Come together: unlocking the potential of collaboration between universities and park and recreation agencies.

The past decade has seen a renewed interest in creating more engaged universities that better serve the community at large. Historically, collaboration between universities and community organizations has been led by the education and medical fields. Stakeholders in these professions recognized that collaborative efforts often provided better training opportunities for teachers and medical professionals, as well as opportunities to conduct high-quality evaluation and research.

The park and recreation profession also has a long history of collaboration. Historically, most of the initial university park and recreation departments housed faculty who came directly from the field. However, although there have been good examples of collaborative efforts between park and recreation practitioners and universities, there's still a feeling that more collaborative efforts could be encouraged and the benefits of existing efforts maximized. As one recreation director has said to us, "Collaboration is the key to improving both education and practical application in our field. We have often seen some cooperation take place and not enough collaboration. The clients who receive our services deserve the best that both sides can offer."

Benefits oF Bonding

Successful collaborative efforts between higher education institutions and community organizations create a winning situation for both sets of stakeholders. For example, as James Carr has pointed out, universities can be powerful agents of change in a community because of their geographic location, enormous resources (often ranking as the largest nongovernmental employer in cities) and the benefits of altruism.

Successful collaboration between higher education institutions and community agencies exists when faculty gain an understanding of what the community needs are, and the community is exposed to the resources and expertise of universities. When this occurs, the advantages accrued are beneficial to all parties.

An engaged university that actively collaborates with community agencies often results in a more dynamic learning environment for students. In terms of parks and recreation, colleges and universities are often equipped to provide valuable services, such as research and evaluation, especially during a time when park and recreation departments are under pressure to show more accountability. As one park and recreation director put it, "Too often the political area looks at park and recreation as a soft environment, one where they can place any administrator. As one former councilman said to me, 'What does it take to throw out a couple of basketballs, mow some grass and weave a basket?' Practitioners and educators need to work together to raise awareness and change these kinds of perceptions."

So Why Isn't More Happening?

Some researchers have described how many of the problems behind collaborative efforts stem from a power inequity between university personnel and those who are working in the community. This is generated by academicians' self-perception of their role, status and power, and how they're perceived by those within community agencies. The perception of knowledge and power inequities can result in an unrealistic elevation of the university professional in a role where she's expected to fix problems in the community. Disappointment can often result when these expectations aren't met.

Some researchers have described two types of relationships that form in collaborative efforts. The first, "power-over" relationships, occurs when power is viewed negatively resulting in resistance on the part of one or both parties. "File second, "power-with" relationships, consists of synergistic collaboration in which tire participating individuals construct mutually beneficial social structures. Unfortunately the power-over model is pervasive, often compounding the issue of creating effective university-agency collaborations.

The few studies that have examined collaborative partnerships within the park and recreation field have found a large discrepancy between support for collaborative partnerships and the actual collaborative efforts that are taking place. This suggests that park and recreation professionals and faculty conceptually recognize the promise of collaboration, but may lack the knowledge, motivation, skills or resources to initiate and maintain these collaborative efforts.

Collaboration in the Park and Recreation Field

What types of collaborative efforts are currently taking place in the park and recreation field? We recently conducted a national study to try to answer this question. Specifically, we sought to understand the primary areas of collaboration between public park and recreation practitioners and park and recreation faculty; the importance and performance of collaborative efforts between park and recreation practitioners and faculty; and what differences existed, if any, between the perceived importance of collaborative efforts between practitioners and faculty. We identified 31 possible areas of collaboration, then surveyed NRPA members and received nearly 500 responses. The survey asked respondents to identify which areas of collaboration they think are important and which areas they were engaged in. From these responses, six key themes emerged, each of which is discussed below.

* Collaboration Viewed as Important: Most stakeholders recognize, at least conceptually, the potential value of collaboration. Both practitioners and faculty indicated that all but seven of the 31 areas of collaboration were at least "somewhat important" for the park and recreation field.

Previously, the few research studies that have examined practitioner-faculty collaboration have noted a discrepant relationship between general support for collaborating and the actual initiation and maintenance of these efforts. Such discrepancy was, for the most part, absent in this study. When asked to evaluate the importance of specific types of collaboration, and when asked to identify whether they had engaged or intended to engage in such efforts, respondents indicated a consistency in their attitudes and behaviors. Stakeholders were generally collaborating in those areas that they believed were most important for the field. This was especially true for collaboration that tended to yield the most mutually beneficial outcomes for both partners. Similary, collaboration efforts that were seen as less important had fewer stakeholders actively working together in those areas.

* Faculty Often More Enthusiastic About Collaborating: While there was substantial agreement on the importance of collaboration to enhance student and professional development in the field, faculty placed significantly more importance on these areas than did practitioners. In fact, faculty rated most areas of collaboration as more important than did their practitioner counterparts. Part of this discrepancy can be attributed to the nature of employment in higher education institutions and park and recreation agencies. Faculty in this study reported that they were required on average, to spend 55 percent of their time on teaching, 25 percent on research and 20 percent on service. Therefore, faculty have an incentive to engage in collaborative efforts with practitioners in the field to enhance the teaching, research and service requirements of their jobs. Park and recreation practitioners, on the other hand, are less likely to have a mandate to collaborate with higher education institutions as a regular component of their job duties. As such, the areas of collaboration that were less obvious, more vague or had fewer tangible benefits to the practitioner were generally seen as less important.

* Professional Development Popular Area of Collaboration: Respondents indicated that providing opportunities for internships and service learning were among the most important areas of collaboration between practitioners and faculty. Collaborative efforts aimed at increasing student opportunities for field-based learning represent a most obvious win-win scenario for both parties, and are quite possibly an example of where power relationships are more equal. These collaborations allow colleges and universities to meet student demands for practical experience in the park and recreation field, while park and recreation agencies are able to utilize the talent and energy of student paraprofessionals. In the end, the park and recreation field benefits from having educated, experienced new professionals mentored by working practitioners. In addition, efforts supporting the inclusion of field-based experiences within the parks and recreation curriculum have a long tradition encouraging university-community collaboration in these areas.

Similarly, other areas of collaboration rated as most important by practitioners and faculty, such as interacting with each other at conferences, utilizing practitioners as guest speakers or adjunct faculty, and utilizing the park and recreation agency to enhance teaching and research opportunities, all represent power-with relationships that draw upon the expertise and resources of the academy and community. Partnership efforts such as these are generally easy to initiate and maintain, and provide the most tangible, recognizable outcomes for both parties.

* Research And Evaluation--Important But ...: Undertaking research and evaluation was one area of collaboration that was seen as important for the field, yet still had fewer than half of the respondents reporting past or intended engagement. This may stem from the alienation between practitioners who see faculty as out-of-touch with real-world problems, and faculty who see practitioners as irrelevant in their pursuit of their research agendas. One park and recreation director responded, "Faculty come across as 'out of touch' with frontline recreation departments. Their research ideas don't appear to show relevance to 'the real world.'" On the other hand, a university professor responded, "Practitioners are often less interested in research that has rigor and integrity for publication and more interested in solving immediate needs--needs assessment, agency evaluation, marketing strategy." Nevertheless, efforts must be made to reconcile our attitudes and behaviors with respect to certain areas of collaborative engagement.

While the value of research and evaluation is seen as at least somewhat important for the field, practitioners might be unsure of the importance and relevance of such efforts for their agencies. Research is often seen as less of a mutually beneficial, synergistic effort on the part of both practitioners and faculty, and more the domain of the academy, divorced from real-world application. Most faculty in this sample were expected to conduct research as a part of their job duties. Practitioners, for the most part, don't have this built-in motivation for engaging in research efforts. It's also possible that in some cases, research or evaluation efforts that practitioners see as important might not fit in with a faculty member's research agenda, or might not be seen as an important area for scholarly investigation.

Despite this discrepancy, research and evaluation was still seen as a critical area of collaboration, particularly as increased accountability is being demanded. As one park and recreation director pointed out, "Many administrators do not feel they are equipped to tackle the research. That is why the collaboration with educators is key--not to mention the fact that academic research would be viewed and accepted much more readily. But it benefits everyone to have people ... working together to tackle all problems and issues and solutions."

If collaboration is to be viewed as an exchange relationship, practitioners and faculty must be seen as partners in the research process, with both parties making contributions based on their areas of expertise and receiving benefits that they otherwise wouldn't obtain. Both practitioners and faculty must be cognizant of and appreciate the value of the benefits that they'll receive if they engage in research efforts.

* Distance Net Necessarily a Factor: One promising finding of this study was that, for the most part, distance from a college or university offering a recreation/leisure studies program didn't have an effect on practitioner-faculty collaboration. Proximity didn't significantly explain collaboration performance except in the case of using practitioners as part-time or adjunct faculty and in providing service-learning opportunities as part of an academic course. In both cases, practitioners that were located more than one hour's driving distance were less likely to collaborate with faculty in these areas. Interestingly, none of the other 29 areas of collaboration were affected by distance.

* Past Performance/Future Intent: Results of this study also revealed a strong relationship between past engagement in collaborative efforts and future intent to maintain such relationships. Respondents who were actively involved in collaboration over the past year were more likely to report planning to continue to collaborate in the next year. Similarly, those that didn't engage in collaboration in the past weren't as likely to report the intent to collaborate in the future. This finding should hold particular appeal to groups or organizations dedicated to facilitating collaborative engagement for the benefit of the park and recreation field. Organizations such as NRPA and its branches, such as the American Park and Recreation Society or the Society of Park and Recreation Educators, might continue to strengthen and promote collaborative engagement between practitioners and faculty based on the knowledge that, once these relationships are established, they sustain themselves.

Often collaborative partnerships require some work up front. The promising feature behind collaborative efforts is that, once established, these efforts sustain themselves and tend to produce valuable benefits for both sides that ultimately benefit the park and recreation profession as a whole. However, too often collaborators fail to get past the initial stage and the motivation, drive and potential benefits get lost.

One director put it this way: "As Lewis Carroll said in Alice in Wonderland, 'If you don't know where you're going, any road will do,' I hope this road leads to a productive destination. We have been down it before but always seem to lose our way."

It's important for practitioners and faculty to recognize the potential of collaboration so that we stay on the road and don't lose our way.

Collaboration Tips

1. Provide opportunities for students to complete internships and pre-internship experiences.

2. Interact with practitioners and faculty at conferences and professional workshops.

3. Provide opportunities for students to engage in service learning as a component of an academic course.

4. Use park and recreation agencies as sites for field-based research.

5. Have practitioners serve as guest speakers in academic classes.

6. Offer and take advantage of continuing education opportunities through the college or university.

7. Use park and recreation agency resources to enhance teaching opportunities.

8. Provide opportunities for graduate students to conduct agency-related research.

9. Collaborate with practitioners and faculty to research and analyze trends in the field.

10. Include practitioners and faculty on department and agency advisory boards.

11. Collaborate with practitioners and faculty to determine critical job competencies in the field.

12. Collaborate with practitioners and faculty to determine best practices and benchmarks for the field.

13. Present with practitioners and faculty at conferences and professional workshops.

14. Provide opportunities for graduate assistantships in park and recreation agencies.

15. Collaborate with practitioners and faculty on the design of park and recreation curricula.

16. Collaborate with practitioners and faculty to research outcomes of the recreation experience.

17. Take part in interactive forums with practitioners and faculty to determine critical research areas for the field.

18. Receive support from practitioners and support faculty for research projects in agency settings.

19. Conduct market research with practitioners and faculty to determine needs of customers.

20. Coordinate efforts with practitioners and faculty to influence public policy.

21. Collaborate with practitioners and faculty to design evaluation instruments for use in agency settings.

22. Serve on park and recreation and academic advisory boards.

23. Have practitioners serve as part-time or adjunct faculty in academic departments.

24. Collaborate with practitioners and faculty in evaluating agency programs.

RELATED ARTICLE: Encouraging future collaboration.

Encourage Different Types of Collaboration: One of the concerns frequently expressed in our study had to do with being a small department or a "one-person show." Collaboration can encompass a number of areas, and doesn't have to entail large-scale research projects or high-intensity levels of student internships. Collaboration efforts can require greater or lesser amounts of effort and formality, depending on the type of relationship that's sought.

Ask "What Can I Offer?" us Well as "What Can I Gain?": One of the constraining factors behind collaboration occurs when stakeholders on either side feel aggrieved or don't feel they're gaining anything from a relationship. A different mindset may help to alleviate that concern. Thus, when thinking about getting involved in collaboration, think about what you can offer as well as what you hope to gain. Thinking of collaboration as meaningful exchange, with both parties giving and receiving, helps to realistically frame the relationship. Benefits are important, but both parties must be able to achieve their objectives if the collaboration is going to be initiated and maintained.

Make a Greater Attempt to Understand Roles and Responsibilities of Each: One of the inhibiting factors behind collaboration is the common complaint that practitioners and faculty don't understand and are unsympathetic to each others' roles and responsibilities. For example, we've been collaborating with the director of a local after-school program. Although the collaboration was initially successful, issues as to its future direction soon emerged. During one meeting, both sides took the time to articulate their needs, roles and responsibilities. For the director, it was enlightening to understand the tenure process and the research requirements of the faculty. The discussion also forced us to think about what we could bring to the collaboration to better help the director. Greater appreciation of all of our responsibilities and professional requirements allowed both sides to think about how the collaboration could work, and resulted in a more effective arrangement

Make Relationships Mere Formal: In most cases, research shows that a more formal relationship, such as a written agreement detailing stakeholders' responsibilities, extends the longevity and effectiveness of collaboration. This is especially critical if there's a lot riding on the partnership, such as long-term grant-funded projects or the initiation and implementation of formal student internships. A written plan helps to keep everyone on track and allows for both sides to see who's responsible for what.

Move to a "Power-With" Rather Than "Power-Over" Relationship: As issues of power have been shown to affect the nature and extent of collaborative engagement, it's important for practitioners and faculty to adequately understand the power dynamics that impact such relationships. Collaborative efforts will have little chance to get off the ground if stakeholders engage in power struggles and feelings of superiority, instead of recognizing that both bring different skills and expertise to the partnership. Too often, partnerships break down or fail to materialize when stakeholders engage in a power-over relationship where partners hold a self-perceived inflated sense of power.

Create an Organizational Commitment to Facilitating Collaboration: Most of the suggestions outlined above occur at an individual level. However, a commitment at the macro level through organizations like NRPA is critical, especially given that conferences and professional development seminars are common forums that bring practitioners and faculty together. For example, 85 percent of the respondents said that they regularly interact with each other at conferences and professional workshops. Some suggestions include having a regular track at professional conferences to create forums for collaboration that would help address some of the issues outlined above. Many respondents mentioned that this had occurred in the past, but not on a formal, regular basis. Other suggestions include having special incentives for faculty and practitioners to work together, such as incentives for faculty and practitioners to present together at conferences or co-author publications.

Jason Bocarro, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Recreation Management & Policy Department at the University of New Hampshire, in Durham. His specific area of interest is outdoor experiential education programs and youth development. He can be contacted at jbocarro@cisunix. unh.edu. Bob Barcelona, Ph.D., is also an assistant professor in the Recreation Management & Policy Department at the University of New Hampshire, in Durham. His specific area of interest is sports management and recreational youth sports. He can be contacted at [e-mail].