Community partners report that co-planning under the CSL model gives them a voice in what the service project will be and how it is implemented¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer2·q1
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because 2 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? In an autoethnographic account, a community partner states that the CSL course was the first to allow the partner a voice in determining and implementing the service project. → Warren-Gordon 2019
Evidence¶
Warren-Gordon 2019¶
Warren-Gordon, K., Hudson, K., & Scott, F. (2019). Voices of Partnerships Within the Critical Service-Learning Framework. Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education, 12(2). https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/1934-5283
q1 · i? · qualitative · r2
Autoethnographic first-person narrative by the community partner (Frank Scott) within a qualitative case of a criminology CSL course. The partner reports the course "allows for us to have a voice in exactly what the project will be and how it will be implemented." No effect size is reported.
"Dr. Warren-Gordon's course is unique in that it is the first class that allows for us to have a voice in exactly what the project will be and how it will be implemented."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Positive relationships with professors, community partners, and peer mentors are associated with increased intention to be civically engaged — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Community projects need conceptual framing to avoid narrowing the learning object — related
- The authors argue that co-establishing the service-learning project with the community partner secures partner buy-in and lasting community value — related
- Direct one-on-one interaction with community partners is reported to help students see community members as people rather than stereotypes — related
- Power should be conceptualized as diffuse and structural, and as people's capacity to act under constraint — related
- Deeper co-leadership emerges when staff support lets partners progressively take on responsibility, but recedes when staff carry the process — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
csl-co-planning-gives-community-partners-voice-in-project |
title |
Community partners report that co-planning under the CSL model gives them a voice in what the service project will be and how it is implemented |
description |
Community partners report that co-planning under the CSL model gives them a voice in what the service project will be and how it is implemented |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-26 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — warren-gordon-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.