engagEnable: Connecting universities and communities
Jan Strom (Southern Cross University, Australia)
Abstract
The engagement context is complex, messy and ever changing. Chaos/Complexity Theory is non-linear, adaptive, and emergent, and like engagement, the antithesis of predictable orderliness (Byrne 1998; Gleick 1987; Lorenz 1995). Chaordic Systems Thinking (CST) emerged in the early 1980s and uses Chaos as a metaphor for change (van Eijnatten & Putnik 2004). Like CST, engagement can be a change mechanism and it is a way of thinking, doing, being and becoming. University-Community Engagement (UCE) occurs through educational and research partnerships based on shared goals, a shared agenda, agreed definitions of success, and resource pooling (Ramaley 2005).
Engagement is a meta-practice that encompasses engaged scholarship with a focus on knowledge growth through the teaching and learning, and research and discovery activities of the University that benefit the broader community, or a particular community-of-interest, and engaged community service. Interconnected engagement practices such as formal and informal networks, knowledge sharing and reciprocity are intrinsic elements of engagement meta-practice.
Engagement is affected by a multitude of variables – including the personality of the engager, the social and political systems they operate within, and the relationships between individuals, communities, and the multiple communities that exist within communities. The engagement context has multiple perspectives – your perspective, my perspective, a community perspective, a government perspective, a university perspective, and so on. From a UCE perspective I have identified three engagement contexts: the internal, the external and the personal.
The engager may experience these different influences consciously or unconsciously, and they may happen simultaneously, consecutively or sporadically. At times conflict, accord or contradictions may occur, and by validating the existence of multiple contexts and perspectives the engager is more able to understand other viewpoints.
By utlising CST I have developed engageEnable© to assist engagers to make sense of this complex environment, and to facilitate their engagement journey. Rather than being prescriptive, engagEnable© provides a list of prompts addressing each context and sub-context. It can be used on an individual or work-unit basis to assess the benefits of existing or potential engagement activities. If workshopped engagEnable© enables a broader understanding of other peoples perspectives and thus improves intra or inter work-unit engagement. It also provides evidence of engagement activity. Active dialogue between work-unit members assists in shaping their ‘engagement context’ and is vital to developing a shared understanding and a shared vision. This assists in the embedding of an engagement culture at a work-unit level and assists in bringing about a whole-of-system change across the University.
References
Byrne, DS 1998, Complexity theory and the social sciences: An introduction., Routledge, Florence, KY, USA.
Fitzgerald, LA & van Eijnatten, FM 2002, 'Reflections: Chaos in organisational change', Organisational Change Management, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 402-11.
Gleick, J 1987, Chaos, First edn, Cardinal, London, Great Britain.
Lorenz, E 1995, Essence of Chaos, Routledge.
Ramaley, JA 2005, 'Engagement and the integration of research and education: A new meaning of quality', paper presented to Proceedings of the Australian Universities Quality Forum.
van Eijnatten, FM & Putnik, GD 2004, 'Chaos, complexity, learning, and the learning organisation', The Learning Organisation, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 418-29.
