LEARNING TO SERVE: DELIVERING PARTNER VALUE THROUGH ...

r Academy of Management Learning & Education2019, Vol. 18, No. 3, 361–387.https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2016.0278

LEARNING TO SERVE:DELIVERING PARTNER VALUE THROUGH

SERVICE-LEARNING PROJECTS

EMILY S. BLOCKUniversity of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

VIVA ONA BARTKUSUniversity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana

We consider types of value created by service-learning projects for partner organiza-tions. We analyzed a sample of 30 international service-learning projects that are part ofa single graduate business course to answer (1) what types of value do our partnersderive from service-learning projects, and (2) what conditions increase the likelihood ofvalue creation for our partners. We differentiate between two types of value: direct andindirect. Most of our projects generated some indirect value for our partners, but asmaller number of projects generated direct value. We then discuss three dimensionsof service-learning projects (partner readiness, project design, and project execution)associated with the creation of direct value for partner organizations. Our manuscriptextends the research on service learning by focusing on partner value and providespractical insights for instructors looking to improve service-learning offerings.

Service learning (SL) is an increasingly popular ped-agogical approach in business schools (Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2008; Kolenko, Porter, Wheatley, & Colby,1996). This approach encourages students to applyacademic theories to real-world problems outsidethe classroom (Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984; Sigmon,1990) in a way that generates social value (Eyler &Giles, 1999; Giles & Eyler, 1994). SL programs chal-lenge students to broaden their worldview whileproviding them with the opportunity to apply theirskills in the field (Crabtree, 2008; Godfrey, Illes, &Berry, 2005; Kolenko et al., 1996). A burgeoningarray of literature explores the value of SL courses fora variety of stakeholders. SL benefits society at large(Boland, 2008; Saltmarsh, Hartley, & Clayton, 2009);impacts positively on student learning (Crabtree,2008; Culross, 2010; Pompa, 2002); and developsties between universities and outside communities(Bringle & Hatcher, 2009; Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2008;Saltmarsh et al., 2009). Research also considers thechallenges facing faculty who attempt to teach SLcourses (Boland, 2008; O’Meara, 2002; O’Meara,Terosky, & Neumann, 2008).

The benefits of SL for students and universities areclear; however, few studies focus on the impact ofthese initiatives on the host communities or part-ner organizations without whom SL collaborationswould not be possible (Crabtree, 2008; Kenworthy-U’Ren, & Peterson, 2005; Ward & Wolf-Wendel,

2000). Designing SL experiences that have a sub-stantive positive impact on partner organizationscan be challenging (Godfrey et al., 2005; Kolenkoet al., 1996). For example, having examined nine SLcourses, Kolenko and colleagues (1996) suggest thateven in the most impactful case, it remains “unclearthe degree to which service learning is occurring(from the perspective of the partner), rather thansimply (providing students with) exposure to (the)issues,” (p. 137). Similarly, in a review of coursesin universities known for their emphasis on SL,Papamarcos (2005) finds that half of the courses de-scribed as SL are not substantially different fromexperiential-learning projects.

Research is beginning tomove beyond student centricperspectives to explore how instructors can ensurethat the partners in SL projects derive substan-tive benefit from collaborating with student teams(Crabtree, 2008; D’Arlach, Sanchez, & Feuer, 2009;Dorado & Giles, 2004; Boland, 2008; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). We wish to contribute to this small,but emerging subset of literature that looks at valuecreated for partners (Crabtree, 2008; D’Arlach et al.,2009; Dorado & Giles, 2004). Using a qualitativecomparative analysis of 30SLprojects over 8 years aspart of a single SL course, we ask (1) what types ofvalue did our partners derive from participation inour SL projects, and (2) what conditions increasedthe likelihood of value creation for our partners?

361

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2016.0278

Our findings identify two categories of value thataccrued to our partners, direct and indirect. We splitour cases according to the type of value createdand identify the features of those projects that wereassociated with indirect and direct value.

SERVICE LEARNING

As noted above, SL builds knowledge experientiallywhile simultaneously contributing to the productionof societal good. Successful SL projects often em-phasize a realistic perception of social ills such ashomelessness, poverty, or illiteracy (Godfrey, 1999;Jacoby 1996). In the United States, congruent withthe National and Community Service Act in 1990,SL projects must (1) meet a real community need,(2) integrate and augment academic curricula, and(3) contain a reflective component (Yorio & Ye,2012). Heffernan and Cone (2001) and Kolenko andcolleagues (1996) outline similar models that repre-sent the best practices of SL courses. From the per-spective of Heffernan and Cone (2001), SL involvesfour key elements: (1) student engagement, (2) reci-procity between students and partners, (3) deep re-flection, and (4) broad dissemination of insightsderived from the SL experience. Kolenko andcolleagues (1996) add two dimensions: (1) the ap-plication of skills by students, and (2) student de-velopment of deep understanding of social issues.Well executed SL provides high-quality real-worldlearning experiences for students (Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2008). Poorly executed projects may provideboth service and learning in name only (Godfreyet al., 2005) and divert valuable time and resourcesaway from communities in need. At worst, SLcould provide students with a false sense of supe-riority (DiPadova-Stocks, 2005) and diminish theirgrasp of the magnitude of societal challenges(Kenworthy-U’Ren & Peterson, 2005).

International settings magnify these challenges.Grusky (2000: 858) writes that “without thoughtfulpreparation, orientation, program development andthe encouragement of study, as well as critical anal-ysis and reflection, (international service learning)programs can easily become small theaters thatrecreate historic cultural misunderstandings andsimplistic stereotypes and replay, on amore intimatescale, the huge disparities in income and opportu-nity that characterize North-South relations today.”However, well-designed international SL courseshave the potential to dramatically transform stu-dents’ worldviews by increasing cultural literacy,tolerance for ambiguity, and appreciation for the

complexity of global challenges (Kiely, 2004; Porter& Monard, 2001; Pyle, 1981).

Therein lies a central challenge of SL. Within SLliterature, a consensus is emerging on the charac-teristics of SL experiences that provides value tostudents (D’Arlach et al., 2009), but it is unclearwhether these experiences deliver the same value tothe partner organizations that contribute the contextfor student learning (Boland, 2008). Kolenko andcolleagues (1996) note specifically the challenges ofensuring partner outcomes. Of the nine courses theystudy, “[i]nvolvement levels ranged fromobserving aservice agency’s operations and clients, working inthe agency, or taking a leadership role to address asocial issue or community problem” (1996: 137).Similarly, through analysis of SL syllabi, Steiner andWatson (2006) demonstrate that almost half of theprojects labeled as SL did not substantially differfrom any other class project. In fact, Eyler noted“most studies of student outcomes have simply used‘SL’ as the predictor variable, and (the term) ‘SL’covers dramatically different experiences” (Eyler,2000: 12). Godfrey and colleagues (2005) echo thisvariation and create a typology of SL projects. Theydescribe “big S/big L” projects as having both “tar-geted problem-solving focus on organizational, so-cial, technical needs” and “directed field-study toreinforce key curricular concepts”with projects thatare “expertise-based and entail significant servicedeliverable or implementation” (Godfrey et al., 2005:311). They note that most of the projects studied had“big L” but “small s,” given the difficulties of design-ing projects that serve a real partner need.

What Constitutes Partner Value?

Designing a “big S/big L” project is difficult (Godfreyet al., 2005). Creating value for partners while en-couraging deep student learning certainly dependson thewillingness, skills, and capacity of the studentparticipants (Armstrong & Mahmud, 2008; Godfreyet al., 2005; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009). Scholarshave also begun to consider the conditions that in-crease the likelihood of delivering value to partners.Much of this research emphasizes that partners de-rive value when universities are committed to thedevelopment of long-term reciprocal relationships(D’Arlach et al., 2009; Dorado & Giles, 2004; Boland,2008; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). This researchfurther highlights the importance of both partiesbringing valuable contributions to the initiativeand co-creating knowledge (Fleck, Smith, & Ignizio,2015; Heffernan & Cone, 2001; Kenworthy-U’Ren,

362 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

2008; Kolenko et al., 1996; Saltmarsh et al., 2009).Reciprocity involves more than outreach and knowl-edge transfer. It requires a generative democraticdiscourse where “good” is generated not “for thepublic” but “with the public” (Saltmarsh et al., 2009;Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). D’Arlach and col-leagues (2009: 5) eloquently describe the conse-quences of SL without reciprocity, stating:

instead of creative, reciprocal, empowering partner-ships to alleviate poverty, for example, SL takes theformof tutoring the poor. Tutoring is a safe choice: theuniversity benefits from community exposure andthe community members receive needed help. Butsafe does not necessarily mean transformative, asthese uninspired interventions tend to replicate exist-ing patterns of power.

Reciprocity is encouraged in several ways, suchas designing projects to empower partners throughtheir relationship with universities (Fleck et al.,2015). D’Arlach and colleagues (2009) study an SLprogram that paired Spanish-speaking immigrantswith university students to teach each other theirnative language and culture. They found that com-munitymemberswhoparticipated in theSLprogrampositively changed their views of university stu-dents, themanageability of social issues, themselves,and it gave them a voice. They recommend an SLclass format where community recipients can haveexpert roles, knowledge is co-created and multidi-rectional, and ample time is devoted to dialogueabout current social issues.

The selection of partner organizations furtherfacilitates reciprocity. In the case of internationalSL programs, Crabtree (2008) suggests that univer-sities should choose smaller partners, as they aremore likely to enable participants to “connect moremeaningfully to organized communities in de-veloping countries” to facilitate “cross-cultural re-lationship building and project participation” andto provide “needed perspective on developmentand politics in the countries where we work”(Crabtree, 2008: 23). Dorado and Giles (2004) de-scribe several types of university–partner relation-ships. Early tentative collaborations can turn intopartnerships where the goals of both parties align.Committed partnerships move beyond a singleproject and enable long-term collaborations. De-spite the value of committed partnerships, manyscholars note the challenges associated withbuilding them(Kenworthy-U’Ren,2008;Ward&Wolf-Wendel, 2000). Finding ways to move beyond “sim-ple, short-lived, and disposable partnerships” is the

significant problem faced by SL today (Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2008).

Although we recognize the importance of thebroader university–partner organization relation-ship, it lays beyond the influence of individual in-structors. Thus, we consider other factors that mayinfluence the value that can be added to partners.We use archival data that followed up with partnerorganizations and participants of 30 projects in aninternational service-learning course after the in-dividual projects had been completed. This dataallows us to empirically develop a typology of thevalue that our partners derived from our service-learning projects. Next, using the findings from thefirst portion of the analysis, we divided projectsbased on the types of value derived by our partnersand used a comparative case analysis to induce a fewdimensions that predict indirect and direct valuecreation.

CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY

Our data comes from 30 SL projects conductedwithin a single course in the MBA program at aprivate Midwestern university. Teams of 5–7 stu-dents and an advisor were paired with nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs) to conductbusiness- andpeace-related projects in a variety of internationalcontexts. This course design fits squarely under bothHeffernan and Cone’s (2001) and Kolenko and col-leagues’ (1996) definitions of SL, as it includes thefour key elements: (1) engagement, (2) reciprocity,(3) reflection, and (4) dissemination. Please seeAppendix A for a detailed description of the design,the student teams, curriculum, partners, projects,and learning objectives of the course and Figure 1 foran overview. Through the regular operation of ourservice-learning course, we noticed variations inthe value created for our partners. This motivatedour inductive empirical inquiry.

Data Collection

Sampling. Thirty projects over 8 years of a singleservice-learning course provide the sample for ouranalysis (see Table 1 for a description of projects).We reduce the bias in our sample by analyzing theentire population of projects across two instructorsand multiple partner organizations that vary in sizeand represent different constituencies, nationalities,and subject matters. Because of the variation in thissample, we believe that our findings may generalizemore broadly to other service-learning courses and

2019 363Block and Bartkus

projects (Yin, 2011). Further, usingmultiple projectsenhances our ability to make theoretical proposi-tions (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). However, un-like traditional comparative case analysis, we didnot engage in theoretical sampling to maximizevariance across projects.

Two broad categories of data were collected forthis project: data produced by each of the projectsand data produced through project follow-up. Alldata are archival, in that it was assembled by projectteams throughout their 6-month service-learningproject or through follow-up activities conductedby instructors and students associated with the nor-mal operation of the course. Informed by Yin’s per-spective on data collection, the design of the courseincorporates elements of interviewing, observing,collecting and examining, and feeling using bothformal instruments and rigorous data collectionprocedures (Yin, 2011). For example, students weretrained to use interview techniques such as semi-structured interviewprotocols, keeping field diaries,dividing the responsibilities of questioning andnote-taking, and making notations regarding nonverbaland environmental observations. As such, we aresomewhat able to account for the consistency andquality of the archival data collected.

Project data. We collected a variety of archivaldata generated over the course of each service-learning project including data produced at theproject planning stage where instructors and part-ners exchange emails, generate memorandums ofunderstanding and proposals outlining the scopeof work to be conducted by the project teams. The

project planningdocuments range in length from2 to63 pages, with the average of 14.6 and a standarddeviation of 11.1 pages. Once the project began, eachteam kept an archive of their work process. This ar-chived data includes desk research, interview notes,emails among team members and between studentsand partner staff, and meeting agendas and minutes.Archived material during this phase ranges between22 and 420 pages with an average of 130.2 and astandard deviation of 104.6 pages.

During the immersion phase, students producedprimary data for this analysis including interviewtranscripts and field notes, direct quotations, obser-vations (including the physical environment, non-verbal cues, and interactions between individuals)and the impressions, thoughts, and feelings of thestudents. Digital recordingswere collectedwhereverpossible to facilitate the team’s transcription of fieldobservations. Teams produced between 13 and 212pages of field notes, with an average of 92.1 and astandard deviation of 50.9 pages. We also utilizedother archival documents including presentationsand final deliverables that produced an average of102.0 pages per team. Finally, each individual stu-dent produced four reflection papers throughout thecourse. In total, our archives consist of 11,659 pagesof material across 30 projects.

Follow-up interviews.We conducted a systematicevaluation of past projects twice: once after Year 4and again after Year 8. These two systematic evalua-tions consisted of two parts. First, we conducted inter-views with the key partner staff involved in each proj-ect. Wherever possible we interviewed individuals at

FIGURE 1Course Overview

Project ContextCountry culture, Ethicsapproval, Best Practices

white-paper, projectadministration

RetreatTeam Building

Cases

Pre – Course

October January March May

Course

In Class

Out of C

lass

Pre Readings:5 Course Books

3 Project Specific

Application:Essays

InterviewsTeam Construction

c`

Law, DevelopmentEconomics, Philosophy,

Business Problem Solving,Data collection

Theoretical Context:

In-Country Work

Reflection:Personal ReflectionRevisit Theoretical

Context3 Project SpecificDissemination:

Recommendationsto partners;

Insights to broadercommunity

2 weeksInterviews,Participant

Observation,Initial presentation

to partners


TABLE1

Project

Description

s

IDProject

Nam

eYr.

Region

InitialP

lan

Actual

Work

Final

Deliverab

les

1Post-civilw

aryo

uth

reco

nciliation&

employm

ent

8Asia

Iden

tify

reve

nue-ge

neration

opportunity

Assessorganizational

assets,

capab

ilities,relation

ships

You

them

ploym

ent/reve

nue-ge

neration

businessplan

2Com

munity&co

mpan

ydisasterprepared

ness

8Sou

thEastA

sia

Iden

tify

nee

ded

capacity

strengthen

ing

Assessdisasterprepared

ness

New

businessinve

stmen

tidea

s

3Childsextraffick

ing

interven

tion

s8

Sou

thEastA

sia

Assessinterven

tion

sto

dim

inish

traffick

ing

Map

pingmarke

tfor

childsex

traffick

ing

Estim

ates

ofdem

andforan

dec

onom

ics

ofch

ildsextraffick

ing

4Agriculturals

upply-chain

linka

ges

8Sou

thEastA

sia

Assessneeded

supporttofarm

ers

Map

food

valuech

ainsfrom

producers

toco

nsu

mers

New

partnersh

ipswithloca

lbusinesses

toca

pture

marke

topportunities

5Businessop

portunities

basedon

trash

7Sou

thEastA

sia

Businessop

portunitiesba

sedon

trash

Assessbu

sinessop

portunities

basedon

trash

Businessca

sesforinve

stmen

t

6HIV

/AID

SNGO

organizational

support

&reve

nuege

neration

7Sou

thernAfrica

NGO

capacitystrengthen

ing

Iden

tify

marke

topportunitiesan

dunderutilize

dassets

Businessca

sesforinve

stmen

t

7Eva

luationof

rural/urban

electrificationproject

7Sou

thAfrica

Eva

luateproject

Problem

solvearou

ndproject

expan

sion

,given

marke

tnee

dAssessm

ento

fmarke

topportunitiesfor

expan

sion

8Eva

luationof

rural

electrificationproject

7EastA

frica

Eva

luateproject

Assesslegala

ndother

barriers

toproject

expan

sion

Planto

address

legalc

hallenge

sin

country

9Midmarke

tlen

ding

7EastA

frica

Assessba

rriers

tomidmarke

tlending

Problem

solvearou

ndco

llateral,

cred

it,a

ndother

barriers

Iden

tify

opportunitieswithin

crow

ded

lendingmarke

t10

HIV

/AID

SNGO

reve

nue

generation

6Sou

thernAfrica

Rev

enuege

nerationbu

siness

cases

Assessm

ento

fNGOman

agem

ent,

data,

operations

Rev

enueop

portunitiesan

dNGO

orga

nizational

improve

men

ts11

New

agricu

lturalc

rop

(e.g.,am

aran

th)

6Cen

tral

America

Assessviab

ilityan

dnutritionof

new

crop

Eva

luatesu

pply/dem

andof

new

crop

Businessca

seforinve

stmen

tinnew

crop

12Nutrition

6EastA

frica

Assessnutritionprogram

Analyz

edrive

rsof

continued

malnutrition

New

fram

eworkfornutrition

program

mingba

sedon

educa

tion

&be

hav

ior

13Nutrition

6Sou

thEastA

sia

Eva

luatenutritionprogram

ming

Assessbe

hav

iorc

han

geneeded

toim

prove

nutrition

New

fram

eworkfornutrition

program

mingba

sedon

educa

tion

&be

hav

ior

14NGO-M

NCco

llab

oration

6W

estA

frica

Iden

tify

new

fundingforNGO

Analyz

eco

llab

orationpoten

tial

amon

gNGOs&MNCs

Collabo

ration

introd

uctionsan

dneg

otiation

initiated

15Meso-finan

ce5

Sou

thEastA

sia

Assessmeso-finan

cemarke

tnee

ds

Assessmeso-finan

cemarke

tEntran

ceinto

meso-finan

cemarke

t

16Healthsystem

s5

WestA

frica

Integrationof

trad

itional

med

icineinto

hea

lthsystem

Assesshealthsystem

slack

ofinfrastructure,c

apac

ity

Gap

analysis

ofnational

healthsystem

17You

thunem

ploym

ent

5EastA

frica

Analyz

epersisten

thighyo

uth

unem

ploym

ent

Introd

uce

NGOto

new

tech

niques

fordataga

thering

Nov

elap

proac

hes

toge

neratingyo

uth

employm

ent

18Meso-finan

ce5

Cen

tral

America

Assessmeso-finan

cemarke

tnee

ds

Unco

verfrau

din

partners,lack

ofbu

sinesscapab

ilities

Fraudex

posed

,trainingdev

elop

ed

19Mining

4Sou

thEastA

sia

Analyz

eminingco

ntext

Map

pingminingsu

pport/

oppositionam

ongva

riou

sstak

eholders

Civic

orga

nizationsto

pressure

miner

anden

vironmen

tsafeg

uards


TABLE1

(Con

tinued

)

IDProject

Nam

eYr.

Region

InitialP

lan

Actual

Work

Final

Deliverab

les

20Business-NGO

linka

ges

4Middle

East

Eva

luateop

portunitiesfor

business-NGO

coop

eration

Analyz

eloca

lagricultural

opportunities

Businessca

seforinve

stmen

tinloca

lfood

processing

21Co-op

expan

sion

into

new

crop

(e.g.,ba

nan

as)

4Cen

tral

America

Analyz

emarke

topportunityfor

new

crop

Unco

veran

dad

dress

co-opca

shflow

problem

sThreeop

tion

sto

address

finan

cial

problem

s22

Program

measu

remen

tand

evaluationsystem

4EastA

frica

Workwithpartner

todev

elop

program

mea

suremen

tsystem

Supportm

ajor

reorga

nization

implemen

tation

Gap

analysis

onprogram

measu

remen

tan

dev

aluation

23Sca

lingsm

allfarm-

holders’inve

stmen

ts3

EastA

frica

Assessba

rriers

tosm

allfarm-

holders’ex

pan

sion

Finan

cial

andbu

sinessskills

gap

assessmen

tPartnersh

ipwithother

NGOsto

provide

complete

farm

ersu

pport

24W

ater

&sanitation

3EastA

frica

Assesswater

&sanitation

expan

sion

torurala

reas

Technical

solution

sforim

prove

dwellm

aintenan

ceIntrod

uctionto

engineeringMNCto

providewelltec

hnolog

y25

Cropsu

pply

chain(e.g.,

coffee)

3Sou

thEastA

sia

Eva

luatecrop

supportp

rogram

effectiven

ess

Createco

operatives

toac

hieve

needed

econ

omiesof

scale

Businessan

dpeace

-related

projects

basedon

crop

26Cropsu

pply

chain(e.g.,

soyb

eans)

&mob

ile

mon

ey

2EastA

frica

Eva

luatemob

ilemon

eyas

means

tosu

pportp

rogram

s,ev

aluate

crop

program

Mob

ilemon

eyprovides

efficien

cysavings

Businessca

sefortargeted

inve

stmen

tin

crop

infrastructure

27Cropsu

pply

chain(e.g.,

grou

ndnuts)

2EastA

frica

Eva

luatecrop

supportp

rogram

effectiven

ess

Assessba

rriers

tofarm

er’s

capturingva

luefrom

crop

Businessca

sefortargeted

inve

stmen

tin

crop

infrastructure

28Electricity

infrastructure

2Middle

East

Assesselectricityinfrastructure

dam

agefrom

mostrec

ent

conflict

Assessm

ento

fneeded

econ

omies

ofscale

Nee

ded

cross-co

mmunityneg

otiation

andco

llab

orationforelec

tricityscale

29Post-co

nflictb

usiness

environmen

t1

Middle

East

Dev

elop

understan

dingof

businessch

allenge

sin

post-

conflicts

ocieties

Iden

tification

ofneeded

additional

skills

inec

onom

yVoc

ational

traininginve

stmen

ts

30Post-co

nflictb

usiness

environmen

t1

Eastern

Europe

Dev

elop

understan

dingof

businessch

allenge

sin

post-

conflicts

ocieties

Entrep

reneu

rial

human

capital

requ

ires

assistan

ceto

startloc

albu

sinesses

Planforbu

sinessincu

bators


multiple levels of thepartner organization, includingthe regional director or coordinator, the countrydirector, and the staff who worked alongside ourteam. These semistructured interviews lasted be-tween 30 and 70minutes.We used a semistructuredinterview format to probe the project, team process,and interactions, impact of the recommendations,and lessons learned from the collaboration. Second,we conducted interviews with students who hadbeen involved with the project using the samesemistructured protocol. Finally, after completingthe interviews, we created a 2-page overview of theproject detailing its origin, objectives, process, andoutcomes, which we shared with our intervieweesfor validation.

Data Analysis

We analyzed our data in three distinct ways. First,we sought to identify the common themes amongthe cases. Second, we engaged in cross-case com-parisons to determine the relationship between thecharacteristics of projects and the types of projectoutcomes. Finally, we analyzed the partner feedbackdata to predict the creation of direct and indirectvalues. In the first set of analyses, we used Yin’s(2011) Five-Phased Analytic Cycle: compiling, dis-assembling, reassembling, interpreting, and con-cluding. We compiled the data for each project andorganized subfolders by data type (documents beforeproject start, field notes, final recommendations,etc.). During the disassembling phase, both authorsindependently coded a subset (approximately 10%)of archival documents using open in-vivo coding,selecting individual segments of data and applyingfirst-order codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). One au-thor conducted this initial analysis using pen andpaper, while the other used a PDF note-taking soft-ware and Microsoft Excel. These first-order codeswere consolidated in an Excel file, and again, weindependently developed second-order codes athigher levels of abstraction. This recursive processcontinued until we reached agreement on the codesin the subset of the data. We then divided theremaining archival materials and coded indepen-dently, meeting weekly to discuss the emergingthemes.

Next, as guided by Eisenhardt (1989) andHuberman and Miles (1984), our second set of ana-lyses involved the identification of patterns acrosscases. We selected categories, placed each projectinto its appropriate category, and then looked forsimilarities and differences in the axial codes among

cases within a category. We investigated patternsregarding the size of partner organizations (i.e., largeglobal humanitarian organizations vs. small localNGOs), type of economic sector served (e.g.,agriculture, mining, infrastructure), and nature ofthe project (e.g., measurement and evaluation ofexisting program, new opportunity assessment,extending alliances/partnerships in the local envi-ronment). Because we saw no clear patterns emerge,we returned to coding the cases and dividing againby different criteria to try to discern patterns acrosscases. To illustrate, we considered whether theproject lent itself more to business approaches, suchas the extensionof agricultural supply chains and theformation of farming cooperatives (Projects 4, 18,21, 26, 27), versus those projects less immediatelyamenable to clear business approaches, such as re-ducing child malnutrition and improving disasterpreparedness (Projects 2, 12, 13).

During this stage of our analysis, we began to seethe importance of outcome in shaping ourmodel.Weselected categories of project outcomes and onceagain place each project into its appropriate categoryand then lookedagain for similarities anddifferencesin the axial codes among cases across outcomes. Thisledus to separate and re-analyze thedata onoutcometo consider whether different partner value wascreated for partners across projects. Using onlydata from the two systematic program reviews, weemployed a similar process as in the first phase,disaggregating and re-aggregating the data producedby the two program reviews.

We returned to our cross-case comparisons usingthe project outcomes. We analyzed the data usingforced comparisons of selected pairs of projects toexamine further similarities and differences in thecases that produced indirect and direct value. Forexample, the service-learning course served thesame international humanitarian organization inthe sameMiddleEastern countrywith essentially thesame senior executive team in the field in Years 1and 2 (Projects 28, 29). We served the same NGOin Southeast Asia with the same leadership team inYears 3, 4 and 5 (Projects 15, 19, 25). Under suchsimilar circumstances, we could ask why these twoor these three projects produced different types ofvalue. These questions lead us to further refine ourdimensions. We also made comparisons acrossseemingly different pairs of cases (e.g., country,partner, sector) to find commonalities across thecases and further refine our model.

This analytic process produced themes and pos-sible drivers of partner value. As Yin (1984) advises,


we compared each theme with the data from eachproject, which in effect treats all 30 service-learningprojects as experiments to confirm or disprove ourinitial hypotheses regarding the factors critical tosuccess. Through this process, some cases did notconfirm the relationships among factors as expected,thereby forcingus to reconsider our emerging themesregarding how a service-learning project providedvalue to partners. We approached closure in theiteration between theory development and dataanalysis oncewediscovered onlyminor incrementalrefinements to our proposed theory. From the data,we discerned the pattern that underpins our pro-posed theoretical contribution: service-learningprojects produced two distinct types of value forpartners, direct and indirect, and the three factorsrelated to the production of direct value are partnerreadiness, project design, and project execution. Weexplore these findings in detail below.

FINDINGS

What Constitutes Partner Value?

Our first research question considers the types ofvalue that partners derive from their engagementwith graduate students through SL projects. Ourpartners experienced value in twoways:Direct valuereflects the specific outcomes associated with theproject deliverables and the degree to which theyshape partner activities beyond the specific engage-ment. Indirect value reflects benefits to the partnerthat are not specifically linked to the project itself,but rather accrue from thepartner’s interactionswiththe students and the university community.

Direct value. Our analysis of partners’ percep-tions of value demonstrates several conditions underwhich our projects provided direct value to the or-ganization’s ongoing operations. When partners im-plement their SL teams’ recommendations, directvalue accrues, such as the extension of an agricul-tural supply chain program that gained fundingfrom an Australian funding agency (Project 4) anda business plan for a trash recycling franchise thatcompeted successfully in a business plan competi-tion (Project 5). By implementing the recommenda-tions, thepartner improved its existing programmingand enhanced current operations. Sometimes therecommendations also assisted the partner in secur-ing future funding.

Our partners noted that a direct value occurredwhen the joint SL team created something differentthan what the partner would have likely achieved

on their own. This included projects whose recom-mendations changed the partner’s strategy whenimplemented, such as the redesign of refugee hous-ing to include commercial space (Project 30) andthe partner’s direct investment in storage, trans-portation, and other infrastructure to support themarketing of agriculture products (Projects 11, 21).The critical component of our partners’ perceptionwas that they could not have accomplished the pro-gram improvement or new strategy without the out-side assistance of the SL team. For example, onepartner stated, “because of the team’s recommen-dations, we are now working with local civic orga-nizations to help teach wildcat, artisanal minersabout worker safety and train them on preventingenvironmental degradation” (Final Deliverables, Proj-ect 19).

Our data suggests the projects that partners per-ceived as creatingdirect value transcended thedirectengagement of theproject teamandpersisted beyondthe project’s end. For example, some projects ledto identification of new potential partners and sub-sequent longer term collaborations, such as a localNGO that required other community alliances toexecute its outreach programs (Project 6). By con-trast, a project that launched a new collaborationbetween an NGO partner and an agribusiness firmthat was quickly cancelled does not fall into thiscategory of direct value (Project 14). Another exam-ple of direct valuewith lasting impact included thosethat prevented loss. To illustrate, one team discov-ered that our partner’s local affiliate was operatingwithout a legal license, allowing thepartner to rectifythe problem before the project moved forward tonext-stage funding, thus providingdirect value to thepartner (Project 22). Another example includes thediscovery of fraud that led to the termination ofprogramming (Project 18).

Indirect value. Partners noted other benefits ofparticipating in service-learning projects that did notfit into the category of direct value in our data anal-ysis. They indicate these benefits were substantialand valuable, but were neither the motivation norsufficient to be the ends in and of themselves forengaging in the collaboration. They were often un-planned and underspecified, but nonetheless pro-vided value to the partners. We label these benefitsas providing indirect value.

Often indirect value had less to dowith the projectteam or project outcomes and more to do withbuilding a relationship with the broader universitycommunity. In these cases, a given project wasviewed by the partner as merely one in a portfolio of


TABLE 2Example of Coding of Project Outcomes

Construct Subdimension Axial Code In-Vivo

Direct Value Durability Directly Implemented “Through the sustained commitment of the university and thestudent team,wehavebeenable to serve thepeopleof this countrywhen they needed it most. Our new programs, developed basedthe student team’s recommendations, have helped refugees buildnew businesses and new lives.” NGO country representativeinterview, Year 4 review, Project ID 30

“We implemented the team’s findings on amaranth directly into ouragricultural program.” Final deliverables, NGO countryrepresentative, Project ID 11

Secure Funding “Without the advice of the student team, we would not competedsuccessfully for the next round of $1.5 million in funding for theproject.” Year 8 review, Partner project leader, Project ID 8

“The team helped us write the successful grant proposal to supportournewprogramhelping informal trashworkers to start their ownbusinesses.” Final Deliverables, Project ID 5

Innovative Output New Partnerships “The student team introduced us to potential allies in the privatesector, who could purchase all of the produce from ouragricultural cooperatives.” Quote from partner. Field Notes,Project ID 4

“Wemay never work with international mining companies (due toHQ prohibition), but because of the team’s recommendations, weare now working with local civic organizations to help teachwildcat, artisanal miners about worker safety and train them onpreventing environmental degradation.” Final Deliverables,Project ID 19

New Strategies “Our cooperative was running out of cash. We were using loans topay our operational expenses.Our student teamdevised away forus to rent our assets and prevent our cooperative from goingbankrupt. For their efforts, we are all indeed grateful.” FieldNotes, Cooperative General Manager, Project ID 21

Loss Aversion “We stopped work with the cooperative once the team showed usthat the general manager has defrauded us of $40,000 in grantmoney.” Quote from partner. Final Deliverables, Project ID 18

Indirect Value Project Propulsion Accelerated Activities “With all of the youth, energy and dedication of this team, we reallypushed the programming on youth unemployment further andfaster.”QuotedNGOCountryRepresentative, FieldNotes, ProjectID 17

Low Cost skills “We run this NGO on a shoestring. We would never have been ableto hire consultants to help us with our operations and strategy.”Quote. NGO director, Field Notes, Project ID 6, 10

Professional staffdevelopment

Mind-set “No one had ever explained compound interest rates and otherbusinessbasics tome, and frankly, that’snotwhat I studied in gradschool.Members of this team took the time to share their businessexpertise. I feel I can runmyprograms better because of it.”QuoteNGO deputy country representative, Field Notes, Project ID 18

Skills “I am so tiredofUniversities sendingus 20-year-old sophmoreswhowant to save the world. This team was different. My staff and Ilearned so much about basic economics, the working of markets,and even agricultural value chains from them that we nowinclude in our strategic discussions.” NGO Country Rep, Year 4Review, Project ID 26

Relationships University “Having a relationship with the University has brought us so manybenefits in terms of exposure, PR and donations.” Field notes,discussions with NGO founder, Project ID 1

Government “Havinga student teamfromsuchaprestigiousAmericanuniversityopens doors. We had been trying to secure a critical meeting withthe nationalMinister of Health. Their presence helped us do so indays.” Field notes, Project ID 16


projects with the university. Partners also noted thebenefits of collaboration extended to other relation-ships as well. Particularly outside of the UnitedStates, affiliation with a prestigious American uni-versity was able to open doors to new contacts insociety and to human capital not otherwise access-ible. For example, our teams have gained accessacross the globe to multinational corporation exec-utives, high-level government officials, bishops,imams, and community leaders. One team secured acritical meeting with the national Minister of Healthin a matter of days, whereas the partner had beentrying to get an audience for months (Project 16).Partners cited these opportunities as one of the bene-fits of such a collaboration.

Our partners also cited professional staff devel-opment as another benefit of working with the SLteam. Specifically, partners in the NGO sector notedthat they do not often interact with the businesscommunity. Many held negative preconceptions ofbusiness based on stereotypes and biases. Partnerscommented that simply working with business stu-dents resulted in a shift inmind-set and an opennessto considering awider range of future collaborations.When such tentative collaborations between NGOpartners and businesses did occur, our partnersfound that working with graduate business studentseased the transition.

Partner–student teams also benefited from theskills exchanged organically as they spent time to-gether. Partners cited the value of exposure to thestudents’ technical knowledge of business principles(such as supply-chain management, designed think-ing, and marketing) as professional development fortheir staff. For example, oneNGOstaffmember stated,“No one had ever explained compound interest rates

and other business basics to me, and frankly, that’snot what I studied in grad school. Members of thisteam took the time to share their business expertise.I feel I can run my programs better because of it”(Field Notes, Project 18). Similarly, students re-alized the limitations of their theories when ap-plied in complex environments. Working together,the joint teams were able to develop a commonlanguage and mutual understanding that laid thefoundation for collaboration.

Our partners remarked that programming in-itiatives received a jump start by accessing hard-working anddedicated humancapital. Nevertheless,our partners suggested that simply speeding upexisting activities was insufficient to constitute di-rect value creation. However, the value of acceler-ating activities was still notable. For instance, weassisted in the implementation of a survey for apartner trying to understand the types of venturesyoung entrepreneurs wish to pursue (Project 17).This project was funded and ongoing, and our SLteam simply accelerated the activities. According toour partners, this constituted indirect, not direct,value. Partners stated that working with SL teamsenabled them to identify potential skill gaps and, insome cases, even identify individuals who mightbe able to fill them. On several occasions, studentssecured full-time employment with the partnerorganization after graduation (Projects 11, 15).This suggests SL projects can be part of a largerrecruitment-and-selection initiative for partners.

Assessing indirect and direct value. In the sec-tion above, we add to the small number of studiesthat focus on partner outcomes (Crabtree, 2008;D’Arlach et al., 2009; Dorado & Giles, 2004) by min-ing our archival data post-project to identify indirect

TABLE 2(Continued)

Construct Subdimension Axial Code In-Vivo

Business “Left on our own, our NGO would have never interacted withexecutives from the extractives industry. But our team trusted thebusiness leaders. Andwe trusted our teamnot to compromise ourinterests or values. Themeeting they arrangedwas eye-opening.”International NGO Regional Director, Field Notes, Project ID 14

Identify FutureEmployees

“We love (name). He is a great addition. Andwe found him becausehe was working on our service-learning project.” InternationalNGO Regional Director, Year 8 Review, Project ID 15

“Our Fellows program is designed to bring in young talent into ourNGO. We identified (name) as a promising potential Fellowthrough her work on our joint project in the field.” InternationalNGO President interview, Year 8 Review, Project ID 11


and direct value. It is notable that nearly every part-ner mentioned that they derived some indirect valuefrom interacting with the students and the univer-sity. However, not all the projects that created in-direct value also produced direct value. Further, wefound no incidences where partners experienceddirect value and did not experience indirect value aswell. This suggests that indirect value is necessary,but not sufficient to produce direct value. Althoughwe cannot empirically test the relationship betweendirect and indirect value given the limitations of ourarchival data, we proceed with the assumption thatindirect value is necessary but insufficient for directvalue, and that direct value is the desired outcome.

Predicting Value

Given the assumptions stated above, this sectionnow focuses on identifying the features of SL pro-jects that increased the likelihood of both directand indirect value creation. Our data suggests thatthere are three underlying mechanisms that leadto value creation: partner readiness, certain featuresof the project design, and project execution. We de-tail these findings below and summarize them inTable 3. We then discuss the way these dimensionsinteract to produce direct and indirect value.

Partner readiness. Partner readiness was impor-tant to the production of direct value. This is notan assessment of the partners’ general capacity,but rather both the capacity to absorb the teamand workload associated with co-producing the SLproject and the resources necessary to implementnew recommendations. The dimensions of partnerreadiness that emerged include the partner priori-ties, the organization’s human and knowledge capi-tal, and the operating environment.

Projects that created direct value for partners wereprioritized at the executive and the local levels. Thisoften meant that projects had passionate internalchampions. At the local level, those instrumentalindividuals facilitated co-production by creating theconditions for the collaboration and serving aslynchpins for the integration of the student andpartner team members. We found that buy-in wasproduced when the idea for the project came fromcountry-level staff members, who had been ponder-ing the issue but lacked time and resources to launcha more formal examination of the idea (e.g., Project5). Further, buy-in increased when the project wasfocused on solving a day-to-day problem experi-enced by local staff (e.g., Project 28). For example, inone project, our partners called a meeting on child

protection, and every important figure in the localand provincial system attended, from the governor’sdeputy to the city mayor and the local clergy of theCatholic Church (Field Notes, Project 3).

However, local buy-in was not enough for readi-ness. The alignment of local and headquarter prior-ities played a significant role in determining howvalue was created. When the local and the executivepriorities were not aligned, projects that seemed tohave enormouspotential failed toproceed, evenafterseemingly effective work in the field. For example,one project investigated the unmet need for capitalinvestment and financing for new small-scale en-terprises (Project 15). Although our team uncoveredan underserved section of the market, which thecountry program was excited to target, the micro-finance sector did not align with the internationalNGO’s strategic priorities.

Our findings illustrate the importance of identi-fying and capitalizing on existing partner resourcesand capabilities. A good deal of the service-learningresearch focuses on the skills students brought to thepartnership (see Kolenko et al., 1996). Our findingssupport the work of D’Arlach and colleagues (2009),which underlines the importance of ensuring thatcommunity partners also have skills, knowledge,and relationships that are necessary for implemen-tation of project recommendations. Projects thatprovided direct value often took full advantage of thejoint team’s human capital, which includes theknowledge, habits, and personality of the SL team(Becker, 1993), as well as the cultural, social, eco-nomic, and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1986) heldby the in-country individuals involved in theproject.In contrast, projects that failed to produce directvalue tended to focus on areas in which the country,the partner, and the students lacked deep levels ofexpertise. This skill and knowledge gap is apparentin one project where the team explored ways tostrengthen local healthcare systems (Project 16).Unfortunately, many gaps in capacity derailed thisproject. The country lacked basic healthcare in-frastructure: It had very few doctors for the entirenational population of over 6 million people. Thepartner organization similarly lacked healthcareexpertise and relationships with local health pro-viders, and the student team included no medicalprofessionals. Feedback from this partner suggeststhat for the project to be successful, our team shouldhave brought a greater wealth of public healthknowledge.

Our work also extends the concept of partnerreadiness to include the ability to assess and respond


TABLE3

Exa

mple

ofCod

ingof

Archival

Project

Materials

Con

stru

ctSubd

imen

sion

ThirdOrd

erAxial

Cod

eIn-V

ivo

Partner

Readiness

Partner

Priorities

Exe

cutive

Lev

elExe

cutive

Support

“W

ewishto

than

kou

rstuden

ttea

m.T

heirresearch

into

childsex

traffick

ingmad

eou

rstrategicpriorityof

figh

tingthis

traged

ya

reality.”Globa

lhuman

itarianNGO

exec

utive

director,Project

ID3

Lackof

Exe

cutive

Support

“Once

theCou

ntryDirectordep

arted,n

oon

eelse

took

disaster

prepared

nessseriou

sly.”Studen

treflection,P

roject

ID2“Cross

sector

enga

gemen

twillN

OTex

tendto

miningco

mpan

ies.”International

human

itarianNGO’spresiden

t,Project

ID14

Loc

alLev

elLoc

alSupport

“Ourloc

alteam

had

not

thetimeto

assess

theam

aran

thop

portunity,

sowe

werehap

pytheteam

cameto

help.”

Post-project

review

interview

with

loca

lpartner

staff,Project

ID11

Loc

alLac

kof

support

“HQ

just

told

ustheteam

was

coming.

Wehad

nosayin

thematter.”

Post-project

review

interview

withloca

lpartner

staff,Yea

r5Rwan

da

“W

edohuman

itarianwork.

Iam

not

certainhow

HQ

folkswillrea

ctto

proposalsto

workwithbu

siness.”Interviewwithloca

lNGOlead

er,field

notes,P

roject

ID23

Human

and

Know

ledge

Cap

ital

Loc

alRelationsh

ipVillage

Con

tacts

“W

alkin

thefootstep

sof

theca

mpesinos...”

Advice

from

ourpartner,

loca

lBishop

,whoop

ened

alld

oors

across

theregion

forou

rteam

.Field

notes,P

roject

ID21

Lackof

Village

Con

tacts

“Ourpartner

did

not

even

know

that

theirmajor

loca

lpartner

was

undergo

ingamajor

reorga

nization.”

Project

ID22

Technical

Know

ledge

Stron

gTechnical

Exp

ertise

Thepartner

has

spen

tnearly50

yearsdev

elop

ingch

ildprotection

expertise.T

heirstaffc

anim

plemen

trec

ommen

dationsto

figh

tchild

labo

ran

dtraffick

ingba

sedon

that

expertise.”

Field

notes,P

roject

ID3

WeakTec

hnical

Exp

ertise

“Itbe

cameclearve

ryqu

icklythat

neither

ourpartner

nor

thestatehad

the

requ

isitehealthca

reex

pertise

topulloffthisproject.O

urp

artner

did

not

wan

ttohearthat.”

Field

notes,P

roject

ID16

Operational

Environmen

tMov

emen

tAbility

ToMov

eFreely

“Before,

wewou

ldhav

edon

ethis

project.H

owev

er,n

owgive

ntheArab

Spring,

weca

nnolonge

rgu

aran

teeou

rstaff’ssafety.”

Interview

with

Reg

ional

Direc

torof

International

Human

itarianNGO,inYea

r4review

,Project

ID20

.Con

trolleden

vironmen

t“W

eim

plemen

tedthereco

mmen

dations,on

lyto

seethosemiddlemen

we

displacedby

inve

stingin

coop

tran

sportation

andinfrastructure

come

back

andthreaten

thefarm

ersweweretryingto

help.T

hemiddlemen

had

thegu

ns,”Interview

withInternational

Human

itarianNGO

Presiden

t,in

Yea

r4review

,Project

ID26

,27

Open

ness

Willingn

essToShare

Thepartner

shared

allo

ftheirco

ntactswithou

rteam

.Indee

d,w

hen

they

called

amee

tingon

childprotection,e

veryon

efrom

thego

vernor’s

dep

uty,tothemay

or,totheCatholic

Churchsh

owed

up.F

ield

notes,

Project

ID3

Guarded

Pop

ulation

Eve

ntheman

agersof

ahighly

profitablejuiceproductionco

operativewere

reluctan

ttotake

aloan

fore

xpan

sion

.They

wereunwillingto

mak

etheir

businessvu

lnerab

leto

alender

whomay

beof

adifferenttribe

(e.g.,Hutu

vs.T

utsi).F

ield

notes,P

roject

ID23


TABLE3

(Con

tinued

)

Con

stru

ctSubd

imen

sion

ThirdOrd

erAxial

Cod

eIn-V

ivo

Project

Design

Project

Tim

ing

Opportunity

Assessm

ent

Pet

Project

“This

ispriorityforme–ifpossible,

wewou

ldlike

tohelpinform

altrashworke

rsbu

ildsu

stainab

lebu

sinesses.”Com

municationwith

NGO

lead

erregardingproject

scop

eof

work,

Project

ID5

Risky

Idea

“Asamatterof

risk

mitigation,o

urNGOdoe

snot

normally

introd

uce

new

crop

sgive

nmarke

tandsu

rvival

risk

ofthepoo

rest

ofthepoo

r.The

studen

ttea

m’sresearch

enab

ledusto

understan

dthepoten

tialec

onom

icviab

ilityof

amaran

than

dinco

rporateitinto

anon

goinggran

t.”Field

notes,P

roject

ID11

WideOpen

Spac

eUnem

ploym

entw

asincred

ibly

high,d

espitehighed

uca

tion

leve

ls.L

ocals

could

not

obtain

workvisas,an

dthus,wenee

dto

thinkthrough

way

sto

create

moreloca

ljob

s.Noloca

lbusinessschoo

lexisted

.Theteam

worke

dwithou

rloca

lpartner

todev

elop

abu

sinessincu

batorco

ncept

onthegrou

ndfloo

rsof

thelow

cost,soc

ialh

ousingitwas

buildingfor

returningrefugees.U

ltim

atelythereco

mmen

dationscenteredarou

ndan

exch

ange

tomatch

foreigndirectinve

stmen

twithstart-upow

ners,

men

tors

tohelpen

trep

reneu

rsnav

igateredtapean

dad

vice

onge

neral

businessproblem

s,an

dba

sicco

urses

onac

counting,

marke

ting,

supply

chain,a

ndbu

sinessethics.Field

notes,P

roject

ID30

Mon

itoringAnd

Eva

luation

Poten

tially

Lau

nch

ingA

New

Program

Theteam

proposed

thattheinternationaldev

elop

men

torgan

izationbridge

thedistance

betw

eenruralfarmingco

mmunitiesan

dpoten

tial

supermarke

tpurchasersin

theca

pital

city

byap

plyingforasp

ecific

international

aidgran

ttopurchaserefrigerated

truck

san

dmob

ileco

ld-

storagefacilities.C

oldstorageat

centralized

pointsbe

tweenfarm

sin

the

outlyingdistrictsan

dtran

sportrou

tesinto

theca

pital

city

wou

ldreduce

produce

spoilage

afterh

arve

st,w

hilealso

enab

lingretailer

moreefficien

tpick-upan

ddistribution

routesto

further

increase

supplies

anddec

rease

cost.D

eliverab

les,Project

ID4

NaturalB

reak

ingPoint

“Wemighth

aveinve

sted

million

sof

dollars

inthis

new

micro-finan

ceinitiative

,had

not

thestuden

tteam’sev

aluationdisco

veredso

man

yproblem

s.”Interview

withNGOPresiden

t,Yea

rs5-8ev

aluation,P

roject

ID18

,19

IneffectiveTim

ing

Not

InEstab

lish

edBudget

“Ourtea

m’sfrustration

increa

sedas

staffe

xplained

tousthat

inthemiddle

ofgran

tfunded

program

,theirdeg

rees

offreedom

tomak

ech

ange

swere

limited

bydon

orprescription

s.”Field

notes,P

roject

ID17

Not

InW

orka

ble

Tim

eline

“Theproject

was

superim

posed

inthemiddle

ofan

ongo

inginternal

program

.Itw

asnev

ergo

ingto

work.

Thetimingwas

off.How

ever,

thestuden

tswereve

ryhardworking,

politean

dded

icated

.Ween

joye

dtheirvisit.”Interview

withloca

lpartner,Y

ear4review

,Project

ID22

Skills

Multidisciplinary

Amon

gStuden

tsAfter

sign

ifican

tin-cou

ntryresearch

,thelaw

studen

ttea

mmem

berfound

that

thege

nerationan

ddistribution

ofpow

erin

theco

untryrequ

ires

regu

latory

approva

l.Ourpartner

had

been

operatingforsometime,

generating,

distributingan

dsellingelectricityin

theco

untrywithou

talegallicen

se.T

herefore,

aviab

letran

sition

from

PhaseItoPhaseIIof

theproject

wou

ldrely

onfourfactors:su

bstantial

fundingbe

yondthe

original

gran

t,strategicsite

selectionto

reduce

installation

costsan

dim

prove

pricing,

improve

men

tsin

tech

nolog

yto

meetw

ell-defined

tech

nical

nee

dsan

dregu

latory

approva

ls.D

eliverab

les,Project

ID8


TABLE3

(Con

tinued

)

Con

stru

ctSubd

imen

sion

ThirdOrd

erAxial

Cod

eIn-V

ivo

Betwee

nStuden

tsAnd

Partners

Theforensicac

countant/MBA

studen

tontheteam

disco

vered$4

0,00

0em

bezz

ledfrom

theco

operativeunbe

know

nst

toou

rloca

lpartner.

Deliverab

les,Project

ID18

Spec

ific

SkillGap

Supply

Chain

Given

theteam

’sresearch

into

everystep

from

grow

ingba

nan

asto

tran

sportingthem

tomarke

ts,a

ndev

enou

rba

nan

aplantation

insp

ection

s,in

theen

d,b

anan

asproducedin

theZac

apahighlandswere

not

anec

onom

ically

viab

leop

tion

.Themou

ntainou

sge

ographymeant

that

alla

griculturalp

roductsfrom

thesm

allp

lots

ofland,including

banan

as,n

eeded

tobe

carriedon

thefarm

er’sba

cksdow

nthestee

phillsidepaths.Thetran

sportation

wou

ldba

dly

dam

ageba

nan

as.T

he

costsad

ded

upwou

ldbe

higher

than

theprice

sforba

nan

asin

loca

lan

dregion

almarke

ts.F

ield

notes,P

roject

ID21

Relationsh

ips

“Ifitwerenot

fortheprestigean

drelation

shipsof

theuniversity,w

ewou

ldnev

erhav

ego

tten

themeetingwiththeheadof

theMuslim

Brotherhoo

d.”

Interview

withReg

ional

Directorof

International

Human

itarianNGO,Y

ear4review

,Project

ID20

Marke

ting

“Ourloc

alpartner,h

adalread

yorga

nized

farm

erco

operatives

within

three

differentd

istricts

closeto

theca

pital.T

hesefarm

ergrou

psco

uld

more

produce

than

was

nee

ded

toco

versu

permarke

tnee

ds,ye

tthismutually

beneficialc

onnection

betw

eenthepriva

tesector

inve

stor

andNGO

had

not

been

mad

e.Ourtea

mdev

elop

edthemarke

tingan

dpricingap

proac

han

dev

enkick

-started

thenegotiation

sbe

tweentheNGO

andthelocal

supermarke

ts.”

Deliverab

les,Project

ID4

Project

Exe

cution

Co-Production

Con

sisten

cyAccessibility

“This

partner

works

like

cloc

kwork.

Eve

ryW

ednesday

,they

areon

the

callworkingthrough

problem

swithou

rteam

.They

commen

tonall

materials,includingthewhitepap

er,b

eforeitgo

esto

theirsenior

executive

s.Ifee

lthatwearein

thistoge

ther.”Predep

arture

notes,P

roject

ID3

Non

-Acc

essible

“Ic

annot

counth

owman

ytimes

ourpartner’slead

ersmissedou

twee

kly

phon

eca

lls.”Studen

treflection,P

roject

ID1

“Ourpartner

was

stretchtoothin

andco

uld

not

sparestafftoworkwithus

onou

rproject.”

Field

notes,P

roject

ID10

Immersion

New

Shared

Exp

erience

“Sam

eerwas

aterrific

drive

ran

dpartner

forou

rteam

intheMiddle

East.

From

him

,Ilearned

that

thewar

willa

lway

sbe

withme.”Studen

tthan

kyo

unotedescribinghis

dep

loym

ents

toIraq

asaMarine,

Project

ID28

“Asparto

ftheirtim

ein

country,thejointtea

mof

studen

tsan

dNGOstaff

not

only

participated

intheNGO’sco

urses

whichtaugh

twom

ento

cook

nutritiousfood

onaga

sstov

e,they

also

spen

ttwoday

sin

aruralv

illage

talking,

cook

ing,

playingwithfamilies.They

observed

that

whilethe

omeletsmad

eov

eragasstov

ein

classweretasty,

when

participan

tstriedto

cook

ontheirfire

stov

esat

hom

e,theom

eletsbu

rned

quickly.

Afterwards,wom

enwou

ldnot

attempttoco

okthehea

lthiermea

lsfrom

classag

ain.T

heNGO

staffh

adnev

erstay

edwiththeirbe

neficiaries

inthefieldov

ernight.”Field

notes,P

roject

ID13


TABLE3

(Con

tinued

)

Con

stru

ctSubd

imen

sion

ThirdOrd

erAxial

Cod

eIn-V

ivo

GettingPastF

ormalities

“W

hen

wefirsta

rrived

,theen

tire

familywas

dressed

upin

theirSunday

best,b

utfastforward48

hou

rsan

dthekidsarerunningarou

ndnak

edan

dthewom

enareco

mplainingab

outtheirhusban

ds.”Field

notes,

Project

ID13

Closeness

AllOneTeam

“Onesu

ggestion

fornex

tyearwou

ldbe

that

team

sperhap

ssh

areamea

lor

twowithou

rpartner

hosts.W

enev

erreally

gottoseethem

onou

rvisit.

They

wou

ldjust

pickusup/dropusoffa

tourgu

esth

ouse.”

Studen

treflec

tion

,Project

ID23

Us-VsThem

“W

edrove

arou

ndhalfo

fMindan

ao,b

uto

urpartnersnev

erca

meto

visittheco

ffee

plantation

swithus.”Field

notes,P

roject

ID25

Adap

tation

Chan

geIn

Sco

peOf

Project

Rec

ognizeNew

Inform

ation/

Con

straints

Theteam

disco

veredmateriala

nddesigndefects

inlocalw

ater

pumps.

Althou

ghseniorex

ecutive

sof

amulti-national

corporation(M

NC)

withan

infrastructure

businessunitfoundtheteam

’sbu

sinessca

seco

mpellingforR&Dinve

stmen

t,thepartner

determined

that

collab

orationwiththis

MNCwou

ldco

nflictw

ithitslongstandingfaith-

basedmission

.Undau

nted,theteam

then

dev

elop

edaplanforthe

form

ationof

wom

en’swater

committees

toov

erco

methetrag

edyof

the

common

sby

conductingmaintenan

cean

drepairs

onex

istingwater

pumpsin

theregion

.Deliverab

les,Project

ID24

Iden

tify

Hidden

Problem

“In

order

toad

dress

theteam

’sdetailedqu

estion

s,theCoo

p’sGen

eral

Man

ager

confessed

that

theco

opwas

runningou

tofc

ash,a

ndthus,on

theve

rgeof

bankruptcy.

Theco

opwas

pay

ingoffo

neloan

withan

other;

itdid

not

hav

ethefundsto

adva

nce

tofarm

ersto

buyfertilizer

forthe

nex

tyea

r’sco

ffee

crop

.Theteam

wen

ttoworkto

dev

elop

way

sto

mon

etizetheco

op’sassetsto

stav

eoffb

ankruptcy.”Deliverab

les,Project

ID21

Chan

geIn

Planned

Itinerary

DivideAndCon

quer

“Theteam

disco

veredafterafew

day

sthey

wereab

leto

getm

uch

better

insigh

tsby

interviewingthevillag

emen

andwom

enseparately(w

ith

interviewersof

thesamege

nder).Thereweresign

ifican

tgen

der

disparities,as

themen

did

little

morethan

drinkev

eryday

,bute

xpected

water

when

they

camehom

ean

dwou

ldsu

bjec

ttheirwives

toviolen

tou

tbursts

ifitwas

not

read

yforthem

.Thewives,m

eanwhile,

were

enterprisingas

themaininco

meea

rnersforthefamily,

whilealso

providingfood

andwater

fortheirfamilies,oftenwalkingmiles

both

way

sto

doso.”

Field

notes,P

roject

ID24

Unplanned

Stops

“Anunex

pectedvisittoasm

allg

oldminesh

owed

theteam

that,d

espite

ourp

artner’sprotests,miningwas

hereto

stay

.Thego

ldwas

toocloseto

thesu

rfac

e.Eve

ryon

e,ev

ench

ildren,w

asminingit.A

saco

nsequ

ence

,ou

rproject

focu

ssh

iftedto

workingwithcivicorga

nizationsto

use

their

influen

ceto

enhan

ceminingsafety

stan

dardsan

dad

heren

ceto

basic

environmen

talreg

ulation

s.”Field

notes,P

roject

ID19


to the local context and national environment. Ourdata suggests that projects failed to create directvalue when our partner’s assessment of environ-mental stability was inaccurate. In these cases, in-stability created barriers to data collection, limitedaccess to critical populations, and prevented suc-cessful project completion. Instances of these envi-ronmental circumstances included a military coup(Project 20), election violence (Project 27), and faultyknowledge about local partners vital to theSLproject(Project 18). In all these cases, partners were unableto implement recommendations in part becausethey misdiagnosed the operational environment.

Project design. Our data reveals that projects thatproduceddirect valuehave several design features incommon. Such projects occurred during predictablestages of the project life cycle. Further, our datashows that successful projects capitalized on a pre-cise, and narrowly defined, set of student capabil-ities. Under some circumstances, the perceivedindependence provided by the student team servedas a useful tool for partners seeking information thatthey had difficulty accessing.

One feature of projects that produced direct valuewas the timing, either at the beginning or at the endofthe partner program life cycle. These projects fo-cused on assessing new opportunities at the begin-ning of a new program or on measurement andevaluation at the end of the program. Projects fo-cused on new opportunity assessment added directvalue when they incorporated elements are outsidethe range of the partner’s standard operations.Sometimes joint partner–student teams were able toapproach the context with an open mind, therebyidentifying opportunities that would not have beenrecognizable to partners or student teams workingalone. Other times, the partner had an idea of theopportunity, but lacked the time or skills to in-dependently, and accurately, assess its viability. Forexample, one SL team investigated the potential ofamaranth as an alternative for traditional cash crops,such as coffee and cacao.Amaranthhas the benefit ofhigh cash value and drought resilience, while si-multaneously having high nutritional value (Project11).Thecollaborationwith our student teamallowedthe partner to investigate the economic viability ofamaranth and eventually incorporate it into an on-going grant. This opportunity assessment projectconstitutes direct value by testing a risky propositionwith minimal outlay of partner resources. One con-trasting example of this value is a project that pre-vented investment in an initiative. Our partnerstated, “We might have invested millions of dollars

in this new micro-finance initiative, had not thestudent team’s evaluation discovered so manyproblems” (Interview with NGO President, Years5–8 Evaluation, Projects 18, 19).

At the other end of the project life cycle, collabo-rations that focused onmeasurement and evaluationwere also likely to create direct value. Such projectshighlighted problems with existing program designand execution, assisted partner organizations inmaking needed changes, or served as an audit ofsuccessful projects to generate donor or marketingmaterials. For example, two projects (Projects 7 and8) evaluated the sustainability of a solar technologysolution as part of a rural electrification program.The partner managed to secure several million dol-lars of next-stage funding, in part due to our jointteam’s assessment of the program and recommen-dations for improvement. In another example withopposite results, our joint team uncovered a lack ofsustainability in onepartner’s agricultural assistanceprograms (Project 18). Based on the discovery offlaws in project planning and ongoing financialmismanagement, thepartner gradually discontinuedsome agricultural programs and institutionalized aninternal staff-trainingprogramonmarket economics,value chains, and price fluctuations to improve fu-ture planning (Project 18). Thus, even “negative”findings from SL projects resulted in the creation ofdirect valuewhen theywere incorporated into futurepartner programming. The success of some early-and late-stage life-cycle projects contrasts with thechallenges associated with projects that occurredmidstream during later programs. At times, recom-mendations arrived too late to be incorporatedwithin ongoing operations, given donor and otherconstraints. This was the case for our recommen-dations for water and sanitation procedures forreturning refugees (Project 24), opportunities forunemployed youth (Project 17), and electricity in-frastructure (Project 28). In each of these cases, jointteams learned that many of the decisions that couldhave influenced the trajectory of the project hadalready been made.

Our analysis notes that direct value was realizedwhenprojectswere designed to take advantage of theperceived independence of student teams from thepartner organization. As outsiders, students wereable to access information thatwas either logisticallyor politically inaccessible to partners. For example,student groups served as a legitimate opportunity forpartners to observe their subcontractors’ activities.For example, our team uncovered the embezzlementof tens of thousands of dollars that escaped thenotice


of our partner (Project 18). Alternatively, studentscan investigate issues that the partner is unable toaddress due to political reasons. For instance, ourproject team assessed the impact of illegal wildcatmining for a partner whose governing body is pub-licly constrained by its rigid political stance on allextractive industries (Project 19). The informationgathered by students served as the basis for an actionplan to serve the rural mining communities moreeffectively without alienating the partner’s keystakeholders.

Rapid project evolution on the ground made effec-tive project design difficult. One team conducted ananalysis of the local electricity infrastructure (Project28).When they presented their early findings, the staffof the international NGO asked whether the teamcould expand its scope and develop tools for a po-tential community-level training and engagementprogram. Eager to serve their new partner, the teamimmediately agreed. Unfortunately, the team hadlimited experience with adult learning, creatinglearning objectives, and developing the necessaryteaching tools. As a result, this project failed tocontribute to the desired expansion of the partner’soutreach programs.

Project execution. Projects that produced directvalue for partners varied across their execution.Teams that successfully produced direct value wereable to adapt to the changing environment and shiftgears when necessary. Digging deeper into theseoccurrences, we found three common themes: First,they engaged in true co-production with their part-ners, forming cross-disciplinary teams; second, theyadapted dynamically to changing circumstances;and third, they had a chance for deep immersionduring field work.

Co-production occurs when the students and thepartner organization staff come together as a singleteam to work toward project outcomes. This pro-duces reciprocity (Heffernan & Cone, 2001) bystructurally acknowledging that neither the studentsnor the partner’s staff have all the expertise requiredto be successful (D’Arlach et al., 2009; Dorado &Giles, 2004). We found that co-production occurredwhen partner staff did not simply manage projectscope and logistics, but rather fully participated asteam members: traveling, problem solving, inter-viewing, even sharing meals, and engaging in newimmersive activities. We found that this type ofco-production produced an internal champion topropel the recommendations. For example, oneproject’s original scope focused on investigating theeconomics of banana production for the farmer

members of a coffee cooperative (Project 21). How-ever, the close working relationship between thecooperative managers and the students revealed alarger problem: The coffee cooperative was on theverge of bankruptcy. Having uncovered this prob-lem, the students and cooperative managers workedtogether to develop ways to monetize the co-operative’s existing assets quickly and generate in-cremental revenue, which was the original andhidden motivation behind the focus on producingand selling bananas. Had the team not been com-posed of both students and cooperative managers,they would have never addressed the underlyingpartner needs.

Successful teams were able to adjust to thechanging conditions in the field. Our teamsinevitably encountered unexpected constraints,interview and meeting cancellations, logistics diffi-culties, illness, and many other challenges. Theteams that created direct value for partners were ableto pivot quickly based on the evolving nature of theproject scope, changes in travel itineraries, or mod-ifications in partner staff and priorities. To illustrate,our team working on a water and sanitation projectdiscovered after a few days in the field that theyshould divide and conquer when conducting waterand sanitationmeetings: The female teammates tookthe village wives aside, further from the mainscheduled meeting with village elders, to gathermore insight in the challengespresentedby thewaterpumps. When our partner determined that our pro-posed collaboration with a large multinational cor-poration to fix defects in local water pumps wouldconflict with its faith-basedmission, this same team,undaunted, went on to form village women’s watercommittees to conduct maintenance and repairs onexisting water pumps in the region (Project 24).

Many projects that delivered direct value forpartners involved not only co-production, but alsoimmersion where students and local partner staffwork side-by-side in the field: traveling, interview-ing, shopping, mapping agricultural supply chains,and even working the fields (Projects 4, 12). Immer-sion occurs when students and partners work andlive alongside potential beneficiaries. This provedimportant for both the students andpartners,whoareoften either expatriates or locals who live relativelyaffluent and urban lives. One program manager re-ported that she had never spent a night in a villagein her home country (Project 12), and anothercommented that he had never had the opportu-nity to plant rice, despite working on many agri-culture projects (Project 4). Immersion encourages


introspection by forcing participants to workthrough discomfort associated with culture shock(Crabtree, 2008) and allows meaningful relation-ships to form between team members and benefi-ciaries (Crabtree, 2008; Boland, 2008; D’Arlachet al., 2009).

Teams working alongside locals, rather than sim-ply observing or interviewing them, were able tomore accurately validate their assumptions, recog-nize patterns, and reduce the bias in gathering theirinformation. For example, the joint SL team studyingthe causes of children’s malnutrition conducted in-terviews with local experts who indicated that vul-nerable families grewandpurchasednutritious food,were aware of best practices associatedwithhygiene,and were able to prepare nutritious meals (Project13). Yetmalnutrition rateswere not improving in thecountry. When the joint team of partner staff andstudents shopped, cooked, and ate meals with fam-ilies in villages, they observed the reason: For a mealof soup villagers consumed rice and broth but noneof the soup’s meat and vegetables. Due to the uniquecultural history, families continued to fill them-selves with rice, even though their children’s growthwas stunted, while feeding the vegetables and pro-tein to their livestock. These insights enable the teamto develop recommendations that diverge from andultimately improve the partner’s nutrition pro-gramming. Similarly, returning to the coffee andbanana cooperative (Project 21), augmenting coffeerevenue by selling bananas seemed a promising so-lution, until our team experienced the arduouschallenge of carrying bunches of bananas up anddown steep rocky hills, as demanded by the localgeography. After carrying the banana loads, the teammore realistically calculated the banana volumeavailable for sale in regional markets and discoveredthat the proposed cooperative expansion into large-scale banana production, which looked promisingin theory, proved untenable in practice.

In our analyses, we specifically differentiateimmersive from observational data-collection activ-ities. All teams spent 2 weeks in country and con-ducted extensive interviews with subject-matterexperts. While these activities were necessary tobegin to understand the problem at hand, they wereoften inadequate to generate the novel insight thatadded direct value. To illustrate, in a single year, twoteams (Projects 26 and 27) served a single partner intwo countries to generate comparative data re-garding post-conflict agricultural market creation.Although both teams conductedmultiple interviewswith subject-matter experts to explore agricultural

supply chains, these interviews were more observa-tional than immersive. The teams’ recommendationson ways to shorten the supply chain and to fostermore transparency in markets certainly made fi-nancial sense: The international NGO invested inmany of the teams’ ideas on storage and trans-portation. Yet given the more removed nature of thedata gathering, both teams entirely missed the socialand political realities in the rural villages. It turnedout that the new investments in transportation assetsdirectly threatened the interests of powerful andwell-armed intermediaries in these rural areas whohad been providing transportation at exorbitant pri-ces. As farmers began to utilize the new storage andtransport assets, these activities eroded the middle-men’s profits. The subsequent formal evaluation ofthis service-learning course in Year 4 revealed thatthe recommendations were implemented, but ulti-mately abandoned, as farmers feared violent re-taliation. This example illustrates the dangers of thesuperficial data gathering without field immersion.In this case, neither of these two teams of studentsand their NGO staff partners were able to anticipatethe violent local backlash to their recommenda-tions, which would have likely been discussed hadthe teams been more deeply embedded in the localcommunities.

Relationship Between Partner Readiness, ProjectDesign, and Project Execution

One question that emerges from our study is the po-tential interrelationship between partner readiness,project, and project execution. However, the data onthese relationships does not provide a clear pictureof the relative importance of each dimension or themost effective combination of dimensions. For ex-ample, we found that most of the time when directvalue was created, all three dimensions are present.In fact, of the 14 cases that produced direct value forpartners, 12, or approximately 86%, had all threedimensions present. To complicate matters further,the two outliers vary in the dimension that is miss-ing: One had poor project execution and the otherhad poor project design. In both cases the combina-tion of the other two dimensions are, quite surpris-ingly, able to compensate for the absence of the third.We were unable to find dimensions that explainedthis variance, including the location, the type ofpartner (Dorado & Giles, 2004), and the experienceof the faculty advisor. What the two outliers do havein common is that they were both incredibly impor-tant for the program. The first was one of the initial


projects, and the second was the first time we ex-panded beyond our initial partner. As a result, theseprojects may have had a slightly higher level of“hands-on management” by the instructional faculty,or the perceptions of value may have been biased bypartners hoping to develop a sustained relationshipwith the program. However, we have had 23 projectteams that serve either a new client or a new countryprogram, and there seems to be no pattern among thetype of value created across that variable. Thus, ourfindings suggest that in most cases, all three di-mensions are critical for direct value.

We conducted a similar analysis regarding thecreation of indirect value, where direct value is ab-sent. Twelve projects fit this description. There is asingle case where none of the three dimensions arepresent and indirect value is still generated. In sixcases, indirect value is a product of project designand execution. In two cases, projects produce in-direct value through partner readiness and project

execution, despite poor project design. In two othercases, indirect value is produced through partnerreadiness and project design, despite poor projectexecution. Finally, in one case, partner readinessalone produces indirect value. As you can see, it re-mains difficult to interpret the patterns in the data.

Our data also provides insight as to the relation-ship between dimensions, direct value, and indirectvalue. Our overall pattern of results suggests thatdirect value is produced when all three of the di-mensions are present, and indirect value is producedwhen two of the dimensions are present.We have noevidence of partners deriving direct value withoutthe simultaneous production of indirect value. Inother words, indirect value seems necessary, but notsufficient to produce direct value. Given this obser-vation, we assert that SL programs should seek togenerate direct value for partners and that effectivepromotion of direct value will also simultaneouslyproduce indirect value. We found three exceptions

TABLE 4Cross-Case Comparison

Dimensions Value

Partner Readiness Project Design Project Execution Indirect Direct

1 0 1 0 0 09 0 1 1 0 0

16 0 0 1 0 029 0 0 0 0 022 0 0 0 1 02 0 1 1 1 0

14 0 1 1 1 020 0 1 1 1 024 0 1 1 1 026 0 1 1 1 027 0 1 1 1 012 1 0 1 1 017 1 0 1 1 023 1 0 0 1 025 1 1 0 1 028 1 1 0 1 030 0 0 1 1 110 0 1 0 1 13 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 1 1 18 1 1 1 1 1

11 1 1 1 1 113 1 1 1 1 115 1 1 1 1 118 1 1 1 1 119 1 1 1 1 121 1 1 1 1 1


to this pattern, where value is created without meet-ing the underlying criteria. We attribute these toluck. We found no instances where the dimensionsare present, and value is not created.

DISCUSSION

Our purpose here was to extend research on SLbenefits beyond those that accrue to students(Crabtree, 2008; Culross, 2010; Pompa, 2002); uni-versities (Bringle & Hatcher, 2009; Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2008; Saltmarsh et al., 2009); and society(Boland, 2008; Saltmarsh et al., 2009). We believethis work makes several theoretical and practicalcontributions. In our model, the partners sit at thecenter of our inquiry. This allows us to zone in on thetypes of value created by SL projects. This explicitfocus on partner value provides a distinct lens intothe expectations and aspirations of partners. Fromour perspective, the partner is the critical element ofany SL initiative for several reasons: First, withoutdelivering partner value, these courses simply pro-vide a vehicle for students to engage in experientiallearning (Kolb, 1984). SL courses are likely to beunsustainable if partners do not truly benefit fromthem (Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2008;Kolenko et al., 1996).Moreover, failure to deliver partner value has im-plications for the attainment of student learning.Without delivering partner value, students mayexit SL courses with a false sense of superiority(DiPadova-Stocks, 2005) and a diminished grasp ofthe magnitude of societal challenges (Kenworthy-U’Ren & Peterson, 2005).

To date, only a small number of studies addressthe creation of partner value (Ward & Wolf-Wendel,2000). Our manuscript speaks directly to this gap.Our annual and periodic course follow-up in-terviews with partners provide data that is posi-tioned to consider what types of value partnersderive from working with student teams. Our find-ings support Kolenko and colleagues’ (1996) ob-servation that partners capture value multipleways. Some, which we refer to as direct value, re-flect the specific outcomes associated with theproject deliverables and the degree to which theyshape partner activities beyond the specific en-gagement. Further, direct value accrues to partnerswhen the work provided by a SL team results inrecommendations that are implemented after thespecific project is completed in a way that thepartner would not have realized had they beenworking alone. Others, whichwe refer to as indirectvalue, reflect benefits to the partner that are not

specifically associated with the work of the projectitself nor anticipated by the partner, but rather ac-crue from the interactionswith the students and theuniversity community. This finding aligns with thescholarship on SL reciprocity (Fleck et al., 2015;Heffernan & Cone, 2001; Kenworthy-U’Ren, 2008;Kolenko et al., 1996; Saltmarsh et al., 2009) where“good” is generated not “for the public” but “withthe public” (Saltmarsh et al., 2009; Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2000). Both students and partner staffbring their unique knowledge and skills that com-bine synergistically to generate a novel product(Godfrey et al., 2005). Kolenko and colleagues sug-gest that applying student skills is at the heart ofservice learning (1996). Our partners agree andsuggest that the unique contribution of studentskills, in fact, is one of the key differentiators be-tween direct and indirect value.

Our research supports and extends research onthe importance of reciprocity in SL collaborations(e.g., D’Arlach et al., 2009). Our data shows thatseveral specific activities, such as immersion and co-production, are essential to reciprocity. As one localbishop notably advised us, “we must together walkin the footsteps of the campesinos” to truly un-derstand one another. Our partners point specifi-cally to immersive activities, homestays, and a focuson depth of relationships rather than covering max-imum ground as providing the foundations for atruly reciprocal relationship that enables the pro-duction of value.

Although there is little existing research directlyfocused on the performance of service-learningteams and their impact on partners, our findingsalign with the rich literature on teams, includingproduct-development teams and cross-functionalteams (Denison, Hart, & Kahn, 1996; Ancona, 1990;Hackman, 1987; Katz, 1982; Katz &Allen, 1985). Ourfindings fit clearly within Denison and colleagues’three-stage model for cross-functional teams(Denison, Hart, & Kahn, 1996). They suggest that ef-fective teams pay attention to features of their con-text, process, and outcomes. In our model, context isreflected in our focus on international projects inpost-conflict environments and our emergent di-mension of partner readiness. These are character-istics that are “external to the team yet internal tothe organization” (Denison, Hart, & Kahn, 1996:1006–1007). It is notable that some features of thecontext did not emerge as factors that predictedvalue creation, such as the size of the NGO, region,language, or the experience of the faculty advisor.Rather, we found that the partner’s ability to absorb


and utilize the project team and the degree to whichthe partner prioritizes the collaborative work aresalient contextual features.

Furthermore, our findings regarding project de-sign and execution relate to team process. They re-inforce key features of team process already presentin the literature, including the importance of normsand creativity (Denison et al., 1996). We show thatteams that can pivot through adaptation and buildstrong working norms through co-production andimmersion are able to transcend the challenges offunctioning in diverse work teams and translate thatdiversity into value creation (Jehn, Northcraft, &Neale, 1999). Finally, we align the work on servicelearning with the research on teams through ouremphasis on outcomes, which, as noted above, haslargely been underspecified.

Our data produced several observations that didnot conform to the existing theoretical expectationsthat derive from the extant literature. First, ourfindings were in contrast to theory regarding theoptimal size of a partner organization. Crabtree(2008) recommends that international SL coursesseek out smaller NGOs as partners, as they allowstudents to connect more meaningfully to commu-nities.We examined archival datawith respect to thepostproject evaluations conducted by smaller part-ner organizations to attempt to observe variation.What we discovered is that there are differences be-tween partners, but that these are unrelated to theirsize. Additionally, we expected to see a relationshipbetween project type and success. We expected ourgraduate business students to be better at doing oneor two types of activities (i.e., value-chain analysisin agriculture, cooperative business plan develop-ment), as they would capitalize on the uniqueknowledge that the student teams bring to the re-ciprocal project. However, when we compared proj-ect success across a wide variety of topics—fromagriculture to health systems to human trafficking pro-jects—wewere unable to see systematic variation alongthis dimension of project type.

We expected to find that our attempts to createdirect value were substantially more successful inthe later years of the SL program and that this im-provement would be a function of our increased ex-perience, creating a learning effect (Dorado & Giles,2004). Indeed, during the first 4 years of conductingthis course, only four of the 12 projects delivereddirect value to partners. Over the subsequent 4 years,14 of 18 created direct value. One could make theargument that these failure-and-success rates are theresult of the natural development of our SL program

over time: As the coauthors and co-instructors be-came better equipped to run this SL program, directvalue delivery to partners improved aswe improved.However, the data does not reveal such an un-derlying pattern. Although it is true that our projectsuccess rate improves in the later years, the datasuggests that thiswas largely due to improvements inassessing partner readiness, negotiating project de-sign, and executing projects, rather than in either ourlonger term relationships with partners or our ownhuman capital. In fact, it was in those later years thatwe diversified our partnerships. For example, inYear 7, two of our five projects were unsuccessful inproducing direct value for partners, as we were un-able to engage in true co-production. Those partnerswere largely engaged with the project team, insteaddelegating implementation to subcontractors. An-other example comes from comparing the projects inwhich the course co-instructors are also the teamadvisors in the projects where teams have morenovice advisors. We found that projects in whichmore experienced course co-instructors act in therole of faculty advisor are no more successful thanthose that are supported by advisors with lessexperience.

This observation—that practice does not seem tomake perfect—contributes to the generalizability ofour findings to other SL contexts. Our data revealsthat long-term embedded university–partner re-lationships are neither necessary nor sufficient forsuccess. Thus, if the best predictors of direct valuecreation for partners are not a product of history, butrather of partner readiness for the project, and thedesign and execution of the project itself, these di-mensions are more likely to drive outcomes.

Future Research

We suggest that there are several specific avenuesfor service-learning scholars to pursue to build uponour findings and engage with the broader literature.First, we suggest that our research brings up ques-tions as to the types of partners that facilitate effec-tive service-learning initiatives. Dorado and Giles(2004) highlight the diversity in the types of service-learning partnerships, outlining a continuum of thecommitment to partnerships that range from tenta-tive through aligned, to committed, with a connec-tion between the age of the partnership and the levelof commitment. They argue for the value of long-term embedded partnerships between the universityand a given organization. We were able to test thatproposition, as approximately half of our projects fit


that description, with the other half being one timeonly or early-stage collaborations. We found that inthe first 4 years, when we were exclusively serving amajor university partner, we had no greater levels ofpartner readiness than in the last 4 years, where ourpartnerships were more diverse. At times, projectswith embedded partner–university relationshipshave lower levels of partner readiness, and tentativerelationships can create partner value even whenthey do not progress into more formalized relation-ships. This may be due to the importance of organi-zational factors such as mobility and hierarchy thatcan derail aligned or committed partnerships, or tothe reality that commitment at the executive leveldoes not always trickle down to the local co-producing team. Theories of service learning couldbenefit from further empirical investigation re-garding the factors, institutional (Dorado & Giles,2004) and others, that influence both student andpartner value.

Second, our research highlights a critical issue re-garding the levelof analysis atwhichvalue is realized.Extant research in SL has largely looked at the valuederived to the recipients of service rather than thevalue to the organizations that provide those services.For example, D’Arlach and colleagues (2009) explorethe reciprocal value produced from a program thatpaired Spanish-speaking Latino immigrants andEnglish-speaking university students to teach eachother theirnative languageandculture.Their findingsreport important benefits to the students and the im-migrant participants, but did not focus on the impacton Intercambio, the NGO partner facilitating the ex-change. It remains an open empirical question as towhether thevaluederivedbyservice-learningcoursesshould measure impact at either or both levels.

Finally, our research speaks to the theorized trade-offs that may manifest in SL initiatives. Kolenkoand colleagues (1996) note thechallengesofmanagingmultilevel partnerships and suggest that “conflicts be-tween providers of services, recipients, and studentsneed to beminimized early so as not to threaten studentlearning objectives or community relationships,” (p.134). However, our findings suggest that elements suchas partner’s lack of readiness do not necessarily impedestudent learning. In fact, alignedwith research ongroupconflict (Jehn,Northcraft, &Neale, 1999),wehave someanecdotal evidence from our cases to suggest that cer-tain types of task conflict between partners and projectteams can even enhance partner value. Future researchmight explore the nature and timing of conflict inservice-learning projects and the consequences for bothstudent and partner outcomes.

Limitations and Boundary Conditions

As with all research, our study has limitations thatare important to note. Our data comes from a singleSL course. As a result, there are commonalitiesamong the context and process that are under-specified in our model that are likely to contributeto the project outcomes. For example, we used thesame strategies to select each of the projects. Wechose projects that were located in contexts thatwere either rebuilding from war or subject to on-going low levels of conflict in resource-constrainedenvironments, thereby increasing the likelihoodthat the countries would have at least some com-mon features (post-colonial, weak civil society,high rates of poverty and unemployment). We useda commonprocedure to interviewstudents andplacethem on teams to maximize their diversity and effec-tiveness. It is possible that these inherent commonal-ities may have controlled some of the exogenousvariables that would inherently vary across service-learning courses. We believe that this is mitigatedsomewhat due to the variation among our project lo-cations, partners, and instructors. However, we wereunable to identify features that would distinguish ourSL projects from others. We hope that this initialtheory-buildingwill provide the foundation for futurecross-SL course studies focused on partner valuecreation.

One additional limitation of our study is that ourarchival data does not allow us to test the relation-ship between the dimensions in our model. Forexample, true co-production through project exe-cution, which is a manifestation of reciprocity,might predict partner readiness. Our data revealsmultiple examples in which co-production is anintegral feature of the collaborative project betweenstudents and partners, yet some aspects of partnerreadiness inhibit the partner from implementingthe project’s recommendations. We believe thisquestion of causality sets a limitation to our currentstudy and should be the focus of future researchwhen the scholar has some control and can create alive experiment. Further, our findings point to thepartner organization as providing most of the vari-ation across the projects. There are likely severalreasons for this: First, our experience with the pro-jects and the partners are inextricably linked. Thepartner organizations largely mediate the contextfor our student teams. As a result, many of thechallenges associated with the environment (secu-rity, resource constraints, skills) are also reflected inthe partner organization.


Implications for Instructors and GeneralizabilityAcross Service-Learning Initiatives

Armed with this increased detail on outcomes thatpartners value, we were then able to explore thecontextual factors that promote partner value. Ourfindings regarding these contextual factors willshape the way we structure our future SL projects,and it is our hope that other instructors will derivebenefit from these insights as well. Our data suggeststhat instructors shouldpayparticular attention to thefeatures of partner readiness, project design, andproject execution to create the conditions for partnervalue creation. Partner readiness considers thepartners’ ability to accommodate and engage in rec-iprocity with student teams. This encompasses thepartner’s ability and willingness to dedicate humanand social capital to the project. Our findings suggestthat this engagement must occur at multiple levelsin the organization. It is neither sufficient to garnersupport at the executive level nor at the programlevel. Rather, instructors should aim to build rela-tionships and buy-in from stakeholders at multiplelevels to increase chances of direct value creation.

With respect to project design, we found that thetiming of the project is of importance. Instructorsmay benefit from prioritizing projects that occur ei-ther early in a program life cycle, when innovativeideas are investigated, or at the back endof programs,where the teams can perform the critical measure-ment and evaluation function. In addition, ourfindings support Kolenko and colleagues’ (1996)emphasis on the importance of the application ofstudent skills. Our findings regarding project designshow that instructors might benefit from designingprojects around a partner’s specific skill gap that isparticularly well-suited to the student’s capacity.Our findings indicate that if the gap was not well-delineated, and if both parties to the partnershipwere not clear on what to bring to the engagement,the production of direct value would be more diffi-cult. Finally, our analysis points to the importance ofimmersion and co-production in the execution ofprojects. When project teams lived and worked incommunities, it hastened the development of stu-dent’s cultural awareness (Crabtree, 2008), and theseshared activities facilitated the development of in-terpersonal relationships that SL scholars argue areinstrumental in driving value (D’Arlach et al., 2009;Boland, 2008).

Interestingly, some of the observations that comeout of our data suggest that some features instructorsattend to may not be instrumental in shaping value

creation.For example,DoradoandGiles (2004) arguefor the value of long-term embedded partnershipsbetween the university and a given organization.Approximately half our projects fit that description,with the other half being once only or early-stagecollaborations. We found that in the first 4 years,when we exclusively served a major universitypartner,we had no greater levels of partner readinessthan in the last 4 years, where our partnerships weremore diverse. At times, projects with embeddedpartner–university relationships have lower levelsof partner readiness. One reason for this may be thatcommitment at the executive level did not alwaystrickle down to the local co-producing team. Thisis good news for instructors hoping to negotiateservice-learning projects who may feel disadvan-taged due to lack of institutional support. On theother hand, it provides a cautionary note to in-structors who hope to develop partnerships andsubsequently “press play” year after year. We foundthat it is important to continually assess partnerreadiness at the project level, independent of theembeddedness or longevity of the relationship.

Our context was a master’s level course, whichGodfrey and colleagues (2005) found producedgreater partner value than undergraduate ones. Sec-ond, we conducted our SL projects overseas withinternational or local partners under conditions ofpost-conflict and extremepoverty. Third, our privateuniversity is well-endowed and has access to re-sources and donors. Fourth, our SL course designemphasized significant preparation and back-endworkdeveloping recommendations forpartnerswithlimited time for field work. For all these reasons, itmay seem difficult for instructors building their ownservice-learning programs to gain insights fromwhatmay not seem like a mainstream SL program. How-ever, we do believe we can derive some lessons forSL instructors from this research.

First, our research indicates that partners achievedboth direct and indirect value fromSL collaborations.Indeed,ourSL teamsandprojectsdidnotneedperfectalignment of partner readiness, project design, andproject execution to have a positive impact on part-ners. After the projects were completed, the partnerstold us through the evaluation process that in mostcases, (26 of the 30 projects), theywere able to realizesome positive impact; thus, even when our SL pro-jects “failed” to produce direct value, our SL teamscontributed positively to the organization throughindirect value. Instructors should conduct discus-sions with their partners that balance both direct andindirect impact to establish appropriate expectations.


Second, SL projects must balance all three condi-tions to create value for partners. Through our anal-ysis, we found a complex relationship betweenpartner readiness, project design, and project exe-cution without one emerging as the most importantor dominant dimension. This finding enables in-structors to collaborate with less-than-perfect part-ners, to innovate around project design, and tochange direction midstream if the situation requiresit without risking the overall success of an SL projectin creating value for the partner. Regrettably, ourresearch found no “silver bullet” in building SLprograms.

Third, our SL program evolved significantly overthe 8 years of our study to include a wide range ofpartners. In some ways, our program started withwhat is typically considered an ideal situation(Dorado & Giles, 2004) with a single committedpartner. Over time, we included service to manyother partners with varying levels of commitmentfrom tentative to aligned. Instructors who have ac-cess to committed partners should clearly takeadvantage of those institutional relationships. How-ever, because our data suggests that our outcomes areno better with the committed partner than with themore tentative ones, instructors without institu-tional support should not fear that they face a lowerchance of developing partners and projects thatcreate value. On the opposite side, those with com-mitted partners should not rest on their laurels, as SLprojects for such partners require as much effort asthose for newer, more tentative partners.

Finally, instructors may fear that this type of pro-gram is only possible in high-resource environmentssuch as private universities with sizeable endow-ments and donors with strong service-learning focusandmission. However, over the last 2 years, which isoutside of our sample window, the first author suc-cessfully launched this SL program design within apublicly funded institution with neither adminis-trative support nor mission alignment. This experi-ence certainly provides greater confidence in urginginstructors to attempt this type of SL programming,given that it has not only survived, but thrived inquite dissimilar resource environments.

Service learning instructors, Carpe Diem!

REFERENCES

Ancona, D. G. 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for teamsurvival in an organization. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 33(2): 334–365.

Armstrong, S. J., & Mahmud, A. 2008. Experiential learn-ing and the acquisition ofmanagerial tacit knowledge.Academy of Management Learning & Education,7(2): 189–208.

Bourdieu, M. 1986. The forms of capital.

Becker, G. S. 1993. Nobel lecture: The economic way oflooking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy,101(3): 385–409.

Bringle, R. G., &Hatcher, J. A. 2009. Innovative practices inservice‐learning and curricular engagement. New Di-rections for Higher Education, 147: 37–46.

Boland, J. A. 2008. Embedding a civic engagement di-mension within the higher education curriculum: Astudy of policy, process and practice in Ireland.(Doctoral dissertation: University of Edinburgh.)

Crabtree,R.D.2008.Theoretical foundations for internationalservice-learning. Michigan Journal of CommunityService Learning, 15(1): 18–36.

Culross, R. 2010. Leveraging service-learning: A casestudy. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 14: 93–97.

D’Arlach, L., Sanchez, B., &Feuer, R. 2009. Voices from thecommunity: A case for reciprocity in service-learning.Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,16(1): 5–16.

Denison, D. K., Hart, S. L., & Kahn, J. A. 1996. Fromchimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing andvalidating a diagnostic model. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 39(4): 1005–1023.

Dewey, J. 1938. The theory of inquiry. NY: Holt, Rinehart,& Winston.

DiPadova-Stocks, L. N. 2005. Two major concerns aboutservice learning: What if we don’t do it? And what ifwe do? Academy of Management Learning & Edu-cation, 4(3): 345–353.

Dorado, S., & Giles, Jr D. E. 2004. Service-learning part-nerships: Paths of engagement. Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service Learning, 11(1): 25–37.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case studyresearch. Academy of Management Review, 14(4):532–550.

Eisenhardt, K.M., &Graebner,M. E. 2007. Theory buildingfrom cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academyof Management Journal, 50(1): 25–32.

Eyler, J. S. 2000. What do we most need to know about theimpact of service learning on student learning?Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning.

Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. 1999. Where’s the learning inservice learning? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fleck, B., Smith, R., & Ignizio, G. 2015. Some assemblyrequired: Building and evaluating service-learning in


higher education curriculum. EJournal of Public Af-fairs, 4.

Giles, D. E., Jr., & Eyler, J. 1994. The theoretical roots ofservice learning in John Dewey: Toward a theory ofservice learning. Michigan Journal of CommunityService Learning, 1(1): 77–85.

Godfrey, P. C. 1999. Service learning and managementeducation–A call to action. Journal of ManagementInquiry, 8(4): 363–378.

Godfrey, P. C., Illes, L. M., & Berry, G. R. 2005. Creatingbreadth in business education through service learn-ing. Academy of Management Learning & Educa-tion, 4(3): 309–323.

Grusky, S. 2000. International service learning: A criticalguide from an impassioned advocate. The AmericanBehavioral Scientist, 43(5): 858–867.

Hackman, J. L. 1987. The. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.),Handbookof organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Heffernan, K., & Cone, R. 2001. Fundamentals of service-learning course construction. Providence, RI: Cam-pus Compact.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. 1984. The qualitativeresearcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Jacoby, B. 1996. Service learning in higher education:Concepts and practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Whydifferences make a difference: A field study of di-versity, conflict and performance in workgroups.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 741–763.

Katz, R. 1982. The effects of group longevity on projectcommunication and performance. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 21(1): 81–104.

Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. 1985. Project performance and thelocus of influence in the R&D matrix. Academy ofManagement Journal, 28(1): 67–87.

Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. L. 2008. A decade of service-learn-ing: A review of the field ten years after JOBE’sseminal special issue. Journal of Business Ethics,81(4): 811–822.

Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. L., & Peterson, T. O. 2005. Servicelearning and management education: Introducingthe “WECARE” approach.Academy ofManagementLearning & Education, 4(3): 272–277.

Kiely, R. 2004. A chameleon with a complex: Searchingfor transformation in international service-learning.Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning,10(2): 5–20.

Kolb, B. 1984. Functions of the frontal cortex of the rat: Acomparative review.BrainResearch.BrainResearchReviews, 8(1): 65–98.

Kolenko,T.A., Porter,G.,Wheatley,W.,&Colby,M. 1996.Acritique of service learning projects in managementeducation: Pedagogical foundations, barriers, andguidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(1): 133–142.

Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. 2009. From experienceto experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learn-ing capability for global leader development. Academyof Management Learning & Education, 8(4): 511–526.

O’Meara, K. A. 2002. Uncovering the values in facultyevaluation of service as scholarship. The Review ofHigher Education, 26(1): 57–80.

O’Meara, K. A., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. 2008. Fac-ulty careers and work lives: A professional growthperspective. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(3):1–221.

Papamarcos, S. D. 2005. Giving traction to managementtheory: Today’s service learning. Academy of Man-agement Learning & Education, 4(3): 325–335.

Pompa, L. 2002. Service-learning as a crucible for personaland social transformation. Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service Learning, 9(1): 173–192.

Porter, M., & Monard, K. 2001. Ayni in the global village:Building relationships of reciprocity through in-ternational service-learning. Michigan Journal ofCommunity Service Learning, 8(1): 5–17.

Pyle, K. R. 1981. International cross cultural service/learning: Impact on student development. Journal ofCollege Student Personnel, 22(6): 509–514.

Saltmarsh, J., Hartley, M., & Clayton, P. H. 2009. Demo-cratic Engagement White Paper. Boston, MA: NewEngland Resource Center for Higher Education.

Sigmon,R.L. 1990. Service-learning:Threeprinciples. In J.Kendall, and Associates (Eds.), Combining serviceand learning: A resource book for community andpublic service: 56–64. Raleigh, NC: National Societyfor Internships and Experiential Education.

Steiner, S. D., & Watson, M. A. 2006. The service learningcomponent in business education: The values linkagevoid. Academy of Management Learning & Educa-tion, 5(4): 422–434.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. 1998. Basics of qualitativeresearch: Techniques and procedures for devel-oping grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. 2000. Community-centeredservice learning:Moving fromdoing for to doingwith.The American Behavioral Scientist, 43(5): 767–780.

Yin, R. K. 1984. Case study research: Design andmethods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Yin, R. K. 2011.Qualitative research from start to finish.New York: The Guilford Press.

Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. 2012. Ameta-analysis on the effects ofservice learning on the social, personal, and cognitiveoutcomes of learning. Academy of ManagementLearning & Education, 11(1): 9–27.

EmilyBlock is theGeorgeM.CormieAssociate Professor ofStrategic Management and Organization at the Universityof Alberta School of Business. She received her PhD inorganizational behavior from the University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign. Her research explores how organiza-tions manage institutional pluralism and the role of sym-bols in shaping social evaluations.

VivaOnaBartkus is an associate professor ofmanagementat the University of Notre Dame. She received her PhDin international relations at the University of Oxford.Her research focuses on the leadership approaches mosteffective in solving complex business problems and thesocial capital of communities that enables collaboration.

APPENDIX A

Description of Service-Learning Course

Our data comes from the SL projects conducted within asingle course in the college of business at a private mid-western university. This 6-credit elective course has anaverage enrollment of about 24 graduate students. Themajority of students are in their last semester of their MBAprogram, although some 3rd-year law students, masters ofpeace studies students, and PhD students enrolled in aninternationally focused biology specialtywere included aswell. We based student selection on a competitive appli-cation process comprised of essays, interviews with pro-gram alumni, and consultationwith professors in theMBAcore courses.1

Teams of 5–7 students and an advisor were pairedwithnongovernmental organizations (NGO) with humanitar-ian missions to examine the impact of business in post-conflict societies through the conduct of business- andpeace-related projects in a variety of international con-texts. Students received their project assignments inthe fall semester, conducted background research overthe winter break, engaged in case work and team build-ing during a retreat before the course began, and startedcollaborating with their partner organizations in early

January. The course readings and class discussion sup-ported the project work by examining the context inwhich each team was serving. The coursework exploredbusiness concepts, such as problem-solving and decision-making, as well as theoretical topics outside of business,such as development economics, international relations,law, and philosophy. Students spent 2 weeks in thefield midsemester working alongside their partners andreturned for the secondhalf of the semester to analyze theirdata and codify their recommendations to partners. Eachsummer, course instructors conducted project follow upswith partners and selected projects and partners for thesubsequent year.

Over the last 8 years, the course has conducted 30projects that varied across several key dimensions. Thefirst is location. We have conducted projects in 20 coun-tries, including Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Nicaragua, Cam-bodia, Bosnia, and Egypt. The locations were selected inconsultation with partners but shared the common fea-ture of having experienced significant violent conflict inrecent history. The course partnered with three large in-ternational nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) andfive smaller local NGOs working in both rural and urbansettings. Since partners proposed projects based on theirstrategic and operational priorities, significant variationexisted among the projects in terms of economic sectorsexamined, such as agriculture,mining, and infrastructureand in terms of issues explored, such as access to capital/microfinance, healthcare, human trafficking, disasterpreparedness, and entrepreneurship. Given the variationacross geography, project focus, and partners, we suggestthat this sample has sufficient breadth to generate insightsthat may inform other service-learning courses, particu-larly those conducted in international contexts.

This course design fits squarely under both Heffernanand Cone’s (2001) and Kolenko and colleagues’ (1996)definitions of SL. From the perspective of Heffernan &Cone (2001), SL involves four key elements: (1) engage-ment, (2) reciprocity, (3) reflection, (4) dissemination.Our course fits across those categories in the followingways: We encouraged engagement with the academythrough the course work that focuses on interdisciplinarytopics such as law, economic development, internationalbusiness, ethics, and public policy. Class sessions weredesigned such that students took turns leading discus-sions. We also encouraged engagement with the countrycontext and the specific problem they were researching.Before the students began the course, we asked them toread several books on the history of the country in whichtheywould serve. During the first part of the semester, thefirst deliverable to the partnerwas awhite paper on globalbest practices regarding the partner’s specific problem(i.e., infrastructure, healthcare, agriculture, microfinance,disaster preparedness, mining). Students were also encour-aged to meet with fellow students or other communitymembers who are from the regions in which they would beserving. They learned basic phrases in the language and

1 The selection ratio for the course ranged from one-halfto one-eighth of student applicants.


sampled regional cuisine. During the in-country portion,the students livedwith families to immerse themselves indaily life and gain a firsthand understanding of thechallenges associated with their project. To illustrate,during their fieldwork, students have planted rice,cooked meals, carried bananas to market, collected andprocessed garbage, and implemented training programson business concepts. We further fostered studentengagement by requiring them to absorb some of the ad-ministrative burden of the course, such as travel logisticsand acting as the partner liaison.

Our SL program also focused on reciprocity by requiringthe co-production of all recommendations by a joint teamthat consisted of students and staff from the partner orga-nization. We began the student selection process bywarning students that our SL program is not looking to“help,” but rather to “learn and serve.” Students joinedwith partner staff who were deeply embedded in commu-nities to work toward a common goal, where both partieshad the opportunity to learn and teach one another(Heffernan & Cone, 2001). We incorporated reflectionthrough four individual personal reflections required fromstudents during the semester. This forced students to ex-plore their experiences and convictions. We also facili-tated nightly reflection activities during the in-countryimmersion phase. This is consistent with Lewin’s earlyresearch on the Connecticut State Interracial Commissionwhosemembers gathered in the evenings to talk about theirexperiences. Kolb characterized Lewin’s model as onewhere “[d]iscovery was made that learning best facilitatedin an environment where there is a dialectic tension andconflict between immediate concrete experience and an-alytical detachment” (Kolb, 1984: 9). Finally, we dissemi-nated our emerging findings in a variety of ways. Thestudent teams presented their recommendations to theirpartners in the field, to the broader university community,and whenever possible, to executives within the partner’sheadquarters in the United States.

Kolenko and colleagues’ (1996) theory of SL adds twodimensions: The application of skills and understandingsocial issues. The application of skills is central to thevalue derived by partners. Our student teams providedexpertise in business fundamentals, such as business plandevelopment, sensitivity analyses, market research, andvalue-chain analysis. Indeed, partners have frequentlyprovided feedback on how much their staff learned moregenerally about business and more specifically about fi-nancial analysis and market assessments by working

alongside the student teams. The understanding of socialissues was built into the curriculum and project design.Readings in development economics, international re-lations, politics, peace studies, philosophy, and law hel-ped to prepare students for the context in which theywould be serving. Moreover, no project focused exclu-sively on business issues, but rather required the applica-tion of business skills to broader social issues.

Our students spend only 2 weeks conducting fieldworkin country. This is a limited amount of time for the deepimmersion required for an international service-learningcourse, where jet lag and culture shock can combine withhurried data collection to inhibit substantive engagementin the context. We sought to maximize time in country inseveral ways. First, project teamsworkedwith partners forseveral months before and after the in-country portion ofthe coursework. We attempted to make the in-countryportion a vital, yet small part of the overall service-learningobjective. Second, many project teams were able to collectdata before travel, gaining access, albeit indirect access,to beneficiaries. For example, teams have read interviewtranscripts collected by partners and even conductedpreliminary photo narrative data collection to gain a morerobust understanding of the project and context. Finally,during the immersion phase, project teams endeavored togain depth of experience over breadth whenever possible,encouraging teams to spend more time in fewer locations,allowing for the development of deeper and more naturalrelationships. During their 2-week in-country immersion,teams conducted between 10 and 12 days of fieldwork,which included interviews, focus groups, participant ob-servation, and homestays. The days spent in country var-ied across projects and teams. On some days, teams wouldconduct three focus groups of 10 or more individuals. Onother days, teams would split up and work alongsidefarmers, fisherman, traders, and even informal trashworkers. Our project teams have interviewed all types ofstakeholders, including government ministers, doctors,drivers, students, sexworkers, imams, and bishops. Teamshave, among other activities, planted rice, weeded gar-dens, sold goods in markets, attended health and nutritiontraining sessions, woven fabric, and fished. Upon return,teams are encouraged to continue to reach out to partnersand beneficiaries to continue the process of reciprocallearning. On multiple occasions, our students havereturned as alumni to their project sites at their own ex-pense to continue to work with their partners and to visitindividuals they met through their project work.


Copyright of Academy of Management Learning & Education is the property of Academy ofManagement and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to alistserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.

LEARNING TO SERVE: DELIVERING PARTNER VALUE THROUGH ...

Documents