The builders of the modern university expected that the research conducted within it would solve moral problems. The research would provide authoritative instruction on how to live and how to shape a more perfect society. But within a generation, it became clear that this expectation would not easily be fulfilled. Indeed, many of the faculties housed in these new universities were ready to wash their hands of moral concerns. The university faced a crisis: Did it serve to advance morality? And if so, how? The success of the university in producing knowledge and training skilled professionals has compensated for and masked the moral crisis. But nonetheless, the problem of morality continues to plague American higher education. Universities have been unable either to fully incorporate morality or to comfortably abandon a moral mission. This is the unresolved legacy of the creation of the modern research university. (Reuben, 2000, pp. 72–73)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AchenbachT.M., McConaughyS.H., & HowellC.T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 213–232.
2.
AdamsP., & NelsonK. (Eds.). (1995). Reinventing human services: Community- and family-centered practice.Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
3.
AndersonC.W. (1993). Prescribing the life of the mind: An essay on the purpose of the university, the aims of liberal education, the competence of citizens, and the cultivation of practical reason.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
BenderT., & SchorskeC.E. (1997). American academic culture in transformation: Fifty years, four disciplines.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
BensonL., & HarkavyI. (2003). The role of the American research university in advancing system-wide education reform, democratic schooling, and democracy. In this volume— BrabeckM.M., WalshM.E., & LattaR. (Eds.), Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-universities-communities-professions in collaboration for student achievement and well being. The 102nd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 94–116). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
6.
BlackwellP.J. (2002). Where's the change? Deans’ views of the Holmes Partnership tenure standards.Monograph published by the Holmes Partnership. Milwaukee, WI: Chancellor's Office, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
7.
BoocockS.S., BarnettW.S., & FredeE. (2001, September). Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs in other nations: Lessons for Americans. Young Children, 56(6), 43–50.
8.
BoyerE.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Briar-LawsonK., & LawsonH. (1997). Connecting the dots: Progress towards the integration of school reform, school-linked services, parent involvement and community schools.St. Louis, MO: The Danforth Foundation.
10.
BrunerC. (1996). Realizing a vision for children, families and neighborhood: An alternative to other modest proposals.Des Moines, IA: National Center for Service Integration/Child and Family Policy Center.
11.
BrunerC., CahnE.S., GartnerA., GilothR.P., HerrT., KinneyJ., NitoliJ.M., ReissmanF., TrentM., TrevinoY., & WagnerS.L. (1998). Wise counsel: Redefining the role of consumers, professionals, and community workers in the helping process.Des Moines, IA: Child and Family Policy Center.
12.
CastoR.M., HarshS.A., & CunninghamV. (1998). Shifting the paradigm for interprofessional education at the Ohio State University and beyond. In McCroskeyJ., & EinbinderS.D. (Eds.), Universities and communities: Remaking professional and interprofessional education for the next century (pp. 54–64). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
13.
CastoR.M., & JuliaM. (1994). Interprofessional care and collaborative practice.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
14.
ChangH.N. (1997). Community building and diversity: Principles for action.San Francisco: California Tomorrow.
15.
CibulkaJ.G., & KritekW.J. (Eds.). (1996). Coordination among schools, families and communities: Prospects for education reform.Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
16.
CrowsonR. (2003). Empowerment models for interprofessional collaboration. In this volume— BrabeckM.M., WalshM.E., & LattaR. (Eds.), Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-universities-communities-professions in collaboration or student achievement and well being. The 102nd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 74–93). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
17.
CutlerI. (1997). Learning together: Reflections on the Atlanta Project.Atlanta, GA: The America Project.
18.
DamroschD. (1995). We scholars: Changing the culture of the university.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Department of Health. (2000). Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families.Monograph produced by the British Department of Health, Department for Education and Employment and Home Office. London: The Stationery Office. (Available from The Stationery Office, PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN, England).
20.
DryfoosJ.G. (1994). Full service schools: A revolution in health and social services for children, youth and families.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
DryfoosJ.G. (1998). Safe passage: Making it through adolescence in a risky society.New York: Oxford Press.
22.
FoleyE.M. (1998). Lessons learned: A three-year project to advance interprofessional education in nine universities. In McCroskeyJ., & EinbinderS.D. (Eds.), Universities and communities: Remaking professional and interprofessional education for the next century (pp. 221–228). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
23.
GardnerS. (1998). Beyond collaboration to results: Hard choices in the future of services to children and families.Phoenix, AR and Fullerton, CA: Arizona Prevention Resource Center and the Center for Collaboration for Children.
24.
HagedornJ.M. (1995). Forsaking our children: Bureaucracy and reform in the child welfare system.Chicago, IL: Lake View Press.
25.
The Hedgehog Review. (2000, Fall). What's the university for? [Special Issue]. 2(3).
26.
HoganC. (1999). Vermont communities count: Using results to strengthen services for families and children.Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
27.
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State, and Land-Grant Universities. (1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution, third report. Retrieved September 24, 2002, from http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/engage.pdf
28.
KennedyD. (1997). Academic duty.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
KnappM.S. & Associates. (1998). Paths to partnership: University and community as learners in interprofessional education.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
30.
KnappM.S., BarnardK.E., BellM., BrandonR.N., GehrkeN.J., SmithA.J.Jr.TeatherE.C.T., & LernerS. (1998). Lessons learned and enduring challenges. In KnappM.S. & Associates, Paths to partnership: University and community as learners in interprofessional education (pp. 193–216). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
31.
Los Angeles County Children's Planning Council. (1998). Laying the groundwork for change: Los Angeles County's first action plan for its children, youth and families.Los Angeles: Author.
32.
McCroskeyJ. (1998). Remaking professional and interprofessional education. In McCroskeyJ., & EinbinderS.D. (Eds.), Universities and communities: Remaking professional and interprofessional education for the next century (pp. 3–24). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
33.
McCroskeyJ. (1999). Getting to results: Data-driven decision-making for children, youth, families and communities (A what works policy brief). Sacramento, CA: Foundation Consortium.
34.
McCroskeyJ., & EinbinderS.D. (1998). Universities and communities: Remaking professional and interprofessional education for the next century.Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
35.
McCroskeyJ., & MeezanW. (1997). Family preservation and family functioning.Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
36.
McCroskeyJ., RobertsonP.J. & Associates. (1999). Challenges and benefits of interprofessional education: Evaluation of the Inter-Professional Initiative at the University of Southern California. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(4), 69–87.
37.
McKnightJ.L. (1995). The careless society: Community and its counterfeits.New York: Basic Books.
38.
MedoffP., & SklarH. (1994). Streets of hope: The fall and rise of an urban neighborhood.Boston, MA: South End Press.
39.
MurrayJ., & WeissbourdR. (2003). Focusing on core academic outcomes: A key to successful school-community partnerships. In this volume— BrabeckM.M., WalshM.E., & LattaR. (Eds.), Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-universities-communities-professions in collaboration for student achievement and well being. The 102nd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (pp. 179–200). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.
40.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. NIH Pub. No. 00–4769.
41.
National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. ShonkoffJ. P., & PhillipsD.A. (Eds.), Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, Board on Children, Youth, and Families.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42.
NelsonD.W. (1996). The path of most resistance: Lessons learned from “New Futures.” In KahnA. J., and KammermanS.B. (Eds.), Children and families in big cities: Strategies for service reform (pp. 163–184). New York: Columbia University School of Social Work.
43.
NelsonK., & AllenM. (1995). Family-centered social services: Moving toward system change. In AdamsP., & NelsonK. (Eds.), Reinventing human services: Community-and family-centered practice (pp. 109–125). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
44.
PicusL.O. (1998). University fiscal management structures and interprofessional collaboration among faculty. In McCroskeyJ., & EinbinderS.D. (Eds.), Universities and communities: Remaking professional and interprofessional education for the next century (pp. 245–256). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
45.
ReubenJ.A. (1996). The making of the modern university: Intellectual transformation and the marginalization of morality.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
ReubenJ.A. (2000). The university and its discontents. The Hedgehog Review, 2(3), 72–91.
47.
SarasonS.B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it's too late?San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48.
SchorrL.B. (1997). Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America.New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
49.
SmaleG.G. (1995). Integrating community and individual practice: A new paradigm for practice. In AdamsP., & NelsonK. (Eds.), Reinventing human services: Community- and family-centered practice (pp. 59–80). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
50.
StoneR. (Ed.). (1996). Core issues in comprehensive community-building initiatives.Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.
51.
TippinsP., BellM., & LernerS. (1998). Building relationships between university and community. In KnappM.S. & Associates, Paths to partnership: University and community as learners in interprofessional education (pp. 165–192). Lanham, MD: Row-man & Littlefield Publishers.
52.
ToulminS. (2001). Return to reason.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
TraubJ. (2000, January 16). What no school can do. New York Times Magazine, 52–67.
54.
TrowerC.A., & ChaitR.P. (2002, March/April). Faculty diversity: Too little for too long. Harvard Magazine, 33–37.
55.
TyackD., & CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
WalshJ. (1999). The eye of the storm: Ten years on the front lines of New Futures. An interview with Otis Johnson and Don Crary. Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
57.
WalshM.E., BrabeckM.B., HowardK.A., ShermanF.T., MontesC., & GarvinT.J. (2000). The Boston College-Allston/Brighton partnership: Description and challenges. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(3), 6–32.
58.
WalshokM.L. (1995). Knowledge without boundaries.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
59.
WoodG.J. (1998). An analysis of professional values: Implications for interprofessional collaboration. In McCroskeyJ., & EinbinderS.D. (Eds.), Universities and communities: Remaking professional and interprofessional education for the next century (pp. 25–35). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
60.
ZlotnikJ., McCroskeyJ., GardnerS., Gil de GibajaM., TaylorH.P., GeorgeJ., LindJ., Jordan-MarshM., CostaV.B., & Taylor-DinwiddieS. (1999). Myths & opportunities: An examination of the impact of discipline-specific accreditation on interprofessional education (Preparing human service workers for interprofessional practice: Accreditation strategies for effective interprofessional education project report). Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
