#action-research

Several pieces in the collection present stories of action research, a method of research originating in the social sciences, in which partners carry out the research and act on that research together with those affected by it to create and implement a plan, solution, and/or structural/systemic change. Action research is by its nature participatory, reflective, actionable, and application-based and people who are affected by the research are key participants in its design and implementation process. In this shared work, long duration partnerships are often necessary to meaningfully connect university partners to core community issues and to appropriately carry out responses to those.

Related terms: 

Participatory Action Research (PAR), Participatory Design, Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR)

To learn more:

• Brydon-Miller, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Friedman, V., & Gayá Wicks, P. (2011). “The changing landscape of arts and action research.” Special Issue on Arts and Action Research. Action Research, 9(1), 3-11.
  
• Chandler, D., & Torbert, B. (2003). “Transforming inquiry and action: Interweaving 27 flavors of action research.” Action Research, 1(2), 133-152.
  
• Freire, P. (2017). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Classics.
  
• Hester, Randolph. (2006). Design for Ecological Democracy. MIT Press.
  
• Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (Eds.). (2003). Community based participatory research for health. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
  
• Crenshaw, KW & Evans-Winters, V. (2024). “Black Girls Youth Participatory Action Research & Pedagogies.” 3 JAAWGE 114.
  

Related Content

#community-art

“Community art” here refers to public artworks that make audience participation or activation integral to the work. The goal of such work - distinct from traditional and often commemorative approaches to public sculpture or monuments - is often to achieve more meaningful representation of publics through the artworks that comprise and create shared civic space. Those working in these traditions may draw on precedents as broad as: feminist and Chicana mural movements; activist and agit-prop design, performance, and street art; or aesthetic avant-gardes (such as conceptual art, punk, or Dada) that posit everyday activities and objects as art. Common to these approaches is an understanding that aesthetics play a significant enough role in our experience of public space and civic identity, that public art can afford unique opportunities for reimagining social relations. From audience encounters with an aesthetically distinctive roving cart and its contents to a new gathering space in a public park informed by indigenous aesthetics and symbolism, examples of community art in this collection display a wide range of approaches. Such projects also navigate the challenges common to public art of how to represent or invite a particular social group with appropriate attention to the pluralities and even conflict that come with shared civic identity.

Related terms:

Social Practice Art, New Genre Public Art, Interventionist Aesthetics, Theatre of the Oppressed, Tactical Media

To learn more:

Lacy, S., ed. (1994). Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art. Bay Press.

Sholette, G. & Bass, C. (2018). Art as Social Action: An Introduction to the Principles and Practices of Teaching Social Practice Art. Allworth.

Dias Ramos, A. & Snow, T. (2023). Activism. Whitechapel: Documents of Contemporary Art, MIT Press.

Bishop, C (2006). “The Social Turn: Collaboration and its Discontents,” Artforum v.44, no.6.

Related Content

#design-build

 Several contributors in this special issue have worked within their university’s design-build program, to create an alliance between academia and community that takes a—with community and not for— approach. These collaborations foster trust-building, proficiency at multitasking and the ability to manage various roles and responsibilities through collective-making processes, where interdisciplinary teams of college students engage in collaborative problem-solving. Unlike typical D/B programs, the co-creation design process includes a project ideation stage, hands-on component, involving tasks such as creating material mock-ups, preparing construction drawings, obtaining building permits and fully constructing projects–ranging from small interventions to buildings and landscapes–that address community needs. These projects typically span one or more semesters, with students receiving guidance from faculty and collaborating with local community partners, fabricators and suppliers. The design-build process uniquely tasks students with developing responsible prototypes that align with the community’s shared cultural needs in a tangible way that allows all to co-create and communicate the direction of the work. The design-build pedagogy addresses a knowledge gap within contemporary architectural pedagogy, and best practices builds a bridge between the academy, the profession and the community for which it serves.

Related terms: 

Service-Learning Projects, Studio-Based Learning, Hands-On Learning, Project-Based Learning, Experiential Learning

To learn more:

• Marco Frascari. “The Tell-the-Tale Detail,” Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, ed. Kate Nesbitt. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.
  
• William J. Carpenter. Learning by Building: Design and Construction in Architectural Education. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1997.
  
• Samuel Mockbee. ‘The Rural Studio’ in The Everyday and Architecture, ed. by Jeremy Till and Sarah Wigglesworth. London: Academy Editions, 1998.
  
• Andrea Oppenheimer Dean and Timothy Hursley. Rural Studio. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002.
  
• Erdman, Jori and Robert Weddle. “Designing / Building / Learning.” Journal of Architectural Education 55, no. 3, 2002.
  
• Hayes, Richard W. The Yale Building Project. New Haven, CT: Yale School of architecture, 2007.
  
• Citizen Architect: Samuel Mockbee and the Spirit of the Rural Studio. Directed by Sam Wainwright Douglas. Austin, TX: Big Beard Films, 2010. DVD
  
• Geoff W. Gjertson, “House Divided: Challenges to Design/Build from Within,” in proceedings of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture Fall Conference 2011: Local Identities/Global Challenges.
  
• Eric Weber, “After the Solar Decathlon: Creating a New Design-Build Program,” in Intersections and Adjacencies: Leadership in Architectural Technology Education, Proceedings of the 2015 Building Technology Educators’ Society Conference, eds. Jacob A. Gines, ERin Carraher, Hose GAlarza. Salt Lake: Building Technology Educators’ Society, 2015.
  
• Chad Kraus. Designbuild Education. New York: Routledge, 2017.
  

Related Content

#participatory-design

Several submissions describe participatory design as an approach that actively involves all stakeholders in the design process, where the designer’s role is to co-create and facilitate deeper exchanges and dialogues, resulting in more meaningful outcomes. Such a collaborative method brings together users, designers, and community members to shape the built environment –ranging from public installations, infrastructural systems, architecture, landscapes, urban planning or public services. Through such an integrated and layered approach, the process ensures that the final outcome aligns with the needs and preferences of those who will use or be impacted by it. This co-creative process values the input and expertise of diverse stakeholders, acknowledging their unique insights and experiences that enhance the outcome’s functionality, usability and relevance. The premise is that everyone involved can contribute problem-solving and generate creative solutions. In the context of community-partnered research, by reframing the academic’s role as a co-creator or facilitator, designs are not only more culturally attuned but also spark richer discussions. And, the broader concept of interdisciplinarity–extending beyond academic fields–greatly benefits from the integration of varied perspectives, often resulting in highly innovative outcomes.

Related terms: 

Public Interest Design, User-Centered Design, Co-Creation Process, Co-Design, Co-Operative Design, Community Engaged Design Research (CEDR)

To learn more:

• Arnstein, S.R. (1969). “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”. Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35(4): 216-224.
  
• Rocha, E.M. (1997). “A Ladder of Empowerment”. Journal of the American Institute of Planning Education and Research. 17: 31-44.
  
• John Chase, Margaret Crawford and John Kaliski. Everyday Urbanism. Monacelli Press, 1999.
  
• Robert D. Putnam. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
  
• Bryan Bell. Good Deeds: Community Service Through Architecture. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2004.
  
• Bryan Bell and Katie Wakeford, Expanding Architecture: Design as Activism. New York: Metropolis Books, 2008.
  
• Nishat Awan, Tagjana Schneider, and Jeremy Till. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Architecture. New York: Routledge, 2013.
  
• Farhan Karim. The Routledge Companion to Architecture and Social Engagement. New York: Routledge, 2018.
  
• Farhana Ferdous and Bryan Bell. All-Inclusive Engagement in Architecture: Towards the Future of Social Change. New York: Routledge, 2021.
  

Related Content

#placemaking

Several pieces in the collection explore how university-community partners create and preserve a sense of place. By employing participatory, arts-based planning and design of public space(s), partners improve and protect the culture, identity, health, and economy of the community centered within that partnership’s work. Explorations and intentions of collaborative placemaking include: preserving and/or transforming the quality of public space(s); connecting communities; supporting local artists and community-based, cultural events; opening up public discourse; improving access, safety, and belonging; and supporting local place-based economic regeneration. Often this work is undertaken in repair of histories of marginalization and disinvestment and/or in resistance to land speculation and development leading to gentrification and displacement. Further, the term placekeeping emphasizes the objective of preserving the assets and culture of a place as well as the role for stewardship of place and placemaking interventions for the future.

Related terms: 

Community Design, Plural Design, Place-Based Design, Placekeeping, Creative Placemaking, Tactical Urbanism

To learn more:

• Barnard J. & Wexler R., eds. (2016) “Just Creativity: Perspectives on Inclusive Placemaking,” in Carolina Planning Journal, Vol. 41
  
• Borrup, T. (2016). “Creative Placemaking: Arts and Culture as a Partner in Community Revitalization,” Fundamentals of Arts Management, UMass.
  
• de la Pena, D., Allen, D., Hester Jr, R., Hou, J., Lawson, L., & Mcnally, M. (2017). Design as Democracy: Techniques for Collective Creativity. Springer.
  
• Hand, Jamie. (2022). “Translating Outcomes: Reflections on ArtPlace America’s CrossSector Research” Ground Works. https://doi.org/10.48807/2022.0.0091
  
• Hayden, D. (1997). The Power of Place. MIT Press.
  
• Markusen, A. & A. Gadwa. (2010). “Creative Placemaking,” A White Paper for the Mayor’s Institute of Design, a leadership initiative of the National Endowment of the Arts in partnership with the United States Conference of Mayors and American Architectural Foundation.
  
• Wyckoff, M. (2014). “Definition of Placemaking: Four DIfferent Types,” in Planning & Zoning News.
  

Related Content

#radical-pedagogy

Though education plays a role in most of this collection’s entries, some researchers begin more explicitly from a place of understanding learning as a site of knowledge-creation. As many of today’s most influential approaches to education as a path to redefinition and liberation of self and society also emphasize the importance of place and community, it’s no surprise to see many entries in this collection drawing from liberatory educational movements. We tagged entries with this category where we expected contributors would recognize one another’s efforts as drawing from these common sources and goals. These entries find students experiencing their classrooms and studios in very different ways, taking up tools of inquiry and imagination to “flip the script” on who is learning and whose knowledge has value, perhaps even turning analysis on the institution of higher education itself. 

Related terms: 

Constructivism, Critical Pedagogy, Abolitionist Teaching

To learn more:

• Brown, R.N. (2013). Hear our Truths: the Creative Potential of Black Girlhood. Univ of Illinois Press.
  
• Freire, P. (2017). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Classics.
  
• Harrison, F. (1997). Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving Further Toward an Anthropology for Liberation. American Anthropological Association.
  
• Hess, J. (2014) “Radical Musicking: Towards a Pedagogy of Social Change“ Music Education Research, v16 n3 p229-250.
  
• hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge.
  

Related Content

#service-learning

Many contributors incorporate service-learning initiatives, a teaching methodology that combines practical learning experiences with civic responsibility by engaging in meaningful service to the community. This experiential approach allows students to engage in activities that address both community and human needs while meeting educational goals. As service-learning requirements become more common in university curricula, some criticism has arisen. One concern is that the focus may shift from community impact to emphasizing the student’s “good deeds.” Another critique suggests that prioritizing students’ learning experiences can sometimes marginalize the voices of community members and organizations, potentially detaching academic learning from genuine service. Best practices aim to navigate the challenges and tensions and strike a balance between learning goals and service outcomes, enabling students not only to serve but also to learn through hands-on work in their future fields, develop interpersonal skills, and deepen their understanding of themselves and others. Through such engagement, students may begin to see themselves as agents of social change, learning from others how to address social injustices in their communities.

Related Terms: 

Experiential Education, Public Engaged Scholarship, Service-Learning Internship, Volunteerism, Community Service, Field Education

To learn more:

• Paulo Freire. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1970.
  
• Donald A. Schon. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Routledge, 1983
  
• Ernest L. Boyer. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professiorate. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990.
  
• Ernest L. Boyer and Lee D. Mitgang. Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996.
  
• Nabeel Hamdi. Small Change: About the Art of Practice and the Limits of Planning in Cities. London: Routledge, 2004.
  
• Porter, L. et al. (2015) “Partnerships of learning for planning education Who is learning what from whom? The beautiful messiness of learning partnerships” Planning Theory & Practice, [s. l.], v. 16, n. 3, p. 409–434. DOI 10.1080/14649357.2015.1060688
  
• Randy Stoecker and Elizabeth Tryon. The Unheard Voices: Community Organizations and Service Learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2009.
  
• Tom Angotti, Cheryl Dole and Paula Horrigan. Service-Learning in Design and Planning: Educating at the Boundaries. New York: New Village Press, 2011.
  

Related Content

#funding-model

Funding is a recurring challenge for university-community projects, covering staffing management, materials, resources, collaborative-space rental, and other overhead costs. The examples in this collection highlight various strategies for securing both one-time and recurring resources to ensure partnership-project sustainability. Federally funded research grants, such as those from the National Endowment for the Arts or the National Institutes of Health, offer potential funding through universities, though this often entails significant administrative work and reliance on the university’s research office. Alternatively, universities may support projects through institutional resources of partnerships with non-profit organizations, university endowments, or direct funding for community programs with non-profit status. In some cases, service-learning courses, volunteerism, and material donations may be the most feasible–and sometimes the only–options for project initiations and development. This typically involves collaborating with community stakeholders to attract non-profit investment, which requires significant time and trust-building before a project can move forward. Typically, establishing sustainable, long-term capacity remains a challenge for both universities and community.

Related terms: 

Research Grants; Fellowships; Resource Grants; Endowment Funding; In-Kind Donations

To learn more:

• Baum, H. S. (2000). Fantasies and Realities in University-Community Partnerships. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(2), 234-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0002000208
  

Related Content

#intermediary

Several pieces in the collection involve an intermediary here defined as an individual, entity, or organizational structure that sits between or among institutional and community partners, and in that role, serves to facilitate and organize the relationships and operational activities of the collaborative research. An intermediary supports the collaborative research process through formal mechanisms such as organizational management, material resources, and/or space as well as informal mechanisms such as trust-building and power-balancing in order to increase the potential for interactive exchange, co-operative decision making, and co-production among parties to meet shared and complementary objectives. Intermediaries are most effective when created with a long-term purpose to sustain multiple programs and partnerships over a long-duration sometimes with a common theme or mission guiding the intermediary. Intermediaries may be involved for all or part of the collaborative research process from helping to form and build partnerships, incubate projects, host and manage research activities, support implementation, and conduct post-research analysis.

Related terms: 

Project Delivery, Incubator, Liaison, Platform, Stakeholder Facilitation 

Related Content

#reciprocity

Several pieces in the collection emphasize the creation of reciprocal relationships, where diverse groups exchange value or co-create knowledge, benefitting all parties involved. Often, well-established institutions like universities have access to resources, networks, and financial support that underserved communities lack, which can perpetuate structural oppression or create an imbalance of power. Addressing and challenging these asymmetries is essential, with a deliberate focus on shifting toward balanced, reciprocal relationships. Genuine partnerships–those built on mutual development rather than transactional exchange–take time to foster trust. Once a strong, enduring connection is formed, it can inspire others to participate, promoting ongoing shared research and support, whether in-kind, sponsored, or financial. Reciprocity is deeply rooted in human nature, reflecting our innate desire to be open, honest, and respond to goodwill with positive actions. This instinct is vital in cultivating sustainable relationships between community and university partners, transcending individual projects and serving as a foundational value or guiding principle that drives motivations, research initiatives, and collaborative projects in a healthy, enduring way.

Related terms: 

Cooperation, Exchange, Mutuality, Reciprocation, Altruistic, Interdependence

Related Content

#redistribution

Historically, few universities have operated in accountable ways toward the communities they were founded to serve. To the contrary, the communities surrounding many large universities reflect histories of disinvestment and exploitation, typically with disproportionately negative consequences for Black, Hispanic, and Native communities. Reparative initiatives such as the Campus Compact coalition and even the new Carnegie classification for publicly-engaged universities represent efforts to reverse these trends. For people “on the ground” within and without universities, redistribution of resources represent a key material strategy in these efforts, as seen in several examples in this collection. Such efforts tend to rely at least in part on the shifting of resources of many kinds from one party to another, often with attention to differentials or inequalities that precede the collaboration. Resources undergoing transfer could include space, technologies, labor, finances, or regular access to such things. The permanency of these transfers may be an explicit goal; they are also not limited to transfer in expected directions across asymmetrical power relationships, and may well take place as part of exchange or even gift economies.

Related terms: 

Reparations, Structural Inequality, Land Grant

To learn more:

• la paperson. (2017) A Third University is Possible, U of Minnesota Press.
  
• Baldwin, D.L. (2021) In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower. Hachette Press.
  

Related Content

#reproducibility

Most of the partnerships represented in the collection have created a process, system, or design that is reproducible, such that it can be carried out or implemented in a same or similar way in a new location or context, thereby extending the learning, benefit, and reach of that process, system or design to other communities. Some partnerships have intentionally designed reproducibility into the project or program described, such as the design build projects presented, whereas we (the editors) see some projects and programs serving as potentially reproducible models by the readers, such as the university-community music school. When a process or design is reproduced, minor or subtle adaptations or adjustments of the process, system, program content or design can be made to meet community or site specific needs, while maintaining or even optimizing the outcomes of the reproduction.

Related terms: 

Model, Prototype Design, Replicability

Related Content

#risktaking

Many universities have responded to calls for greater accountability to the peoples and communities they serve by investing in and incentivizing community-partnered research. It is important to note in the context of this special collection that those who carry out that research often bear great risks. Where a community member chooses to work with a faculty member whom they trust despite a record of broken promises from a university, or a faculty member lends their effort to institutional work for which recognition and credit systems are not in place, both individuals carry some amount of risk. We invite reading of this collection’s projects with this lens in mind, along with questions about who bears what risk, and what an institution can do to relieve some of that burden.

Related terms: 

Vulnerability, Power Differentials, Invisible Labor, Solidarity

Related Content

#scalability

Scalability, an outcome of several partnerships and projects presented, expresses itself in two ways: 1) the ability or capacity of a design or program to grow and expand in place to accommodate increased activity or users, also known as vertical scaling or scaling-up; and 2) the ability or capacity of a design or system to grow or expand beyond its original location to other sites, locations, or communities usually through reproducing the original components (as a parallel or distributed system) to new locations, also known as horizontal scaling or scaling-out. As examples, scalability in university-community partnerships may involve the scaling-up of a program or resources to accommodate increased participation or the scaled-out reproducibility of a designed object or system to benefit new partnerships with similar needs.

Modular Design, Systems Design, Replicability/Reproducibility

Related Content

#capacity-building

Many of the partnerships in this collection have established mechanisms for capacity building, where the university-community collaborations enhance the community’s resources, participants, and networks, empowering them to develop, implement, and sustain their own solutions to local social, economic, and cultural challenges. This approach not only focuses on building skills but also on enabling historically underserved and marginalized communities to take meaningful action and drive much-needed change. Many of the projects in this issue address social justice, highlighting a bottom-up approach where university-community partnerships leave the community in a stronger, more capable position to leverage their own assets. Additionally, capacity building extends to individuals and partners within the university itself, helping to sustain long-term collaborations and programs. Ultimately, the process of coalition-building within both the university and the broader community strengthens existing social connections and often fosters the creation of new ones, as demonstrated by several of the submissions.

Related terms: 

Community Coalition Building, Asset Mapping, Appreciative Inquiry

Related Content

#infrastructure

Many contributions describe shared efforts to create systems, spaces, networks, facilities, programs, and structures needed to support the cultural, economic, political, and social health and thriving of a community. These infrastructures are sometimes visible in their physical form such that they take shape in buildings, structures, spaces, furnishings, equipment, services, and networks that physically and materially support the functioning of businesses and community events, mobilities or connectivities, public services, educational spaces, or other productivity. Infrastructures are also social in nature and form, manifest in human and institutional systems with capacities to support and afford social connectivity, exchange, security, agency, and organization in a community. Among the contributions, these two often work hand in hand. Physical and social infrastructure co-evolve through the collective partnership, demonstrating an investment in spatial and material projects that equally reflect and embody the values, sociality, and activism of the community. Many of the partnerships discuss practical efforts to generate investment (from capital to non-capital inputs) in both types of infrastructure where needs exist to overcome histories of disinvestment, to address inequities and needs, and to bolster resilience of the community. As with placemaking, infrastructure formation and investment often builds upon the existing assets, systems, and networks already present in the community.

Related terms: 

social infrastructure, knowledge infrastructure, public infrastructure, public goods/public works, community services, redistribution

To learn more:

• Amin, Ash. “Lively Infrastructure.” Theory, culture & society. 31.8 (2014): 137–161.
  
• Borgman, Christine L., Peter T. Drach, Irene V. Pasquetto, Morgan F. Wofford. (2020) “Our Knowledge of Knowledge Infrastructures: Lessons Learned and Future Directions.” UCLA Center for Knowledge Infrastructures, Workshop Report.
  
• Klinenberg, Eric. (2018) Palaces for People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Public Life. Crown.
  
• Larkin, Brian. (2013). “The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure,” Annual Review of Anthropology. 42: 327-343.
  
• Latham A. & Layton, J. (2019). “Social infrastructure and the public life of cities: Studying urban sociality and public spaces.” Geography Compass. Vol. 13, Issue 7. 
  

Related Content

#power

Many submissions highlight the need to address oppressive and inequitable distributions of power and privilege, particularly regarding race. It’s crucial to explore how projects and partners engage with racialized aspects of equity and values, aiming for a balance of power between individuals or groups. Understanding how power functions within relationships is vital, as it shapes interactions and can significantly impact a project’s success. - - Addressing power dynamics explicitly–whether shifting or building power–can either enhance relationships or lead to destructive conflict if left unchecked. Effectively managing these dynamics is essential for fostering harmonious working relationships, rectifying power imbalances, and ensuring equitable resource sharing. For example, the relationship between a university and community partners can vary significantly. It may range from a non-participative dynamic, where one party dominates with resources and status, to a more equitable partnership where power is negotiated and redistributed, fostering genuine collaboration between participants and power holders.

Related terms: 

abolition, liberatory politics, reparations, postcolonial 

Related Content

#representation

Many of this collection’s entries pursue the increase of freedom through bringing visibility to peoples, places, histories, or conflicts where oppression relies on occlusion, erasure, silence, or removal. Though approaching such work through the creation of new or increased representation is not unique to the arts, artists, designers and other creators have long found distinctive roles within this work given their fluency in the creation of images, forms, symbols, narratives, and other sensory experiences. And in the face of mass media’s complicity in protecting the status quo against disruption, organizations such as ACT UP showed how exhibitions, branding, performance, and information design could achieve central goals of a movement to ensure that, for example, those suffering and dying from AIDS in the 1980s would not go unseen. Working to achieve new representation thus remains for some in this collection both a strategy and a purpose. Though work to educate, learn, and reconcile remains once an occluded story, people, or problem comes to light, representation ensures that no one can truthfully deny the facts.

Related Content