Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning
Fall 1997, pp. 30-41
Analyzing Institutional Commitment to Service:
A Model of Key Organizational Factors
Barbara Holland
Portland State University
Although some work has begun to explore issues related to expanding, sustaining, and institutionalizing
service-learning, there is little understanding of the dynamic relationship between organizational factors
related to service-learning and actual levels of institutional commitment. Each institution must develop
its own understanding of its academic priorities, including the role of service as an aspect of mission,
and set clear goals for a level of commitment that matches those priorities. A matrix that links organizational factors to levels of commitment to service is proposed as one possible approach to setting institutional goals, realistically assessing current conditions, and monitoring progress toward the desired
level of implementation of service-learning.
Introduction
The "Engaged Campus" (Edgerton, 1994) has
been widely used as a generic label for the many
diverse expressions of institutional commitment
linking the academy to community priorities and
needs. Now, more than two years after the
American Association of Higher Education gave
visibility and importance to the professional service and service-learning movement by dedicating
its 1995 annual conference to the "Engaged
Campus," many institutions speak of themselves as
campuses that are engaged in service to their communities through the activities of faculty and students. National conferences, affiliation groups, and
grant programs have grown rapidly to give visibility and recognition to service and service-learning
programs.
Even though the rhetoric of service is similar at
many institutions, a cursory glance at campus literature, professional publications, and conference
presentations makes it obvious that engagement in
service-related activities is playing out differently
across institutions, and the level of involvement in
and commitment to service takes many different
forms. Whether a campus engages in service on a
small or large scale, commitment to any level of
service requires institutions to make choices;
choices that can be made deliberately or accidentally. For the service movement to be sustained
and institutionalized, each institution must develop
its own understanding of the degree to which service is an integral component of the academic mission.
This view is evident in the work of several scholars who have emphasized the necessity of broadening scholarly roles and increasing the diversity of
institutional types based on more deliberate selection of academic priorities. Boyer, for example,
proposes that faculty priorities can be uniquely tailored to reflect particular institutional missions, a
strategy he believes could produce greater institutional variety and improved responsiveness to societal needs (1990).
In 1992, the Pew Higher Education Roundtable
created forums of institutions that were engaged in
substantial examinations of curricula, faculty roles,
and administrative structures. An early observation
of the Roundtable was that institutions must be
more selective in their range of academic activities.
Every institution needs to establish a clear and
definitive statement of mission that reflects its
own goals...Even more important is the need
for strong leadership to ensure that the energy
and ambition of faculty and staff are engaged
in the fulfillment of that mission. An institution must resist the efforts of particular factions to distort its mission into shapes unsuited
to its actual strengths and capabilities. (1992,
p. 5a)
Even earlier, Lynton and Elman called for
greater institutional distinctiveness because they
found "almost no connection between the internal
views and the external expectations as to the role
30
0
