Popular in Professional

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Education

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

University of Southern California Pedro A. Noguera

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Pharmacy

Cytotoxic Activity and Anti-Migratory Effect of Berberine-Phytantriol Liquid Crystalline on Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

University of Technology Sydney Kamal Dua

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Education

Learning to Serve: Delivering Partner Value Through Service-Learning Projects

View more insights in Professional - Business - Management

View more figures from University of Alberta

View the page of Emily Block

Read the Study

Emily Block discusses the three dimensions of service-learning projects (partner readiness, project design, and project execution) associated with the creation of direct value for partner organizations.

Image courtesy of interviewee. May 2, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the concept of service learning, which is an educational framework integrating traditional learning with community service. The aim is to enable students to apply academic theories in real-world contexts, addressing societal needs. The authors have developed a service learning program where MBA students work with international humanitarian NGOs, focusing on issues like poverty and post-war reconciliation.

Over eight years, they executed projects across 20 countries and identified two types of value created for partners: **direct value** (tangible outcomes directly affecting the organization) and **indirect value** (benefits not initially planned but still valuable, such as reputational gains and staff development). The research highlighted that while students' transformative learning experiences are well-documented, there is little focus on the value created for partner organizations.

Through interviews and analysis of their projects, the authors found that successful collaborations required careful partner readiness, effective project design, and execution management. Key factors for creating direct value included alignment between project aims, local and executive support, the readiness of partners to engage, and the timing of projects.

The article outlines actionable recommendations for service learning instructors, emphasizing the importance of involving local partners, fostering deep collaboration, and ensuring that both students and partners are actively engaged in the field. The insights gleaned contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the value generated in service learning initiatives, helping to guide better project designs in the future.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.000 --> 00:02.965
Service learning is really an increasingly popular

00:03.605 --> 00:04.845
approach to education

00:04.955 --> 00:07.605
that combines traditional learning objectives

00:07.605 --> 00:08.605
with community service.

00:08.825 --> 00:10.965
And the goal here is to allow students

00:11.065 --> 00:13.165
to apply their academic theories,

00:13.165 --> 00:15.205
but take them really to, to the real world,

00:15.305 --> 00:18.845
to solve problems that meet direct societal needs.

00:19.505 --> 00:20.525
And my co-author

00:20.525 --> 00:22.405
and I had spent the last eight years

00:22.725 --> 00:24.125
building a service learning program.

00:24.825 --> 00:28.725
We, it was designed to bring teams of MBA students to work

00:28.725 --> 00:30.205
with partner organizations.

00:30.795 --> 00:33.725
Most of them were international humanitarian NGOs.

00:34.065 --> 00:35.965
Uh, and we were looking to explore the role

00:35.965 --> 00:38.565
of business in addressing issues of poverty

00:39.305 --> 00:41.965
and reconciliation and rebuilding after war.

00:42.505 --> 00:45.005
So we, at this point, we had worked in,

00:45.155 --> 00:47.485
more than 20 countries on 30 projects.

00:48.145 --> 00:51.325
And our projects were, for example, one of our projects to,

00:51.325 --> 00:53.405
just to give you a sense of the type of work we were doing,

00:53.745 --> 00:58.685
we were working with a child focused NGO on understanding

00:59.265 --> 01:02.085
the challenge of, of child sex trafficking.

01:02.345 --> 01:04.405
And what we, what we did is we used a,

01:05.455 --> 01:08.815
a supply chain perspective to gen generate novel ways to,

01:09.195 --> 01:11.535
approach their trafficking programs.

01:11.545 --> 01:12.615
Their trafficking was,

01:12.825 --> 01:15.975
their programs were largely focused on just essentially

01:16.235 --> 01:17.815
rehabilitation after rescue.

01:18.035 --> 01:20.375
But we wanted to understand kind of broadly

01:20.515 --> 01:23.575
how business theories, particularly analysis

01:23.575 --> 01:24.855
of the supply chain could,

01:25.305 --> 01:27.415
could prevent trafficking from happening.

01:27.465 --> 01:31.215
Right? Um, our approach was really partner centric.

01:31.395 --> 01:35.135
We spent a lot of time being cognizant about how much time

01:35.155 --> 01:38.175
and energy our partners were investing in co-producing work

01:38.175 --> 01:41.255
with student teams, working together, a lot of preparation

01:41.595 --> 01:42.895
and a lot of time in the field.

01:43.115 --> 01:44.615
And we really wanted to make sure

01:44.615 --> 01:48.255
that our partners got something out of the experience,

01:48.645 --> 01:50.695
that, that they really found value from it.

01:51.195 --> 01:53.095
And so we went to the academic literature

01:53.355 --> 01:54.815
and tried to find a way to guide us,

01:54.835 --> 01:56.775
but we found that, in fact,

01:57.195 --> 01:59.855
the literature said very little about partner value.

01:59.955 --> 02:03.255
So we decided to use our own course as a context

02:03.555 --> 02:05.255
and really try and unpack the factors

02:05.285 --> 02:08.615
that really make these types of experiences valuable

02:08.615 --> 02:10.135
and useful for partners.

02:10.435 --> 02:13.175
So to start off with, there really was very literal,

02:13.765 --> 02:16.855
very little research that talked about value at all.

02:16.995 --> 02:20.855
So this, this notion of value is very kind of,

02:21.235 --> 02:23.015
obtuse in the, in the literature.

02:23.285 --> 02:24.335
What we found that most

02:24.335 --> 02:25.535
of the literature was focused on

02:25.635 --> 02:26.935
the students themselves, right?

02:27.315 --> 02:30.135
And that there were clear guidelines on the ways you can

02:30.135 --> 02:33.135
ensure students have transformative learning experiences.

02:33.635 --> 02:35.775
Um, and we were pretty confident that our stu,

02:35.775 --> 02:38.655
that our students, we had a lot of, feedback mechanisms

02:38.655 --> 02:41.335
and we felt we were hitting that goal quite effectively.

02:41.795 --> 02:44.815
But the literature said very little about the experiences

02:44.915 --> 02:46.935
of partners, mostly about

02:47.035 --> 02:49.095
how difficult it was to measure partners.

02:49.195 --> 02:53.735
And there's a, a really nice quote from a paper in a MLE,

02:53.735 --> 02:55.655
from Paul Godfrey, from BYU

02:55.655 --> 02:58.775
and his colleagues where he talked about that most

02:58.775 --> 03:02.535
Of the, the research was on the, the big L small s, right?

03:02.755 --> 03:04.855
Big, big learning, very small service.

03:05.235 --> 03:08.175
And, and that we really don't know that much about

03:08.685 --> 03:11.615
what really service looks like.

03:12.315 --> 03:14.855
And so we looked at, you know,

03:15.045 --> 03:18.775
what the existing research really said was, things

03:18.775 --> 03:21.695
that we were already doing kind of reciprocity,

03:21.705 --> 03:24.615
where we work with empowering partners, moving

03:24.635 --> 03:25.735
beyond just kind

03:25.735 --> 03:29.135
of superficial projects like tutoring, right?

03:29.225 --> 03:31.295
Which just reproduce power inequities.

03:31.515 --> 03:36.205
And, and, and, you know,

03:36.345 --> 03:39.645
and the second was that, that thing that we were doing,

03:39.645 --> 03:41.405
that there were lots of things that were important,

03:41.505 --> 03:43.125
but that were really outside of our control.

03:43.475 --> 03:47.285
Like, for example, the literature suggested that

03:47.805 --> 03:50.165
universities should have enduring partnerships

03:50.165 --> 03:54.565
with partners across multi, multi-facets of the university.

03:54.565 --> 03:56.645
And as course instructors, that was great,

03:56.745 --> 03:59.325
but it wasn't particularly actionable by us.

03:59.825 --> 04:02.645
Um, so what we did is we went back to our partners

04:02.905 --> 04:05.805
and probed specifically what they were able to get out

04:05.805 --> 04:08.765
of our collaborations, you know, using the hindsight

04:08.765 --> 04:11.125
of history, what was,

04:11.435 --> 04:13.005
what was the value created for them?

04:13.865 --> 04:17.605
And so we really uncovered that there were two real types

04:17.605 --> 04:19.765
of value that our, our partners experienced,

04:19.865 --> 04:22.485
and we've labeled them as directed indirect value.

04:23.105 --> 04:26.925
And so direct value is really the specific tangible outcomes

04:26.995 --> 04:30.125
from the project that really directly affected the partner

04:30.165 --> 04:33.605
organization and their operations and their strategy.

04:34.105 --> 04:37.925
So for example, if we were able to

04:38.635 --> 04:41.445
develop an idea that was able to secure them new funding,

04:41.945 --> 04:44.605
or that helped them identify new partners to work with,

04:44.985 --> 04:47.285
or find significant gaps in their program,

04:47.425 --> 04:49.805
or problems with the programming that they were unaware of,

04:50.345 --> 04:52.325
or creative, creative

04:52.385 --> 04:55.605
and generative new ideas to approach the problems that got,

04:55.605 --> 04:57.445
that was really direct value.

04:57.865 --> 05:00.165
And this is something different than the partner would've

05:00.165 --> 05:01.605
been able to do to do without us.

05:01.785 --> 05:06.205
It has to be a, a, a product of both the student team

05:06.205 --> 05:07.325
and the partner working together,

05:08.225 --> 05:12.165
and it persists beyond the particular engagement, right?

05:12.905 --> 05:14.325
But, and that was great.

05:14.325 --> 05:15.925
That was what we were always looking for.

05:15.925 --> 05:17.485
It was designed in our scope of work,

05:17.585 --> 05:21.045
but they also talked about that in, in addition

05:21.045 --> 05:23.845
to this direct value, they also talked about other benefits

05:23.845 --> 05:27.685
that we classify as indirect value, still created benefits

05:27.685 --> 05:30.045
for the partners, but hadn't been part of the plan

05:30.385 --> 05:31.565
or the deliverables.

05:31.865 --> 05:34.005
And examples of that were, for example,

05:34.005 --> 05:37.405
like the reputational benefit of working

05:37.555 --> 05:41.205
with an international, university

05:41.545 --> 05:46.125
so we could get access to populations, to actors that,

05:46.155 --> 05:48.685
that they might not be able to get audiences with,

05:49.065 --> 05:50.165
or the opportunity

05:50.185 --> 05:52.565
for professional development of their staff.

05:53.065 --> 05:55.285
You know, indirect value has to go

05:55.285 --> 05:58.205
beyond just accelerating existing activities.

05:58.275 --> 06:01.365
It's not like they're doing something and we come in

06:01.365 --> 06:02.965
and that, and where they were going.

06:03.105 --> 06:04.725
We, we just help them get there faster.

06:05.185 --> 06:08.205
But it's really the, the personnel development

06:08.425 --> 06:10.805
or the opportunities that come outside

06:10.805 --> 06:13.165
of the project deliverables, but that really create value.

06:13.345 --> 06:16.485
And even a couple of times, our partners,

06:16.625 --> 06:19.485
we helped them identify future potential employees.

06:19.485 --> 06:21.925
They hired our students after the fact,

06:21.985 --> 06:25.045
and that was a real type of this indirect value provided.

06:25.505 --> 06:28.725
Um, and so that was the first step really was saying,

06:28.875 --> 06:32.765
what is value and how do we conceptualize it both

06:32.825 --> 06:35.205
for our own uses and for the, for the literature.

06:35.635 --> 06:39.365
Okay. Well, we actually used an, an inductive approach

06:39.745 --> 06:43.285
and a comparative case analysis using,

06:43.285 --> 06:46.365
follow-up interviews with our, with our partners as well

06:46.385 --> 06:47.845
as archival materials.

06:48.225 --> 06:51.965
So we used the entire population of the 30 projects

06:51.965 --> 06:53.925
that we had conducted over the eight years

06:54.075 --> 06:56.285
that we had been running these, these, this course.

06:56.665 --> 06:58.525
And we actually went back to our partners

06:58.625 --> 06:59.685
to assess the value.

07:00.225 --> 07:03.285
And that involved kind of a real postmortem

07:04.055 --> 07:06.805
years later about kind of the, a real conversation

07:06.805 --> 07:08.965
with a number of partners about the value that was created.

07:09.585 --> 07:12.365
And then we took each of the 30 projects,

07:12.455 --> 07:15.925
classified them according to the type of value it produced,

07:16.345 --> 07:19.325
both yes or no direct value, and yes

07:19.325 --> 07:20.445
or no indirect value.

07:20.985 --> 07:23.045
And we actually, we found a couple of instances

07:23.045 --> 07:25.285
where there was no value, neither direct

07:25.345 --> 07:28.365
nor indirect, that was created for our partners.

07:28.625 --> 07:31.765
And we also found that there were

07:32.595 --> 07:35.525
very few circumstances where indirect value,

07:36.375 --> 07:37.725
sorry, my, my apologies.

07:37.975 --> 07:40.485
There were, there were no circumstances where direct value

07:41.445 --> 07:43.805
occurred where Indi direct value didn't occur.

07:43.865 --> 07:45.525
So that really saw, we found

07:45.525 --> 07:47.725
that indirect value was necessary,

07:47.745 --> 07:50.445
but not sufficient for the creation of direct value.

07:50.985 --> 07:52.885
Um, and under half

07:52.885 --> 07:56.045
of our projects succeeded in creating this type

07:56.045 --> 07:59.845
of direct value in, in addition to the indirect intangibles.

08:00.025 --> 08:01.925
And then we went back to the archival

08:01.925 --> 08:03.365
data produced by each team.

08:03.745 --> 08:07.805
So that included their field notes, all of the observations,

08:07.905 --> 08:10.925
the final reports, all of our in-process, work, product,

08:11.545 --> 08:13.925
and we're able to kind of break down

08:14.825 --> 08:18.125
the ways in which the engagement unfolded.

08:18.665 --> 08:21.525
And we had, field memos

08:21.525 --> 08:24.085
and diaries of students reflection papers.

08:24.705 --> 08:26.805
We had all of our partner reactions.

08:27.105 --> 08:30.245
And what we were able to do then is classify

08:30.775 --> 08:32.845
those projects in terms of where they fell

08:32.905 --> 08:35.365
and be able to identify some of the patterns

08:35.835 --> 08:39.125
that underpinned the creation of direct value.

08:39.225 --> 08:41.765
And really where we were interested largely in

08:42.025 --> 08:45.285
how do we create the direct value in addition to

08:45.285 --> 08:46.445
that indirect value.

08:47.145 --> 08:50.725
So we found, first of all, we developed a model

08:50.755 --> 08:54.845
that parses out three broad characteristics of projects that

08:55.235 --> 08:56.405
Produce direct value.

08:56.905 --> 08:59.245
And the first dimension is really partner readiness.

08:59.345 --> 09:02.325
And this is not about the quality of the partner,

09:02.705 --> 09:05.245
but it's really about the partner's ability

09:05.425 --> 09:08.965
to absorb our capacity and work with us, right?

09:09.145 --> 09:12.085
And not all partners have the capacity to do that, right?

09:12.235 --> 09:14.205
It's a huge amount of workload,

09:14.425 --> 09:16.125
and, a pretty

09:16.635 --> 09:19.325
dynamic context in which our partners operate.

09:19.665 --> 09:24.605
And so the ones that were really ready for us, they,

09:24.875 --> 09:26.405
they had a couple characteristics.

09:26.455 --> 09:30.485
First, we found that, readiness meant that,

09:30.485 --> 09:33.525
that there wasn't only alignment with executive priorities,

09:33.665 --> 09:36.325
but also with the local partners and their,

09:36.345 --> 09:38.165
and the strategic partners on the ground.

09:38.695 --> 09:42.085
Often as professors, we were interacting with their boards

09:42.085 --> 09:46.085
of directors or their international, arms of the NGO.

09:46.085 --> 09:48.845
And then once you get in country, there's,

09:48.845 --> 09:50.365
there's often a, a disconnect

09:50.365 --> 09:51.965
between the values and priorities.

09:51.965 --> 09:54.365
Sometimes they'd be like, great, now we have

09:54.365 --> 09:57.285
to host this team for two weeks and, and our bosses

09:57.425 --> 09:58.885
or our regional director wants us.

09:58.945 --> 10:01.845
And, and so, it was, we, first of all,

10:01.845 --> 10:03.645
we thought it was really important to have that type

10:03.645 --> 10:07.565
of alignment at both levels that these internal champions,

10:07.565 --> 10:09.685
within the partner organizations who are really

10:10.205 --> 10:12.845
invested in the project's outcome, they,

10:12.915 --> 10:16.125
they make all the difference in facilitating the necessary

10:16.445 --> 10:18.445
resources and support, but also allowing

10:18.505 --> 10:20.085
for the appropriate integration

10:20.085 --> 10:23.445
and follow up of, of, of, of the initiatives.

10:23.545 --> 10:26.405
Uh, we also found that if we didn't, if we had local

10:26.505 --> 10:28.685
but not executive support, then we came up

10:28.685 --> 10:31.045
with recommendations that were outside the purview.

10:31.065 --> 10:32.325
So it was really kind

10:32.325 --> 10:35.045
of partner readiness means at multiple levels.

10:35.385 --> 10:39.005
It also means that the partner has the right amount of human

10:39.025 --> 10:41.365
and knowledge capital to complement the skills

10:41.365 --> 10:42.605
that our students have, right?

10:42.865 --> 10:45.925
The staff have to have the relevant experience and knowledge

10:46.045 --> 10:48.245
and expertise to work alongside students

10:48.345 --> 10:50.325
and to implement product recommendations.

10:50.825 --> 10:53.005
Um, at, at times

10:53.705 --> 10:57.685
we found ourselves not creating direct value when neither

10:57.785 --> 11:01.125
the team nor the partner had the right, the, the right

11:01.795 --> 11:05.085
information and the right the right skills.

11:05.265 --> 11:07.245
For example, we were working on a health system

11:07.605 --> 11:10.485
strengthening part project with an international NGO

11:10.485 --> 11:12.725
that had lots of health system knowledge,

11:12.745 --> 11:15.565
but not particularly in Sierra Leone where we were working,

11:15.815 --> 11:19.765
where the health system had been white crumbled

11:19.765 --> 11:22.325
because of the, the long term civil war.

11:22.345 --> 11:24.245
In fact, there was something like four doctors

11:24.665 --> 11:25.685
in the entire country.

11:26.145 --> 11:30.285
Uh, we were teams of business scholars and students,

11:30.665 --> 11:34.175
and they were a team of, of

11:34.355 --> 11:37.215
and NGO workers who didn't have that health background.

11:37.275 --> 11:39.095
And so as much as we tried, we weren't able

11:39.095 --> 11:40.855
to get deeply enough into that problem.

11:41.555 --> 11:44.495
Um, and then finally, in terms of readiness,

11:44.515 --> 11:47.695
the operational environment, is really dynamic

11:47.955 --> 11:49.695
and the partner has to be able to navigate

11:49.695 --> 11:51.095
and adapt to that, right?

11:51.225 --> 11:54.085
Which is a deep understanding of cultural, economic,

11:54.085 --> 11:55.285
political dynamics,

11:55.285 --> 11:58.285
which can really impact the project's feasibility.

11:58.625 --> 12:02.285
That's knowing harder, having really tight connections

12:02.285 --> 12:03.685
and deep connections on the ground,

12:03.945 --> 12:06.805
but also really understanding how to get access

12:06.805 --> 12:08.325
to those critical populations.

12:08.745 --> 12:12.045
Um, some partners have more hands-off relationships

12:12.045 --> 12:14.765
with local partners, which makes it harder, harder

12:14.825 --> 12:16.365
to really get into those insights.

12:16.665 --> 12:18.085
So that's really about the,

12:18.105 --> 12:19.965
the partner being ready to absorb us.

12:20.425 --> 12:25.205
The second large dimension is the time, is, sorry, is,

12:25.585 --> 12:26.925
the design of the project,

12:27.145 --> 12:30.445
and that has kind of three sub dimensions as well.

12:31.535 --> 12:32.915
Um, we really wanted

12:32.915 --> 12:35.595
to talk largely about the project timing

12:36.375 --> 12:38.155
and where it was in the stage.

12:38.215 --> 12:40.075
So we found that the optimal stage

12:40.455 --> 12:42.795
for projects are either at the very beginning

12:43.055 --> 12:46.235
or at the very end of a larger initiative, right?

12:46.455 --> 12:50.475
At the early stages were really useful in allowing teams

12:50.615 --> 12:54.035
to innovate, to ideate, new opportunities

12:54.455 --> 12:57.675
or actually to test out some riskier ideas that were,

12:58.215 --> 13:00.635
you know, on the tip of the partner's tongue,

13:00.635 --> 13:03.195
but had they hadn't really been able to invest in right?

13:03.615 --> 13:04.995
Uh, take it. And,

13:05.135 --> 13:07.195
and sometimes even identifying reasons

13:07.395 --> 13:08.835
that it wouldn't work, right?

13:08.835 --> 13:11.955
Could save the partner a ton of time and effort.

13:12.335 --> 13:15.275
Uh, and so that's really kind of scoping at the beginning.

13:15.735 --> 13:19.275
Uh, for example, we worked with a partner in Indonesia,

13:19.935 --> 13:22.755
and they were talking about how they really want,

13:22.755 --> 13:26.155
they had this idea for how to manage,

13:26.755 --> 13:29.515
disaster preparedness in terms of floods by,

13:29.755 --> 13:32.675
reducing the amount of trash collected right on the ground,

13:32.685 --> 13:36.715
which creates, barriers to drainage and, and irrigation.

13:36.935 --> 13:40.275
And so we worked with that local partner who was like,

13:40.515 --> 13:43.515
I really wanna do this, but it's outside of my priorities

13:43.695 --> 13:45.075
or, or scope of work.

13:45.135 --> 13:46.795
And we're like, well, we can come help you with that.

13:46.855 --> 13:48.995
If you can give us two weeks on the ground, we can,

13:49.335 --> 13:50.635
we can actually dive into that.

13:50.655 --> 13:53.835
And it, it ended up getting a, a, a huge amount of funding

13:54.015 --> 13:57.195
for a recycling franchise for that particular partner.

13:57.655 --> 14:01.195
Uh, later in the stages is also really useful, which is

14:01.705 --> 14:03.475
well, helping with monitoring

14:03.475 --> 14:06.995
and evaluating of existing, existing projects even when

14:06.995 --> 14:10.475
that evaluation is positive or negative, right?

14:10.815 --> 14:15.215
If, if we're able to give a positive evaluation, it serves

14:15.215 --> 14:17.775
that as external validation of the activities of,

14:17.835 --> 14:18.895
of the partner.

14:19.475 --> 14:23.775
Um, and if it's a more negative evaluation, if we find

14:24.335 --> 14:26.615
challenges or problems with their existing programming,

14:26.875 --> 14:28.855
it gives them the opportunity to make some changes.

14:29.605 --> 14:32.655
What we found was that it, we were working on a project

14:32.655 --> 14:35.175
that had been based around market information

14:35.175 --> 14:36.295
that was changing, right?

14:36.675 --> 14:41.055
And that the sustaining avail of the project was not,

14:41.105 --> 14:43.135
based on a strong sensitivity analysis.

14:43.135 --> 14:46.455
And the changes in the market conditions, really kind of

14:47.125 --> 14:49.495
changed the value of that project for the partner.

14:49.605 --> 14:50.695
That was not good news

14:50.715 --> 14:52.205
For the, the project itself,

14:52.265 --> 14:55.245
but it was great news for the partner allowing them to kind

14:55.245 --> 14:57.925
of, limit the scope of the intervention

14:58.105 --> 15:01.205
and make modifications and reevaluate their own priorities.

15:01.375 --> 15:05.085
Right? Another really good,

15:05.165 --> 15:08.165
a really important dimension was, of,

15:08.225 --> 15:13.005
of the execution is, is managing the co-production

15:13.665 --> 15:18.025
and connectedness with the partners as in addition,

15:18.025 --> 15:19.905
and balancing that with the perceived

15:19.905 --> 15:21.065
independence of the students.

15:21.525 --> 15:23.825
We found that the, that being an outside team

15:24.375 --> 15:28.185
gave us license to ask questions to go places

15:29.055 --> 15:31.385
that partners couldn't sometimes go.

15:32.005 --> 15:34.665
And so leveraging that

15:34.685 --> 15:38.985
and using that to, enable us to access information

15:39.535 --> 15:40.665
that might not be readily,

15:40.665 --> 15:43.665
readily available given the partners affiliation

15:44.045 --> 15:45.105
or embeddedness.

15:45.645 --> 15:49.505
So for example, we were working with a partner,

15:50.435 --> 15:54.505
whose corporate, partners were very anti-mining,

15:55.005 --> 15:56.945
but in reality, there was a lot

15:56.965 --> 15:59.065
of environmental damage happening

15:59.065 --> 16:01.185
because of illegal wildcat mining on the ground.

16:01.645 --> 16:04.425
And so, but the partner couldn't really go investigate

16:04.425 --> 16:06.385
mining because it was outside of the alignment

16:06.445 --> 16:08.025
of their donors and their priorities.

16:08.125 --> 16:10.945
But they could leverage us as students to, and,

16:10.965 --> 16:12.145
and faculty to go in there

16:12.145 --> 16:13.945
and ask the questions that they couldn't ask.

16:14.295 --> 16:18.465
That was really, that design of, of using

16:18.465 --> 16:20.345
that independence could be really valuable

16:20.345 --> 16:21.585
in creating partner value.

16:22.245 --> 16:23.665
And then finally,

16:24.745 --> 16:27.565
and then the third dimension is the way

16:27.565 --> 16:30.525
that service learning project is executed really plays a

16:30.725 --> 16:32.725
critical role in determining its success and,

16:32.985 --> 16:34.445
and the value it deliverables.

16:35.385 --> 16:39.725
Um, so it's not just how they are, you know,

16:39.905 --> 16:41.005
how they are designed,

16:41.185 --> 16:43.405
but how, how we go about the execution.

16:44.145 --> 16:46.965
And, successful fa projects we found had

16:46.965 --> 16:48.325
several features in common.

16:48.945 --> 16:52.125
The first was that, that it was true co-production,

16:52.125 --> 16:55.645
and that aligns with the research on reciprocity, that,

16:55.835 --> 16:58.405
that this is not about students coming in

16:58.405 --> 17:02.165
and doing something for partners, it's with partners.

17:02.865 --> 17:05.885
And it involved real collaborations between student

17:05.945 --> 17:08.805
and partner, organizations, both

17:08.805 --> 17:12.005
of both parties really engaged deeply in contributing their

17:12.005 --> 17:15.525
unique skills, perspectives, working together, the idea

17:15.525 --> 17:17.605
that neither part of the team has the knowledge on their

17:17.605 --> 17:22.125
own, and that, that this involves

17:23.235 --> 17:25.875
treating the team as a holistic whole, right?

17:26.025 --> 17:27.715
Working together in,

17:29.045 --> 17:32.025
and this is related to the second, dimension, which is

17:32.405 --> 17:34.865
how they work together, not only co-producing it,

17:34.865 --> 17:36.985
but deeply immersing into the field, right?

17:37.445 --> 17:40.745
The most successful projects brought both students

17:41.125 --> 17:44.305
and partner team members deep into target communities

17:44.685 --> 17:47.945
to really allow for a richer understanding of the context

17:48.125 --> 17:49.645
and challenges being addressed.

17:50.025 --> 17:54.165
And you would, you, you know, I falsely had the impression

17:54.165 --> 17:57.365
that our partner organizations were equally embedded

17:57.905 --> 18:00.165
in the lives of their beneficiaries.

18:00.425 --> 18:02.285
And in fact, many of our partner,

18:02.705 --> 18:06.405
or, you know, the, the, the country program officers

18:06.965 --> 18:09.205
hadn't really spent a night in, in one

18:09.205 --> 18:10.845
of the beneficiary villages,

18:11.205 --> 18:13.645
hadn't had been working on many agricultural projects.

18:13.645 --> 18:15.765
We had one who had said, I'd never planted rice.

18:15.795 --> 18:18.165
I've worked on dozens of agricultural projects,

18:18.345 --> 18:19.925
but I've never actually done it.

18:20.185 --> 18:24.005
And so that kind of deep immersion allowed for quite a,

18:24.005 --> 18:26.885
quite a few different insights into the problem

18:27.625 --> 18:30.405
and the revelation of new opportunities

18:30.585 --> 18:31.725
and ways to approach it.

18:31.985 --> 18:34.805
And what this means is, d, we travel together.

18:34.825 --> 18:38.365
We sleep and eat together working side by side by side

18:38.365 --> 18:40.725
with partner staff and their beneficiaries.

18:41.225 --> 18:44.685
Uh, we worked on a nutrition project in Cambodia where

18:45.225 --> 18:49.005
we spent several days cooking and eating

18:49.345 --> 18:53.565
and farming and sharing a table with, with families

18:53.785 --> 18:56.125
to notice the patterns around

18:56.145 --> 18:57.205
how they were feeding children.

18:57.825 --> 19:00.845
And that really is useful

19:00.875 --> 19:05.265
because it helps teams work deeply

19:05.265 --> 19:07.625
through differences in culture and vocation

19:08.205 --> 19:11.065
and build really meaningful relationships, which,

19:11.155 --> 19:15.145
which isn't necessary for trust to develop in order

19:15.165 --> 19:16.945
to get real information,

19:16.945 --> 19:19.105
rather than just hearing the party line

19:19.105 --> 19:21.665
or seeing what a report, would tell you.

19:22.285 --> 19:25.225
And then the last was around adaptability.

19:25.365 --> 19:29.065
The places where we work, always have, you know,

19:29.065 --> 19:30.385
the only constant is change

19:31.325 --> 19:34.385
and the ability to adapt to unexpected challenges,

19:34.385 --> 19:37.905
to new informations, to changes in the project scope,

19:37.925 --> 19:40.305
is really crucial during execution.

19:40.845 --> 19:43.705
And that successful projects were those that were flexible

19:43.705 --> 19:46.105
and responsive to the dynamic nature

19:46.165 --> 19:49.025
of working in these kind of very real world settings,

19:49.025 --> 19:51.025
being able to pivot when necessary.

19:51.565 --> 19:55.625
And so that really gave a roadmap of,

19:56.165 --> 19:59.985
for instructors as well as scholars who are looking to,

20:00.885 --> 20:03.985
to assess the value of cervix learning projects.

20:04.405 --> 20:06.985
Uh, you have dimensions on which you can measure,

20:07.085 --> 20:11.185
but also it's almost a checklist for instructors

20:11.185 --> 20:13.825
who are looking to design those, those projects themselves.

20:14.485 --> 20:16.345
So the first is, we found that

20:17.055 --> 20:18.665
it's actually pretty difficult.

20:18.965 --> 20:21.385
We thought we were doing better than we actually were.

20:21.765 --> 20:26.075
In fact, just under half of our projects were able

20:26.075 --> 20:27.315
to create direct value.

20:28.425 --> 20:32.575
And so that was, and so for us, we,

20:32.885 --> 20:33.895
that was very useful

20:34.245 --> 20:36.895
because we wanted to understand not only

20:37.795 --> 20:41.295
to understand the value we were producing at the last thing

20:41.295 --> 20:44.095
you wanna do is in a service learning project

20:44.195 --> 20:46.855
for student learning, is to give them a false sense

20:46.855 --> 20:50.005
of superiority that they can go into these environments

20:50.025 --> 20:53.285
and solve these problems based upon their grit

20:53.305 --> 20:54.325
and goodwill, right?

20:54.745 --> 20:58.045
Uh, we can now say to them, you know, if these are problems

20:58.045 --> 20:59.565
that six students

20:59.985 --> 21:01.845
and a faculty member could solve in a year,

21:01.845 --> 21:04.205
they're probably not problems worthy of our attention.

21:04.705 --> 21:07.485
And in fact, in only half of them, we are actually able

21:07.485 --> 21:09.565
to really create direct value for our partner.

21:10.025 --> 21:11.085
But that's okay,

21:11.515 --> 21:14.925
because even when we don't create direct value,

21:15.135 --> 21:19.005
there are all these indirect elements that are, that are,

21:19.005 --> 21:20.045
that are producible.

21:20.345 --> 21:22.285
Um, it allows us

21:22.285 --> 21:25.085
to not only have a more accurate empirical examination

21:25.085 --> 21:27.605
of these projects, but really can guide the conversations

21:27.605 --> 21:29.165
with our instructors and partners

21:29.345 --> 21:30.725
and our students about the types

21:30.725 --> 21:32.245
of benefits that can be realized.

21:32.745 --> 21:35.645
You know, promising realistic value

21:36.105 --> 21:38.885
and assessments of value is important for the,

21:39.305 --> 21:42.805
for being able to create future value by going back

21:42.805 --> 21:45.325
to partners and, and building those embedded relationships.

21:45.785 --> 21:50.085
Um, and then for instructors, it really gives this tangible,

21:50.295 --> 21:51.685
actionable advice looking

21:51.745 --> 21:53.925
to maximize the impact of their collaborations.

21:54.505 --> 21:59.285
Of the 14 projects where we created direct value, all 12, 12

21:59.285 --> 22:01.485
of the 14 had all three dimensions.

22:02.875 --> 22:05.855
And so it's kind of like a chain that you have

22:05.855 --> 22:07.055
to have all the elements.

22:07.055 --> 22:09.655
And if you, if, if one of those chain pieces

22:09.715 --> 22:13.055
of the chain is broken, it, it, it is likely to collapse.

22:13.235 --> 22:17.135
And so focusing on all three dimensions,

22:17.155 --> 22:21.255
is crucial in order to achieve real direct value.

22:21.715 --> 22:24.575
And in the conditions where we achieved indirect value,

22:24.915 --> 22:27.615
it was two, but not all three of,

22:27.675 --> 22:29.215
of the dimensions that we found.

22:29.875 --> 22:33.335
And so, what I would tell instructors, having

22:34.155 --> 22:36.495
had conducted this research after eight years and,

22:36.515 --> 22:40.935
and kind of now 15 years into doing, these projects,

22:40.955 --> 22:43.655
is first you wanna really work with local partner staff,

22:44.235 --> 22:45.255
ask what their needs are.

22:45.595 --> 22:46.855
You know, we'll sit down with them

22:46.875 --> 22:48.935
and say, if it was your birthday or Christmas

22:48.935 --> 22:51.135
and you could get anything, what would it be?

22:51.205 --> 22:52.935
What are the things that keep you up at night?

22:52.935 --> 22:56.415
What are the questions that you wish you had time to ask?

22:56.825 --> 23:00.735
Right? Um, and tap into the passion of the local staff

23:00.735 --> 23:03.055
and their day-to-day challenges, and try

23:03.055 --> 23:06.055
and be an extra set of arms for something

23:06.055 --> 23:08.175
that they are and minds for.

23:08.175 --> 23:10.455
Something that, that that's close to their heart

23:10.475 --> 23:12.855
and challenge the challenges them on a day-to-day basis.

23:13.475 --> 23:15.975
Um, the second is that you, the team

23:16.155 --> 23:18.615
as not just the students serving the client,

23:18.915 --> 23:21.575
but a combination of the student and the partners,

23:21.595 --> 23:23.095
and invest in all the,

23:23.095 --> 23:25.495
the things we know from research about effective

23:25.495 --> 23:26.735
team building, right?

23:27.005 --> 23:30.375
Sharing, develop, developing shared norms, working

23:30.375 --> 23:33.535
through conflict, really getting to know one another.

23:33.645 --> 23:36.895
This type of integration is essential for the co-production

23:37.365 --> 23:39.735
that creates real direct value.

23:39.885 --> 23:41.335
It's not efficient, right?

23:41.685 --> 23:44.815
It's not this, let's just get stuff done, but

23:44.835 --> 23:48.285
It is about really building the infrastructure in the

23:48.285 --> 23:49.845
team to dig deeply.

23:50.425 --> 23:52.885
And then the last would be to get your boots dirty.

23:53.145 --> 23:56.565
You know, my favorite quote from President e Eisenhower is

23:56.995 --> 23:59.525
that farming looks mighty easy when you're plows a pencil

23:59.545 --> 24:01.965
and you're a thousand miles from the cornfield, right?

24:02.105 --> 24:06.485
You have to deeply immerse into the problems,

24:06.695 --> 24:09.405
especially when you're dealing with these complex problems

24:09.425 --> 24:10.765
of poverty and conflict.

24:11.065 --> 24:12.805
Uh, and this is not just the students,

24:12.955 --> 24:13.965
it's the partners too.

24:14.185 --> 24:17.485
And, and getting your boots dirty, really working in

24:17.625 --> 24:20.805
and experiencing and walking in the footsteps

24:21.145 --> 24:24.725
of the beneficiaries can, is really crucial

24:24.825 --> 24:26.645
to generate the most valuable insights.

00:00 - Service learning is really an increasingly popular approach to education that combines traditional learning objectives with community service. And the goal here is to allow students to apply their academic theories,

00:13 - but take them really to, to the real world, to solve problems that meet direct societal needs. And my co-author and I had spent the last eight years building a service learning program. We, it was designed to bring teams of MBA students to work with partner organizations. Most of them were international humanitarian NGOs. and we were looking to explore the role of business in addressing issues of poverty

00:39 - and reconciliation and rebuilding after war. So we, at this point, we had worked in, more than 20 countries on 30 projects. And our projects were, for example, one of our projects to, just to give you a sense of the type of work we were doing, we were working with a child focused NGO on understanding the challenge of, of child sex trafficking. And what we, what we did is we used a, a supply chain perspective to gen generate novel ways to, approach their trafficking programs.

01:11 - Their trafficking was, their programs were largely focused on just essentially rehabilitation after rescue. But we wanted to understand kind of broadly how business theories, particularly analysis of the supply chain could, could prevent trafficking from happening. Right? our approach was really partner centric. We spent a lot of time being cognizant about how much time and energy our partners were investing in co-producing work

01:38 - with student teams, working together, a lot of preparation and a lot of time in the field. And we really wanted to make sure that our partners got something out of the experience, that, that they really found value from it. And so we went to the academic literature and tried to find a way to guide us, but we found that, in fact, the literature said very little about partner value. So we decided to use our own course as a context

02:03 - and really try and unpack the factors that really make these types of experiences valuable and useful for partners. So to start off with, there really was very literal, very little research that talked about value at all. So this, this notion of value is very kind of, obtuse in the, in the literature. What we found that most of the literature was focused on the students themselves, right?

02:27 - And that there were clear guidelines on the ways you can ensure students have transformative learning experiences. and we were pretty confident that our stu, that our students, we had a lot of, feedback mechanisms and we felt we were hitting that goal quite effectively. But the literature said very little about the experiences of partners, mostly about how difficult it was to measure partners. And there's a, a really nice quote from a paper in a MLE, from Paul Godfrey, from BYU

02:55 - and his colleagues where he talked about that most Of the, the research was on the, the big L small s, right? Big, big learning, very small service. And, and that we really don't know that much about what really service looks like. And so we looked at, you know, what the existing research really said was, things that we were already doing kind of reciprocity, where we work with empowering partners, moving beyond just kind

03:25 - of superficial projects like tutoring, right? Which just reproduce power inequities. And, and, and, you know, and the second was that, that thing that we were doing, that there were lots of things that were important, but that were really outside of our control. Like, for example, the literature suggested that universities should have enduring partnerships with partners across multi, multi-facets of the university. And as course instructors, that was great,

03:56 - but it wasn't particularly actionable by us. so what we did is we went back to our partners and probed specifically what they were able to get out of our collaborations, you know, using the hindsight of history, what was, what was the value created for them? And so we really uncovered that there were two real types of value that our, our partners experienced, and we've labeled them as directed indirect value. And so direct value is really the specific tangible outcomes

04:26 - from the project that really directly affected the partner organization and their operations and their strategy. So for example, if we were able to develop an idea that was able to secure them new funding, or that helped them identify new partners to work with, or find significant gaps in their program, or problems with the programming that they were unaware of, or creative, creative and generative new ideas to approach the problems that got, that was really direct value.

04:57 - And this is something different than the partner would've been able to do to do without us. It has to be a, a, a product of both the student team and the partner working together, and it persists beyond the particular engagement, right? But, and that was great. That was what we were always looking for. It was designed in our scope of work, but they also talked about that in, in addition to this direct value, they also talked about other benefits

05:23 - that we classify as indirect value, still created benefits for the partners, but hadn't been part of the plan or the deliverables. And examples of that were, for example, like the reputational benefit of working with an international, university so we could get access to populations, to actors that, that they might not be able to get audiences with, or the opportunity for professional development of their staff.

05:53 - You know, indirect value has to go beyond just accelerating existing activities. It's not like they're doing something and we come in and that, and where they were going. We, we just help them get there faster. But it's really the, the personnel development or the opportunities that come outside of the project deliverables, but that really create value. And even a couple of times, our partners, we helped them identify future potential employees.

06:19 - They hired our students after the fact, and that was a real type of this indirect value provided. and so that was the first step really was saying, what is value and how do we conceptualize it both for our own uses and for the, for the literature. Okay. Well, we actually used an, an inductive approach and a comparative case analysis using, follow-up interviews with our, with our partners as well as archival materials. So we used the entire population of the 30 projects

06:51 - that we had conducted over the eight years that we had been running these, these, this course. And we actually went back to our partners to assess the value. And that involved kind of a real postmortem years later about kind of the, a real conversation with a number of partners about the value that was created. And then we took each of the 30 projects, classified them according to the type of value it produced, both yes or no direct value, and yes

07:19 - or no indirect value. And we actually, we found a couple of instances where there was no value, neither direct nor indirect, that was created for our partners. And we also found that there were very few circumstances where indirect value, sorry, my, my apologies. There were, there were no circumstances where direct value occurred where Indi direct value didn't occur. So that really saw, we found

07:45 - that indirect value was necessary, but not sufficient for the creation of direct value. and under half of our projects succeeded in creating this type of direct value in, in addition to the indirect intangibles. And then we went back to the archival data produced by each team. So that included their field notes, all of the observations, the final reports, all of our in-process, work, product, and we're able to kind of break down

08:14 - the ways in which the engagement unfolded. And we had, field memos and diaries of students reflection papers. We had all of our partner reactions. And what we were able to do then is classify those projects in terms of where they fell and be able to identify some of the patterns that underpinned the creation of direct value. And really where we were interested largely in how do we create the direct value in addition to

08:45 - that indirect value. So we found, first of all, we developed a model that parses out three broad characteristics of projects that Produce direct value. And the first dimension is really partner readiness. And this is not about the quality of the partner, but it's really about the partner's ability to absorb our capacity and work with us, right? And not all partners have the capacity to do that, right? It's a huge amount of workload,

09:14 - and, a pretty dynamic context in which our partners operate. And so the ones that were really ready for us, they, they had a couple characteristics. First, we found that, readiness meant that, that there wasn't only alignment with executive priorities, but also with the local partners and their, and the strategic partners on the ground. Often as professors, we were interacting with their boards of directors or their international, arms of the NGO.

09:46 - And then once you get in country, there's, there's often a, a disconnect between the values and priorities. Sometimes they'd be like, great, now we have to host this team for two weeks and, and our bosses or our regional director wants us. And, and so, it was, we, first of all, we thought it was really important to have that type of alignment at both levels that these internal champions, within the partner organizations who are really

10:10 - invested in the project's outcome, they, they make all the difference in facilitating the necessary resources and support, but also allowing for the appropriate integration and follow up of, of, of, of the initiatives. we also found that if we didn't, if we had local but not executive support, then we came up with recommendations that were outside the purview. So it was really kind of partner readiness means at multiple levels.

10:35 - It also means that the partner has the right amount of human and knowledge capital to complement the skills that our students have, right? The staff have to have the relevant experience and knowledge and expertise to work alongside students and to implement product recommendations. at, at times we found ourselves not creating direct value when neither the team nor the partner had the right, the, the right information and the right the right skills.

11:05 - For example, we were working on a health system strengthening part project with an international NGO that had lots of health system knowledge, but not particularly in Sierra Leone where we were working, where the health system had been white crumbled because of the, the long term civil war. In fact, there was something like four doctors in the entire country. we were teams of business scholars and students, and they were a team of, of

11:34 - and NGO workers who didn't have that health background. And so as much as we tried, we weren't able to get deeply enough into that problem. and then finally, in terms of readiness, the operational environment, is really dynamic and the partner has to be able to navigate and adapt to that, right? Which is a deep understanding of cultural, economic, political dynamics, which can really impact the project's feasibility.

11:58 - That's knowing harder, having really tight connections and deep connections on the ground, but also really understanding how to get access to those critical populations. some partners have more hands-off relationships with local partners, which makes it harder, harder to really get into those insights. So that's really about the, the partner being ready to absorb us. The second large dimension is the time, is, sorry, is,

12:25 - the design of the project, and that has kind of three sub dimensions as well. we really wanted to talk largely about the project timing and where it was in the stage. So we found that the optimal stage for projects are either at the very beginning or at the very end of a larger initiative, right? At the early stages were really useful in allowing teams to innovate, to ideate, new opportunities

12:54 - or actually to test out some riskier ideas that were, you know, on the tip of the partner's tongue, but had they hadn't really been able to invest in right? take it. And, and sometimes even identifying reasons that it wouldn't work, right? Could save the partner a ton of time and effort. and so that's really kind of scoping at the beginning. for example, we worked with a partner in Indonesia, and they were talking about how they really want,

13:22 - they had this idea for how to manage, disaster preparedness in terms of floods by, reducing the amount of trash collected right on the ground, which creates, barriers to drainage and, and irrigation. And so we worked with that local partner who was like, I really wanna do this, but it's outside of my priorities or, or scope of work. And we're like, well, we can come help you with that. If you can give us two weeks on the ground, we can, we can actually dive into that.

13:50 - And it, it ended up getting a, a, a huge amount of funding for a recycling franchise for that particular partner. later in the stages is also really useful, which is well, helping with monitoring and evaluating of existing, existing projects even when that evaluation is positive or negative, right? If, if we're able to give a positive evaluation, it serves that as external validation of the activities of, of the partner. and if it's a more negative evaluation, if we find

14:24 - challenges or problems with their existing programming, it gives them the opportunity to make some changes. What we found was that it, we were working on a project that had been based around market information that was changing, right? And that the sustaining avail of the project was not, based on a strong sensitivity analysis. And the changes in the market conditions, really kind of changed the value of that project for the partner. That was not good news

14:50 - For the, the project itself, but it was great news for the partner allowing them to kind of, limit the scope of the intervention and make modifications and reevaluate their own priorities. Right? Another really good, a really important dimension was, of, of the execution is, is managing the co-production and connectedness with the partners as in addition, and balancing that with the perceived independence of the students.

15:21 - We found that the, that being an outside team gave us license to ask questions to go places that partners couldn't sometimes go. And so leveraging that and using that to, enable us to access information that might not be readily, readily available given the partners affiliation or embeddedness. So for example, we were working with a partner, whose corporate, partners were very anti-mining,

15:55 - but in reality, there was a lot of environmental damage happening because of illegal wildcat mining on the ground. And so, but the partner couldn't really go investigate mining because it was outside of the alignment of their donors and their priorities. But they could leverage us as students to, and, and faculty to go in there and ask the questions that they couldn't ask. That was really, that design of, of using

16:18 - that independence could be really valuable in creating partner value. And then finally, and then the third dimension is the way that service learning project is executed really plays a critical role in determining its success and, and the value it deliverables. so it's not just how they are, you know, how they are designed, but how, how we go about the execution.

16:44 - And, successful fa projects we found had several features in common. The first was that, that it was true co-production, and that aligns with the research on reciprocity, that, that this is not about students coming in and doing something for partners, it's with partners. And it involved real collaborations between student and partner, organizations, both of both parties really engaged deeply in contributing their unique skills, perspectives, working together, the idea

17:15 - that neither part of the team has the knowledge on their own, and that, that this involves treating the team as a holistic whole, right? Working together in, and this is related to the second, dimension, which is how they work together, not only co-producing it, but deeply immersing into the field, right? The most successful projects brought both students and partner team members deep into target communities to really allow for a richer understanding of the context

17:48 - and challenges being addressed. And you would, you, you know, I falsely had the impression that our partner organizations were equally embedded in the lives of their beneficiaries. And in fact, many of our partner, or, you know, the, the, the country program officers hadn't really spent a night in, in one of the beneficiary villages, hadn't had been working on many agricultural projects. We had one who had said, I'd never planted rice.

18:15 - I've worked on dozens of agricultural projects, but I've never actually done it. And so that kind of deep immersion allowed for quite a, quite a few different insights into the problem and the revelation of new opportunities and ways to approach it. And what this means is, d, we travel together. We sleep and eat together working side by side by side with partner staff and their beneficiaries. we worked on a nutrition project in Cambodia where

18:45 - we spent several days cooking and eating and farming and sharing a table with, with families to notice the patterns around how they were feeding children. And that really is useful because it helps teams work deeply through differences in culture and vocation and build really meaningful relationships, which, which isn't necessary for trust to develop in order to get real information,

19:16 - rather than just hearing the party line or seeing what a report, would tell you. And then the last was around adaptability. The places where we work, always have, you know, the only constant is change and the ability to adapt to unexpected challenges, to new informations, to changes in the project scope, is really crucial during execution. And that successful projects were those that were flexible and responsive to the dynamic nature

19:46 - of working in these kind of very real world settings, being able to pivot when necessary. And so that really gave a roadmap of, for instructors as well as scholars who are looking to, to assess the value of cervix learning projects. you have dimensions on which you can measure, but also it's almost a checklist for instructors who are looking to design those, those projects themselves. So the first is, we found that it's actually pretty difficult.

20:18 - We thought we were doing better than we actually were. In fact, just under half of our projects were able to create direct value. And so that was, and so for us, we, that was very useful because we wanted to understand not only to understand the value we were producing at the last thing you wanna do is in a service learning project for student learning, is to give them a false sense of superiority that they can go into these environments

20:50 - and solve these problems based upon their grit and goodwill, right? we can now say to them, you know, if these are problems that six students and a faculty member could solve in a year, they're probably not problems worthy of our attention. And in fact, in only half of them, we are actually able to really create direct value for our partner. But that's okay, because even when we don't create direct value,

21:15 - there are all these indirect elements that are, that are, that are producible. it allows us to not only have a more accurate empirical examination of these projects, but really can guide the conversations with our instructors and partners and our students about the types of benefits that can be realized. You know, promising realistic value and assessments of value is important for the,

21:39 - for being able to create future value by going back to partners and, and building those embedded relationships. and then for instructors, it really gives this tangible, actionable advice looking to maximize the impact of their collaborations. Of the 14 projects where we created direct value, all 12, 12 of the 14 had all three dimensions. And so it's kind of like a chain that you have to have all the elements. And if you, if, if one of those chain pieces

22:09 - of the chain is broken, it, it, it is likely to collapse. And so focusing on all three dimensions, is crucial in order to achieve real direct value. And in the conditions where we achieved indirect value, it was two, but not all three of, of the dimensions that we found. And so, what I would tell instructors, having had conducted this research after eight years and, and kind of now 15 years into doing, these projects, is first you wanna really work with local partner staff,

22:44 - ask what their needs are. You know, we'll sit down with them and say, if it was your birthday or Christmas and you could get anything, what would it be? What are the things that keep you up at night? What are the questions that you wish you had time to ask? Right? and tap into the passion of the local staff and their day-to-day challenges, and try and be an extra set of arms for something that they are and minds for.

23:08 - Something that, that that's close to their heart and challenge the challenges them on a day-to-day basis. the second is that you, the team as not just the students serving the client, but a combination of the student and the partners, and invest in all the, the things we know from research about effective team building, right? Sharing, develop, developing shared norms, working through conflict, really getting to know one another.

23:33 - This type of integration is essential for the co-production that creates real direct value. It's not efficient, right? It's not this, let's just get stuff done, but It is about really building the infrastructure in the team to dig deeply. And then the last would be to get your boots dirty. You know, my favorite quote from President e Eisenhower is that farming looks mighty easy when you're plows a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the cornfield, right?

24:02 - You have to deeply immerse into the problems, especially when you're dealing with these complex problems of poverty and conflict. and this is not just the students, it's the partners too. And, and getting your boots dirty, really working in and experiencing and walking in the footsteps of the beneficiaries can, is really crucial to generate the most valuable insights.

Faculti AI can make mistakes