





































Author
ELLEN SZARLETA 
Director, Center for Urban 
and Regional Excellence Pro-
fessor, School of Public and 
Environmental Affairs, Indiana 
University Northwest

Lifelong Learning
A community-university partnership advancing 
collaboration and community capacity building

 
ELLEN SZARLETA

collaboration and 
capacity-building for 
lifelong learning 
The issues facing communities, par-
ticularly urban communities, often 
elicit demands for action (Baum, 
2000) and positive social change. 
These demands create challenges 
and opportunities for university- 
community partnerships grounded 
in relationship-building process-
es (Prins, 2005). Addressing the 
immediate and pressing concerns 
of communities, while building 
mutually beneficial relationships 
requires more than modifying an 
existing process; it requires inno-
vative solutions based on systems 
change.  The collective impact 
model offers communities and uni-
versities the opportunity to support 
community capacity building efforts 
engaging in authentic collabora-
tions that give voice to and empow-
er senior citizens. 

A demographic transformation 
caused by a rapidly aging population 
is occurring in the United States. 

By 2035, older adults are project-
ed to outnumber children for the 
first time in U.S. history (Vespa).  A 
similar demographic transformation 
is predicted for the State of Indiana. 
By 2030, one out of every five people 
living in Indiana will be a senior 
(age 65 and older) citizen (Strange, 
2018). More than 966,000 senior 
citizens called Indiana home as of 
2015 (the base of the population 
projections). By 2050, the number 
of people ages 65 and older will top 
1.5 million—a growth of 57 percent 
from 2015 levels (Strange, 2018). 
Indiana’s population aged 80 and 
older is expected to grow even more 
rapidly, increasing by 121 percent by 
2050 (Strange, 2018). 

As the population ages, we are faced 
with policy challenges in a multitude 
of areas, including creating and sup-
porting an environment for seniors 
that promotes physical, social, and 
emotional wellbeing.  The public 
good nature of university educa-
tion, both formal and informal, 
fuels dialogue and action benefiting 
more than the individual student 

S Z A R L E T A   |   L I F E L O N G  L E A R N I N G

67 VO L .  1 ,  I S S U E  2



or learner.  In the case of seniors, aged 55 and 
above, informal learning, e.g., noncredit lifelong 
learning, takes on a broader social purpose and 
contributes to a holistic approach to communi-
ty development.  Therefore, it is incumbent on 
universities and their stakeholder communities 
to reflect on the current state of lifelong learning 
practices, and to understand the needs and wants 
of a burgeoning senior community. A communi-
ty-engaged approach to lifelong learning offers 
a unique opportunity to partner with seniors to 
co-define the lifelong learning issues of concern 
and to co-design, co-implement and co-evaluate 
sustainable educational experiences that maxi-
mize the use of both university and community 
assets for mutual benefit. 

This project, part of a much larger communi-
ty-based research study, explores how to engage 
seniors, aged 50 and over, in redefining lifelong 
learning and the role of universities in working 
with and for senior populations.  The study em-
ploys the principles of collective impact and the 
practice of participatory-based research to give 
voice to those whose wisdom is often pushed aside 
or at worst ignored. The focus of this project is to 
share the process used to build a community-uni-
versity partnership grounded in best practices 
and inspired by mutual values related to lifelong 
learning. Future papers will focus on a discussion 
of research methods and data analysis.  

the benefits of lifelong 
learning 
The term “lifelong” and its application to learning 
has been used for over 25 years (Laal, 2012).  The 
concept of lifelong learning is not well understood 
(Lamb, 2011). This form of learning takes place 
both in informal and formal settings, and is pro-
vided by nonprofit, private, and public institutions 
including university-community partnerships 
focused on advancing educational opportunities. 
For the purposes of this study lifelong learning 
refers to the Senior University program offered by 

IU Northwest through the Center for Urban and 
Regional Excellence, the campus’ community-uni-
versity partnership center. 

In the past 20 years, the literature on the bene-
fits of lifelong learning has grown significantly  
(Coleman, 2017).  The social and community 
benefits of lifelong learning include those of 
asset-based thinking and creative expression 
(Pstross, 2017), as well as a sense of ownership 
and sustained relationships (Brady, 2013). In 
addition, studies have shown that older learners 
generally report positive wellbeing and healthy 
lifestyles, i.e., non-smoking and regular exercise 
(Narushima, 2018). Given the beneficial effects 
of participation in organized adult education 
programs on life satisfaction, older learners are 
encouraged to be engaged in more learning activ-
ities (Yamashita, 2017).   

While the literature on the benefits of lifelong 
learning is substantial, the literature on lifelong 
learning institutions, centers and programs is 
wanting in comparison (Talmage, 2018).  In this 
area, much of the research is focused on the work 
of one of the most well-known community-uni-
versity partnerships offering senior lifelong learn-
ing experiences - the Osher Lifelong Learning 
Institutes (OLLI).  These institutes are housed 
on over 100 university campuses.  Through 

A community-engaged 
approach to lifelong learning 

offers a unique opportunity to 
partner with seniors to co-define the 

lifelong learning issues of concern 
and to co-design, co-implement and 

co-evaluate sustainable educational 
experiences that maximize the use of 
both university and community assets 
for mutual benefit. 

P R O F I L E S  O F  E N G A G E M E N T

ENGAGE!  |  i u p u i  b i c e n t e n n i a l  e d i t i o n 68



OLLI programs, seniors participate in non-credit 
learning opportunities that don’t require home-
work but do mirror the academic classroom 
experience (Hensley, 2012).   The research on 
OLLI and its programs confirms the importance 
of understanding how institutions engage in 
lifelong learning and the value in connecting the 
theory and practice of community engagement 
to improving the quality of life of seniors and our 
communities. This study begins to fill a gap in 
this literature by exploring a collaborative pro-
cess used to give voice to seniors in designing and 
implementing lifelong learning initiatives.    

senior university: the iu 
northwest experience 
The Center for Urban and Regional Excellence 
(CURE) at Indiana University Northwest engages 
the University and the community in the creation 
of positive, sustainable, and impactful programs 
and initiatives. CURE works collaboratively with 
organizations in all sectors to promote continued 
learning, solution-based interaction, and mutually 
beneficial partnerships in our communities.  

An important element of CURE’s work within the 
community centers on fulfilling the mission of 
Senior University. For two decades, seniors have 
participated in and benefited from programs pro-
viding educational, social, and engaged learning 
opportunities to seniors, persons aged 55 and 
over, residing in Northwest Indiana communities.  
Residing originally in the campus’ continuing ed-
ucation program, the responsibility for designing 
and delivering Senior University was integrated 
into CURE in 2012.  The programs transition into 
CURE set the stage for the transformation of a 
service-based program into one founded on the 
principles of community engagement – mutual 
benefit and reciprocity.  

Informed by the collective impact model of 
community transformation, CURE undertook a 

critical examination of existing programming, 
evaluating the diversity and scope of learning ex-
periences as well as the demographics of partici-
pants.  The examination began with the informal 
discussions with program participants, instruc-
tors and community members as well as a review 
of course evaluations.  While most participants 
reported high levels of satisfaction with program 
offerings, responses to questions soliciting input 
and ideas for future offerIngs was limited.   It was 
clear there was a need for a more formal assess-
ment of the senior community’s needs and de-
sires in order to create a program that is mutually 
beneficial and reciprocal.  

Collective Impact as a framework 
for system change 

The collective impact framework was identified 
as a viable model for effecting the type of system 
change needed to realize positive change in the 
senior community.  Improving lifelong learning 
opportunities for seniors will require a coordinat-
ed/collaborative effort of multiple organizations.  
The collective impact model is driven by rela-
tionships among organizations and their shared 
objectives (Kania, Winter 2011), thus, its poten-
tial as a framework for change was significant. For 
this reason, CURE assessed the viability of the 
collective impact approach using the Collective 
Impact Feasibility framework.   

The feasibility framework poses a set of questions 
addressing the complexity and the scale of the so-
cial problem. (FSG, 2015) The approach encour-

We don’t know what they 
will say, but we do know that 

through this process they will be 
empowered to have a voice. 

S Z A R L E T A   |   L I F E L O N G  L E A R N I N G

69 VO L .  1 ,  I S S U E  2



ages consideration of the community context and 
when applied helps to identify opportunity areas 
for investment and support. (FSG, 2015)  CURE’s 
evaluation of readiness under the feasibility 
framework affirmed the viability of the collective 
impact model for addressing the community’s 
need for improved lifelong learning opportuni-
ties, currently provided by a fragmented set of or-
ganizations, whose collaboration would improve 
the senior community’s wellbeing.  

The first step, in moving toward a collaborative 
model was to assess the effectiveness of our 
program. Early in 2018, CURE conducted two 
Senior University listening sessions, inviting 
individuals aged 55 and older and organizations 
working with seniors to share their views on 
community needs related to lifelong learning. 
A press release published in the local news was 
accompanied by social media announcements.  
Organizational representatives and individuals 
attended the focus group sessions.  In these ses-
sions, seniors discussed the positive and nega-
tive aspects of Senior University programming 
and offered insights on a future direction.  Most 
significantly, they expressed interest in forming 
a steering committee composed of community 
representatives to assist CURE in co-visioning 
lifelong learning initiatives.  

Over the past 18 months, the Senior Univer-
sity Steering Committee, collective of seniors 
representing a variety of life and professional 
experiences as well as sectors (private, public 
and nonprofit), embraced the challenge of “re-
inventing” lifelong learning and changed the 
model of decision making.  Steering committee 
members engaged with their existing networks 
to get the “pulse” of the community on learning 
needs.   They promoted existing programming 

and supported CURE by volunteering their time 
to learn more about participatory-based research 
processes, setting the stage for later work.  CURE 
provided the steering committee members with 
opportunities for learning and growth.  Steering 
committee members presented at an IU North-
west Chancellor’s Board of Advisors meeting in 
2019 and attended the 2020 Indiana Campus 
Compact Summit to learn more about communi-
ty-university engagement. 

Over the past one-and-a-half years, the foun-
dation for cross-sector relationships was built.   
Each of the steering committee members serves 
as a liaison to a network of similarly-concerned 
individuals in the private, nonprofit, and pub-
lic sectors.  It is a small, but necessary step to 
building a more comprehensive and collabora-
tive approach to lifelong learning in the region.   
While CURE continues to work to foster trust, 
we also continue to build capacity.  The steer-
ing committee has determined that it would 
like to engage in participatory-based research 
on the question of seniors’ perception of life-
long learning needs.  They are obtaining their 
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative 
(CITI) certificate.1 They are co-designing with 
the researcher a survey instrument and will soon 
be trained in qualitative research methods, e.g., 
focus groups. 

Moving from Transactional to 
Transformational Relationships 

Community-university relationships must be 
both fluid and ever-evolving.  Approximately 20 
years ago, prior to the move by higher education 
institutions to embrace community engagement, 
the Senior University program IU Northwest 
was a service-oriented transactional model of 

1The Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) is an online training program used to train all individuals conducting research 
that involves human or animal subjects. CITI training courses are in the areas of research, ethics, responsible conduct of research and 
other related topics.

P R O F I L E S  O F  E N G A G E M E N T

ENGAGE!  |  i u p u i  b i c e n t e n n i a l  e d i t i o n 70



lifelong learning.  In such a model, the basis of 
the relationship is exchange and the end goal 
is satisfaction with the exchange.   Seniors at-
tended workshops and special events and were 
enriched by these experiences.  These transac-
tion-based interactions satisfied seniors’ imme-
diate needs to see a performance, partake in art 
projects or learn about Gary, Indiana’s history.  
However, unlike transformative partnerships, 
they did not focus on mutually increasing aspi-
rations or arousing a need for larger meaning.  
Transactional relationships are short-term and 
transformative relationships are long-term.  
Transactional relationships are project-based 
as opposed to issue-based (Shalabi, 2013). 
Under a transactional relationship the parties 
work within the existing system while trans-
formative relationships establish new systems 
(Enos & Morton, 2003). 

The move from a transactional to a transforma-
tive relationship between CURE and the senior 
community is in its early stages.  By building 
community capacity, e.g., training community 
members in participatory research, the seniors 
will be empowered to lead as well as follow.  It 
is hoped that this approach and its benefits for 
both the community and the campus will be en-
thusiastically shared. It may generate increased 
interest and participation in program design, 

implementation and evaluation within the steer-
ing committee and across the sectors represent-
ed by committee members. The next stage of the 
initiative, i.e., finalizing the co-designed survey 
and the subsequent data collection and analy-
sis will deliver insights not only on the role of 
universities in supporting senior learning com-
munities but also the vision of seniors learning 
experiences. We don’t know what they will say, 
but we do know that through this process they 
will be empowered to have a voice.  

In order to develop effective partnerships a shift 
in educational structures and culture may be 
required.  The moves away from traditional defi-
cit-based models in which universities attempt 
to fix problems through one-off projects and ac-
tivities to asset-based models creates new ways 
of working together (Guskey, 2000).  This then 
opens the space for empowerment and sets the 
stage for collective impact.  Higher education in 
collaboration with seniors and senior-focused 
organizations can develop experiences that 
reflect the needs and desires of seniors while 
honoring the roles of faculty, staff and students.  
The changing nature of university-communi-
ty partnerships demands that transformative 
partnerships be valued, encouraged and sup-
ported to facilitate the scholarship of discovery 
and application while contributing positively to 
community wellbeing.

The moves away from traditional deficit-
based models in which universities attempt to fix 

problems through one-off projects and activities to asset-
based models creates new ways of working together.  

S Z A R L E T A   |   L I F E L O N G  L E A R N I N G

71 VO L .  1 ,  I S S U E  2



References

 Baum, H. (2000). Fantasies and Realities in Univer-
sity-Community Partnerships. Journal of Planning 
Education and Research, 20, 234-246. 

Brady, E. C. (2013). The quest for community in 
Osher lifelong learning institutes. Educational Ger-
ontology, 39(9), 627-639. 

Coleman, J. (2017, February 7). Lifelong Learning Is 
Good for Your Health, Your Wallet, and Your Social 
Life. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: 
https://hbr.org/2017/02/lifelong-learning-is-good-
for-your-health-your-wallet-and-your-social-life 

Enos, S., & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a theory 
and practice of campus-community partnerships. 
In B. Jacoby, Building partnerships for service-learn-
ing (pp. 20-41). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. 

FSG. (2015). Collective Impact Forum. Retrieved 
from Resources: https://www.collectiveimpactfo-
rum.org/sites/default/files/CollectiveImpactFeasi-
bilityFramework.pdf 

Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional develop-
ment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. 

Hensley, M. (2012). Lifelong learning and instruc-
tional services for adult learners through OLLI. 
LOEX Quarterly, 4-5. 

Kania, J. a. (Winter 2011). Collective Impact. Stan-
ford Social Innovation Review, 36-41. 

Laal, M. (2012). Benefits of lifelong learning. Pro-
cedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4268-
4272. 

Lamb, R. (2011). Lifelong Learning Institutes: The 
Next Challenge. The LLI Review, 1-10. 

Narushima, M. J. (2018). Lifelong learning in active 
ageing discourse: its conserving effect on wellbing, 
health and vulnerability. Ageing & Society, 38, 651-
675. 

Prins, E. (2005). Framing a Conflict in a Communi-
ty-University Partnership. Journal of Planning Edu-
cation and Research, 25(1), 57-74. 

Pstross, M. T. (2017). In searchof transformative 
moments: Blending community building pursuits 
into lifelong learning experiences. Journal of Educa-
tion Culture and Society, 62(2), 62-78. 

Shalabi, N. (2013, October 8-9). Community Part-
ners' Perceptions of the Challenge to Service-Learn-
ing in Egypt. Retrieved from Engagement Scholar-
ship Consortium: https://engagementscholarship.
org/upload/conferences/2013/presentations/
E2ShalabiCommunity%20Partners%27%20Per-
ceptions.pdf 

Stoecker, R. &. (2009). The unheard voices: Com-
munity organizations and service learning. Philadel-
phia: Temple University Press. 

Strange, R. (2018, July-August). Indiana's elderly 
population projected to climb sharply. INcontext, 
19(4). (I. B. Center, Ed.) Indianapolis, Indiana, 
United States. Retrieved February 2020, from IN-
context: http://www.incontext.indiana.edu/2018/
july-aug/article2.asp#_ftn1 

Talmage, C. R. (2018). Directions for 21st Century 
Lifelong Learning Institutes: Elucidating Questions 
from Osher Lifelong Learning Institute Studies. 
Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 64.2(Sum-
mer), 109-125. 

Vespa, J. (2018, March 13). United States Census 
Bureau. The U.S. Joins other countries with a large 
aging population. Retrieved February 13, 2020 from  
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/03/
graying-america.html 

P R O F I L E S  O F  E N G A G E M E N T

ENGAGE!  |  i u p u i  b i c e n t e n n i a l  e d i t i o n 72


