The Contribution Of Community Based Learning

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

PhD Research Proposal

Jasna Turković

University of Canterbury

Abstract

Community-based learning (CBL) is a learning method where students receive credit for applying their academic knowledge to aid the community. The connection between learning and community in CBL provides grounds for application of CBL as a university response to post-disaster recovery. The small amount of formal literature on CBL disaster response and, consequently, the lack of a theoretical model of CBL response are the main reasons behind the proposed research questions of this thesis:

What has been the international practice regarding university involvement in post-disaster recovery?

How and to what extent should universities be involved in the post-disaster recovery through CBL? What are the contextual characteristics of CBL response? What are the respective roles of students, faculty and community in CBL response and how are they best facilitated? How can we identify the success of CBL response?

What has been the CBL response in Christchurch? What are the contextual characteristics pertaining to CBL response in Christchurch? What is the theoretical model and a practical application of that model for UC of CBL university response in post-disaster recovery?

By using grounded theory methodology, the research will give a comprehensive overview of possible university responses to disasters which will result in new and/or additional response options for the universities. It will establish certain features of CBL as a university post-disaster recovery response whose combination will form a theoretical model for effective CBL in disaster situations usable by universities in a post-disaster recovery process. It will also establish the UC CBL response practices in Christchurch and their characteristics which will enable the practical application of the theoretical CBL response model to the UC and Christchurch situation.

Keywords: Christchurch earthquakes, community-based learning, ground theory, post-disaster recovery, universities, University of Canterbury

Table of Contents

Introduction

With the New Zealand Canterbury region, and Christchurch in particular, being hit with three strong and devastating earthquakes since September 2010, the need for a well-defined long-term recovery process has arisen. As a university based in Christchurch, the University of Canterbury (UC) has an ideal position to use its resources to assist the process of post-disaster reconstruction.

Community-based learning (CBL) as a method of experiential learning is one of the best-rounded methods of providing education for students, positive outcomes for the community and developmental opportunities for the faculty and universities. The strong connection between learning and helping the community in CBL provides strong grounds for application of CBL as a university response to post-disaster recovery. At the UC, the disaster response has manifested, among other means, through CBL projects such as CHCH101 and GEOG309 courses.

However, the formal literature on CBL so far has not dealt with CBL in the post-disaster recovery sense in extensive detail. This results in an obvious gap in the knowledge pertaining to CBL characteristics present in the specific situation that is a post-disaster recovery. Thus, I will attempt to answer the following research questions in my doctoral thesis:

What has been the international practice regarding university involvement in post-disaster recovery?

How and to what extent should universities be involved in the post-disaster recovery through CBL? What are the contextual characteristics of CBL response? What are the respective roles of students, faculty and community in CBL response and how are they best facilitated? How can we identify the success of CBL response?

What has been the CBL response in Christchurch? What are the contextual characteristics pertaining to CBL response in Christchurch? What is the theoretical model and a practical application of that model for UC of CBL university response in post-disaster recovery?

The answers to these questions will make a significant contribution in filling the abovementioned gap since it will give a substantial overview of international contexts of responding to a disaster with CBL. From this the aim will be to construct a theoretical model of CBL response in post-disaster recovery. The thesis will also seek to maximize the potential for successful outcomes in the post-disaster recovery of Christchurch and its community as well as insuring the onward benefit to the community, student experience and civic engagement and reputational capital of the UC. This will be achieved by constructing a model for practical application of the CBL response for the UC in post-earthquake Christchurch.

I will begin with an overview of pertinent literature and how it opens the path of my proposed research questions. Then, I will give an elaboration of the steps and methods I will use in order to answer the questions and certain limitations and restrictions I might encounter in my research. Subsequently, I will discuss the necessity of the approval from the UC Ethics Committee. Finally, I will give the proposal of the budget and the time table of my research project.

Literature review

In this section the relevant literature review will be discussed as well as the pertinent situational context for Christchurch and the UC. The issues and gaps within the literature will also be identified in connection to the reasoning behind the research questions of the proposed thesis.

First, community-based learning (CBL) will be defined in respect to its contextual characteristics. Secondly, the issue of different outcomes and relationships will be discussed. Thirdly, the process of recovery after a disaster will be explained followed by the section on university responses to disasters with an emphasis on CBL response. Finally, an overview of disasters in Christchurch and the UC response to them will be presented.

Community-Based Learning

Community-based learning (also known as service-learning or community service-learning) is a learning method where students reflect and get credited for applying their academic knowledge on practical projects within their community (Kuh, 2008; Preradovic, 2009; Zlotkowski, 1998a).

Hecht (2003) notes that what makes each CBL project unique are the contextual characteristics of the CBL itself. The contexts she identifies are the site of a CBL project, the background of all parties involved, reflection and planning done during the CBL project and the outcomes of the project (Hecht, 2003).

While most of the CBL studies cited in this proposal entail all the contextual particularities of the CBL project, the authors usually cover them briefly and focus in detail only on one or two of the characteristics. The only context that is not the focus of any found literature is the CBL site. Although the literature establishes where the CBL project took place, there are no studies that discuss in detail how the site might have influenced or been impacted by the project. As will be established later on, the context of site has a particular role in a disaster situation and it will be necessary to put it in focus.

There are many studies focusing on the organizational level of CBL projects, the issues connected to it and how it can be approved. These studies (e.g. Duda & Minick, 2006; Flannery Quinn, 2006; Hondagneu-Sotelo & Raskoff, 1994; McMullen & Penn, 2011; Ostrander & Chapin-Hogue, 2011; Vogel, Seifer, & Gelmon, 2010) usually focus on the background of the parties involved in the CBL as well as the detail of planning that is necessary for a well-conducted CBL programme.

Another point to make is the fact that most of the organizational studies of CBL projects are of an individual project (or a course) or in some cases (Hollis, 2002; Sandmann, Kiely, & Grenier, 2009) of a comparison of different courses or projects within the same department. However, there are few comparative studies of CBL projects that go outside of the related university. Notable exceptions to that are A Guide to Service Learning for Disaster (Kochanasz, 2008) reporting on a collection of CBL disaster responses at different educational institutions in Florida; Successful service-learning programs: new models of excellence in higher education (Zlotkowski, 1998a) where the logistics and assessment of CBL programmes and courses in the United States of America are discussed; What influences the long-term sustainability of service-learning? Lessons from early adopters (Vogel et al., 2010) that compares the CBL practices of sixteen universities and colleges in the USA over ten years; and The engaged university: international perspectives on civic engagement (Watson, 2011), the comparative study of civic engagement, including CBL, of the universities throughout the world.

The most studied aspect is the outcomes of a CBL project, with the addition of the context of reflection which closely relates to and is assessed together with the student outcomes. The types of outcomes studied in the next section are those of students, staff and university and community.

Outcomes of community-based learning. The literature identifies several different outcomes of CBL corresponding to each party involved, benefiting and learning from the project. Clayton et al. (2010) recognize five different participants in CBL. These are students, administrators, faculty, community organizations and community residents (Clayton, Bringle, Senor, Huq, & Morrison, 2010). However, such a classification is still in its beginnings and it is not widely used. The majority of literature identifies three parties – students, faculty and community. Nevertheless, I will use the five-participant model of CBL in my research since it gives a more accurate differentiation of the roles and outcomes of CBL.

It is also important to note that there is an extensive amount of literature on student outcomes, and closely related student reflection, and that I will only refer to a small part of it. The same is valid for literature on the topic of outcomes for academic faculty although the literature on the subject is not as extensive as that on student outcomes. The issues concerning the literature on community outcome will be discussed later on.

The focus of the research on the student outcomes lies mostly in assessing their acquired academic knowledge (e.g. Chan, 2012; Hollis, 2002; Mohtar & Dare, 2012; Shay, 2008), and changes in their perception of the world due to encountering different cultures and socioeconomic groups through CBL (e.g. Dharamsi, Richards, et al., 2010; Hollis, 2002; Kiely, 2005; Mohtar & Dare, 2012; Shadduck-Hernández, 2006). Both aspects are accomplished through student reflection on the project. Another strong research trend deals with the development of civic engagement in the students who participated in CBL projects (e.g. Baetz, 2011; Bordelon, 2006; Seider, 2011).

A peculiarity about discussion of student outcomes is that it seldom delves into other CBL characteristics in detail. Most commonly, the community will be mentioned in regard to issues within it or the lack of means of assessing community outcome. The possible impact on the community is sometimes reported through the student outcome, that is what impact students believe they made on the community and how that reflects on them. On the other hand the student outcome is discussed to a lesser or, more frequently, greater extent no matter what the main focus of the research is. While it is true that without student learning and achievements there would not be a point in CBL as a learning method, the other outcomes should not be ignored or deferred given that CBL is defined as a learning method for all participants.

The faculty outcomes follow according to the amount of literature present in the CBL field of research. It is possible that there is more literature on faculty than on community in CBL because the faculty is more readily accessible for research (due to its already present strong connection to the academy and smaller numbers). Another possible reason may be because some of the faculty might be more interested in researching how to benefit themselves than how to increase and ensure the successfulness of the community outcome.

Faculty can be divided into two groups – academic and administrative. The academic faculty is mostly studied in respect to the opportunities of professional development through CBL involvement (Dowell, 2008; Zlotkowski, 1998b), and the positive and negative sides of using CBL in their courses which contributes to the improvement of the CBL support for faculty (Clayton & O’Steen, 2010; Wade & Demb, 2009; Wong & Tsui, 2007). Administrative staff is discussed in the literature dealing with the organizational aspects of CBL programmes. They include administrative and organizational personnel as well as staff in charge of supporting academic faculty in adopting CBL, such as the community service-learning professional (Clayton & O’Steen, 2010).

In connection to the faculty there are few studies on the link between the faculty, faculty assessment and how it contributes towards institutionalization of CBL at the university level and put into motion subsequent changes in the university policies and practice (Chupp & Joseph, 2010; O’Meara & Bloomgarden, 2007).

Here arises the issue of the institutional governance of CBL. The vast majority of the universities in the U.S.A. have specialized centres for civic engagement – such as the Center of Public Service at Tulane University, the Community-University Partnerships & Service Learning centre at the University of Vermont and the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service at the Tufts University, which, among other, coordinate university-community partnerships, organize CBL projects and maintain their specific standards in CBL. As can be seen from Zlotkowski (1998a), most of the American universities that have institutionalized CBL and govern it from a separate administrative centre for civic engagement have long history of student volunteering and engagement within the community. As the result of that history, the centres have existed before the introduction of CBL to tertiary education and the integration of CBL to such centres was expected. The administrative staff, separate from the academic faculty, has also been present in the centres at the time of the introduction of CBL.

On the other hand, in those countries where student civic engagement is not as common nor as organized on a university level, the CBL has had a different process of entering the universities. As in the universities in Ethiopia (Downes, Murray, & Brownsberger, 2007), the UC and others, the CBL method has been used by the academic faculty on a course to course basis with little to no organized support from the higher level of university administration. A need for centralized organizational structure for CBL is recognized in the literature in the respect that it should offer official support to the students, faculty as well as the community. It should also govern the relationships between the parties and ensure beneficial outcomes for all and, consequently, be accountable for the possible issues within CBL. However, the issue of staffing and organizational aspects is still unresolved in the institutions where there has not been a pre-existing civic engagement tradition.

Community outcomes. In comparison to CBL literature concerning student outcomes, and to, an extent, staff outcomes, literature dealing with community side of CBL is scarce [1] . As mentioned above, several case studies focusing on other CBL characteristics (e.g. Chupp & Joseph, 2010; Duda & Minick, 2006; Giles & Eyler, 1998; Schaad, Franzoni, Bauer, Paul, & Morgan, 2008) mention that the researchers are aware of the community impact of the CBL projects but due to limitations of time and means of assessment were unable to study it further. They advocate the need of defining exact assessment models, in particular for community impact, and structure that would uphold and implement them.

However, most studies acknowledge the community as a medium in which a CBL project is carried out (the background and site contexts) but do not mention the extent of impact the CBL has on the community nor any details on how the partnership with the community has been accomplished.

There are a few studies (e.g. Barrientos, 2010; Dharamsi, Espinoza, et al., 2010; D’Arlach, Sanchez, & Feuer, 2009; Oldfield, 2008; Poindexter, Arnold, & Osterhout, 2009; Sandmann, 2008) that deal with the assessment done with the community partners and community. This assessment is mostly focused on the logistic aspect of the partnerships. Some of the conclusions the authors come to are that there has to be a good communication between students, faculty and community partners; that the project aims have to be strictly established; and that planning and reporting is important for success of the CBL project. The studies also report that the community’s opinion of students and university has improved with the short-term usefulness of the project only mentioned in the most basic sense and the long-term not at all.

Other notable studies deal with the motivation behind the community-university CBL partnership and both the positive and negative aspects of the partnership (Worrall, 2007); and with the logistic issues involving long-term community-university partnerships (Curwood, Munger, Mitchell, Mackeigan, & Farrar, 2011). These studies might possibly serve as a valid starting point when defining an optimal method of establishing and sustaining relationships between universities and disaster stricken communities.

From the above, it is possible to conclude that there is a comprehensive gap in the literature when it comes to the both short- and long-term benefits and impacts of CBL on the community. Therefore, the definition of successful CBL project or a programme is questionable. There is no literature that judges the successful CBL project on the depth of its impact on the community which, particularly, in the context of post-disaster recovery, is a good indicator of the validity of universities’ involvement in recovery processes. There is also a gap in the literature regarding the impact on the culture and organization of the universities.

In order to have a complete overview of CBL response in post-disaster recovery it is necessary to pay attention to all types of CBL context characteristics. Because of the encompassing context of disasters, the most infrequently studied contexts – those of site, community outcomes, and complexity of relationships within a CBL project – are likely to be the contexts most distinctive in CBL programmes involved in the recovery after a disaster. The disaster changes the context of everybody and everything that is affected by it. The site becomes physically damaged and provides the opportunity for particular CBL practices and types. The disruption of site causes the upheaval of the community and, consequently, their needs that could be answered by CBL become more specific. The nature of relationships between the CBL participants also takes on additional characteristics due to traumatization of the participants. In return, the CBL projects have had transformational role in regard to the site as well as other participants and components of CBL response since the CBL contributes to their recovery from the disaster. However, it is important to note that it is probable that all characteristics of CBL will show somewhat different features due to the added post-disaster context.

Post-disaster recovery process

There are several different views regarding the post-disaster recovery process. Haas, Kates, & Bowden (1977) define the recovery as an "ordered, knowable and predictable" (p. 262). The authors, on the basis of their comparative study of cities in different stages of post-disaster recovery, define four overlapping stages of post-disaster recovery:

the emergency period – the dealing with the immediate needs of the community (emergency housing, rations, debris removal etc.),

the restoration period – the restoration of public services, housing and other community structures in order to re-establish close to normal activities including the return of displaced citizens,

the replacement restoration period – the restoration of all aspects of the society to the pre-disaster levels or higher,

the commemorative, betterment and developmental reconstruction period – consists of the commemoration of disaster, betterment of the city and/or contribution to future growth and development. (Haas, Kates, & Bowden, 1977)

According to their study, the longevity of each period may differ on a case to case basis but the general rule is that each stage lasts ten times longer than the previous stage.

Subsequent research shows that their theory of the "ordered, knowable and predictable" recovery process is not applicable to all recovery processes due to vast differences in community complexities, area affected and severity of the disaster compared to other case studies (Edgington, 2010; Rubin, Saperstein, Barbee, & University of Colorado, 1985). Hass et al. (1977) take into account only the physical recovery of the site and community and not the socioeconomic and emotional recovery of the community which is deemed just as pertinent as the physical aspect of the recovery (Edgington, 2010). It was also noted that the complexity and duration of the Haas et al. (1977) stages differ in relation to the size and types of the studied community or community group (Neal, 1997).

Despite the unsuitability of the abovementioned characteristics of Haas et al. (1977) model, the stages are applied to numerous post-disaster recovery processes (e,g, Bolin, 1982; Edgington, 2010; Geipel, 1991; Kates, 1973). The use of the model in aforementioned texts, coupled with the lack of any other detailed model for periods of post-disaster recovery, shows that those four periods will, in general, be useful as a starting point in the classification of the CBL responses to disaster according to which recovery stage they impact.

University response in the post-disaster recovery process

The universities are often a part of the disaster stricken community and/or have useful resources that can be used in supporting the post-disaster recovery. There are several different ways a university can respond to a disaster identified in the literature and I will enumerate the relevant academic responses. The first of the responses is the participatory action research (PAR) with which universities investigate impact of a disaster on the communities and their recovery in the aftermath of the disaster (Kiefer & Peterson, 2009; Phillips, 2004).

PAR studies are the most frequent academic university post-disaster responses since the post-disaster recovery periods provide a plethora of opportunities to study the society in a post-disaster situation. The researchers at the same time are agents of the recovery and are shaping the direction of it. The majority of studies reported on in the articles are not classified as PAR by the authors; however, through its definition, PAR is clear and recognizable in several articles. Most of the studies investigate the socioeconomic and cultural issues of the affected community (e.g. Hawkins & Maurer, 2011; Hilfinger Messias, Barrington, & Lacy, 2012; Milch, Gorokhovich, Doocy, Hopkins, & States, 2010; Smith, Davies-Colley, Mackay, & Bankoff, 2011) while others look into the psychological consequences of disasters (e.g. Lajoie, Sprang, & Mckinney, 2010; Prati, Catufi, & Pietrantoni, 2012).

PAR is similar to CBL in that the university seeks to establish a relationship with the community and contributes to its recovery. However, PAR does not necessarily imply student involvement and student learning. PAR can be conducted by the faculty with no involvement from students. Nonetheless, PAR can be and is used as a part of CBL project in which students study the community itself with aim to improve their recovery. The second university academic response is community-based learning and it will be discussed in the next section.

Community-based learning response to disasters. While community-based learning with the purpose of contributing and shaping to the post-disaster recovery process is covered in literature on a case to case basis there is no formal literature on the theoretical aspect of CBL response characterized by the triggering disaster. However, some of the defining aspects of CBL response could be taken from the literature detailed further on in the text.

A CBL response is a community-based learning project or course whose aim is to contribute to the post-disaster recovery of the community. The CBL response project has the same sets of context characteristics and outcomes as a normal CBL project with the addition of one common context – that of a disaster. As mentioned above, the context of disaster intensifies all the components of CBL, and, thus, an equal study and attention should be given to each of them.

When we turn to the overview of the literature, there are several pieces of PAR literature discussing the recovery of the New Orleans community (Gotham, 2008; Henry, 2011; Miller, 2012) and the changes and recovery of Tulane University (Cherrey & Clark, 2010; Cowen, 2007). However, when the number of CBL courses per year, 130 (University of Tulane, 2012), and the reports on the importance of CBL component of studying at the Tulane University (Cowen, 2007; Selingo, 2006) are taken into consideration, it is surprising that there is no formal literature focusing on CBL at Tulane University and New Orleans since 2005.

Since the amount of formal literature dealing with CBL responses is so insubstantial, I will now provide an overview of each of them. None of the literature that I could find on CBL projects done as a response to the post-disaster recovery process after Hurricane Katrina are authored by the faculty New Orleans universities but by that of surrounding universities that have not been directly or to that extent affected by the hurricane. There is firstly an article describing an interdisciplinary disaster CBL course in St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana and the experiential and learning outcomes of students of Duke University, North Carolina involved in it (Schaad et al., 2008). Another reports on student assessment and relationship with the community in a CBL project of the University of Georgia, School of Social Work with New Orleans displaced families (Bliss & Meehan, 2008). The involvement of Purdue, Indiana nursing students in a CBL project with Gulfport region Coastal Family Health Clinics in Mississippi in response to Hurricane Katrina has been studied as well (Richards, Novak, & Davis, 2009). Cultural tensions in New Orleans and practicalities of classroom libraries is discussed in the study of the partnership between Louisiana State University and Abramson School, New Orleans in organizing classroom libraries (Dowell, 2008). And as a final point, one article brings an organizational overview and student outcome assessment of Hamline University, Minnesota CBL project in New Orleans (Strait, Londy, & Panone, 2012).

In addition to these studies, the State Farm Florida Service Learning & Home Safety Initiative has published A Guide to Service Learning for Disaster Preparation. The guide is based on a collection of CBL responses to disaster throughout Florida and it serves as a handbook for establishing CBL disaster responses at all levels of education in Florida (Kochanasz, 2008). Apart from this, there are not any other comparative overviews of CBL disaster responses either in the USA or elsewhere.

Literature reporting on CBL responses connected to other disasters is detailed in the subsequent text - study on how nursing students of Ethiopian universities joined the health workforce in the aftermath of Ethiopia droughts in 2002-2003 (Downes et al., 2007); a report on the University of Texas School of Nursing CBL response to 2008 Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in Texas (Pattillo & O’Day, 2009); and a discussion on how the University of North Carolina School of Medicine students assisted in recovery from 1999 Hurricane Floyd (Steiner & Sands, 2000).

There are several issues with the above literature. The first is the small amount of the formal literature discussing CBL responses. The earliest literature reporting on CBL response to a disaster was published in 2000 (Steiner & Sands, 2000) and as the post-disaster recovery is long-lasting process (Edgington, 2010; Haas et al., 1977; Neal, 1997; Rubin et al., 1985) the need for long-term CBL response and assessment is present – but is not visible from the literature. As mentioned, Tulane University has hundreds of courses per year based on community-based learning with a large number of them involved in the post-disaster recovery, however, the university is not producing any formal literature on the CBL responses. The lack of formal research clearly shows that there is a vast gap present in the study of CBL post-disaster recovery responses.

The other issue is the uniformity of the specific subject discussed in the literature. The cited literature focuses primarily on the student academic and experiential learning, with few discussing the organizational difficulties of CBL in a disaster situation as well. As is mentioned in the conclusion of the section Community-Based Learning, all parties should be subject to analysis and assessment, especially in the context of disasters as all parties are affected. Moreover, the most affected participant of CBL in the post-disaster recovery is the community (Edgington, 2010; Haas et al., 1977; Neal, 1997) and there are no detailed assessments and studies of the community outcomes of the CBL responses. Thus, another gap is identified – the lack of diversity of the specific CBL characteristics covered in the already minor amount of literature.

The next section will cover the contexts defining Christchurch and the UC CBL response to the post-earthquake recovery.

Christchurch earthquakes and the UC response

Christchurch experienced three major earthquakes – a 7.1M on 4 September 2010, a 6.3M on 22 February 2011, and 6.4M on 13 June 2011 and more than ten thousands weaker ones since then (Christchurch Quake Map, 2012). The tangible damage is evident in the collapsed and/or red zoned buildings [2] , landslides, displaced citizens and closed businesses. Therefore, the site has become specific to post-disaster Christchurch and instructs specific types of CBL. Additionally, the damage is noticeable in the psychological state of the destabilized Christchurch community which changes the relationship and needs of CBL participants as well.

The most publicized post-disaster recovery initiative connected to the UC has been the Student Volunteer Army (SVA). The SVA was organized through the social network Facebook by UC student Sam Johnson immediately after 4 September 2010 earthquake and is still running (RSA, 2012). To complement the SVA, the course CHCH101 has been formed in order to give the CBL perspective to the post-disaster recovery efforts of the UC students.

The UC could also be seen as responding through a large number of individual faculty research projects, some of which are PAR projects, such as Communication and the elderly: experience from the Canterbury Earthquakes, Impact on journalists of reporting the earthquakes, Characterisation study of fractured rock at Redcliffs site and others (UC Earthquake research, 2012); as well as a number of earthquake-related master and doctoral theses. Unrelated to the earthquakes the usage of CBL as a learning method at the UC was present in the courses GEOG309 and MGMT208 since late 2000s. Now the CBL projects within the courses, internships and other community engagement programmes have substantially increased the amount of post-disaster recovery projects. Consequently, the faculty wishes to raise the CBL on an institutional level and proposes a Community Engagement Centre so it could contribute to the post-disaster recovery as successfully as possible with the necessary support provided (UC Futures, 2012; Community Engagement at UC, 2011; UC Working Party, 2011).

Conclusion and working model of CBL response

CBL at the UC is still at its beginnings both as the basic learning method and the response to the post-disaster recovery of Christchurch. In order to improve and ensure the quality of CBL projects at the UC and their contribution to the post-disaster recovery, it is necessary to construct a theoretical model which would represent the contextual characteristics specific to the post-disaster recovery in Christchurch. Figure 1 shows a suggestion of the theoretical model of CBL university response to a disaster.

Figure . Working model of CBL in post-disaster recovery.

This model encompasses the five-participant model of CBL outcomes and the temporal stages of disaster recovery thus giving the bone structure of a CBL project as a post-disaster recovery response. The site context signifies both the provision of opportunity for disaster-specific characteristics and contexts to the CBL response as well as a context that will be transformed, recovered by the CBL influence. The results of the CBL response are the outcomes. However, it is unknown how those outcomes will differ from the outcomes of a regular CBL project, how the relationships between the participants, and, consequently, the outcome, will be influenced by the context of the disaster site. It is also unclear from the existing literature on the best way to achieve a successful CBL response – with maximum positive and minimum negatives results. Moreover, the means of participant assessment in both short- and long-term periods is underdeveloped and completely missing in the cases of community organizations and members. Connected to the assessment, the governance of the logistics of CBL and risk management connected to the complex CBL partnerships and successfulness of outcomes is not defined in the disrupted post-disaster recovery period. One of the aims of this thesis is the completion of the working model by constructing the missing knowledge to fill the above mentioned gaps in the functioning of a CBL response.

The following section will contain the methodology and stages of my research which will illustrate the process of answering my research questions and completing the above proposed working model of CBL response.

Methodology and Stages of Research

My view of the knowledge creation and discovery is most similar to constructionism (Hughes, 2006). More specifically, I do not believe that knowledge is something we can discover from the data (the responses from the subjects in my research) or that it is something that has be construed from the data. In this thesis, I will attempt to construct a new theory on CBL disaster response by combing and establishing relevant connections between the qualitative data I will gather on international and UC CBL responses.

In order to achieve that, I will use the methodology of grounded theory (GT). This methodology presupposes building a new theory from available qualitative and/or quantitative data (Glaser, 2011). Even though I am using two existing frameworks as the bases of the working model – that of a CBL project and temporal model of post-disaster recovery, and know the subject of the theory I am trying to create, I will, nonetheless, try to create a new theoretical model of CBL disaster response that will combine the two frameworks as well as include additional new characteristics that are specific to response to a post-disaster recovery. The creation of new theory, or a theoretical model, is best achievable with the methodology of GT through use of its data analysis methods. The pertinent GT data analysis methods are in fact different types of coding data and I will exemplify them through the stages of my research. The open coding entails coding all data to establish a possible new theory – in the case of my research, coding all gathered data on university response to disaster. The substantive coding involves establishing and coding data contextually connected to the theory – the analysis of contextual characteristics of CBL responses. The final coding is the theoretical coding that theorizes the hypotheses that the substantive codes establish in relation to one another and uses those hypotheses in order to create a new theory – the creation of theoretical model of CBL response and its practical application to the UC and Christchurch (Glaser, 2011). In the continuation of this section, I will describe how I will arrive at the answers to my research questions.

Research question 1

What has been the international practice regarding university involvement in post-disaster recovery?

In order to create a list of international university responses to post-disaster recovery, I will first create a list of disasters. Starting the data gathering with the list of disasters and then moving to the possible university responses should result in comprehensive overview of different responses of the universities close to the disasters.

The list of disasters will be acquired through The International Disaster Database of The World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (Université Catholique de Louvain Brussels (Belgium), 2012). The database provides classification of disasters (into natural and technological and onto further subdivisions) as well as temporal and spatial details of disasters accompanied with the number of deaths, affected population and estimated damages in thousands of US dollars.

The sample will consist of approximately sixty stratified sample of disasters that happened throughout the six continents in the period between 2000 and 2012. Thus, the sample will open the path to establishing a list of affected and near-by universities which possibly responded to the disaster through online research. The number of the universities taken into account will largely depend on the proximity of universities to disasters. However, a limit of universities per disaster will be set to two due to ensure the practicality of the subsequent research.

The next step will be to investigate the possible university responses to the disasters through sample of the disaster response practices of universities by using open coding analysis. Open coding will be carried out on responses to e-mails, sent at first instance to the learning and teaching centre of each university, with open questions in order to establish whether they responded to the disaster or not and what the type and nature of the response was. The questions will not focus on CBL response so the data received is not limited to any particular university response and, thus, makes the open coding of all collected university disaster responses possible. The reports on case studies may consist of the analysis of university responses as well as of a short overview of the university and disaster involved in the response. However, the final form of case studies will be governed by the number of the received responses to the questions and diversity of university disaster responses.

Hopefully, the broad overview of different practices of university responses to disasters across the world generated in this stage of the thesis will function as a source of options for university disaster response to both international and national universities. The overview should serve both the universities experienced in disaster response with new and/or unknown options and the inexperienced universities with a structured summary of tried disaster responses.

Research question 2

How and to what extent should universities be involved in the post-disaster recovery through CBL? What are the contextual characteristics of CBL response? What are the respective roles of students, faculty and community in CBL response and how are they best facilitated? How can we identify the success of CBL response?

In order to answer the above question, the universities that responded with CBL to a disaster from the previous stage will be additionally studied. The analysis of the CBL responses will be qualitative analysis using substantive coding. The sample for this stage will depend on the number of universities that reported responding to a disaster with CBL and will be defined after the responses from the previous stage are collected.

The data collection will be conducted through both online and offline research and later on through interviews and questionnaires. Online research will entail continuous awareness of literature through UC Library catalogue, Worldcat.org, Scopus, pertinent journals – such as Michigan Journal of Community Service-learning, Disasters, Journal of Community Practice, etc. It will also include gathering data through university websites and social network pages, related newspaper articles, YouTube videos, etc. I will also gather data and start preparing for the interview phase through establishing contact with pertinent university staff, faculty and departments, community and other pertinent organizations, university community engagement networks (such as About Campus, Talloires Network, Centro Latinoamericano de Aprendizaje y Servicio Solidario, International Association for Research on Service-learning and Community Engagement), etc. via e-mail, Skype or any other available means of online communication. Offline research will entail reading pertinent physical literature as well as contacting pertinent parties via telephone where online communication is not possible. I will also communicate with the international students and faculty at the Department of Geography who are from studied areas.

The details that will be noted for CBL responses are the contextual characteristics of CBL and may entail: type of disaster, stage of post-disaster recovery, extent of the CBL impact on the recovery (recovery of which CBL party), closeness of the disaster to university, issues within the community (both disaster related, such as food, water, etc.; and general, such as cultural context etc.) and do (and how) they affect CBL, presence of institutionalized or individual faculty (course) response, level of CBL financing, (multi-)disciplinarity of CBL, international or national response, existence of pre-existing university-community partnerships, type of community partner, how was the connection to the partner established, and others. The sources will be cited for all details for future reference. After I have gathered all publicly available details, it will be possible to identify the gaps in the gathered information. The gaps in the details will be identified either on the existence of the detail for other CBL responses or from the pertinent contexts of CBL recommended in the literature.

Interviewing relevant parties will be necessary in order to fill the gaps in the description of CBL responses and assess the short- and long-term impact of the CBL response on the recovery, gauge the successfulness of the response, the particularities of roles in post-disaster recovery and other information. The exact structure of the interviews will be established once the extent of the gaps is known.

The interviews will consist of structured interviews via Internet (or telephone if communication through Internet or in person is not possible). The relevant parties will be identified when the list of CBL responses becomes known. Preferably, there will be one university or faculty contact and one pertinent community contact per CBL response. In the cases where the number of pertinent parties exceeds the practical limit for structured interview; questionnaires, focus groups or group interviews will be organized.

In addition to the universities with CBL response, I will also contact a random sample of the disaster-nearby and/or affected universities that have not responded to post-disaster recovery. The substantively coded responses to an open-structured questionnaire will give pertinent information regarding the context in which universities do not or are not able to respond to the post-disaster recovery.

Once the CBL responses are described, comparative qualitative study of codes of the case studies and their relationships using the methodology of GT will give the answers to the second research question regarding the specific characteristics and components of CBL responses. The results should represent a systematization of the most positive and effective practices from the studies of CBL responses, an overview of the negative practices and contexts which should be avoided and/or improved as well as the review of the universities that had not responded to a disaster. The analysis of this data will also provide the basis for the theoretical model of CBL disaster response.

Research question 3

What has been the CBL response in Christchurch? What are the contextual characteristics pertaining to CBL response in Christchurch? What is the theoretical model and a practical application of that model for UC of CBL university response in post-disaster recovery?

In order to create an overview of CBL response in Christchurch as well as the contextual characteristics specific for the UC, the first step will be contacting the faculty involved in CBL responses. Contacts have been established with the Department of Geography faculty, my associate supervisor Billy O’Steen, BA internship coordinator Jessica Johnston, Physical Education faculty, Paul O/Neil of Community Law Canterbury, the director of Volunteer Army Foundation Jason Pemberton, Christchurch City Council and other parties involved in CBL and other university community engagement programs and community organizations.

Through them and their contacts I will gather qualitative data concerning CBL responses. The sample of CBL responses that will be used in the subsequent analysis will be determined once the exact number and type of CBL responses at the UC is known. The gathering of the data will be through open question interviews and questionnaires with the faculty that will cover the organization of their courses, auditing of the relevant sections of the courses regarding obligations, organization and assessment of the course and its participants, the faculty’s opinion on the institutionalization and central governance of CBL at the UC and other topics. I will also interview the related community partners on the university-community partnerships and on the impact of the CBL response on the partner and community members, among other topics. The analysis of the data, among other conclusions, will show what the CBL practice is in Christchurch and if the CBL has enough impact on the post-recovery recovery in Christchurch to merit its viability.

In order to discover what the interest of community partners in establishing a CBL partnership with the University is, I will arrange interviews with no more than five stratified community partners from different parts of Christchurch that have not participated in any CBL responses. The topics covered in the interviews will be the overall interest in the CBL partnership, what influenced they interest or lack of interest and whether it can be improved or not, what are their expectations of university-community partnerships, what, for them, are desirable outcomes of a CBL response, and others. Using substantive coding, this will establish if the CBL response is wanted by the community partners as well as how the partnership and outcome can be encouraged and improved from the start of the relationship. It will also contribute to the data that point to the viable and sustainable CBL practices.

The next step will be to construct the theoretical model of CBL response in disaster situation. This will be done by theoretically coding the substantive codes from the international context. The model will be construed from the combinations of best CBL response practices and components and will denote a general model on which CBL responses to disaster could be based world-wide. Hopefully, the analysis of the substantive codes will also obtain the theories to fill the gaps in the knowledge about CBL –for example, theories on how should the success of CBL response be identified, how and who should be responsible in the assessment of the community and other outcomes of CBL. The bone structure of the model will be similar to the working model in Figure 1; however, the final theoretical model should have clearly noted suggestions of best practices on how to make the bone structure of the model into a successful CBL response to a disaster.

The final step is construction of the practical application for the UC and Christchurch situation of the abovementioned theoretical model. The theoretical model should be applicable to most CBL responses in general. However, not all CBL practices and suggestions contained in that model will be feasible in every situation. Every disaster is different and the disaster-influenced CBL characteristics will to extent be different from one disaster to another. In order to establish the specific model for the UC and Christchurch that should be applicable in both short- and long-term post-disaster recovery of Christchurch, theoretical coding will be employed on the substantive codes from the first part of this research question and the theoretical model. The coding will conceptualize theories between the model and specific CBL characteristics in order to establish the combination of CBL characteristics best suited for Christchurch. The UC-specific model of CBL response should improve the CBL on the organizational and governance level as well as regarding the outcomes and assessments of CBL at the University. This should in turn ensure the sustainability and success of CBL in the Christchurch disaster site as well as encourage undertaking of the CBL on an institutional level at the University.

Possible Limitations and Difficulties in the Research

There are several limitations or difficulties that could arise in the course of the research. In a case of extensive amount of similar CBL responses within a university they will be listed under the course they pertain to due to time and practicality limitations.

Time and practicality limitations will also restrict the number of interviewees and I will not be able to interview everybody that may be involved or impacted by the CBL response. As a possible solution, there will be a limit to the number of interviewees per type of CBL participant.

Presumably, the interviewees will include citizens of non-English speaking countries. In those cases, I will strive in establishing contact with English speaking representative of the types of CBL participants in order to avoid the language barrier.

There is a possibility that the identification of a CBL project that influenced post-disaster recovery might be problematic. More specifically, projects that inadvertently influenced the post-disaster recovery are presumably less easily identifiable than those projects that have been intentionally planned as disaster responses. Hopefully, this problem will be minimized by looking at university responses through the disasters and recovery processes and not vice-versa.

Ethics Committee

I acknowledge the requirement for consent forms needed for interviewing (if necessary for working in focus groups or surveying international, national and UC university staff, students, etc. and community partners. The interviews will be audio recorded and non-confidential (the names of the interviewees will be published in the thesis with their consent).

The use of The International Disaster Database and reproduction of its information is free provided it is cited. If I find the access to the raw data necessary, I will request the access to it through their website stating academic purposes (EM-DAT Frequently asked questions, 2009) and attach their approval to the Ethics Committee approval form.

The research will include some aspects of cross cultural research (cultural differences may be seen in the characteristics of CBL and thus be a part of the interviews). Research using underage persons or animals is not expected.

The Ethics Committee approval will be requested after the beginning of the second stage of methodology, that is after the exact number and details of participants are known as well as the list of questions or topics that will be discussed.

Budget Proposal

Regarding the budget necessary for this research, there are no foreseeable extraordinary expenses. As I am doing a qualitative research using grounded theory, my main methods will be online research and questionnaires as well as online and offline interviews. In order to conduct those, the possible resources I will require are the following:

a headset and camera for online interviews,

a digital voice recorder for offline interviews,

the software for coding data International telephone calls (in cases when online means of communication are unavailable),

business cards.

All the resources listed above are available free of charge through the Department of Geography and do not incur additional expenses. There are couple of conferences significant for my research topic – the Engagement Australia Conference in Melbourne in July 2013 and the IARSLCE 2013 Conference in Omaha in spring 2013 – for which expenses total to 3,000NZD.

Timetable Proposal

In addition to the schedule represented on the Table 1., I will continuously keep up to date with relevant research and news. The writing of the thesis (and of any possible research papers), will be done periodically as material presents itself while the final and major write up is marked in the timetable.