Education for Interdisciplinary Community Collaboration and Development: The Components of a Core Curriculum by Community Practitioners

Abstract

Social workers are actively engaging in the practice of interdisciplinary community collaboration (ICC) with the goal of bringing diverse groups together to improve the conditions of communities and enhance the quality of life of population groups. Yet, collaborations are challenging and require great skill and commitment. The pedagogy and the content of curricula have become a more prominent part of teaching to macro practice students and practitioners the art of effectively convening and moving collaborative efforts forward. This article adds to the literature on the content and methods of teaching students and novice practitioners the competencies embedded in ICC. It provides empirical data from six focus groups of experienced community practitioners (social workers and others) in New York City who identified components of a core curriculum for this work. Eight months later, these 33 community practitioners were asked to reprioritize the topics and concepts that they had collectively identified at the earlier time. Skills such as the ability to share power, manage differences, include the constituency and diplomacy are among those discussed. Core curriculum themes, the pedagogy and process, and the attributes and values necessary for training an ICC practitioner are presented.

KEYWORDS:

• teaching collaboration
• interdisciplinary community collaboration
• theory and praxis
• active community engagement
• collaboration with community practitioners
• curriculum for collaboration

INTRODUCTION

The complex problems of the 21st century require solutions that include collaboration from a variety of professionals in academia and community, who respect and value each other. Increasingly, universities are being called upon to work across departments and schools, and to partner with many sectors and organizations in the community. Professionals, including social workers are leading, participating in and evaluating complex university-community collaborations (Mulroy & Lauber, 2004; Soska & Johnson, 2005; Joseph & Ogletree, 1996; Messinger, 2004.) and are responding to the need to develop innovative and fresh strategies to meet community needs (Alvarez, Gutierrez, Johnson, & Moxley, 2003).

Social workers are actively engaging in the practice of interdisciplinary community collaboration (ICC) with the goal of bringing diverse groups together to improve the conditions of communities, enhance the quality of life of population groups, especially those disadvantaged and marginalized, and strengthen community-based organizations and civic life (Korazim-Korosy, Mizrahi, Katz, Karmon, Garcia & Bayne-Smith 2007). The concept of community includes both geographic and functional communities. The term interdisciplinary is used generically here to mean people with different educational and/or professional backgrounds working collaboratively over time (Moxley, 2008).

In recent times, social work has strengthened its community practice niche through the creation of organizations, books and journals (Faulker, Roberts-DeGennaro, & Weil, 1994; Hardcastle, Powers, & Wenocur, 2004; Mizrahi & Morrison; 1993; Mizrahi, 2001; Weil, 2005). The pedagogy as well as the content of curricula have become a more prominent part of teaching and supervising of community macro practice students and practitioners (Jones, Packard, & Nahrstedt, 2002; Snyder, 2001).

This article will add to the literature on the content and methods of teaching students and novice practitioners the competencies embedded in ICC. It provides empirical data from six focus groups of experienced community practitioners (social workers and others) in New York City who identified components of a core curriculum for this work. These data are part of a larger U.S.-Israel project that first convened two groups of academics, one in Israel and one in NYC, who considered themselves “scholar-activists” (Johnson, 1994; Bayne-Smith, Mizrahi, & Garcia, 2008). After, academics met three times to discuss their experiences in teaching collaboration and in participating in related university-community partnerships, the authors brought together a group of 33 community practitioners to learn about their experiences (successes and challenges) in bringing diverse stakeholders together to address community issues.

The following questions are the focus of this article: If you were training or mentoring for interdisciplinary community collaboration, what would you include in a core curriculum? What are some of the most important concepts or topics to include? What knowledge or skills? What personal and professional characteristics, attributes and values are most important? Eight months later, these 33 community practitioners were asked to reprioritize the topics and concepts that they had collectively identified at the earlier time.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The assumption in all the literature about collaborations is that the synergy created with a diverse group of actors will result in more creative and sustainable outcomes (Lasker, Weiss, & Miller, 2001; Lasker & Weiss, 2003) notwithstanding the obstacles and investment needed to achieve those ends (Fogel & Cook, 2006; Jones, Crook, & Webb, 2007). Yet, there has been less emphasis on the teaching and learning aspects of ICC until recently (Grossman & McCormick, 2003; Hymans, 2006; Maidenberg & Golick, 2001; Tourse, Kline, Mooney, & Davoren, 2005; Wehbi, Ali, & Enros, 2005). The Journal of Community Practice, a social work-based interdisciplinary journal, initiated a standing section in 2005 devoted to “teaching community practice, and educating community practitioners” (Moxley, Alvarez, Gutierrez, & Johnson Butterfield, 2005).

The theoretical orientations comprise a combination of social and adult learning theory and critical education. The assumptions of a social and adult learning model include an active role for the learner as a self-directed person who brings a wealth of life experience and knowledge to their education. This includes their culture, ethnicity, personality, and political ideology (Motes & Hess, 2007). It also means that the educator sees themselves as open to growth and change and willing to reveal vulnerabilities and mistakes.

Critical education and feminist and antiracist/diversity pedagogy contribute to the knowledge base by offering an analysis of difference and of the constructed process of “othering” (Borgerson, 2005). These different ways of knowing provide vivid case examples and alternative principles of practice that inform the teaching of community practitioners within and across disciplines (Cramer, 1995; Hesse-Biber, Gilmartin, & Lydenberg, 1999). Diversity educators highlight the importance of deep self-discovery among groups of different social identities. This includes developing critical thinking, consciousness raising, listening, respecting others, tolerating ambiguity, and showing empathy (Werkmeister Rozas, 2004; Goodman et al., 2004), all traits essential in ICC learning.

Addressing race and racism (and other isms) are challenging yet critical dimensions when working for change in diverse and unequal communities, especially for white educators and practitioners (Miller, Hyde, & Ruth, 2004). The goal of educators and mentors should be to help students and staff understand, challenge, and dismantle oppression and unearned privilege. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2006), Paulo Freire alerts us that, “humanist and libertarian pedagogy, has two distinct stages … . [In the first] the oppressed unveil the world of oppression and through the praxis commit themselves to its transformation” (p.59.) With this as a goal, time for reflection and other emotional tasks in teaching about structural differences in community settings is necessary if students are to fully integrate the experience and the learning (Miller, Hyde, & Ruth, 2004; Werkmeister Rozas, 2004; Mishna & Bogo, 2007.) Three bodies of knowledge in teaching social work practice in a diverse and complex society are integrated: reflective practice, mindfulness, and social work pedagogy on diversity.

METHODOLOGY

Sample Selection

A purposeful sampling technique was used. Based on the authors' combined experiences and contacts, they followed the reputational method by compiling a list of potential participants with an emphasis on diverse backgrounds, experience (at least 10 years), issues, and neighborhoods. They also consulted the NYC academics for names of other community practitioners. Invitations were extended to participate in a forum, described to them as a structured group dialogue in small and large groups on the topic of ICC (Urwin & Haynes, 1998). (The term forum is used in the rest of this article for the day-long set of activities in which they participated.) A total of 69 practitioners were invited, 44 accepted and 33 participated. Slightly fewer people of color attended than were initially selected and accepted; there was no difference in attendance between the percentages of men and women who were invited and who came to the forum.

The Format and Protocol

In preparation for the focus groups, participants received the list of questions in advance and were asked to come prepared to discuss them. The forum consisted of two parts: the focus groups (2.5 hours) and a participatory priority setting exercise (2 hours). The participants were purposefully assigned to one of six different small discussion groups to insure diversity by gender and race/ethnicity. With IRB approval, the sessions were tape-recorded with participant consent.

At the end of the focus groups, participants came together to comment on the highlights of their group discussions that were presented by the recorders of each group. Those who stayed to the end of the day (N = 20) discussed the 69 items listed on each group's newsprint and were asked to select those to which they would give highest priority as essential components for an ICC curriculum. This same list from all the groups (slightly edited) was sent eight months later via email to all the participants. The purpose of this follow up was to compare the importance of the priorities over time and to give them a chance to focus individually rather than in a group setting. We wanted to increase the trustworthiness of our findings by including those who did not participate in the priority-setting session at the forum. They were asked to select the top three items presented by each of the six focus groups. Therefore each respondent could chose up to 18 categories from 69 different topics. Two-thirds of the forum participants (N = 22) responded. There was about an 80% overlap in those responding both times. Those responding did not differ substantially by gender or race/ethnicity from the total group.

Data Analysis

A qualitative approach was used (Padgett, 1998). At least two of the three authors read all the transcripts, and each independently coded categories and themes using open coding and constant comparative analysis associated with grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Padget, 1998). Peer debriefing was used as a technique to increase the rigor of the analysis (Padget, 1998; Padgett, Mathew, & Conte, 2004.) The authors searched the recorded responses to each specific question, and also perused the entire transcript to find additional or repeated themes related to an ICC core curriculum. To preserve the trustworthiness of the study, the authors maintained almost all the original phrasing extracted from the newsprint even when the concepts were not clearly conveyed. Member checking was carried out by sending the transcribed tapes and the newsprint data to the group facilitators and recorders to add or clarify text (Padget, 1998) which all six did to varying degrees. This study is exploratory and the findings are to be understood to be descriptive and suggestive.

Characteristics of Participants

The cohort consisted of 19 women and 14 men; about one-third of them were people of color (7 women; 5 men). All but one of the participants had BA degrees in a variety of academic disciplines. The majority (N = 24) also held professional or graduate degrees: social work (8), law (2), planning (3), economics (1), psychology (2) and public health and related health disciplines (4), and other (4). All but three people were currently staff of community-based, nonprofit organizations or were organizing collaborations. The rest held administrative or academic positions, and supervised students and/or other staff who worked directly with community constituencies or collaborations addressing such issues as the lack of affordable housing, domestic violence prevention, youth organizing, jobs development, and health promotions.

FINDINGS

The role and skills of the facilitators of each focus group cannot be emphasized enough in balancing breadth and depth of an inclusive dialogue for two and a half hours. What follows are the common themes and areas of learning that the groups saw as essential to any curriculum that teaches ICC. The unique perspectives and ideas of the groups will also be highlighted.

Common Skill Areas of Learning

Communication and listening skills

All the groups echoed the importance of teaching future ICC practitioners communication skills. As group one coined it, a facilitator should have “people skills,” the ability to relate to different types of people, making each feel comfortable and a part of the process. He/she must be able to talk across different levels, attitudes, and experiences and be able to play as an intermediary among various players. Special emphasis was on the concept of language, which goes beyond the tongue spoken. Terms such as language accessibility to mean ensuring a genuine understanding of the terms and phrases used in meetings and interaction between professionals and community members. Participants cautioned against the use of professional language that creates or maintains a hierarchy of domination.

Diplomacy

Diplomacy was mentioned in one form or another as a skill to be developed. Group I provided a comprehensive definition that captures what many of the groups articulated: “a set of communication, problem solving, human relations, negotiation and sensitivity skills designed to resolve conflict and to allow participants to suspend behaviors that distract from the accomplishment of common goals.” Group V added that the facilitator should be skilled at different decision making techniques, including conflict resolution, which should be used only as a last recourse.

Group facilitation

Several stated or implied that the facilitator must be skillful at creating an environment that is egalitarian and conducive to the participation of all. A core curriculum must include teaching about group facilitation, dynamics, and potential power imbalances. The facilitator should learn how to engage the group in a discussion about resources and the distribution and sharing of these resources.

Assessment of the community

Includes, ascertaining community needs, its strengths and recognition of the knowledge and innate skills that reside within. As a participant in Group I stated, the facilitator must “start with where the client is,” to borrow the social work term, and develop the skill and value of listening to and involving the community. This was viewed as part of the process of “getting to know” the community in both geographic and functional senses.

Ability to deal with differences

All the groups discussed the importance of teaching the difficult art of how to deal with differences, defined very broadly. Group III offered a specific recommendation:

ICC facilitators learn the importance of being transparent, and able to deal with all his/her biases and initial premises. It is useful to be “upfront” about who one is; by disclosing, building trust can begin. Participants can see that the facilitator is not afraid to be truthful so they can begin to take the risk themselves.

Others reflected on the importance of disentangling the multiple meanings of culture. There was concurrence among many participants on making visible the innate privilege of White mainstream culture (White supremacy) that automatically gives power to those who are White. Said one, “If this privilege is unaddressed, the group is bound to repeat and recreate the patterns of power and hierarchy that exist in society at large.” Group V in particular emphasized that a facilitator must have the ability to capture how a group member can shift the power relationship in a group and have the ability to take action to rebalance power in the group when necessary. An example was given that sometimes a person who identifies as an oppressed person in the group can use it to create guilt that will in turn give that person more power.

Ability to share power, give up power and help others to reclaim their power

“The process of developing power (empowerment) in the individual and acknowledging and encouraging the transformative power of the community is essential” according to Group II, and echoed by other groups. The facilitator must handle two simultaneous tasks if they are to help participants undergo a personal transformation and to gain a sense of power: work on short-term goals that give a sense of accomplishment and also provide tools and build qualities that prepare participants for the long haul. “It is important not to set limits on success.” Group III identified the need for the facilitator to learn to give up power and to turn the organization over to the people it was created for. A key quote was “We should get our egos out of the way.” This group also stressed that students need to be aware of the possible conflict between the needs of the community and their educational goals. Honoring people's experience, both life experiences and educational backgrounds, was an important theme. Group III recognized that people are experts in their lives; therefore, an ICC curriculum should include activities that build upon this expertise. The need for teaching how to build relationships and how to help groups to find a common goal was highlighted by the groups.

Decision-making and the ability to build consensus around an issue

Decisions should be arrived at by consensus and have guidelines or a protocol that every member agrees to operate by, according to Group V participants. A facilitator should be skilled at different decision-making techniques, and be able to recognize when it is appropriate to use each method. The observation was made by one of the younger participants in Group III that older professionals are sometimes resistant to sharing the decision-making process.

Coalition-building

Coalition-building as a specific method of organizing community stakeholders was identified as a priority in both timeframes. Recognizing the complexities in working with a range of diverse organizations and groups, the participants included the importance of establishing procedures and protocols (ground rules), and understanding the strengths and limitations or trade-offs in involving different groups in collaborative efforts. The process of working together and the value of building relationships are underscored. As one member of Group I projected: “It's the humanity in the process that is really important.” Someone in Group II recommended that a curriculum include discussions defining the different kinds of contributions that member organizations make beyond financial ones.

Self-reflection and praxis

A facilitator should be able to continue to learn, and learn to constantly evaluate their work and effectiveness. Group V identified the skill of self-reflection as a must in the core curriculum. It was viewed as part and parcel of the skills needed to deal with conflict, to achieve consensus, and to ensure the building of “community” within the group. The facilitator must constantly evaluate how the process is going, how they are contributing to the solution or the problem, and how to modify their behavior when necessary.

Maintaining passion and burnout prevention

In Group IV, the sentiment articulated was that all members should be encouraged to maintain a balance between their passion and a commitment to the work that is necessary for success. One negative outcome of community work can be burnout, so an ICC curriculum should include ways of preventing burnout while providing the energy to stay in the struggle for the long haul. Suggestions included are: institutionalizing a mentoring process, using relational tools to prevent burnout, and to help people keep their “fire and passion.” Relating to each other with humor and respect, even in the midst of very difficult circumstances is encouraged.

Teaching Methods

Experiential emphasis

Group IV came to the conclusion that the method and process of teaching are as important as the content of the curriculum. Participants of various groups argued for the use of stories and narrative as the primary method for teaching ICC. “Students relate to stories of successes and failures.” Most expressed that learning has to be experiential. “Students must be encouraged to get out of the classroom and out of their heads,” one participant added. It was seen as critical to take students into the field and connect them with potential mentors that share experience and knowledge “so that the fire will continue to burn toward making change in their lifetime.”

Inclusion of the constituency

In Group III, one participant emphasized the importance of including the community in the development of a curriculum:

It cannot be a curriculum that a group of academics and professionals sit down and put together and try to impose [it] on the people of the community. If the purpose is to create collaborations, then the first step is to include the community in the process of creating a curriculum.

Another member noted, “They [community members] are the ones that will tell us what they want to learn, how they want to learn it, if they want to learn anything.”

Reflections and Priority Setting at the Forum and Eight Months Later

On the day of and eight months after the forum, participants had the opportunity to individually reflect and provide feedback on what they thought were the most important elements in an ICC curriculum. They were asked to review and choose from the original list of 69 options created by each of the six focus groups.

Table 1 presents the choices beginning with those that received the highest priority in both timeframes. (They are placed in order of number of votes cast on the day of the event.

TABLE 1 Priority for a Core Curriculum in Both Time Frames (Day of the Event and Eight Months Postevent)

Most common topics	Time frame I: Priorities day of event	Time frame II: Priorities 8 months later
Diplomacy-set of communication, problem-solving and negotiation skills	High priority	High priority
Show respect for what is contributed to shared resources (deal with power)	High priority	High priority
Understand issues of culture, power, and Oppression; subterfuges and dynamics	High priority	High priority
Specific coalition skills-relationship building, diplomacy, active listening, open-mindedness	High priority	High priority
Share power; benefits of letting go; synergy released	High priority	Mid-level priority
Define common framework needed for addressing racism/poverty, other isms	High priority	Mid-level priority
Demonstrate community	High priority	Mid-level priority
Unpacking your own privilege-that could be positive	High priority	Mid-level priority
Learn to listen to values; not to pre-judge	High priority	Mid-level priority
Critical thinking	High priority	Low priority
Use of Study Circles; small group approaches	High priority	Low priority
Skills, skills, skills	High priority	Low priority
Organizing for sustainability …	Mid-level priority	High priority
Include people of community in process of creating curriculum	Low priority	High priority
Assessment: where client/community is	Low priority	High priority
Addressing where is/what is social change?	Low priority	High priority
Note. High priority means more than half of participants selected the item. Mid-level priority means from one-third to half of participants selected the item. Low priority means from none to less than one-third of participants selected the item.

High priority—both timeframes

Upon reflection over eight months, four topics remained top priority: (a) diplomacy (repeated twice) and communication skills, (b) respect for the varying contributions of and the sharing resources (of members), (c) understanding culture, power and oppression, and (d) specific coalition-building skills including active listening and open-mindedness.

Changing priorities

Over time, some themes emerged more definitively; conversely, a few items were given lower priority by participants, upon further reflection.

From high priority the day of forum to mid-level or low priority-post forum

Two priorities that were top level on the day of the focus groups received much lower rankings upon reflection: “critical thinking” and “small group study circles.” Others received a somewhat lower (midlevel) ranking eight months later, but as one scrutinizes those five items, most are similar in concept to others that received top priority. For example, “Define and find a common framework for (understanding) racism and poverty” seems comparable to “Understanding issues of culture, power, and oppression.” “Learning to listen to values, not to prejudge” appears similar to “… open-mindedness” embedded in specific “coalition-building skills …”

From low or mid-level priority the day of the forum to high priority-post forum

Upon reflecting about the purpose of the focus groups, the respondents sent a clear message to the planners about the voices missing, the voice of students and community residents. The importance of “including people of the community in the process of creating curriculum” became a high priority. Community referred to the students who will be learning these skills as well as specific populations and/or neighborhood residents. A low-priority topic at the forum received the highest ranking in Timeframe 2. “Addressing where is/what is social change”—a more philosophical and abstract concept. A third concept receiving highest priority later on was “organizing for sustainability.” The respondents focused on the importance of building structures and instituting processes that would endure, especially given the difficulty of achieving the transformative changes they sought.

DISCUSSION

Faculty-Field Dialogue

The results of this rich learning process could be very useful to classroom and field faculty teaching ICC and to practitioners who are in a mentoring or supervisory role. It is important to note that most of the participants were practitioners first, but some had secondary roles as adjunct faculty, or were trainers and supervisors. As practitioners, they know first-hand what is required of the professional ICC organizer or facilitator, making their insight on these roles critical and relevant. The commonly held belief about the divide between theory and practice is affirmed; hence they offered recommendations for bridging this gap both in content, process, and pedagogy, also known as “praxis” (Freire, 2006.) They were eager to share their experience so that it could be used to prepare social workers and other professionals to do the work they consider indispensable. This is particularly relevant to work in settings where the community is diverse by race, ethnicity and class, creating a need for substantial ability in dealing with difference.

Many of the participants believed that most professional programs do not adequately prepare students for the complexities of ICC level work, social work included. This has been echoed by educators who have developed possibilities for “engaged” social work education that integrate the various areas of social work to promote “public spirited, culturally competent leadership, and community capacity building” (Ishisaka, Farwell, Sohng, & Uehara, 2004). The accomplishment of such a goal requires a true partnership among the university, faculty, community, collaborating organizations, the staff, field instructor, and the student.

Core Curriculum Themes

Not surprisingly, as a group of practitioners, participants emphasized “the doing” (“skills, skills, skills”). This included a range of competencies that professional community organizers (whether indigenous or from outside the community) need to possess. This is not to say that skills were devoid of a theoretical foundation or a knowledge-base, nor were they separated from values. Many of the themes identified as essential to an ICC curriculum have been deemed important by other researchers both in the US and internationally (Campfens, 1997; Johnson, 1996; Kiselica, 2004; Mai et al., 2005). Most are skills taught in social work school yet, are not always connected to the practice of ICC.

Communication is a key element of ICC as both a process and interactional skill. Diplomacy and listening skills, sometimes expanded to encompass relationship building and people/human relations skills are critical to address the “conversational divide” (Moynihan & Weinstein, 2004) that is a key obstacle to be surmounted in ICC efforts. As communication is eased, the facilitator can move to attending to inequities in race, class and gender. They must be well-versed in the ways that institutionalized oppression and interminority tensions operate (Blitz & PenderGreene, 2007; Miller, Hyde, & Ruth, 2004) as these issues, if not addressed can potentially affect and destroy ICC. A collective structural analysis which focuses on the inclusion of political and economic inequities and divisions in society as these affect ICC work in marginalized communities, must be created by the group (Fogel & Cook, 2006; Mildred & Zuniga, 2004). In this study, these concepts were perceived as being downplayed or omitted from many academic programs. An ICC facilitator must be trained to recognize and work to dissolve the “race constructed culture” of U.S. society.

The ideological underpinning of ICC practice is social justice (Goodman et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2004; Palmer, 2004; Taylor & Kirkpatrick, 2005), although the participants implied that social justice is a vague term that must be defined and owned by each collaborative effort. Many used the term social change to describe the purpose of their work. The fact that the phrase “addressing where is/what is social change” received highest priority eight months later could be interpreted as meaning that ICC's need to address the ideologies underlying the explicit goals of their projects. The reasons that organizations and stakeholders come together cannot be assumed; these must be raised openly through honest dialogue, or conflicts may occur over time. Certainly, the other high-priority item postforum, sustainability, speaks to the fact that these ICC practitioners are thinking long term and for transformative change.

The high-priority items both times included an understanding the theory and practice of coalition building as linked to knowledge and skill sets related to membership, leadership, relationship-building, and organizational structure and processes (Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson, & Allen, 2001; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001; Mulroy, 2004). Strategic and technical competencies to be taught include political and planning skills, alliance-building, problem-solving, and goal-setting skills (Hardcastle, Powere, & Wenocur, 2004; Weil, 2005; Hymans, 2000). While these are a part of many macro practice curricula, this study suggests that it needs to become a more central competency in graduate-level professional education.

Finally, ICC practitioners must also be trained to know the community they work in from multiple perspectives, and promote the value of “the lived experience.” They need more than appreciation however; they need skill in the art of inclusion across professional and community divides (Taylor & Kirkpatrick, 2005; Sather, Weitz, & Carlson, 2007). Hence, the importance of developing group skills, the emphasis on the use of study circles, and the use of other participatory educational techniques (Maidenberg & Golick, 2001).

Appropriate Professional Roles and Attributes

Among the needed attributes for ICC work were passion, humility, and patience. Moreover, a sense of humor must be nurtured given the seriousness and the long term commitment needed to transform communities. These qualities are generally absent from the literature, perhaps because of a belief that these are innate traits. Nevertheless, many of the practitioners suggested that these characteristics could be articulated and reinforced through consciousness-raising, and by astute and sensitive mentors and peers who could also identify areas in need of improvement once a relationship was established (Burghardt, 1982). Passion was an attribute emphasized by the academics as well; they felt the role of academia was to help students identify and cultivate their passion; not crush it (Mizrahi et al., 2009).

Self-reflection includes an understanding of one's own biases. The practitioner must have a sense of the importance of caring for self and to build a practice that will assure the sustainability of the facilitator for the long haul. The importance of creating a climate of openness and trust is identified as an important attribute. This is consistent with the literature that finds that collaborative efforts are based first on relationship building and the facilitator/organizer's ability to be open (transparency), authentic, trustworthy, and reflective (Goodman et al., 2004; Mishna & Bogo, 2007; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001; Werkmeister Rozas, 2004).

Underlying these themes is a strongly expressed sense of the importance of the professional role in bridging academia and the community, and at the same time, the need to reduce the hierarchy between the university and marginalized communities and oppressed populations (Amey & Brown, 2004; Lasker & Weiss, 2003; Soska & Johnson, 2005; Ishisake et al., 2004). To this aim an ongoing reflection process must be built in as well as a process of accountability to the community.

The facilitator must be a bridge-builder, able to work with and bring together different and sometimes conflicting elements in a community This does not mean that the facilitator is “neutral;” to the contrary, they share the goals and values of social justice, but use where possible, consensus and negotiating rather than confrontational methods (Palmer, 2004; Taylor & Kirkpatrick, 2005). The realization of the need to incorporate better preparation for sustainability means giving students work tools that could minimize if not prevent burn-out long term (Werkmeister Rozas, 2004; Goodman et al., 2004).

Pedagogy and Process

The curriculum that prepares ICC practitioners for this work requires a unique combination of knowledge, skills, values, practices, and attributes. The pedagogy must offer ample opportunity for the practice of collaboration; it must be creative and interactive and grounded in day to day reality. This kind of teaching demands a faculty that is willing to take risks, self disclose and model what is being taught.

The principles of popular education were proposed as the guiding methodology to be followed (Friere, 2006; Hess-Biber et al., 1999) that is, the training should be participatory, with opportunity for reciprocal learning of both the trainer and the trainee; reflection is an integral part of the process; the development of critical thinking; uniting theory and praxis, in both classroom and fieldwork.

These practitioner's suggestions reinforced many of the concepts already identified in the literature (Grossman & McCormack, 2003; Johnson, 1994). They believed that appropriate values and attributes can be nurtured and polished by mentoring, hands on and small group experiences, and ongoing reflection (Moxley et al., 2005). A curriculum must be interactive, allowing ample time for discussion and dialogue using small groups, study groups, committees and class projects with active faculty involvement. Furthermore, the existing knowledge and contributions of all the participants needs to be recognized and enhanced (Tourse et al., 2005). The importance of modeling effective collaborations in the classroom is essential. The combination of didactic teaching, experiential learning and observing how ideas and principles are put into practice provide a higher probability that the material will be integrated. Snyder's “hope theory” of teaching provides a guideline for what students need from a learning experience to be able to own the experience (Snyder, 2005). The findings from the focus groups could be placed within his framework and the five principles: (a) Attention to caring for students; (b) Setting goals for students that are clear and cooperative in nature: (c) Creating routes for learning that involve interacting with others: (d) Encourage motivation through joint learning activities: and, (e) Create an atmosphere where students care about each other and others. In essence, creating a safe, supportive learning environment where participants can take risks and grow.

Team teaching is offered as a possible way of bridging the academia/community, theory/praxis divide. The definition of classroom needs to be expanded to include teaching in settings jointly shared by participating organizations, member homes, the agency, or any other community setting (Ishisaka et al., 2004). The role of the classroom instructor is seen as an important component of this engaged curriculum, requiring a mature, participatory, and collaborative relationship between students and faculty and field instructors and student (Fox, 2004). The training must include activities that model the work of building collaboration, as well as the use of narrative, success stories and structured discussion of lessons learned from challenging efforts (Kiselica, 2004). Equally important, instructors should be able to bring their self and their experiences into the classroom, including their successes and failures.

LIMITATIONS

A major limitation of this research is the nonrandom small sample of community practitioners who were recruited based in part on their ideology and experiences. Most are working in oppressed communities and with vulnerable and marginalized populations, so their experiences may not be generalizable to strengthening more mainstream populations and settings. It is significant however that the findings of the study are consistent with those found in literature reviews focusing on what constitutes effective collaborative processes and outcomes and on the complexity of building capacity in community coalitions (Amey & Brown, 2004; Foster-Fishman et al., 2001; Kreuter, Lezin, & Young, 2000).

The participants focused their attention much more on the community and collaboration aspects of ICC, and much less on the meaning and implications of an interdisciplinary framework. They, like the academics who were a part of the authors' earlier research, concentrated on the commonalities and the competencies needed for community-based problem-solving generated from and by “the community;” in that sense they had moved to “transdiciplinary” thinking process that seeks to minimize the status and role of professional and differences in professional education (Korazim-Korosy et al., 2007; Moxley, 2008).

A third limitation was that the smaller number of persons of color than desired could have skewed the results (although not clear in which direction). Although the authors model a multi-racial collaboration (Latina, Caucasian, Black respectively by order of authorship), they still represented “the university” which could have been perceived as an impediment to investing time given their already overloaded schedules.

CONCLUSION

An era that recognizes the need for interdisciplinary community collaboration is well underway. These collaborations are not easily created, sustained, and made successful (Kreuter et al., 2000). Practitioners who are leading these efforts need a set of values, knowledge, attributes and skills that will enable them to accomplish the task of bringing people together in a way that makes it possible for them to achieve their goals. The findings of this study suggest the need for curriculum and training models that will assist and sustain such specialized professionals. In the spirit of popular education theory, the proposed teaching modules should be adapted to meet the particular community to be served and the student body to be trained. The curriculum would then be piloted, implemented and evaluated in a variety of settings, providing an opportunity to test its universal relevance and value. Participatory research of this process should be ongoing, to ensure the continual development of knowledge and practice.