Book Review: Percy, S. L., Zimpher, N. L., & Brukardt, M. J. (Eds.). (2006). Creating a New Kind of University: Institutionalizing Community-University Engagement. San Francisco, CA:  Jossey-Bass

 

 

Author:  Yan Huang, PhD

               California State University, Chico

               Department of Health and Community Services

               400 West 1^st Street Butte Hall 607

               Chico, CA 95926

               Email: yhuang34@csuchico.edu

               Tel: 530-898-4417

Abstract

ÔCreating a New Kind of University' aims at creating engaged institutions of higher learning in collaboration with the community or the neighborhood. The authors pay particular attention to the Milwaukee Idea, from where they develop various hypotheses. To make their point, they undertake a case study to examine on the past loopholes that can be sealed after the introduction of the theory in the management of various universities. The work also aims at bringing out the essential of multiculturalism in institutions of higher learning.

Book Review

         Creating a New Kind Of University editors include Stephen Percy, Nancy Zimpher, and Mary Jane Burkhardt. This dynamic trio played a significant part in the leadership and implementation of ÔThe Milwaukee IdeaÕ, which touched mostly on university-community affiliation and foundation stone of ZimpherÕs administration at the institution of higher education of Wisconsin –Milwaukee. Published in 2006, this volume follows the editorsÕ previous works, Time for Boldness, A story of Institutional change (2002) that got hold of the birth and early work related to the Milwaukee idea (Percy et. al., 2006). The primary objective of the work is to establish the lessons learnt by people allied to the proposal, from the point of view of six yearsÕ practice and also to echo on the position of rendezvous on a national scale. These three editors contributed their  point of view on the Milwaukee wider framework of university commitment as bookends to lay down chapters written by people unswervingly linked with the Milwaukee joint venture and other documented appointment activists (Mcllrath et al., 2012).
          The work is in a form of an extensive case study, which is aimed at proving an accurate notion, created by the Milwaukee idea. The work is also backed by statistical facts, implying that the facts can be relied on. This increases the accuracy of the study, entirely (Phelps, 2013).      Burkhardt, Percy, and Zimpher stricter their reflection on the commitment from an institution stands on the point. They come to grips with the problems affiliated with generating a whole that is more than a summation of distressed commitment actions. Going as per the context authored by the trios, it is appropriate to shift focus in conceptualization commitment in order to discover institution scale partnership. For this to be achieved, the school, universities, and college will be needed to focus their energies beyond experimentations and institutionalization. The work also specifies that the sustainability of the university cooperation with the community is closely associated with institutional intellectual and structural alteration and a studious venture that goes beyond disciplinary and grave staff remuneration arrangements. It also advocates for the university mission engagement (Holland, 2001).
          The authors of the context advance in the notion that places of higher learning ought to be mission oriented; commitment focused, supported by the Association and grounded scholarship. The level of efficiency of decision-making process also increases when an institution is mission driven. For this to happen, the mission ought to be well connected with faculty authority. From an undisputable university-community partnership, trust is built among the stakeholders. In addition to trust, mutual interaction, learning, support, correspondence and collective goals settings are also enhanced (Brown, 2012). Affianced apprentice knowledge and facility breakthrough depict upon academic looms that construct on the finest performances of the folks who have left ahead and comprised manifestation, psychoanalysis, and assessment (Cavendish, 2001).
          The work is primarily based on the study of institutional engagement. It provides a chance for scholars to examine the partnership between the university and the community on various dimensions (Buckholdt & Miller, 2013). On top of this, this case study analyzes the organization of the university and the community for a specified period. Other authors listed in the context also offer an interesting approach to the Milwaukee idea, particularly from a person who has conducted an extensive interview on the same topic being studied, in this case, a project between year 2000 and year 2001. The case study is built on the base of the two warring cases of both success and failure of community partnership that was based on the University of Illinois, found in Chicago. The work, which is duped as ÔGreat Cities InitiativeÕ (Braskamp & Wergin, 1998) outlines the challenges of engagement in particular details. The analysis in this work is based on transformative change.
          Most of the work written down in this case study is thorough, and the facts presented clearly. This enlighten the reader on how the organization of thoughts of the writers. The fact that most of the concepts and ideologies are based on other peopleÕs works shows that the writers left no stone unturned during the analysis of the concept. This book can also be defined as a library, due to such abundant information from other books, which are clearly and appropriately cited in the text (Saltmarsh, & Zlotkowski, 2011).
          The arguments raised by the authors are in line with the Milwaukee idea. It is true that there is a need to partner with the community and involve all stakeholders in all the operations of higher institutions of learning in order to achieve a positive merit in academics. By partnering with these stakeholders, it is relatively easy for the administrations to identify critical areas that need to be developed. These de1velopments promoted a collective growth of the institution and all its key stakeholders (Narasimharao et. at., 2013).
          However, instead of just revolving around the university-community partnership, the authors should have outlined various strategies that can be implemented to enable this dream come true. Without such recommendations, very few managers and respective leaders are likely to ensure that these ideas have been implemented fully. The brainchild behind Milwaukee ought to have given clear guidelines on how this can be achieved. In addition to this, the recommendations offered by the person who gave birth to this idea are likely to have scholarly backing. During the interviews or the methodology employed to collect data in the case study, different people might be having different views. Such approaches can be combined, polished and integrated to create a long lasting to the stated problems that the idea was meant to solve (Zimpher et. al., 2002).
          Summing up, Creating a New Kind Of University offers academic assistance to the journalism on the assumption and practice of rendezvous predominantly since the volume concentrates on institutional engagement. Just like Brukardt, Percy and Zimpher affirm, ÒA general education program focused on critical multiculturalism and community engagement revitalize the mission of the university, reconnect the campus to the world and reinvigorate the academic experience of both the students and faculty (Percy et. at., 2006 p. 119). A word of applause to the team that combined an excellent piece of work; to release us from the captive world of limited ideas and knowledge.

 

References

Buckholdt, D. & Miller, G. (2013). Faculty Stress. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

Braskamp, L. A., & Wergin, J. F. (1998). Forming new social partnerships. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), The responsive university: Restructuring for high performance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brown, B. (2012). Strategic public relations: an audience-focused approach. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Cavendish, J. (2001). Institutionalizing campus-community engagement: Reflections on the University of Citizen conference. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 12, 4-12.    

Holland, B. A. (2001). Toward a definition and characterization of the engaged campus: Six     cases. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum, 12, 20–29.

Mcllrath, L., Lyons, A. & Munck, R. (2012). Higher education and civic engagement comparative perspectives. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Narasimharao, B., Kanchugarakoppal, S. & Fulzele, T. (2013). Evolving corporate education strategies for developing countries the role of universities. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Percy, S. L., Zimpher, N. L., & Brukardt, M. J. (Eds.). (2006). Creating a New Kind of University: Institutionalizing Community-University Engagement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Phelps, E. (2013). Mass flourishing: how grassroots innovation created jobs, challenge, and change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Saltmarsh, J. A., & Zlotkowski, E. A. (2011). Higher education and democracy: Essays on service-learning and civic engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Zimpher, N. L., Percy, S. L., & Brukardt, M. J. (2002). A time for boldness: A story of       institutional change. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.