions and solutions (Alford & Head, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>]). Such issues are shaped by multiple stakeholders, each holding different values, interests, and power dynamics (Alford & Head, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref59">1</reflink>]; Rittel & Webber, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref60">46</reflink>]). The knowledge and resources necessary to address these problems are distributed across these stakeholders, highlighting the need for collaboration and the integration of diverse knowledge (Polk, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref61">43</reflink>]). In contrast, issues that lack such complexity – those being predictable, or having clear, singular solutions – are appropriately tackled with traditional problem-solving frameworks. Complex issues, however, require more dynamic, collaborative approaches that account for uncertainty, change and diverse perspectives (Hocking et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref62">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>When addressing complex issues in CUPs, challenges arise for both transactional and transformational reciprocity. For transactional reciprocity, the ill-defined problem and solutions of complex issues complicates establishing clear, mutually beneficial agreements characteristic of transactional reciprocity (Clayton et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref63">10</reflink>]). For instance, taking the complex issue of homelessness, the various causes—ranging from economic hardship to mental health—are difficult to define and require diverse stakeholders to collaborate, making it challenging to create clear agreements and outcomes (Curwood et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref64">13</reflink>]). At the same time, for transformational reciprocity, which is often seen as better suited for addressing complex issues (Butcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref65">9</reflink>]; Davis et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref66">14</reflink>]), the structured university curricula, with fixed timelines and limited flexibility, restricts the long-term, iterative process required for systemic change (Tryon et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref67">56</reflink>]). For instance, addressing climate change adaptation in urban areas requires continuous engagement with diverse stakeholders over time, yet academic schedules typically limit such collaboration to short-term semesters (Norton et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref68">39</reflink>]; Tryon et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref69">56</reflink>]). This mismatch makes it difficult to implement long-term, adaptive approaches within CUPs (Norton et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref70">39</reflink>]; Tijsma et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref71">54</reflink>]). Eddy and Amey ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref72">18</reflink>]) propose strategic partnerships that align with institutional missions, are less time bound and less dependent on individuals, as potential solution to these barriers. However, achieving alignment of objectives, responsiveness and flexibility within such partnerships still present significant difficulties.</p> <p>To effectively address complex issues in CUPs within engaged education and realize some form of reciprocity, innovative approaches are required (Fitzgerald et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>]; Ramley, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref74">44</reflink>]). Therefore, this research studies the development of such innovative approaches in engaged education, specifically exploring how reciprocity can be realized in CUPs aiming to address complex issues.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-4">Methods</hd> <p>Through three years of action research, this study explores how reciprocity can be realized in CUPs addressing complex issues. The action research allowed us to overcome challenges, strengthen and adapt the approaches, and ultimately develop three strategies for realizing reciprocity within CUPs. In this paper, we focus on the development of these three strategies across three CUP-approaches and how they evolved in response to the challenges encountered during the research. We aimed to connect the approaches' development to different characteristics of the different forms of reciprocity.</p> <p>The first and second authors played dual roles as researchers and coordinators in this study, simultaneously studying and intervening in the three CUP-approaches. This dual role is inherent to action research, where researchers are not only observers but also active participants in the process they are studying. (e.g., Kemmis & McTaggart, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref75">34</reflink>]; Lewin, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref76">36</reflink>]). This approach enabled us to collaboratively (with our partners) explore and refine the different CUP-approaches in response to the real-world complex issues. The first and second authors met monthly with the last author and other BM-CSL team members to discuss research and project goals and reflect on this dual role.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-5">The Case Study: Action Research at VU Amsterdam</hd> <p>The CUPs in this study were established resulting from three years of action research within VU. VU enrolls approximately 31,761 students across 45 bachelor's and 100 master's programs. VU's mission aligns with the call from the Dutch Ministry of Education to promote engaged learning and align higher education with societal needs and challenges (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref77">30</reflink>]). Specifically, VU's Strategic Plan 2020–2025 emphasizes values-driven education and social responsibility (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref78">48</reflink>]), with the Broader Mind program – specifically the Broader Mind Community Service Learning (BM-CSL) pillar – serving a central strategy. BM-CSL aims to offer all undergraduate students the opportunity to participate in engaged education through CSL, defined by VU as:"A form of education in which students make practical use of their academic skills to solve societal issues. Here, reflection forms an important aspect of the learning process. CSL involves close cooperation with social partners, who – together with VU – have a vested interest in the outcomes of this form of education" (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref79">59</reflink>], p. 22).</p> <p>The BM-CSL team – composed of lecturers, researchers and support staff, including the authors – was established to develop a sustainable structure and culture for integrating engaged education into VU's undergraduate curriculum. Using an action research approach, the team develops, investigates, and implements strategies to embed engaged education aiming for reciprocal impacts on students, the university, and partners. These partners can be connected to government like the municipality, smaller non-profit organizations, but also larger businesses that aim to increase their societal impact. Action research, a change-oriented methodology, studies complex social processes in their practical context by introducing change and observing their effect (e.g. Kemmis & McTaggart, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref80">34</reflink>]; Lewin, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref81">36</reflink>]). The action learning approach of the BM-CSL team consisted of matching, co-design, monitoring, and evaluation, to foster reciprocal partnerships (Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Action research spiral as used by the BM-CSL team at VU for the implementation of engaged education through matching, co-design, monitoring and evaluation to address complex societal issues while safeguarding reciprocity</p> <p>The BM-CSL team's action research starts with <emph>matching.</emph> Ideally, complex issues are identified through community-listening sessions, where community members, community organization personnel and community leaders are invited to discuss local pressing issues. Potential partners and teachers are then <emph>matched</emph> by aligning the identified complex issue with relevant courses. This is facilitated by the BM-CSL team through one-on-one meetings with partners and teachers or 'Meet and Match' events, in which potential partners and teachers come together on an identified complex issue.</p> <p>Once matched, courses are <emph>co-designed</emph> by the BM-CSL team, partners and teachers to ensure <emph>at least</emph> tangible outcomes, reflecting transactional reciprocity. During implementation, the team <emph>monitors</emph> courses by attending lectures and work groups and facilitating interactions between students, teachers and partners to safeguard ongoing reciprocity. Post-course, the team <emph>evaluates</emph> all stages by conducting interviews and or focus groups with all the stakeholders (students, teachers and partners). Insights from each stage of the action research inform both ongoing and future courses and partnerships as well as safeguarding principles for reciprocity (Fig. 1).</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-6">Three CUP-Approaches</hd> <p>As a result of the BM-CSL's team action research, three distinct approaches emerged to realize reciprocity when addressing complex issues within CUPs: course-driven, partner-driven, and theme-driven (Fig. 2). Here, we outline how these approaches emerged over three years starting from the initiation of the BM-CSL program in September 2018. For each CUP-approach, different partners were involved<emph>. </emph>Table 1 provides an overview of the range of partners, details on the complex issues and tangible outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic struck in year 2 of our study, resulting in online formats of engaged activities (e.g. online interviews) and the integration of COVID-19 in the project framing.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Course-driven CUP-Approach: Established in 2018, this approach began with the course "Health in the City", which was redesigned into an engaged course focusing on health-related complex issues. This elective, 6 EC, 2-month course for undergraduates in Health and Life sciences requires students, with no or limited experience within engaged education, to analyze a complex health issue through interviews with societal stakeholders and producing tangible recommendations to the partner (see Table 1). Each year a separate project was undertaken with a different community partner on a different complex issue. The partners included: 1) a neighborhood mediator of the municipality of Amsterdam in district Buitenveldert/Zuidas; 2) the Diversity Director of VU's Health and Wellbeing Point, a student-led initiative that creates a safe and informal space for students to focus on their wellbeing, who was a known contact of the BM-CSL team; and 3) two project leaders of an independent knowledge institute for mental health, addiction and social issues. This CUP-Approach is primarily shaped by the course format in which the university seeks a partner that fits the requirements of the course. The course was matched, monitored, and evaluated over three years (April–May 2019, 2020, 2021) with improvements made annually to safeguard reciprocity.</item> <p></p> <item> Partner-driven CUP-Approach: This approach evolved from a long-standing individual relationship between a faculty member and a manager of a social organization which aids people facing various social challenges, including homelessness, addiction, and poverty, and focused on transitioning from intramural to extramural care in Amsterdam. Building on insights from prior collaborations in the elective course "Community-Based Health Interventions" of the Global Health minor program, the partner requested further exploration of its complex issue across other courses. The BM-CSL team matched the organization's issues with suitable courses in two different faculties (see Table 1). This CUP-approach is primarily shaped by the interests, priorities and needs of the community partner, rather than a specific course format. Based on the interests of the community partner, the university explores how they can contribute. This approach was also monitored and evaluated over three years with a focus on how to realize reciprocity.</item> <p></p> <item> Theme-driven CUP-Approach: Emerging from a community-listening session held by the BM-CSL team in Amsterdam district Nieuw-West, <emph>loneliness</emph> was identified as a significant local complex issue. Followed by a 'Meet and Match' event – specifically on the theme loneliness – which brought together potential partners, teachers and the BM-CSL team, this theme was initially matched with the mandatory, credit-bearing, 2-month master's course 'Analysis of Governmental Policy' in the program Management Policy and Entrepreneurship in the Health and Life sciences (Tijsma et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref82">54</reflink>]). Findings from this course inspired a network of partners. 7 partners from 6 non-profit social organizations joined the network, including two community workers of a social work organization; a project leader of a mental health organization; a manager of a center for women emancipation; a coordinator of a center for informal caregiving; a photographer of a foundation which uses photography to promote participation; and a director of a voluntary organization that connects students with local neighborhoods. Moreover, 3 policy makers from the municipality of district Nieuw-West and 1 staff member from a higher vocational training institute joined. These partners were first introduced by the director of the voluntary organization, who had a long-standing relationship with VU and a central position in the neighborhood. These partners formalized their commitment as "The Knowledge Alliance Loneliness" to further explore the complex issue of loneliness with engaged education at VU and a higher vocational training institute (see Table 1). Courses from various faculties of VU were subsequently matched to different aspects of loneliness. This CUP-approach is primarily shaped by the complex issue that requires a collaborative response. The partnership does not emerge from a predefined course format (course-driven) or from a single partner's agenda (partner-driven), but rather from the urgency and complexity of the issue itself. Based on the demands of the issue at hand, diverse stakeholders explore how they can contribute. This approach was also monitored and evaluated over three years.</item> </ulist> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Visualization of three different CUP-Approaches that arose from action research executed by the BM-CSL central team to understand and realize reciprocity with engaged education around complex issues</p> <p>Table 1 An overview of courses, partners, issues and outcomes per CUP approaches</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>CUP-approach</p></th><th align="left"><p>Characteristics</p></th><th align="left"><p>Course, faculty</p></th><th align="left"><p>Partner</p></th><th align="left"><p>Complex issue</p></th><th align="left"><p>Examples of tangible outcomes</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Course-driven</p><p>The course format gives meaning to the CUP</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>A 2-month, 6 EC undergraduate course matched to a different partner each year</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>1 course from 1 faculty (health science)</p></td><td align="left"><p>The municipality of district Buitenveldert/Zuidas</p></td><td align="left"><p>Residents in a local neighborhood consisting of mainly elderly and expats are unsatisfied about the available municipal health and wellbeing services</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interviews with residents led to a report and presentations recommending boosting social cohesion through community initiatives, with additional research needed on the municipality's role and housing corporation services</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>The VU's health and wellbeing point; a student-led initiative that provides a safe and informal space for students to focus on their wellbeing</p></td><td align="left"><p>The sudden restrictions of COVID-19 posed challenges for safeguarding student mental wellbeing</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interviews with peers led to a report and presentations highlighting divergence needs, motivational issues, and personal communication, with additional research needed on teachers' perspectives</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>An independent knowledge institute for mental health, addiction and social issues</p></td><td align="left"><p>In the aftermath of COVID-19, there was a need for insights into stress-reduction interventions for young adults</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interviews with young adults led to a report and presentations showing different stress types need different approaches. Additionally, students developed an infographic, website and app with intervention strategies, with additional research needed on health care provider perspectives</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Partner-driven</p><p>The interests of the partner organization give meaning to the CUP</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>A partner organization matched to different courses</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>5 courses in 2 faculties (health science and economics)</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>A social organization which aids people facing various social challenges, including homelessness, addiction, and poverty</p></td><td align="left"><p>Uncertainty about transitioning from intra- to extra mural care in Amsterdam while addressing diverse resident needs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interviews with diverse client groups and personnel led to reports and presentations emphasizing extramural care is not suitable for all clients and requires incremental steps in deinstitutionalization. This work later informed the partner organization's research agenda</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Challenges in balancing e-health use and staff support during COVID-19</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interviews with personnel led to reports and presentations detailing the possibilities and drawbacks of e-health applications in community-based care. This work later informed new grant opportunities the partner and a teacher</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Theme-driven</p><p>The complex issue gives meaning to the CUP</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>A complex issue co-identified by a network of partners matched to various courses</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>11 courses from 4 faculties (health science, behavioral science, religion, and social science)</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>The Knowledge Alliance loneliness, a network of partners that aims to understand and address loneliness in Amsterdam Nieuw-West together</p><p>The organizations included a network of partners including 7 non-profit organizations, 2 HEIs, and municipality of district Nieuw-West. The network aims to understand and address loneliness together</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Amsterdam Nieuw-West faces significant challenges related to <italic>loneliness</italic>, with 26% of its residents reporting severe loneliness particularly among elderly and socio-economic disadvantaged groups. COVID-19 increased feelings of loneliness, particularly for those with limited digital access or literacy</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interviews with residents, informal networks, and formal organizations led to reports and presentations emphasizing local initiatives, community building and lonely residents' participation. This work informed collective discussions between parties in the network and a student-partner event on loneliness in Nieuw-West, highlighting the need for further research on loneliness and its recognition</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Interviews with volunteers, residents, policy makers and wellbeing organizations led to reports and presentations highlighting different forms of loneliness – emotional, social and existential. This work informed regular network meetings and a training manual and workshop series for volunteers, with additional research needed on interventions for diverse loneliness types in COVID-19 contexts</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Interviews with community workers, wellbeing organizations, and elderly residents led to reports and presentations emphasizing effective intervention strategies against loneliness during COVID-19 and shifting from individual to collective approaches. This work informed a joint funding application for a photo competition and exhibition, inviting residents to visually express loneliness. We learned resident are reluctant to share feelings of loneliness or associate themselves with it</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191658347-7">Data Collection</hd> <p>Data was collected from September 2018 to June 2021 to understand reciprocity in each CUP. We gathered insights from all stakeholders – students, teachers, BM-CSL team members, and partners – through 44 interviews and 13 focus groups discussions (FGDs) (see Table 2). Participants were categorized by role, as other characteristics such as age, gender, or educational background were not directly relevant to this study, which focused on reciprocity dynamics within CUPs. This study specifically focused on reciprocity for the partner, as this aspect is often most difficult to achieve (Dempsey, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref83">16</reflink>]; Tryon et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref84">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 2 Data collection and participants per CUP-approach and stakeholder group</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>CUPA</p></th><th align="left"><p>Stakeholder group</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number of participants</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number of interviews</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number of single- stakeholder FGDs; and number of participants</p></th><th align="left"><p>Multi-stakeholder FGDs; type of stakeholders and number of participants per stakeholder</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Course-driven</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 FGD with 4 students</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>5 interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Partners</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>BM-CSL</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Partner-driven</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students</p></td><td align="left"><p>37</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 interview</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 FGDs;</p><p>1) 12 students</p><p>2) 4 students; and</p><p>3) 3 students</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>3 FGDs:</p><p>1) 12 students, 1 teacher and 1 partner</p><p>2) 5 students, 3 teachers, and 1 partner</p><p>3) 12 students, 1 teacher, and 1 partner</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>3 interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Partners</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>2 interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>BM-CSL</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>1 interview</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Theme-driven</p></td><td align="left"><p>Students</p></td><td align="left"><p>39</p></td><td align="left"><p>7 interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>4 FGDs:</p><p>1) 4 students;</p><p>2) 12 students;</p><p>3) 4 students; and</p><p>4) 12 students</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Teachers</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>9 interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>2 FGDs:</p><p>1) 3 teachers, 2 partner, and 2 BM-CSL team members</p><p>2) 1 teacher, 4 partners, and 1 BM-CSL team member</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Partners</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>11 interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>BM-CSL</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>2 interviews</p></td><td align="left"><p>-</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Data collection varied per CUP-approach. For the course-driven CUP-approach, interviews and FGDs were conducted immediately after course completion, with participants changing each year. Over three years, we conducted 3 interviews with students and 1 FGD with 4 students, 5 interviews with 5 different teachers, and 3 interviews with 3 different partners.</p> <p>For the partner-driven CUP-approach, interviews and FGDs with students and teachers were similarly conducted after course completion. Additional interviews were held with the same partner and a BM-CSL member to assess the long-term partnership experience and the role of the team. Over three years, we conducted 1 student interview, 3 teacher interviews, 3 student-only FGDs (<emph>n</emph> = 12, <emph>n</emph> = 4, <emph>n</emph> = 3 students), and 3 multi-stakeholder FGDs involving students (<emph>n</emph> = 12, <emph>n</emph> = 5, <emph>n</emph> = 12), teachers (<emph>n</emph> = 1, <emph>n</emph> = 3, <emph>n</emph> = 1), and the single partner (<emph>n</emph> = 1). We also conducted 2 interviews with the same partner and 1 interview with a BM-CSL team member.</p> <p>For the theme-driven CUP-Approach, data collection focused on a network of partners, emphasizing collaboration between multiple partners over student experience. We conducted 7 interviews with students, 4 student-only FGDs (<emph>n</emph> = 4, <emph>n</emph> = 12, <emph>n</emph> = 4, <emph>n</emph> = 12) and 9 interviews with teachers. Also, 11 interviews were conducted with partners in the network. Finally, 2 multi-stakeholder FGDs involving teachers (<emph>n</emph> = 3, <emph>n</emph> = 1), partners (<emph>n</emph> = 2, <emph>n</emph> = 4) and BM-CSL team members (<emph>n</emph> = 2, <emph>n</emph> = 1).</p> <p>Participants involved in one CUP-approach were not involved in others. Students and teachers were only in one approach. In the partner-driven approach, 12 students from a single-stakeholder FGD also participated in a multi-stakeholder FGD.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-8">Interview and FGD Design</hd> <p>The interview and FGD protocols were developed focusing on reciprocity in each CUP-approach, exploring advantages, challenges, and potential strategies. Interviews with all stakeholders provided insight into participants' partnership experiences and supported triangulation of the data. Single-stakeholder FGDs with students were conducted to capture a large group's feedback, focusing on their partnership experiences. Multi-stakeholder FGDs facilitated collective evaluation of the partnership, discussing best practices, challenges, and strategies for improvement. Discussion topics were related to realizing forms of reciprocity, including short- and long-term deliverables, experienced changes in outcomes, processes and identities, partnership processes (agreements, collaboration, roles and contributions), and the different CUP-approaches, including dynamics between stakeholders, challenges faced, and, where relevant, the BM-CSL team's support.</p> <p>While interviews and FGDs protocols were broadly similar, they were adapted to reflect the unique reciprocity dynamics of each approach. For the course-driven CUP, the focus was on the short-term reciprocal relationships between students, teachers, and the partner, whereas for the partner-driven and theme-driven CUPs, the protocols addressed the long-term relationship between partners, teachers, students, and the BM-CSL team.</p> <p>Interviews (45–60 min) and FGDs (60–90 min) were conducted in Dutch or English, based on participants preference. The diversity of perspectives allowed for data triangulation.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-9">Data Analysis</hd> <p>After transcription, data was organized into clusters by CUP-approach, as these approaches each present unique dynamics and challenges. Within each approach, data was further segmented per stakeholder (students, teachers, partners, BM-CSL members) and arranged chronologically (academic year and term). For example, in the partner-driven approach, data from each course –including interviews and FGDs transcripts from students, teachers and partners– was clustered together and then organized to its occurrence within the academic year. This chronological organization provided a clear structure to track how perspectives evolved across multiple time points, offering insight into the long-term dynamics of the different CUP-approaches.</p> <p>We employed an iterative-inductive approach, combining both deductive application of theory and the inductive discovery of emergent themes (O'Reilly, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref85">41</reflink>]). We based our coding and analysis on existing conceptualizations of transactional and transformational reciprocity in CUPs, and complex issues. We used concepts, including tangible outcomes, deliverables, clear agreements and no fundamental changes in participants for transactional reciprocity and collaborative processes, knowledge co-production, and long-term changes in outcomes, process or identities for transformational reciprocity — as codes in our three-step analysis.</p> <p>Our analysis followed these steps:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Stakeholder Summaries: Summaries were created for each data cluster, detailing the perspectives of each stakeholder on reciprocity within each course when addressing complex issues. This process aimed to synthesize the insights from the different data sources highlighting both transactional and transformational elements of reciprocity. The summaries were structured around the theoretical codes to help categorize each stakeholder's experience and identify key patterns within the data, making it easier to examine different types of reciprocity within each CUP-approach.</item> <p></p> <item> Identifying Advantages and Challenges: From these summaries, we extracted the primary advantages and challenges for each approach by triangulating stakeholder perspectives. This triangulation involved comparing insights from the different stakeholders to uncover both commonalities and differences in how reciprocity was realized. This step allowed us to identify emergent themes that pointed to specific challenges (e.g., the need for an intermediary) and advantages (e.g., opportunities for multi-stakeholder collaboration) of each CUP-approach. The themes where then tied back to addressing complex issues.</item> <p></p> <item> Distilling Strategies: Finally, we identified specific strategies for realizing reciprocity by examining adaptations made within each approach to overcome identified challenges. Three overarching themes emerged as key strategies to realize reciprocity in CUPs of engaged education that aim to address complex issues: <emph>complexity reduction and flexible deliverables, iterative learning, and knowledge accumulation or integration</emph>.</item> </ulist> <p>Coding and analysis were performed by the first and second author, with multiple iterations and discussions among all authors to refine codes and emerging themes. This iterative process allowed us to continually refine our understanding of reciprocity in CUPs and ensure that the analysis remained grounded in both the data and the theoretical framework.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-10">Ethics and Validity</hd> <p>All participants in this research participated voluntarily and provided consent for participation and audio recordings. They could withdraw their participation or data at any moment, without affecting their course participation or relationship in the partnership. Data transcripts were anonymized.</p> <p>As BM-CSL members, we as authors held dual roles as researchers and coordinators. As researchers we aimed to understand reciprocity in CUPs, and as coordinators, we were matched courses to complex issues and maintained CUPs. To minimize bias, we engaged in continuous discussions with other instructors and stakeholders not directly involved in the research, fostering a reflective process on our own possible biases.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-11">Results</hd> <p>Within this study, we aimed to explore how reciprocity can be realized in CUPs addressing complex issues by developing three CUP-approaches: course-driven, partner-driven, and theme-driven through three years of action research at VU. Our findings outline the experiences of students, teachers, BM-CSL team members, and (especially) partners in realizing reciprocity in these three CUP-Approaches that aim to address complex issues. For each CUP-Approach, the developments over a period of three years in chronological order, which include the challenges we overcame and the advantages we strengthened. This resulted in the development of three key strategies (highlighted in italic) across the three CUP-approaches to realize reciprocity (see Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3 The characteristics, advantages, challenges, and strategies for realizing reciprocity within each CUP-Approach when addressing complex issues</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>CUP-approach</p></th><th align="left"><p>Characteristics</p></th><th align="left"><p>Advantages</p></th><th align="left"><p>Challenges</p></th><th align="left"><p>Strategies for realizing reciprocity (transactional and transformational)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Course-driven</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Short-term, curriculum bound partnership in a single course</p></td><td align="left"><p>- One partner gains insight on specific subthemes of a complex issue from a single course (and discipline)</p><p>- Can sparks long-term partnerships</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Limited to one (disciplinary) perspective on the complex issue, as complex issues are too broad for one course</p><p>- Partners may receive outcomes that are (too) superficial or already known to them</p><p>- New questions that arise on the complex issue potentially remain unresolved</p></td><td align="left"><p>- <bold>Complexity reduction</bold>:</p><p>○ Focus on subthemes of the complex issue to create more targeted outcomes (<italic>transactional</italic>)</p><p>○ Focus on student peer-focused complex issues enabling students to better relate and generate meaningful insights (<italic>transactional</italic>)</p><p>- <bold>Flexible deliverables</bold>:</p><p>○ Offer creative freedom in the types of deliverables, allowing students to create actionable products (<italic>transactional</italic>)</p><p>○ Ensure iterative feedback between students and the partner during the course to adapt to partner goals (<italic>transformational</italic>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Partner-driven</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Long-term ongoing partnership between partner organization and the BM-CSL team</p><p>- The BM-CSL team matches the partner to multiple (disciplinary) courses and internships over time</p></td><td align="left"><p>- One partner builds insight on a complex issue over time from multiple courses and various disciplines</p><p>- Fosters a strong relationship between BM-CSL and partner allowing for:</p><p>○ Continuity and cumulative knowledge on complex issues</p><p>○ Additional networking and funding opportunities</p></td><td align="left"><p>- The partnership often relies on few individuals, which can jeopardize the continuity of the partnership</p><p>- Working with one partner organization on a complex issue, risks overburdening them its personnel and networks</p><p>- Need for intermediary to ensure matching between the partner and the courses (teachers and students) and foster relationships</p></td><td align="left"><p>- <bold>Iterative learning:</bold></p><p>○ Engage in regular reflections with the partner to adapt project framing and processes based on past experiences, continuously enhancing collaboration (<italic>transformational</italic>)</p><p>○ Maintain continuous communication with the partner to support a responsive relationship to newly occurring questions, creating continuity and adaptivity (<italic>transformational</italic>)</p><p>- <bold>Knowledge accumulation</bold>:</p><p>○ Match courses to new questions raised by previous course insights, enabling ongoing exploration and deeper insights into the complex issue, by letting students review the outcomes of previous courses (<italic>transactional</italic>). </p><p>Connect multiple courses to examine various aspects of the complex issue, providing a broad, multidisciplinary understanding on the complex issue (<italic>transactional</italic>)</p><p>○ Accumulated insights informed the development of research agenda in the partner organization, formalizing the use of student knowledge (<italic>transformational</italic>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Theme-driven</p></td><td align="left"><p>- A sustained long-term ongoing partnership addressing a complex issue with multiple partners</p><p>- The BM-CSL team matches the partners to different (disciplinary) courses and internships from two different HEIs</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Multiple partners gain insight on a complex issue from multiple courses and various disciplines</p><p>- Brings together diverse stakeholders on the complex issue allowing for:</p><p>○ Continuity and integrative knowledge on the complex issue</p><p>○ Additional networking and funding opportunities and organizing community activities, such as a photo exposition on loneliness</p></td><td align="left"><p>- Coordinating multiple courses from different faculties across multiple HEIs and partners aiming to address one complex issue is complex</p><p>- Risk of repetitive or fragmented results impacting overall effectiveness</p><p>- Ensuring valuable outcomes across all parties due to differing goals and contributions</p><p>- Requires intermediaries to support ongoing activities and integrate knowledge</p></td><td align="left"><p>- <bold>Iterative learning</bold>:</p><p>○ Set up regular meetings to discuss broader implications of course outcomes and refine network processes to coordinate multiple courses around a shared complex issue (<italic>transformational</italic>)</p><p>○ Facilitate joint reflections to enable more targeted and cohesive efforts and adapt strategies to unfolding circumstances (<italic>transformational</italic>)</p><p>- <bold>Knowledge accumulation and integration</bold>:</p><p>○ Set up regular meetings with all parties to exchange and discuss to discuss broader implications of course outcomes (<italic>transformational</italic>)</p><p>○ Facilitate joint reflections towards a mutual understanding of the complex issue (<italic>transformational</italic>)</p><p>○ Define projects and subthemes collectively and match courses to the partnership, rather than to individual organizations (<italic>transformational</italic>)</p><p>○ Connect multiple courses to a subtheme of the broader complex issue over a longer period providing a deep multidisciplinary understanding (<italic>transactional</italic>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191658347-12">The Course-Driven Approach</hd> <p>Over three years, the 'Health in the City' course was developed through re-design, monitoring and evaluation with the aim to address complex issues identified by three partners (Table 1). In the first year, the municipal partner and teacher formulated a broad complex health issue: the health and wellbeing care provision needs Amsterdam residents. The partner, new to this topic, sought a broad exploratory overview of the complex issue, which could give insights into potential solutions.</p> <p>However, students and teachers quickly encountered challenges in addressing such a broad complex issue within a two-month, 6 EC undergraduate disciplinary course. Students felt overwhelmed, and teachers observed the course structure did not support exploration of such a broad complex issue. Consequently, all stakeholders agreed to narrow the focus of the complex issue to specific <emph>subthemes</emph> of the broader issue, such as safety, housing, and access to care. This <emph>complexity reduction strategy</emph> enabled students to delve deeper into these subthemes and produce more concrete recommendations. The municipal partner appreciated this shift in focus, noting that the students' work provided specific and actionable insights – reflecting transactional forms of reciprocity: <emph>"I really liked the presentations, with the posters on the subthemes they had identified themselves, it was really to the point. I didn't think about this specification beforehand (Partner, interview, year 1)"</emph>.</p> <p>Despite these improvements, teachers and the partner acknowledged the limitations of addressing a complex issue within a short undergraduate course. They highlighted the difficulties of balancing time constraints with the inexperience of first- and second-year students, which risked superficial outcomes. The partner remarked that the results aligned with their expectations and offered few surprises, while teachers raised concerns about the depth of the students'work. A student reflected on the lack of depth, attributing to limited interviewing skills:"I do think that depth [in the outcomes] was lacking, not for everyone [students], but for some definitely, because they [the students] often stayed very superficial [in the interviews] and just stuck to a question-answer, question-answer format (Student, interview, year 1)".</p> <p>Reflecting on these challenges, all stakeholders – students, teachers, and the municipal partner – agreed that future iterations of the course should adopt a narrower focus from the outset. The municipal partner emphasized that narrowing the focus could lead to more precise, actionable outcomes: <emph>"By making the issue more specific, the students can also create more specific outcomes, which then can be better implemented (Partner, interview, year 1)".</emph></p> <p>In the second year, the BM-CSL team refined strategies to reduce complexity while maintaining tangible outcomes for the partner – reflecting transactional reciprocity. The partner and teachers collaboratively narrowed the focus from the outset. Together, they agreed to specify the target group as students' peers, leaving room for exploration of the complex issue within this defined context. The chosen focus – the influence of COVID-19 measures on student wellbeing – made the project more relatable and accessible. Students noted that working with their peers enabled them to generate deeper insights. One student reflected: "<emph>I think you can think of better solutions because it's your own target group, and because you can imagine what works and what doesn't (Student, interview, Year 2)</emph>".</p> <p>Teachers also praised the shift, recognizing its contribution to more direct and relevant outcomes, reflecting transactional forms of reciprocity. One teacher reflected:"There is a huge advantage to the fact that they [the students] conducted peer interviews. [...] I do think that this really contributed to the [outcomes on the complex issue]. I am definitely satisfied with what they have found (Teacher, interview, year 2)".</p> <p>In the third year, the teachers and partners refined the focus further by building on the positive reception of focusing on a peer-focused complex issue '<emph>stress reduction for young adults'</emph> and dividing the issue into subthemes: <emph>social stress, work stress and emotional stress</emph>. To enhance the applicability of the outcomes and potentially incorporate more transformational forms of reciprocity, students gained more freedom in deciding their deliverables. By incorporating this strategy of <emph>flexible deliverables</emph>; instead of creating traditional scientific posters, students collaborated with the partner to identify deliverables that aligned with the partner's goals. A student emphasized the importance of this collaboration: "<emph>We [the students] really needed that feedback from the partner, to ensure that we kept the partner's goal in focus and really work on the product in a targeted way (Student, interview year 3)</emph>".</p> <p>Based on interviews with young adults and the partners' feedback, students created a variety of deliverables, including infographics, podcasts, webpages and flyers – products that were more applicable for the partner than a scientific poster. The partner expressed enthusiasm for the diversity of interventions that the students created and viewed them as starting points for their stress reduction program. This shift toward more adaptive outputs demonstrated the course-driven approach's increasing embrace of more transformational forms of reciprocity<emph>.</emph></p> <p>Throughout three years, the partners and teachers framed the experience as a learning process, acknowledging the lack of definitive guidelines for addressing complex issues in short courses. A teacher summarized the ongoing reflection: <emph>"I think for the [partner], and for us, it has been a lesson, how are we going to approach it next time? (Teacher,</emph> interview<emph>, year 2)"</emph>. Both teachers and partners expressed interest in continuing the collaboration. While the courses produced tangible outcomes, they also left some questions unanswered, requiring further exploration. One partner emphasized this point, stating, <emph>"We would appreciate it if there could perhaps be some kind of follow-up, something that allows the students to take on a next project (Partner, interview, year 3)".</emph></p> <p>In conclusion, the course-driven approach was developed over a three-year period to address complex health issues by refining focus areas, improving student engagement, and enhancing deliverable relevance. Initially, broad topics overwhelmed students, leading to the strategy of complexity reduction which improved depth. By the third year, a peer-focused approach to reduce complexity and flexible deliverables, such as podcasts and infographics, fostered deeper insights and increased reciprocity (Table 3). While complexity reduction facilitated tangible outcomes, associated with transactional reciprocity, the unanswered questions highlighted the limitations of short-term, course-driven approaches. These reflections point to the potential for evolving the approach into a longer-term partnership.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-13">The Partner-Driven Approach</hd> <p>Over three years, the BM-CSL team matched multiple courses to address the complex issues identified by one partner organization – the shift from intra- to extramural care and care provision during COVID (Table 1). In the first year, individual courses produced tangible outcomes but also left questions unanswered, prompting the BM-CSL team and the partner to recognize the need for follow-up to deepen the partner's understanding of the complex issue.</p> <p>In the second year, the BM-CSL team matched these follow-up questions to additional courses and theses from various health-related programs. The partner emphasized the value of incorporating multidisciplinary knowledge, noting that multiple courses provide a broad range of insights into the complex organizational issue – associated with transactional reciprocity. According to the partner, this allowed for <emph>"investigating a [complex] issue from different points of view (Partner, interview, year 2)</emph>". The partner also appreciated when different courses could build on one another, resulting in <emph>multidisciplinary knowledge accumulation</emph> on the complex issue: "<emph>You build up a 'dossier' around a specific [complex] issue, which is very relevant for the organization (Partner, interview, year 2)".</emph> To ensure this <emph>knowledge accumulation strategy</emph>, all new students reviewed previous project reports before starting their work, which helped them build on earlier outcomes and feel their contributions had greater impact.</p> <p>As the collaboration progressed through the second year, the BM-CSL team and the partner continuously refined the way they collaborated, including their approach to frame projects, facilitate knowledge accumulation, and ensure tangible outcomes. These meetings happened almost monthly and mainly involved two representatives from the partnering organization and two or three members from the BM-CSL team. In some meetings a teacher of a (potentially) revenant course would also join these meetings. All stakeholders noted that this <emph>iterative learning strategy</emph> improved collaborative processes and outcomes, including project framing, facilitated knowledge accumulation, and delivered more meaningful outcomes – associated with both transactional and transformational reciprocity. For instance, the partner reflected "<emph>We learn something new each time. So, you take a step forward and think, 'Okay, next time we should do it this way.' And that's how we just learn together (Partner, interview, year 2)".</emph> Teachers noted the partner's growing familiarity with CSL projects and understanding of students' needs and challenges which allowed them to better support students and was able to adapt if necessary. A student shared that this iterative learning process helped her frame her project more effectively. The partner reflected on the resulting flexible, responsive relationship with the BM-CSL team:"Look, we now have ongoing contacts with you [BM-CSL team], which is very nice in itself, because you just build a relationship and from there, I come back to you every time to follow-up or with new [complex] issues (Partner, interview, year 2)".</p> <p>However, the BM-CSL team and partner also recognized the vulnerability of the relationship, as it was heavily reliant on a few key individuals. A BM-CSL team member shared: "<emph>The relationship is a bit vulnerable. It was established between person Y [a specific person working at the partner organization] and me. But what if he gets a promotion? Who do I ask then?</emph> (BM-CSL team member, interview, year 2)". This highlighted the need to diversify contacts within the organization and to formalize the relationship to ensure its sustainability.</p> <p>By the third year, the BM-CSL team had expanded the collaboration to include courses from faculties, such as economics, creating new opportunities like joint research projects and grant applications. These opportunities would not have been possible without the new questions that arose: <emph>"Because of all the courses, I had about 20 research questions that we could work on (Partner, interview, Year 3)".</emph> Moreover, the partner noted this opportunity arose because of connecting to various courses and would otherwise not have emerged. Additionally, the partner set up a research agenda, which was informed by the accumulated knowledge from the student projects. The partner explained this was a way of harnessing the accumulated knowledge:"We've been working on establishing a research agenda based on the collaboration with you [the BM-CSL team]. You don't want the student work to end up in a drawer somewhere, so you need to create some sort of system within the organization, a platform for questions, but also a way to properly give feedback and preserve the knowledge (Partner, interview, year 3)".</p> <p>Despite these successes, the collaboration faced challenges. One challenge was the risk of overburdening individuals within the organization when multiple courses are matched to the same organization. The partner remarked, <emph>"There is a bit of a risk that at some point you will send out a survey every week [within the organization], you know, people can get a little tired of that (Partner, interview, year 3)".</emph> To mitigate this, the BM-CSL team expanded the collaboration to other departments, which supported to distribute the workload more evenly.</p> <p>In conclusion, the partner-driven approach developed over three years by expanding course collaborations, integrating multidisciplinary knowledge, and formalizing knowledge accumulation to address complex organizational issues more effectively. Initially, individual courses provided insights but left gaps, leading to a strategy of knowledge accumulation through matching follow-up questions to new courses. Mover, continuity and deeper understanding was fostered through iterative learning facilitated by frequent meetings (Table 3). By the third year, expanding partnerships across faculties, developing a research agenda, and formalizing collaboration structures enhanced sustainability.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-14">The Theme-Driven Approach</hd> <p>Over three years, the BM-CSL team collaborated with local community organizations and matched multiple courses and theses to the community-identified complex issue of loneliness in Amsterdam. After the first year, a new partnership had formed between two community organizations and two higher education institutes, including the BM-CSL team. This network experimented with ways to address loneliness through engaged education. In the first year, the BM-CSL team matched subthemes of the complex issue to different disciplinary courses as a <emph>complexity reduction</emph> strategy. Partners contributed specific questions, such as the effect of community building interventions on loneliness or the role of (in)formal organizations in alleviating loneliness. Addressing subthemes enabled students to produce tangible outcomes for individual partners – reflecting transactional reciprocity.</p> <p>Beyond individual outcomes, the network collectively discussed the broader implications of course outcomes, enabling multidisciplinary and multistakeholder insights on the complex issue. A partner emphasized the importance of these discussions, noting: <emph>"It is important that we talk about [the complex problem] together, discussing what we're encountering and brainstorming with each other (Partner, FGD, year 1</emph>)". These discussions facilitated the <emph>iterative learning strategy</emph>, helping the network refine its processes for coordinating multiple courses around a shared complex issue. After the first year, a BM-CSL member noted the network had established an infrastructure to safeguard course outcomes and facilitate muti-stakeholder knowledge exchange on the complex issue. Teachers appreciated the infrastructure, as it made starting CSL projects easier, while students felt their projects had greater impact because they contributed to an ongoing network effort:"I really felt I had an impact on [the complex issue] in the neighborhood, not necessarily because of the product I delivered, but because you [the partnership] work on it and make further impact (Student, interview, year 1)".</p> <p>However, questions arose about the partnership's ability to implement outcomes within the community to address the complex issue. A partner highlighted the significant value of student involvement while also noting the limitations posed by its temporary nature —restricted by the duration of individual courses: '<emph>for the neighborhood, the condition is that the projects that we [the network] do [on the complex issue] are ongoing, but a disadvantage is that students are involved only temporarily (Partner, FGD, year 1)</emph>". Another partner expressed concerns about repetitive or fragmented results, which highlighted the challenge of <emph>accumulating knowledge</emph> generated from individual courses: <emph>"how do we ensure that the knowledge that has been generated [on the complex issue] continues in new projects... (Partner, FGD, year 1)".</emph> To address the complex issue, all parties agreed on the need for broader participation and better mechanisms for implementing outcomes through a <emph>knowledge accumulation strategy</emph>.</p> <p>In the second year, the network expanded to include five new partners, increasing its capacity to address the complex issue. Some partners were matched to courses, while others were primarily interested in exchanging knowledge and discussing the complex issue. This interest sparked regular monthly meetings to exchange knowledge on the complex issue and enable students to present outcomes to all partners – instead of individual partners. Partners, BM-CSL members and teachers noted these regular meetings allowed for more focus on discussion and reflection of course outcomes in relation to addressing the complex issue, but also on the <emph>exchange between the diverse perspectives from partners</emph>. A partner noted the regular meetings helped deepen insights from individual courses: "<emph>Loneliness is a multi-headed monster and [the meetings] changed my understanding of the complexities surrounding loneliness (Partner, FGD, year 2)".</emph> These meetings also fostered mutual understanding of the complex problem among participants – associated with more transformational forms of reciprocity – as a teacher explained:"A lot of parties come together in the meetings that may not otherwise have met, and coming together in such a structured way creates a foundation and more mutual understanding of the complex issue, as well as opportunities for collaboration (Teacher, interview, year 2)".</p> <p>While new partners brought diverse perspectives, this added complexity. Not all project outcomes were directly valuable to every partner, highlighting the challenge of creating value for all stakeholders. For example, a course addressing loneliness among informal caregivers had limited relevance for partners working with homeless residents. A BM-CSL member reflected: <emph>"The challenge lies in building upon [the outcomes] and formulating an overarching question or something like that. Right now, it's a lot of separate things (BM-CSL team member, interview, year 2)".</emph> This shows the difficulty of creating valuable outcomes for all parties – or more transactional reciprocity –when working with diverse parties. To address these challenges, partners suggested focusing on long-term planning on integrated topics:"We need much more focused interaction with the parties, and now that happens a bit ad hoc. There really needs to be more focus on building structures, perhaps even multi-year planning, so you can work together on a subtheme and take specific steps (Partner, FGD, year 2)".</p> <p>In the third year, the network implemented strategies for a more <emph>integrated approach</emph>. Partners started to collectively define subthemes of the complex issue and matched courses to the network as a whole, rather than individual organizations. During meetings, network parties dedicated time to identifying and formulating subthemes of the complex problem to address collaboratively. The subtheme breaking stigma and taboo on loneliness became the focal point for all course projects, aligning the network around a shared goal. A partner expressed this strategy "<emph>provided a framework to collaborate on together and work towards common goals that are of value to all (Partner, FGD, year 3)</emph>".</p> <p>This framework of collective subthemes allowed the network to pursue more defined objectives – reflecting transactional reciprocity – facilitating successful acquisition of funding from local and national programs – reflecting transformational reciprocity. For example, the network acquired national funding for organizing a photo competition on loneliness and local funding for an exposition of the winning photos in the neighborhood. This framework marked a significant shift in the network:"I am very proud of us; we [all parties in the partnership] believe this [collectively identifying a subtheme] is so important because we see it as a framework where we can connect all the different elements that emerged from [the partnership]. We really needed such a framework—something structured, a clear narrative of what we're doing [on the complex issue] (Partner, interview, year 3)".</p> <p>Over three years <emph>knowledge accumulation</emph> took place of multidisciplinary insights from courses and <emph>knowledge integration</emph> of multistakeholder perspectives, network parties gained new perspectives and a mutual understanding of the complex issue of loneliness – reflecting transformational reciprocity. Through <emph>iterative learning</emph>, network parties collectively identified subthemes and matched courses to the partnership as an entity, enabling more targeted and cohesive efforts to address the complex issue – reflecting transformational reciprocity.</p> <p>In conclusion, the theme-driven approach developed over three years and evolved from loosely connected initiatives to an integrated strategic network by matching courses to subthemes of loneliness, expanding partnerships, and fostering multidisciplinary knowledge exchange. Initially, subthemes helped structure student contributions, but challenges like fragmented results and temporary student involvement led to strategies such as regular meetings and long-term planning. By the third year, the network collectively defined subthemes through iterative learning. Moreover, knowledge accumulation facilitated aligned courses to a shared goal enabling a more cohesive and sustainable approach to addressing loneliness (Table 3).</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-15">Discussion</hd> <p>This study explores how reciprocity can be realized in CUPs when addressing complex issues. Through action research, we developed three CUP-approaches in which we implemented three core strategies for realizing reciprocity: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>) complexity reduction and flexible deliverables; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref87">2</reflink>) iterative learning and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref88">3</reflink>) knowledge accumulation and integration (Table 3). These strategies were developed and sharpened over three years of action research, during which we navigated and addressed challenges inherent in each CUP-approach. These strategies emerged as effective means to foster different forms of reciprocity across CUP-approaches, offering pathways for addressing complex issues. Below, we embed our findings within existing literature and reflect on their implications for transactional and transformational reciprocity, as well as for addressing complex problems. To our knowledge, this is the first study to specifically examine how reciprocity can be realized in CUPs focused on complex issues. Existing literature on reciprocity (Delaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref89">15</reflink>]; Dostilio et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref90">17</reflink>]; Hammersley, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref91">23</reflink>]) and complex problems (Amelink et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref92">2</reflink>]; Ramley, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref93">44</reflink>]; Tijsma et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref94">54</reflink>]) in CUPs has not extensively explored this intersection.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-16">Complexity Reduction and Flexible Deliverables</hd> <p>Complexity reduction and flexible deliverables emerged as key strategies for enabling <emph>transactional reciprocity</emph>, particularly in short-term CUPs like the course-driven approach (Fig. 2<emph>, </emph>Table 3). Complexity reduction by narrowing complex issues into specific subthemes created opportunities for exchanging tangible outcomes for all stakeholders. For students, this strategy – by using students' peers as focus – supported learning by making complex issues relatable and achievable. In comparison to broadly defined issues, teachers reported higher-quality deliverables from students and partners valued the improved thematic insights and practical recommendations provided. Furthermore, the introduction of flexible deliverables by offering students creative freedom in the types of products they could deliver encouraged greater alignment with partner goals and enhanced the applicability of the outcomes. These strategies align with existing research on the benefits of CUPs focusing on achievable objectives to generate transactional benefits (Clifford, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref95">11</reflink>]; Delaine et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref96">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>At the same time, complexity reduction has its limitations considering complex issues. While effective for producing tangible outcomes, this strategy risks oversimplifying the complexity of the issue. Thereby, potentially overlooking the multifaceted and interconnected nature of complex issues (Fischer et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref97">20</reflink>]; Head, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref98">27</reflink>]). The essence of complexity lies in its interdependence – the behavior of one component influences the next – therefore complex issues cannot truly be reduced (Grewatsch et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref99">22</reflink>]). This limitation of complexity reduction was compounded in the course-driven approach, as its short-term and (more) monodisciplinary nature restricts the inclusion of multidisciplinary and multistakeholder perspectives necessary for addressing broader systemic aspects of the complex issue. As literature notes, the short time frames typical of CUPs often result in"time poverty,"hindering sustained engagement with the complex issue (Fitzgerald et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref100">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>While complexity reduction has its limitations, it can still be a valuable mechanism. For instance, in both the partner- and theme-driven approaches we observed how reducing complexity, when integrated into long-term partnerships, could overcome these limitations. By breaking down complex problems into subthemes across multiple projects, the interconnectedness of the complex issue could gradually be addressed. Moreover, by introducing flexible deliverables in the course-CUP approach, the diverse outputs not only provided tangible, transactional value to the partners but also fostered transformational reciprocity by encouraging ongoing feedback and collaboration with the partners throughout the process (Dostilio et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref101">17</reflink>]). This allowed for iterative refinement of outcomes, enabling the partnership to better navigate the complexities of the issue and provide solutions to evolving partner needs.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-17">Iterative Learning</hd> <p>Iterative learning, characterized by continuous feedback and adaptation of CUP's processes, emerged as central strategy for fostering both transactional and transformational reciprocity. This strategy enabled partners and the BM-CSL team in the partner- and theme-driven approaches to refine collaboration and work processes (transformational reciprocity) and achieve tangible outcomes for all stakeholders (transactional reciprocity). For <emph>transactional reciprocity</emph>, iterative learning improved project alignment and quality of deliverables for teachers, while students felt their contributions had greater impact as part of a larger, ongoing partnership. Partners benefitted through clearer objectives and deeper insights. Moreover, the new relationships with faculty resulted in additional opportunities for acquisition of funding.</p> <p>Iterative learning also resulted in intentional changes of CUP's collaboration and work processes, reflecting a form of <emph>transformational reciprocity</emph> (Dostilio et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref102">17</reflink>]). In the partner-driven approach, regular dialogue between the partner and the BM-CSL team led to refined project framing, evolving questions, and collaboration with other departments within the organization. In the theme-driven approach, iterative learning facilitated the shift from isolated projects to collective efforts, such as addressing stigma as a core aspect of loneliness. This supported sustained approaches like joint applications and a shared research agenda aiming to address loneliness. Iterative learning aligns with strategic partnerships, emphasizing aligned intentionality and shared meaning making beyond self-interest (Eddy & Amey, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref103">18</reflink>]). All in all, iterative learning enhanced the CUP's adaptive capacity – or the ability to cope with evolving circumstances – which is crucial for addressing complex issues (Fischer et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref104">20</reflink>]; Klein, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref105">35</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-18">Knowledge Accumulation and Integration</hd> <p>Knowledge accumulation and integration – through building on previous outcomes, synthesizing multidisciplinary insights, and integrating multistakeholder perspectives – emerged as a pivotal strategy for fostering both transactional and transformational reciprocity. This strategy was evident in the partner- and theme-driven approaches, where it supported the accumulation of insights and fostered a mutual understanding of the complex issues. For <emph>transactional reciprocity</emph>, knowledge accumulation enhances the quality and impact of deliverables. In the partner-driven approach, students and teachers reported increased engagement and improved outputs by building on previous projects. Partners appreciated the development of multidisciplinary insights, which deepened their understanding of the issue. In contrast, the theme-driven approach initially struggled to realize valuable outcomes for all partners due to its multistakeholder nature – highlighting that mere transactional reciprocity becomes challenging when working with multiple stakeholders. We observed how <emph>knowledge integration</emph> of multistakeholder perspectives was required to ensure valuable outcomes for all partners.</p> <p>The accumulation and integration of knowledge resulted in changes of the CUP's collaboration and work processes, reflecting <emph>transformational reciprocity</emph>. In the partner-driven approach, accumulated insights informed the partner organization's new research agenda which formalized the use of student knowledge for ongoing challenges (changes in process). In the theme-driven approach, the <emph>integration</emph> of multidisciplinary and multistakeholder insights not only resulted in changes in the process, such as collectively defining subthemes like stigma around loneliness, but also in changes in perspectives, as partners changed their understanding of the complexities surrounding loneliness and created a more mutual understanding. This shows how knowledge integration can transform both processes and perspectives in CUPs, reflecting a deeper form of transformational reciprocity (Dostilio et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref106">17</reflink>]; Enos & Morton, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref107">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Addressing complex issues requires the integration of diverse disciplinary and stakeholder perspectives (Klein, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref108">35</reflink>]; Polk, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref109">43</reflink>]). The strategy of knowledge accumulation through course sequencing from different disciplinary courses allowed in both the partner- and theme-driven approaches to generate multidisciplinary insights and adopt a longer timeframe to address the issue. This marks an initial step toward incorporating diverse disciplinary perspectives and fostering long-term commitment to the complex issue. However, the partner-driven approach remained limited to a single partner perspective. In contrast, the theme-driven approach overcame this limitation by including multiple partners and facilitating regular meetings where participants exchanged perspectives, making it uniquely suited—albeit highly challenging—to addressing complex issues. Also, this aligns with strategic partnerships which, by leveraging prior knowledge, experience, and various assets, build on social capital to both access and generate knowledge and resources that sustain collaborative efforts (Eddy & Amey, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref110">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-19">Implications and Future Research</hd> <p>Our findings offer innovative insights for universities seeking to establish CUPs that address complex societal issues. As universities increasingly aim to fulfill their third mission, CUPs require deliberate strategies to balance academic structures with the complexities of reciprocal collaboration and the multifaceted and interconnected nature of complex issues, demanding the dynamic, collaborative approaches with the adaptive capacity to respond to uncertainty, change and diverse perspectives (Head, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref111">27</reflink>]; Klein, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref112">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>We find the course-driven approach best suited for introductory-level students gaining initial exposure to complex issues for short-term projects that provide students with hands-on experience and immediate, small-scale solutions. However, considering addressing complex issues, this approach falls short in its ability to respond to uncertainty, change and diverse perspectives. The partner-driven approach, while effective for addressing specific issues of a single partner, relies heavily on stakeholder autonomy for continuity and implementation, making it less adaptable to changing circumstances or broader perspectives. In contrast, the theme-driven approach best meets the demands of addressing complex issues. By integrating multidisciplinary and multistakeholder knowledge over time, it fosters long-term collaboration across multiple partners and avoids the fragmentation of one-off projects and the narrow focus of single-stakeholder efforts. This approach's ongoing adaptability and inclusion of diverse perspectives make it uniquely equipped to respond to the uncertainty and complexity inherent in societal challenges.</p> <p>Our findings reflect the benefits of course sequencing and adopting knowledge from different disciplines (multidisciplinary insights) in addressing complex issues with students (Norton et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref113">39</reflink>]; Tijsma et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref114">54</reflink>]). However, to truly address complex societal issues, there is a need to move towards the <emph>integration</emph> of knowledge from different disciplines in education through interdisciplinary education. Future research should investigate how knowledge integration through interdisciplinary educational models can be systematically embedded into CUPs to further enhance this integration, already on course-level (Amelink et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref115">2</reflink>]; Horn et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref116">29</reflink>]). For instance, how can CUPs practically transition to interdisciplinary models of education within existing academic structures? This research might draw on previous work into strategic partnerships and partnership capital, connected to social capital, which emphasizes how building on networks and resources that exist can ultimately create 'new' structures or ways of working (Eddy & Amey, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref117">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, we saw how both the partner- and theme-driven approach allowed for long-term collaboration and adaptability through iterative learning, essential for maintaining flexibility, enhancing tangible outcomes, and supporting systemic changes. However, sustaining such long-term adaptive partnerships require institutional support (Strier, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref118">52</reflink>]; Thompson & Jesiek, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref119">53</reflink>]). The BM-CSL team played a critical role in coordinating partnerships and ensuring knowledge accumulation and iterative learning across projects. Without this support, long-term integration risks fragmentation. Future research could explore alternative structures, such as program-driven CUPs, which might offer more localized, department-specific solutions, which could operate without institutional support. Additionally, research is needed to investigate how iterative learning can be institutionalized within the constraints of academic timelines to balance short-term deliverables with systemic change.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-20">Methodological Considerations</hd> <p>The action research approach, characterized by our dual roles as researchers and coordinators, we acted as both evaluators and change agents, simultaneously studying and intervening in the CUP-Approaches (e.g., Kemmis & McTaggart, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref120">34</reflink>]; Lewin, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref121">36</reflink>]). This dual role is inherent to action research, where researchers are not only observers but also active participants in the process they are studying. This dynamic allowed us to directly influence the partnership's development while gaining insights from our involvement, thus bridging the gap between theory and practice. We mitigated potential biases associated with our dual roles as researchers and coordinators by involving external researchers in the analysis and maintaining reflective dialogues with other instructors and stakeholders.</p> <p>Over three years of action research, we continuously redeveloped courses and strategies to realize reciprocity in CUP-approaches to address complex issues. During this time, also several other factors changed. For instance, the student composition in each course varied slightly each year, and the COVID-pandemic struck during the second year of data collection. Despite these changes, the overall student population remained stable, and we adapted by integrating the crisis into the project framing of the CUP-approaches, with students conducting interviews online instead of in-person. Importantly, the connection with the community remained intact and refrained from using fictive cases. The pandemic highlighted the flexibility of our approaches and the ability to respond urgent societal issues.</p> <p>Finally, our focus on realizing reciprocity by prioritizing benefits for partners addresses a notable gap in the literature, where partner perspectives and contributions have often been underrepresented (Dempsey, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref122">16</reflink>]; Janke et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref123">31</reflink>]). While this focus allowed us to center the benefits to partners, it may have somewhat limited the emphasis on outcomes for students and teachers. For instance, student characteristics were not central to this study. However, by incorporating perspectives from all stakeholders—students, teachers, and community partners—our research provides a more holistic understanding of the dynamics in CUPs, enhancing the credibility and depth of our findings (Bush, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref124">8</reflink>]). Ultimately, we argue that without delivering benefits to partners, whether transactional or transformational, CUPs risk failing to fulfill their core purpose within engaged education.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-21">Conclusion</hd> <p>Our findings demonstrate that addressing complex issues within CUPs requires intentional strategies for realizing reciprocity that extend beyond immediate, transactional exchanges. The strategies identified in this study—complexity reduction and flexible deliverables, iterative learning, and knowledge accumulation and integration—enable CUPs to navigate the challenges of reciprocity in various partnership models. Complexity reduction and flexible deliverables may support short-term, transactional reciprocity, but are insufficient for lasting impact. Instead, the findings indicate that transformational reciprocity—characterized by iterative learning and sustained knowledge accumulation and integration—offer a promising pathway for CUPs tackling complex issues through engaged education. With these insights, this study contributes to the evolving understanding of CUPs' potential to address complex issues and emphasizes the value of collaborative, adaptive practices in achieving reciprocity.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-22">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank Carina Pittens for supporting supervision of the project and her extra feedback on the manuscript and Eduardo Muniz Pereira Urias for his extra feedback on the manuscript. We would like to thank all the community partners, students, and teachers for their input. Their insights were critical to our research.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-23">Authors' Contribution</hd> <p>MV wrote the manuscript with support from GT and MZ. MV and GT conceived the original idea. MV collected and analyzed the data with support from GT. MV, GT and MZ contributed to the interpretation of the results. MZ supervised the project. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research and manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-24">Funding</hd> <p>This work was supported by the project Broader Mind for Students.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-25">Data Availability</hd> <p>Transcripts, codebook and further analysis are available upon request.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191658347-27">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-28">Consent</hd> <p>The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-29">Conflicts of interest</hd> <p>None.</p> <hd id="AN0191658347-30">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191658347-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref58" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alford J, Head BW. Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society. 2017; 36; 3: 397-413. 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref87" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Amelink CT, Grote DM, Norris MB, Grohs JR. Transdisciplinary learning opportunities: Exploring differences in complex thinking skill development between STEM and non-STEM majors. Innovative Higher Education. 2024; 49; 1: 153-176. 10.1007/s10755-023-09682-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref8" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aramburuzabala, P, McIlrath, L, & Opazo, H. (2019). Embedding service learning in European higher education. Routlede. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315109053</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bekele TA, Ofoyuru DT, Woldegiorgis ET. Assessing university-society engagements: Towards a methodological framework. Innovative Higher Education. 2024; 49; 2: 201-221. 10.1007/s10755-023-09678-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref31" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boyer EL. The scholarship of engagement. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 1996; 49; 7: 18-33. 10.2307/3824459</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref20" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bringle, R. G. (2017). Hybrid high-impact pedagogies: Integrating service-learning with three other high-impact pedagogies. https://doi.org/10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0024.105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref40" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bringle RG, Hatcher JA. Campus–community partnerships: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues. 2002; 58; 3: 503-516. 10.1111/1540-4560.00273</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref124" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bush T. Authenticity in research: Reliability, validity and triangulation. Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management. 2012; 6; 19: 75-89. 10.4135/9781473957695.n6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref49" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Butcher J, Bezzina M, Moran W. Transformational partnerships: A new agenda for higher education. Innovative Higher Education. 2011; 36: 29-40. 10.1007/s10755-010-9155-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clayton PH, Bringle RG, Senor B, Huq J, Morrison M. Differentiating and assessing relationships in service-learning and civic engagement: Exploitative, transactional, or transformational. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. 2010; 16; 2: 5-21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clifford J. Talking about service-learning: Product or process? Reciprocity or solidarity?. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2017; 21; 4: 1-13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Compagnucci L, Spigarelli F. The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020; 161: 120284. 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curwood SE, Munger F, Mitchell T, Mackeigan M, Farrar A. Building effective community-university partnerships: Are universities truly ready?. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. 2011; 17; 2: 15-26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis KL, Kliewer BW, Nicolaides A. Power and reciprocity in partnerships: Deliberative civic engagement and transformative learning in community-engaged scholarship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2017; 21; 1: 30-54</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delaine, D. A, Redick, S, Radhakrishnan, D, Shermadou, A, Smith, M. M, Kandakatla, R, Wang, L, Freitas, C, Dalton, C. L, Dostilio, L. D, & DeBoer, J. (2023). A systematic literature review of reciprocity in engineering service‐learning/community engagement. Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20561</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dempsey SE. Critiquing community engagement. Management Communication Quarterly. 2010; 24; 3: 359-390. 10.1177/0893318909352247</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dostilio LD, Harrison B, Brackmann SM, Kliewer BW, Edwards KE, Clayton PH. Reciprocity: Saying what we mean and meaning what we say. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. 2012; 19; 1: 17-33. 10.1097/npt.0000000000000061</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eddy PL, Amey MJ. Creating strategic partnerships: A guide for educational institutions and their partners. Taylor & Francis. 2014. 10.4324/9781003443827-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Enos, S, & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a theory and practice of campus-community partnerships. Building Partnerships for Service-Learning, 20–41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischer, A, Greiff, S, & Funke, J. (2012). The process of solving complex problems. Journal of Problem Solving, 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitzgerald HE, Bruns K, Sonka ST, Furco A, Swanson L. The centrality of engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2016; 20; 1: 223-244. 10.4324/9781003443353-12a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grewatsch S, Kennedy S, Bansal P. Tackling wicked problems in strategic management with systems thinking. Strategic Organization. 2023; 21; 3: 721-732. 10.1177/14761270211038635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hammersley, L. (2017). Language matters: Reciprocity and its multiple meanings. Learning through community engagement: Vision and practice in higher education (pp. 115–131). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0999-0_8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris J, Brown VA, Russell J. Tackling wicked problems: Through the transdisciplinary imagination. 2010; Taylor & Francis</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison B, Clayton PH, Tilley-Lubbs GA. Troublesome knowledge, troubling experience: An inquiry into faculty learning in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. 2014; 20; 2: 5-18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatcher JA, Bringle RG. Reflection: Bridging the gap between service and learning. College Teaching. 1997; 45; 4: 153-158. 10.1080/87567559709596221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Head, B. W. (2022). Wicked problems in public policy: Understanding and responding to complex challenges (pp. 176). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94580-0_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hocking VT, Brown VA, Harris JA. Tackling wicked problems through collective design. Intelligent Buildings International. 2016; 8; 1: 24-36. 10.1080/17508975.2015.1058743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horn A, Visser MW, Pittens CA, Urias E, Zweekhorst M, van Dijk GM. Transdisciplinary learning trajectories: Developing action and attitude in interplay. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024; 11; 1: 1-13. 10.1057/s41599-023-02541-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2019). De Staat van het Onderwijs 2019. https://<ulink href="http://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/documenten/rapporten/2019/04/10/rapport-de-staat-van-het-onderwijs-2019">www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/documenten/rapporten/2019/04/10/rapport-de-staat-van-het-onderwijs-2019</ulink>. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janke, E, Flores, S, & Edwards, K. (2022). Community-academic partnerships in the community engagement literature: A scoping review. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/cq5xd</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jongbloed B, Enders J, Salerno C. Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education. 2008; 56: 303-324. 10.1007/s10734-008-9128-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karasik RJ. Community partners' perspectives and the faculty role in community-based learning. Journal of Experiential Education. 2020; 43; 2: 113-135. 10.1177/1053825919892994</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemmis S, McTaggart R. The action research planner. 19883; Deakin University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein JT. Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures. 2004; 36; 4: 515-526. 10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewin K. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues. 1946; 2; 4: 34-46. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcilla-Toribio I, Moratalla-Cebrián ML, Bartolomé-Guitierrez R, Cebada-Sánchez S, Galán-Moya EM, Martínez-Andrés M. Impact of Service-Learning educational interventions on nursing students: An integrative review. Nurse Education Today. 2022; 116: 105417. 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicotera, N, Cutforth, N, Fretz, E, & Thompson, S. S. (2022). Dedication to community engagement: A higher education conundrum? Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.54656/spea6513</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norton RK, Gerber ER, Fontaine P, Hohner G, Koman PD. The promise and challenge of integrating multidisciplinary and civically engaged learning. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 2022; 42; 1: 102-117. 10.1177/0739456X18803435</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ogunsanya O, Govender I. University-community engagement: Current tensions and future trends. International Journal of African Higher Education. 2020; 6; 1: 51-76. 10.6017/ijahe.v6i1.11089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Reilly, K. (2012). Ethnographic methods (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864722-13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinheiro R, Langa PV, Pausits A. One and two equals three? The third mission of higher education institutions. European Journal of Higher Education. 2015; 5; 3: 233-249. 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044552</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polk M. Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures. 2015; 65: 110-122. 10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramley JA. The changing role of higher education: Learning to deal with wicked problems. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2014; 18; 3: 7-22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rinaldo, S. B, Davis, D. F, & Borunda, J. (2022). Delivering value to community partners in service-learning projects. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.54656/thoh3113</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rittel HWJ, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973; 4: 155-169. 10.1007/BF01405730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saltmarsh, J. (2016). A collaborative turn: Trends and directions in community engagement. In Learning through community engagement: Vision and practice in higher education (pp. 3–15). Springer Singapore.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandmann LR. Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher education: A strategic review, 1996–2006. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2008; 12; 1: 91-104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos Rego MA, MellaNúñez Í, Naval C, Vázquez Verdera V. The evaluation of social and professional life competences of university students through service-learning. Frontiers in Education. 2021; 6: 606304. 10.3389/feduc.2021.606304Frontiers Media SA</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sors, T. G, O'Brien, R. C, Scanlon, M. L, Bermel, L. Y, Chikowe, I, Gardner, A,., & Litzelman, D. K. (2023). Reciprocal innovation: A new approach to equitable and mutually beneficial global health partnerships. Global Public Health, 18(1), 2102202. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2022.2102202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart T, Wubbena Z. An overview of infusing service-learning in medical education. International Journal of Medical Education. 2014; 5: 147. 10.5116/ijme.53ae.c907</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strier R. Fields of paradox: University–community partnerships. Higher Education. 2014; 68: 155-165. 10.1007/s10734-013-9698-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson JD, Jesiek BK. Transactional, cooperative, and communal: Relating the structure of engineering engagement programs with the nature of partnerships. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. 2017; 23; 2: 83-99. 10.3998/mjcsloa.3239521.0023.206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tijsma G, Urias E, Zweekhorst M. A thematic approach to realize multidisciplinary community service-learning education to address complex societal problems: A-win-win-win situation?. Frontiers in Education. 2021; 5: 617380. 10.3389/feduc.2020.617380Frontiers Media SA</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tijsma G, Urias E, Zweekhorst M. Embedding engaged education through community service learning in HEI: A review. Educational Research. 2023; 65; 2: 143-169. 10.1080/00131881.2023.2181202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tryon E, Stoecker R, Martin A, Seblonka K, Hilgendorf A, Nellis M. The challenge of short-term service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. 2008; 14; 2: 16-26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vargiu A. Indicators for the evaluation of public engagement of higher education institutions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2014; 5: 562-584. 10.1007/s13132-014-0194-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Visser MW, Pittens CA, de Vries R, Zweekhorst MB. Community involvement in course-based higher education activities: Exploring its definition, guiding principles, and strategies–a narrative review. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2023; 27; 3: 59-80</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. (2020). Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Strategy 2020–2025. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. [Brochure]. https://issuu.com/vuuniversity/docs/vu%5finstellingsplan-eng. Accessed 14 Mar 2025.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Warren JL. Does service-learning increase student learning?: A meta-analysis. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning. 2012; 18; 2: 56-61</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weerts DJ, Sandmann LR. Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities. The Review of Higher Education. 2008; 32; 1: 73-106. 10.1353/rhe.0.0027</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Marijke Visser; Geertje Tijsma and Marjolein Zweekhorst</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Marijke Visser Marijke Visser is a PhD candidate at the Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Her research focuses on processes for active involvement of community stakeholders in the decision-making of engaged education, particularly service-learning, aiming to realize reciprocity between higher education and community stakeholders. She has experience with knowledge co-production and cross-sector collaboration between higher education and community stakeholders through participatory action research and transdisciplinary research.</p> <p>Geertje Tijsma Geertje Tijsma is a postdocoral researcher at the Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Her research focuses on the institutionalization of societal engagement at higher education institutes, aiming to bridge academic and societal knowledge to address complex societal issues. Geertje has expertise in knowledge co-creation, combining academic and experiential knowledge through interdisciplinary collaboration and creative methods such as art.</p> <p>Marjolein Zweekhorst Marjolein Zweekhorst is professor Innovation and Education in the health and life sciences at the Athena Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. She has expertise in transdisciplinary research, training and development of interdisciplinary courses, participatory research in and with society, community service learning (CSL), and with Science Shops. Since 2018, she has led the CSL team of the VU, aiming to implement CSL in all bachelor programs of the VU.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref119"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1508354
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Realizing Reciprocity in Community-University Partnerships When Addressing Complex Societal Issues
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marijke+Visser%22">Marijke Visser</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5082-576X">0000-0002-5082-576X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Geertje+Tijsma%22">Geertje Tijsma</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9939-2686">0000-0002-9939-2686</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marjolein+Zweekhorst%22">Marjolein Zweekhorst</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7015-4951">0000-0001-7015-4951</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Innovative+Higher+Education%22"><i>Innovative Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2026 51(1):407-440.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 34
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Partnerships+in+Education%22">Partnerships in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Community+Programs%22">School Community Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Universities%22">Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Problems%22">Social Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Mission%22">Institutional Mission</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Action+Research%22">Action Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alignment+%28Education%29%22">Alignment (Education)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Netherlands+%28Amsterdam%29%22">Netherlands (Amsterdam)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10755-025-09820-1
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0742-5627<br />1573-1758
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this study, we focus on engaged education as a means of exploring how reciprocity can be manifested through Community-University Partnerships (CUPs) and contribute to the universities' third mission. Reciprocity, characterized by mutual benefit and active collaboration between universities and communities, is foundational to CUPs in engaged education. However, realizing reciprocity in CUPs becomes particularly challenging when addressing complex societal issues -- being multifaceted, dynamic, and which require long-term commitment -- as curricular activities are traditionally monodisciplinary, and short-term in nature. This paper presents the findings of three years of action research at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, exploring how reciprocity can be realized in CUPs addressing complex issues. Three CUP-Approaches emerged: course-driven, partner-driven, and theme-driven, each leveraging specific strategies -- complexity reduction and flexible deliverables, iterative learning, knowledge accumulation and integration. These strategies fostered transactional reciprocity by delivering tangible outcomes for all stakeholders involved and supported transformational reciprocity by transforming CUP processes and outcomes, and participants' perspectives on the complex issue. Our findings highlight the importance of aligning CUP structures with the interconnected and long-term nature of complex issues. This study contributes to the increasing demand on universities to purposefully address complex societal issues through engaged education practices.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1508354
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1508354
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10755-025-09820-1
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 34
        StartPage: 407
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Partnerships in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Community Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Mission
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Action Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Alignment (Education)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Netherlands (Amsterdam)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Realizing Reciprocity in Community-University Partnerships When Addressing Complex Societal Issues
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marijke Visser
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Geertje Tijsma
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marjolein Zweekhorst
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0742-5627
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1758
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Innovative Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1