This article demonstrates a reflective and collective inquiry process among eight stakeholders of a multi-year partnership between a university social innovation center and a youth play non-profit during year one of the COVID-19 pandemic. We asked whether “pausing” a University-Community project for reflection and recalibration was an ethical response to disaster contexts. Drawing from cooperative inquiry (CI) and collaborative developmental action inquiry (CDAI) methodologies, as well as co-authorship and reflective journaling, we developed a co-inquiry process that revealed the disparities between University and Community actors within a long-term partnership. Co-inquiry helped us reattune to power-sharing goals of participatory action research as we explored new modes of engagement through progressive rounds of loop-learning. While the pandemic exacerbated unilateral patterns of engagement that plague partnerships, it created an opportunity to prioritize relationship-rebuilding and frame-creation. We found that co-authorship was methodologically important for facilitating co-inquiry and that pausing and holding space for this shared reflection was a key driver of learning.
AmeyM. J.BrownD. F.SandmannL. R. (2002). A multi-disciplinary collaborative approach to a university-community partnership: Lessons learned. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 7(3), 19–26. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/631.
2.
ArgyrisC.SchonD. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
3.
ArieliD.FriedmanV. J.AgbariaK. (2009). The paradox of participation in action research. Action Research, 7(3), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750309336718
4.
BortolinK. (2011). Serving ourselves: How the discourse on community engagement privileges the university over the community. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(1), 49–58. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0018.104
BradburyH.WaddellS.O’BrienK.ApgarM.TeehankeeB.FazeyI. (2019). A call to action research for transformations: The times demand it. Action Research, 17(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750319829633
7.
BraithwaiteR.CockwillS.O’NeillM.RebaneD. (2007). Insider participatory action research in disadvantaged post-industrial areas: The experiences of community members as they become Community Based Action Researchers. Action Research, 5(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307072876
ChandlerD.TorbertB. (2003). Transforming inquiry and action: Interweaving 27 flavors of action research. Action Research, 1(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503030012002
10.
CherringtonA.ScheckleE.Du PlessisA. (2018). What does it mean to be an ‘engaged university’? Reflections from a university and school-community engagement project. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 14(2), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197918779945
11.
Clinical and Translation Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium. (2011). Principles of community engagement (2nd ed.). National Institutes of Health. NIH Publication No. 11–7782. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/communityengagement
ErfanA.TorbertB. (2015). Collaborative developmental action inquiry. In BradburyH. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of action research (pp. 64–75). Sage Publications Ltd.
14.
FlickerS.NixonS. (2018). Writing peer-reviewed articles with diverse teams: Considerations for novice scholars conducting community-engaged research. Health Promotion International, 33(1), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daw059
15.
GaffikinF.MorrisseyM. (2008). A new synergy for universities: Redefining academy as an ‘engaged institution. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 3(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197907086721
HaassiL.LaaksoM. (2011). Conceptions of design thinking in the design and management discourses. Proceedings of the fourth world conference on design research. IASDR.
18.
HeronJ.ReasonP. (2011). Extending epistemology within a Co-operative inquiry. In ReasonP.BradburyH. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of action research (pp. 366–380). Sage Publication Ltd.
19.
JagoshJ.MacaulayA. C.PluyeP.SalsbergJ.BushP. L.HendersonJ.SirettE.WongG.CargoM.HerbertC. P.SeiferS. D.GreeL. W.GreenhalghT. (2012). Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: Implications of a realist review for health research and practice. The Milbank Quarterly, 90(2), 311–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x
20.
KjellströmS.MitchellA. (2019). Health and healthcare as the context for participatory action research. Action Research, 17(4), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750319891468
21.
KoekkoekA.Van HamM.KleinhansR. (2021). Unraveling university-community engagement: A literature review. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 25(1), 3–24. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1586.
22.
LattaM.KrugerT.PayneL.WeaverL.VanSickleJ. (2018). Approaching critical service-learning: A model for reflection on positionality and possibility. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 22(2), 31–55. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1386.
23.
LeporeW.SharmaY.HallB.TandonR. (2022). Community-university research partnerships and participatory research training. In EvansR.KurantowiczE.Lucio-VillegasE. (Eds.), Remaking communities and adult learning (pp. 79–93). Brill Publications.
24.
LillieJ.BrownJ.LarsenK.KirkwoodC. (2020). The relationship is the project: Working with communities. Brow Books.
25.
LipmanowiczH.McCandlessK. (2013). The surprising power of liberating structures: Simple rules to unleash A culture of innovation. Liberating Structures Press.
26.
MaurrasseD. J. (2001). Beyond the campus: How colleges and universities form partnerships with their communities. Routledge.
27.
MillerP.HafnerM. (2008). Moving toward dialogical collaboration: A critical examination of a university – school – community partnership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(1), 66–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07309469
28.
NoelL. (2016). Promoting an emancipatory research paradigm in design education and practice. In LloydP.BohemiaE. (Eds.), Future focused thinking - DRS international conference (p. 355). Brighton, UK: Design Research. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2016.355
29.
ReasonP.HeronJ. (1995). Co-Operative inquiry. In HarreR.SmithJ.Van LangenhoveL. (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 122–142). Sage.
30.
RommeA.GeorgesL. (2004). Action research, emancipation and design thinking. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(6), 495–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.794
31.
SengeP. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
ToseyP.VisserM.SaundersM. (2011). The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ learning: A critical review. Management Learning, 43(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611426239
36.
WeertsD. J.SandmannL. R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities. The Review of Higher Education Education, 32(1), 73–106. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0027
YorkL. (2015). The practice of teaching Co-operative inquiry. In BradburyH. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of action research (pp. 256–266). Sage Publications.
