Universities increasingly promote community engagement that involves students. However, very little has been done to evaluate student-community engagement (SCE) for their impact on “the community.” This research innovatively juxtaposes literature on the evaluation of planning and public policy with three different instances of SCE to explore the scope and nature of such impact evaluation within the context of planning education. Results suggest considerable potential of a naturalistic, ongoing, and integrated evaluation approach for and with communities in planning-related SCEs and, by extension, as a practical theory for evaluation design in community planning itself.
AckermannFranEdenColin. 2010. “Strategic Options Development and Analysis.” In Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide, edited by ReynoldsMartinHolwellSue, 135–90. London: Springer.
2.
AlbrechtsLouis. 2003. “Planning and Power: Towards an Emancipatory Planning Approach.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy21(6):905–24.
3.
AlexanderErnest R.2006. Evaluation in Planning: Evolution and Prospects. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
4.
AlleeVerna. 1997. The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organizational Intelligence. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
5.
AngottiTomDobleCherylHorriganPaula. 2012. Service-Learning in Design and Planning: Educating at the Boundaries. Oakland, CA: New Village Press.
6.
BoseMallikaWilsonJames. 2014. “Probing Impacts.” In Community Matters: Service-Learning in Engaged Design and Planning, edited by BoseMallikaHorriganPaulaDobleCherylShippSigmund, 278–98. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
7.
BrandRalfRincónHugo. 2007. “Tackling Six Common Dilemmas in ‘Live’ Planning Projects.” Journal for Education in the Built Environment2(2):36–60.
8.
BringleRobert G.HatcherJulie A.2002. “Campus-Community Partnerships: The Terms of Engagement.” Journal of Social Issues58(3):503–16.
9.
BrownGregChinSean Yeong Wei. 2013. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Public Participation in Neighbourhood Planning.” Planning Practice and Research28(5):563–88.
10.
BrysonJohn M.QuickKathryn S.SlotterbackCarissa SchivelyCrosbyBarbara C.2013. “Designing Public Participation Processes.” Public Administration Review73(1):23–34.
11.
CarmonaMatthewSiehLouie. 2004. Measuring Quality in Planning. Abington, UK: Spon Press.
12.
CarmonaMatthewSiehLouie. 2008 “Performance Measurement in Planning—Towards a Holistic View.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26(2):428–54.
13.
CerretaMaria. 2010. “Thinking through Complex Values.” In Making Strategies in Spatial Planning, edited by CerretaMariaConcilioGraziaMonnoValeria, 381–404. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
ChompunthChutaratChomphanSuphattharachai. 2012. “Evaluating Public Participation Process in Development Projects in Thailand: A Case Study of the Hin Krut Power Plant Project.” American Journal of Applied Sciences9(6):865–73.
16.
ChuppMark G.JosephMark L.2010. “Getting the Most out of Service Learning: Maximizing Student, University and Community Impact.” Journal of Community Practice18(2–3):190–212.
ConradElisabethCassarLouis F.JonesMichaelEiterSebastianIzaovičováZitaBarankovaZuzanaChristieMikeFazeyIoan. 2011. “Rhetoric and Reporting of Public Participation in Landscape Policy.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning13(1):23–47.
19.
CronenVernon E.2001. “Practical Theory, Practical Art, and the Pragmatic-Systemic Account of Inquiry.” Communication Theory11(1):14–35.
20.
CruzNadinne I.GilesDwight E.2000. “Where’s the Community in Service-Learning Research.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning7:28–34.
21.
DhondtStevenVenHarvey Ven deZiauberyteRitaTorreWouterCresseyPeterKaderabkovaAnnaLunaÁlvaroSamanSaeed MoghadamSpilaJavier CastroTerstriepJudith. 2016. “Ex-Ante Impact Assessment & Value Network Analysis for SI: SIMPACT Working Paper 2.” Gelsenkirchen: Institute for Work and Technology.
22.
EisenhardtKathleen M.1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” The Academy of Management Review14(4):532–50.
23.
EricksonSusan. 2014. “Reaching out and Reaching in.” In Community Matters: Service-Learning in Engaged Design and Planning, edited by BoseMallikaHorriganPaulaDobleCherylShippSigmund, 257–77. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
24.
FaehnleMaijaTyrväinenLiisa. 2013. “A Framework for Evaluating and Designing Collaborative Planning.” Land Use Policy34:332–41.
25.
FrankAndrea I.SiehLouie. 2016. “Multiversity of the Twenty-First Century—Examining Opportunities for Integrating Community Engagement in Planning Curricula.” Planning Practice & Research31(5):513–32.
26.
FreestoneRobertThompsonSusanWilliamsPeter. 2006. “Student Experiences of Work-Based Learning in Planning Education.” Journal of Planning Education and Research26(2):237–49.
27.
FriedmannJohn. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
GirardLuigi Fusco. 2010. “Creative Evaluations for a Human Sustainable Planning.” In Making Strategies in Spatial Planning, edited by CerretaMariaConcilioGraziaMonnoValeria, 305–27. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
29.
GubaEgon G.LincolnYvonna S.1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30.
GuyadeenDaveSeasonsMark. 2018. “Evaluation Theory and Practice Comparing Program Evaluation and Evaluation in Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research31(1):98–110.
31.
HandalGunnarLauvasPer. 1987. Promoting Reflective Teaching: Supervision in Practice. London: Open University Press.
HilleryGeorge A.1955. “Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement.” Rural Sociology20:111–23.
34.
InnesJudith E.BooherDavid E.1999. “Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association65(4):412–23.
35.
KettleBrendaSellarsNeal. 1996. “The Development of Student Teachers’ Practical Theory of Teaching.” Teaching and Teacher Education12(1):1–24.
36.
LaurianLucieShawMary Margaret. 2009. “Evaluation of Public Participation: The Practices of Certified Planners.” Journal of Planning Education and Research28(3):293–309.
37.
MillerHugh T.KingCheryl Simrell. 1998. “Practical Theory.” The American Review of Public Administration28(1):43–60.
38.
MillicanJulietBournerTom. 2014. Learning to Make a Difference: Student-Community Engagement and the Higher Education Curriculum. Leicester: NIACE.
39.
OliveiraVitorPinhoPaulo. 2010. “Evaluation in Urban Planning: Advances and Prospects.” Journal of Planning Literature24(4):343–61.
40.
PorterLibbySladeChristineButtAndrewRosierJoPerkinsTimCrookesLeeInchAndySladeJasonBassaFaranaazPetzerBrettWinklerTanjaSaijaLauraBarryJanice. 2015. “Partnerships of Learning for Planning Education Who Is Learning What from Whom? The Beautiful Messiness of Learning Partnerships/Experiential Learning Partnerships in Australian and New Zealand Higher Education Planning Programmes/Res Non Verba? Rediscovering the Social Purpose of Planning (and the University): The Westfield Action Research Project/At the Coalface, Take 2: Lessons from Students’ Critical Reflections/Education for ‘Cubed Change’/Unsettling Planning Education through Community-Engaged and Learning: Reflections on the Indigenous Planning Studio.” Planning Theory & Practice16(3):409–34.
41.
ReardonKenneth M.2006. “Promoting Reciprocity within Community/University Development Partnerships: Lessons from the Field.” Planning, Practice & Research21(1):95–107.
42.
ReebRoger N.FolgerSusan F.2013. “Community Outcomes of Service Learning.” Research on Service Learning: Conceptual Frameworks and Assessment2:389–418.
43.
RuthMatthiasZhuJunmingLeeNancy S.MirzaeeSahar. 2015. “Creating and Evaluating Co-Benefits and Co-Costs of Environmental Policies and Investments in Urban Areas.” In Place-Based Evaluation for Integrated Land-Use Management, edited by MatthiasRuthWoltjerJohanAlexanderErnestHullAngela, 27–56. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
44.
SandercockLeonieLyssiotisPeter. 2003. Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities of the 21st Century. London: A&C Black.
45.
SchroederKathleenWoodCynthiaGaliardiShariKoehnJenny. 2009. “First, Do No Harm: Ideas for Mitigating Negative Community Impacts of Short-Term Study Abroad.” Journal of Geography108(3):141–47.
46.
ShielChrisFilhoWalter LealPaçoArminda doBrandliLuciana. 2016. “Evaluating the Engagement of Universities in Capacity Building for Sustainable Development in Local Communities.” Evaluation and Program Planning54:123–34.
47.
SiehLouie.2014. “Public Space Governing as the Management of Meaning-Making.” PhD diss., University College London.
48.
StoeckerRandyTryonElizabeth A.HilgendorfAmy. 2009. The Unheard Voices: Community Organizations and Service Learning. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
49.
TarantinoKristen. 2017. “Undergraduate Learning through Engaged Scholarship and University-Community Partnerships.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement21(2):103–30.
50.
TerrynElsBoelensLuukPismanAnn. 2016. “Beyond the Divide: Evaluation in Co-Evolutionary Spatial Planning.” European Planning Studies24(6):1079–97.
51.
TorresJuan. 2012. “Participation as a Pedagogy of Complexity: Lessons from Two Design Projects with Children.” Urban Design International17(1):62–75.
52.
TrencherGregoryYarimeMasaruMcCormickKes B.DollChristopher N. H.KrainesSteven B.2014. “Beyond the Third Mission: Exploring the Emerging University Function of Co-Creation for Sustainability.” Science and Public Policy41(2):151–79.
53.
TryonElizabethStoeckerRandy. 2008. “The Unheard Voices: Community Organizations and Service-Learning.” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement12(3):47–60.
54.
WinklerTanja. 2013. “At the Coalface: Community-University Engagements and Planning Education.” Journal of Planning Education and Research33(2):215–27.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
