Original Research  
 

© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021  129 

An Engagement of Hope: A Framework and Equity-
Centered Theory of Action for Community Engagement 
 
Patrick M. Green1,  Daniel J. Bergen2, Cynthia P. Stewart3, and Christopher Nayve4 
 

1Center for Engaged Learning, Teaching and Scholarship (CELTS), and School of Education, Loyola University Chicago, 
2Office of Economic Engagement, Marquette University, 3Parkinson School of Health Science and Public Health, 
Loyola University Chicago, and 4Mulvaney Center for Community, Awareness, and Social Action, University of San 
Diego.  
 
Cite as: Green, P.M., Bergen, D.J., Stewart, C.P., & Nayve, C. (2021). An Engagement of Hope: A Framework and 
Equity-Centered Theory of Action for Community Engagement. Metropolitan Universities, 32(2), 129-157. DOI: 
10.18060/25527.  
 
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. 
 
Editor: Valerie L. Holton, Ph.D. 
 

Abstract 

Building upon the proposed concept of an engagement of hope (Green, Stewart, Bergen, & 
Nayve, 2020) emerging from the exploration of faith-based approaches to community 
engagement, the authors delve into collaborative inquiry and critical reflection to construct a 
framework and equity-centered theory of action for community engagement. Drawing from the 
work of faith-based community organizations and institutions of higher education, and through 
the lens of a practitioner-scholar framework, the authors present a scholarly approach to 
collaborative inquiry and exploration into an engagement of hope, responding to the current 
context of higher education. The development of the engagement of hope conceptual 
framework emerged with core approaches to community engagement, responding to the 
current context and seeking to move the field of community engagement to address this 
context. The five themes that scaffold the conceptual framework are explicated, including 
challenging unjust structures, the common good, collaborative courage, community-centered, 
and individual goodness. The implications of this framework and theory of change are discussed 
as well as a call to re-center relationships in the community engagement field. 
 
Keywords: community engagement, hope, faith-based, practitioner-scholar, critical inquiry  
 
 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              130 

Introduction 

As community engagement scholar-practitioners, who sought to interrogate the intersection of 
community engagement and faith at urban institutions, we delved into editing a special issue of 
Metropolitan Universities Journal (Volume 31, Issue 3) published in December 2020. Our 
inquiry into this topic led us to develop an exploratory study based on our work with faith-based 
organizations and communities, considering our own experiences as community engagement 
professionals (Dostilio, 2017), and critically reflecting upon how such work is rife with tension, 
inequities, and systemic injustice. The context of a global pandemic, racial justice movement, 
and politically divisive environment was certainly addressed during the planning and delivery of 
that publication, but the deliberation among our co-editing team was more broadly focused on 
how we, as community engagement professionals, continue to engage in the center of this 
tension-filled context, as well as beyond it. We were encouraged by the work of faith-based 
community organizations, non-profits, and higher education institutions, and were especially 
inspired by faith-based work led by Black churches and Latinx communities. We were also 
informed by the work of these faith-based organizations in spite of the challenging context in 
which we were all living and working. Our reflections returned to core questions: How do we 
continue to do the work of community engagement as we unravel the racial injustice and 
systemic inequity pervasive in our communities and social structures? How do we keep our 
focus, returning to engagement work with community partners at the center, in the face of such 
challenges? And how do we expand from a Judeo-Christian framework of understanding? 
Taking cues from faith-based community organizations who have worked extensively through 
this lens of experience, we called for an engagement of hope (Green, Stewart, Bergen, & Nayve, 
2020). It is through this recent exploratory study on the intersection of faith and community 
engagement that we return to our practice and further explore the concept of an engagement of 
hope. As practitioner-scholars, this exploration serves as a journey of discovery into our practice 
and leads us to our current line of inquiry. 
 
Our inquiry emerges from the intersectional context of faith and community engagement, as 
scholar-practitioners and community engagement professionals who all work at faith-based 
institutions, as well as working extensively with faith-based communities and organizations (e.g. 
churches, non-profit organizations, community centers, interfaith groups, etc.). As community 
engagement professionals, we contextualize our roles and practice, extending critical inquiry into 
community engagement work, given the need for more research since “what needs to be further 
clarified and promoted is the nature, role, and perspective of the individuals who staff, lead, 
direct, and advance these [community engagement] spaces” (Dostilio and Perry, 2017, p. 12). 
From this demand for perspectives from community engagement professionals, we situated our 
inquiry into our practice, and we explored our context of community engagement. Inspired and 
informed by faith-based community engagement, our inquiry continued after the publication was 
released through deliberations and critical reflections, as we continued to interrogate the concept 
of an engagement of hope. The purpose of our ongoing dialogue and critical reflections were to 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              131 

clarify this concept, providing both definition and explanation of an engagement of hope. In 
addition, we sought to honor its emergence from faith-based community engagement work, 
while also exploring its generalizability to community engagement broadly, building upon and 
differentiating it from other frameworks. 
 
For example, the concept of hope is complex, and when connected to engagement, it potentially 
alters the paradigm. Hope is not superfluous, nor a dismissively fleeting aspiration, and as the 
Slovene poet, Boris Novak, states in his poem, “Decisions:” “Between hope and despair / choose 
hope / It will be harder to bear” (Novak, 2006). 
 
The final line of Novak’s poem demonstrates the gravitas and weight of hope. To hope is to 
challenge oneself to believe in what one does not know or see. Desmond Tutu has been famously 
quoted that “Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness” (Tutu, 2016) 
and Cornel West stated that while he does often feel despair, as a “prisoner of hope,” he 
suggests, “never allow despair to have the last word” (West, 2021). In essence, the concept of 
hope is not a superficial construct, but rather a complex response difficult to carry, such as 
virtuous hope emphasizing the goodness of individuals (Pieper, 1997). Freire states, without a 
minimum of hope, we cannot so much as start the struggle. But without the struggle, hope, as an 
ontological need, dissipates, loses its bearings, and turns into hopelessness. And hopelessness 
can become tragic despair. Hence the need for a kind of education in hope (2007, p. 3). We 
wanted to unpack this tension within the construct of an engagement of hope. Through the lens 
of collaborative inquiry, rooted in critical reflection as scholar-practitioners, we explore this 
concept of an engagement of hope, more fully developing a conceptual framework emerging into 
an actionable theory of change.  
 
Methodology 
 
Our methodological approach to this study involved collaborative inquiry upon the emerging 
concept of an engagement of hope in the context of our practitioner-scholar research. 
McReynolds (2015) writes, “Practitioner-Scholars have the unique ability to perceive 
deficiencies in current theories and practices. Their research and best pedagogical knowledge are 
needed to challenge and drive the development of a stronger academy” (p.4). Drawing from our 
framing article in which our call to action included turning toward an engagement of hope 
(Green, et al., 2020), we sought to critically reflect on this concept in order to describe its 
meaning in action and explain it in more detail. Our guiding questions included: 
 

1) What do we mean by an engagement of hope collectively? 
2) What are 3 - 5 characteristics or criteria that help us define this idea? 
3) How do we enact this concept of an engagement of hope in our community engagement 

work? 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              132 

4) In the midst of tension-filled, challenging work of facing inequalities and injustice, how 
do we continue to immerse ourselves in community engagement? 

 
These questions emerged through our discussions and deliberations as we continued to pursue 
our exploration of this concept. We turned to qualitative inquiry, which focuses on meaning 
making and understanding through methodological and systematic approaches. 
 
To further explore this concept of an engagement of hope, especially to describe and explain its 
meaning, we relied on the qualitative approach of collaborative inquiry (Donohoo, 2013). As an 
inclusive research methodology, collaborative inquiry involves participants as co-inquirers who 
are experts of their own lives and co-construct the research through active engagement in cycles 
of reflection (Bridges and McGee, 2011). This approach centers our questions about our own 
learning experiences in the context of community engagement (Bray, Lee, Smith, & Yorks, 
2000). Such a qualitative approach is essential for our exploration because collaborative inquiry: 
 
 ...assumes that understanding and improving the human condition requires an approach  

that honors a holistic perspective on what constitutes valid knowledge. Effective  
collaborative inquiry demystifies research and treats it as a form of learning that should  
be accessible by everyone interested in gaining a better understanding of his or her  
world. (Bray, Lee, Smith, & Yorks, 2000, p. 3). 
 

This approach to human inquiry is foundational to our study as we sought to interrogate the 
concept of an engagement of hope in order to gain a better understanding through ongoing 
reflection. As we each individually and collectively reflected on the engagement of hope within 
our own universities, communities of engagement, and personal lives, it brought to mind how 
human inquiry is participative, experiential, political, and action oriented (Reason, 1996, p.15). 
This concept expands through Reason’s work, Reflections on the Purposes of Human Inquiry 
where he states:  
 

Quality human inquiry starts not with a concern for theory or knowledge 
but from engagement with the reality of people’s lives and how they live and 
experience them . . . concern for knowledge arises from this practical concern to help 
people make better sense of their lives and create more and better possibilities in their 
lives. Although it may be influenced by our own life quest, we must start from questions 
of experience, need, and practice as defined by the people with and for whom we are 
working. Human inquiry is thus essentially in-service. (Reason, 1996, p. 20) 
 

This inquiry approach also relied heavily on Rendon’s (2014) framework within Sentipensante 
(Thinking/Feeling) Pedagogy, in which transpersonal research deepens the narrative process and 
positions each author as co-researcher and partner “who turned to each other in truth while we 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              133 

attempt to open the interhuman nature of the experience” (pp. 52-53). Within a faith-based 
context, this approach aligns with Ignatian contemplation, as considered by George Bernanos in 
the Diary of a Country Priest, and further emphasized by Modras in Ignatian Humanism. 
Ignatian contemplation: 
 

 …brings all the instruments into a final three-note crescendo [235-7]. First realize that  
all creation--everything we are and have and see--is given as a token of God's self-gift.  
Second, realize that God is present in all creation--dwelling in the elements, plants, 
animals and us. Finally, realize that God is not only present but "laboring" in all that 
exists--creating, conserving, concurring. In each of the concluding three points of the 
contemplation, Ignatius writes, "I will reflect on myself." (Modras, 2004, p. 32)  
 

Collaborative inquiry allows the space and necessary reflection to enable deeper considerations 
of our own relationships with our work; and, Ignatian contemplation invites the consideration of 
God’s presence in our efforts, before it posits the need to reflect on oneself. Further, this 
reflective practitioner approach emerges from several faith-based perspectives and affirms the 
need for continued self-reflection and discernment as we engage our communities.  
 
Our reflection questions emerged from our roles as practitioner-scholars of community 
engagement. Dostilio and Perry (2017) frame the role of community engagement professionals 
as multidimensional given the complexity of the work, sometimes serving as tempered radicals, 
transformational leaders, and social entrepreneurs, as we work within our institutions and our 
local communities. We identify as third-space professionals who often work in the blurred spaces 
with one foot in the community and one foot in the academy (Whitchurch, 2013). Such roles 
allow us to cross boundaries between classroom and community, between research and 
pedagogy, between student learning and community impact, leading to our hybrid roles as 
scholars and practitioners (Green, Eddins, Berkey, & Meixner, 2018). Thus, our reflection 
questions emerged from our practice, our professional experiences, and our perspectives on 
working in and with community organizations. 
 
While there is a considerable amount of excitement and joy in the work of engagement, our 
experiences connecting and engaging with our communities can be filled with challenges, and 
we explore how we approach the barriers, challenges, and realities in which we work and live. 
The source of our inquiry is our practice, and a key function of the practitioner-scholar is to 
adopt an inquiry stance related to practice (Lytle, 2008). Practitioner-scholar research also 
connects issues within the practice to the context of the practice and established research 
methods of inquiry (Salipante and Aram, 2003). Practitioner research is often described as a 
methodological approach that integrates theory, practice, and research, while also fostering 
critical reflection on practice through systematic inquiry (Ravitch, 2014). The reflection 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              134 

questions guided our collaborative inquiry as we interrogated our practice and facilitated a 
methodological investigation into the concept of an engagement of hope.  
 
We each shared our own stories of engagement within our respective communities which 
Mezirow (1990) refers to as a process of learning as a way to engage in critical self-reflection, 
which can lead to personal and societal transformation:  
 

This process of critical reflection has the potential for profoundly changing the way we 
make sense of our experience in the world, other people, and ourselves. Such 
transformative learning, in turn, leads to action that can significantly affect the character 
of our interpersonal relationships, the organization in which we work and socialize, and 
the socioeconomic system itself (Mezirow, 1990, p.xiii).  
 

Because we each worked and lived in different cities and states, including Illinois, Wisconsin, 
and California, we conducted multiple virtual meetings to deliberate and dialogue about this 
concept. During our meetings, we conducted a thematic analysis of our critical reflections 
through categorizing and coding our reflections (Clandenin & Connelly, 2000; Creswell, 2012; 
Rendon, 2014; Green, et al., 2018). We established key themes and identified essential principles 
that anchor the ideas that emerged. We triangulated the themes, established definitions, and 
generated a heuristic that represented our findings. We continued to reflect in an emergent, 
iterative process on this concept. We conducted two virtual feedback sessions for one hour each, 
both of which were interactive workshops sponsored by professional organizations, the Coalition 
of Urban and Metropolitan Universities and the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities 
which included professionals in the community engagement field, to identify if the emerging 
themes connected with their experiences and animated their engagement work. These feedback 
sessions allowed us to validate the themes with professionals in the field. Our collaborative 
inquiry process concluded with several professionals requesting information on the concept to 
foster dialogue, and the affirmative responses confirmed that this concept resonated with other 
community engagement professionals.  

 
Presentation of a Conceptual Framework and Emerging Equity-Focused Theory of Change 
 
Our thematic analysis suggested core approaches to community engagement and five key themes 
that emerged from our critical reflections, deliberation and dialogue, observations working with 
faith-based community partners, as well as feedback sessions. What emerged was a conceptual 
framework that elucidated a community engagement strategy for action and emerged into an 
actionable and equity focused theory of change. Blaxter et al. (1996) explained that the 
components of a conceptual framework include concepts and contexts that define the scope of 
the inquiry, while also suggesting methods and theories to apply in the framework. A conceptual 
framework is historically defined as an iteration of a researcher’s inquiry that may evolve as the 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              135 

inquiry evolves, as well as a structure for organizing ideas (Leshem & Trafford, 2007). In 
addition, Punch (2000) suggests that such frameworks represent the conceptual status of the 
topics at hand and their relationship to each other.  
 
Connell and Kubisch (1998) explained that a theory of change is outcomes-focused and 
evaluation-centered, linking activities, outcomes, and contexts to organizational leadership and 
strategy (Connell and Kubisch, 1998; Dubow and Litzler, 2018). In addition, a theory of change 
approach, in relation to community initiatives, focuses on planning and implementation, and a 
theory of change needs to be plausible, doable, and testable (Connell and Kubisch, 1998). 
Reinholz and Andrews (2020) define a theory of change, which was a phrase popularized by the 
Aspen Institute and often utilized in the context of complex community initiatives centered 
around social change, as “…a tool to help clearly articulate underlying assumptions from the 
offset. The process of creating the theory of change allows a team to reach consensus on its 
underlying assumptions, which are then codified in an explicit product (often displayed as a 
diagram)” (p. 1).  
 
The engagement of hope model centralizes equity within the theory of change in order to be held 
accountable to a broad range of stakeholders traditionally excluded in traditional theory of 
change models. Animated by the Impact of Community Engagement Model, developed by Nexus 
Community Partners, the engagement of hope change model bridges equity and community 
engagement by including the following values in their participatory change model: culture, 
spirituality, healing, history, identity, power, relationships, and trust. As scholar-practitioners 
conducting collaborative inquiry into the concept of an engagement of hope, we analyzed our 
data from our reflection and dialogue, developed a conceptual framework that defined key 
criteria, and created an equity-focused theory of change explicitly codified in Figure 1.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              136 

Figure 1. An Engagement of Hope Conceptual Framework and Equity-Focused Theory of Change 

 
 
 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              137 

To explicate the framework and theory of change, in the next section, we will explain the 
foundational approaches that serve as core pillars in approaching community engagement that 
undergird the framework. Next, we explore the five themes and provide definitive characteristics 
of each theme that scaffolds the conceptual framework of an engagement of hope leading to a 
theory of change. Lastly, we discuss implications for practice in the community engagement 
field. 
 
Core Pillars for Approaching Community Engagement 
 
As we continued to deliberate and dialogue on this topic, we also continued to write, iterate, and 
reflect on the concept of an engagement of hope. Our discussion centered around core 
assumptions, contexts, and pillars of thought to which we continually returned. We termed these 
core pillars for approaching community engagement because they were approaches of 
community engagement that emerged from the study of our practice. Considering approaches of 
community engagement, an engagement of hope: addresses community engagement that 
balances the tension of institutional practices and recognizing inequity and injustice; centers 
multiple voices and lived experiences; prioritizes relationships over transactions; anchors in 
faith-based work in which God is at work in all things and that we live in a universe of grace; 
recognizes the difficult practice that requires sustenance (community of support); facing difficult 
issues, approaches community engagement with a passion for the possible. These approaches of 
community engagement are further explicated through our critical inquiry and critical reflections 
below. 
 
Addresses community engagement sitting in the center of the tension 
 
From the beginning, our reflections identified an engagement of hope within the tension derived 
from community engagement that recognizes inequity and injustice. This was rooted in our prior 
study based on narrative inquiry: “This exploratory study led us to deeply and critically examine 
the concept of hope situated alongside community engagement in the context of the institutional 
tensions, historical legacies of inequity and racial injustice, and the communities’ multiple 
voices.” (Green, Stewart, Bergen, & Nayve, 2020). An engagement of hope understands and 
appreciates the need for tension, one of the most critical aspects of Jesuit spirituality, as defined 
by Barry, S.J. and Doherty, S.J. in Contemplatives in Action: The Jesuit Way. While Barry and 
Doherty focus on very specific tensions within the Jesuit way of life—trust in God and trust in 
one’s own talents, prayer and action, companionship and mission, obedience and learning from 
experience, the center and the periphery, poverty and use of the world’s goods, chastity and 
affective friendship—their overall message feels deeply applicable to an engagement of hope. 
Specifically, “Jesuit spirituality functions best when these tensions are alive, and clearly felt, that 
is when Jesuits experience themselves in the pulls of both sides of each polarity” (7). 
 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              138 

Centers multiple voices and lived experiences 
 
This engagement of hope engages multiple voices as well as a variety of lived experiences which 
lead to the next foundational approach principle. There are many examples, including other faith 
based communities, non-profit organizations, universities and community stakeholders/residents, 
providing an engagement of hope where everyone is invited to sit at the table and allow their 
voices to be heard. It is reminiscent of African American poet, Langston Hughes, and how he 
expresses this hope in his poem entitled, “I, Too.”  

 
I, too, sing America  
I am the darker brother.  
They send me to eat in the kitchen 
When company comes 
But I laugh.  
And eat well.  
And grow strong.  
 
Tomorrow,  
I’ll be at the table 
When company comes 
Nobody ‘ll dare  
Say to me 
“Eat in the kitchn,”  
Then  
Besides 
They’ll see how beautiful I am  
And be ashamed -  
I, too, am America 
(Hughes, 1994) 

 
The poem reminds us of the stark reality in which many experiences have not been historically 
recognized, and an engagement of hope challenges us to recognize differences and dialogue 
across those recognized differences. As Nancy Cantor (2004) stated, “To lead the way toward 
fulfilling this hope, we in higher education must figure out how to sit together around our table 
and engage with difference.” 
 
As authors and community engagement practitioners, we wrestled with the tensions and 
questions inherent in earnestly attempting to integrate multiple voices and lived experiences in 
community-engaged work, and yet realized that we may never fully accomplish this task. In our 
original article we committed to “[elevating] the voices of our various community partners, as 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              139 

well as recognize our own privileged voices, we as an editorial team seek to frame this 
introductory thought piece from the perspective of (1) honoring the variety of faith traditions, (2) 
our scholar-practitioner approach to this exploratory study, (3) our own faith journey related to 
our professional role, and (4) our goal to be collaborative co-educators with community 
members. As co-authors we share a common faith tradition, and therefore, we do not want to 
speak on behalf of other faith traditions” (Green, Stewart, Bergen, & Nayve, 2020). The 
contemporary challenge of integrating multiple voices and experiences is not the recognition that 
doing so is critical to the practice of engagement, but rather the challenge lies in whose voices 
and experiences are elevated and prioritized over others. The engagement of hope model is an 
epistemology that is participatory and collective that intentionally integrates an equity-focused 
theory of change that serves to lift up and recognize multiple voices and lived experiences 
(Nexus Community Partners).  

Prioritizes relationships over transactions  
 
Higher education institutions that foster community engagement within urban communities have 
to consider whether the partnerships are transformational versus transactional. Enos and Morton 
(2003) state that transactions are temporary and they originate from the understanding that each 
partner has something that the other needs, and, therefore, each party collaborates with the other 
to exchange these resources within existing structures, work, and personnel. Although devoid of 
commitment, a successful transactional relationship will satisfy some of the needs of all parties. 
Within a university-community partnership, this often means that each party simply uses the 
other to meet an immediate need, and then breaks off the relationship when their needs are 
exhausted. Although short-term partnerships can address acute needs (Bringle & Hatcher 2002, 
p. 511), from the community’s perspective, their needs often remain. These acute community 
partner needs became painfully evident during the global pandemic. As academic institutions 
faced uncertain enrollment and declining endowments due to market forces, many universities 
furloughed staff and cut programs and services. There were numerous examples of academic 
institutions with transactional community partnerships with their communities providing cursory 
responses to urgent needs. However, there were fewer examples of transformational 
campus/community partnerships that truly responded to the societal impacts of the global 
pandemic and calls for dismantling systemic oppression and inequity. The most powerful stories 
centered on community-focused mutual aid networks, in which neighbors often checked in on 
each other and addressed issues of social isolation. This is what the engagement of hope looks 
like in action. 
 
For many universities who engage in relationships with community partners, community 
engagement is framed to include the concept of “working with” and not “working for” the 
community. This challenges the university entering communities with a savior mentality, and 
encourages an approach to seek the greater good within the community by first allowing the 
voice of the stakeholders within the community to share their wants and needs. This approach to 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              140 

community engagement seeks to understand the presence of God in every person, listening with 
humility, not to advance a particular objective or outcome, but rather to participate authentically 
in the shared laboring for the greater good. As emphasized in our previous article, Salter-McNeil 
encourages faith communities to “… come out of their individualism and come together as a 
community to make and execute a plan based on a united vision for the future.” In the context of 
community, they should find the support, courage, and accountability to imagine and work 
toward a world different from the one we currently live in (Salter-McNeil, p. 192-193). This 
defined a foundational principle within an engagement of hope, because it focuses on building 
relationships for support, courage, and accountability. 
 
In reflecting upon this notion of “working with,” or accompaniment with others, our critical 
reflections invited us into deeper dialogue around the role of our personal and professional 
motivations in the work of community engagement. One of our community partners reminds us 
of the need for persistent reflection and discernment as to why we are participating in this work: 
 

I sit across the table from one of the original NAACP Youth Commandos who led the 
1968 Marches on Milwaukee in a bank-building-turned-diner called Coffee Makes You 
Black. 70 years of life has not dulled his activist tendencies, nor has it stilted his stature. 
He is a tall, African-American man, with a deep, graveled, voice. We are meeting to 
discuss his possible participation in an event we are hosting recognizing the 50th 
Anniversary of the Fair Housing Marches, a key moment in our city’s, and nation’s 
history. My intent is to partner with the local coordinating group, faculty members, and 
students to invite deeper campus discussions and explorations around the history of the 
movement, and the current moment in our city. The pause comes, and he leans forward. 
The questions are delivered in quick succession, with an intensity, and honesty that feels 
deeply personal. 
 
“What is your motivation? Why are you doing this?” 
 
As a white male, born and raised in a suburb of Milwaukee, the Catholic tradition 
informed much of my upbringing. I attended K-8 and high school at Catholic schools, 
and, while my undergraduate and master’s degree were completed at two public 
universities, I had always longed to return to an educational setting that invited the 
exploration of faith as a component of the whole person. As I completed my master’s in 
Cultural Studies, and was searching for my first position, I was excited when an 
opportunity opened up at Marquette University, a Catholic, Jesuit institution located in 
the urban heart of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. My return to Catholic education, and its strong 
mission-driven orientation, aligned with my values and religious upbringing, but I was 
unaware at the time how fully the expression of my faith would be ignited through the 
Jesuit charism and community engagement. The questions posed above by my 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              141 

community partner resonate at a professional and personal level because they are 
precisely the place from which I think we should begin our approaches in community 
engagement, and personal prayer around decision-making. In the Jesuit tradition, when a 
decision is being considered, the utilization of discernment allows us to more fully enter 
into and understand our motivations, paying attention to the gentle movements of the 
Spirit within us. My race, gender, historical background, faith, and institutional affiliation 
form a context for my motivations in every moment of engagement with this partner. To 
approach community engagement authentically, I need to continually discern the 
motivations, and perhaps more importantly, my professional and personal interest in 
pursuing and forming engaged relationships. [DB] (Green, Stewart, Bergen, & Nayve, 
2020). 

 
To fully appreciate an engagement of hope, it is critical to be able to clearly and honestly 
articulate our motivations, not only for ourselves but for our partners as well. A failure to 
acknowledge and appreciate our motivations could lead to inauthenticity in our relationships and 
the subsequent potential for negative or even harmful outcomes. The question is how to 
intentionally frame these connections and relationships in a way that creates “coherent wholes” 
rather than atomized transactions (Del Rio, Loggins 2019). In prioritizing relationships in 
community engagement, we do not seek to ignore transactions, nor demonize them, but rather we 
acknowledge transactions as necessary aspects of engagement when mutually agreed upon. The 
challenge is to clearly and consciously articulate our motivations to move toward coherent 
wholes and relationship-affirming outcomes, acknowledging and moving beyond transactions. 

Anchored in faith-based work in which God is at work in all things and that we live in a universe 
of grace 
 
One of the key components of Ignatian Spirituality according to Modras is engagement with 
culture: “A God at work in all things can be found on a stage as well as in a sanctuary. . . We live 
in a universe of grace” (Modras, p. 83-84). If we believe that God is at work in all things and that 
we live in a universe of grace, then it follows that our engagement should be ignited by hope 
derived through that faith in God’s presence. Our communities comprise broad and diverse 
perspectives, ideas, religious beliefs, political views, motivations, and interests. Often it can be 
easier to identify and align with those organizations that most closely reflect our personal or 
institutional perspectives; however, community engagement often complicates the tidiness of 
such alignments. In these moments it is helpful to recall that, “for Ignatian Spirituality, nothing 
human is merely human. And no enterprise, no matter how secular, is merely secular” (Modras, 
p. 84), God is at work in all things, and grace is ubiquitous.  

Recognizes the difficult practice that requires sustenance (community of support) 
 
In considering efforts in community engagement, we must acknowledge that hope gives us 
sustenance in work that can be considerably difficult. Nouwen states it clearly: “I cannot always 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              142 

find the light, or walk in the light of God. I need the love and support of my brothers and sisters 
in the community of faith” (Nouwen, 28). Our reflections and inquiry process included 
observations that community engagement work is persistent, resilient, and courageous because 
the focus is on the creation of good emerging from change. 
 
Practitioner-scholars have ample opportunities to access communities of support, through 
programs or professional organizations committed to community engagement, such as the 
Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities (CUMU), Campus Compact, the International 
Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement (IARSLCE), the 
Place Based Justice Network, or the National Society for Experiential Education (NSEE). There 
are also organizations that create a community of mission-aligned institutions that may embrace 
faith and hope as central to practice, such as the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities 
(AJCU). There are other organizations and programs dedicated to creating a community of 
community engagement professionals, such as the Practitioner-Scholar Community of IARSLCE 
or the Engaged Scholars Consortium. Lastly, communities of support may emerge from the 
community-based collaborators and non-profit community organization partners that share faith 
and hope as motivation. Through these many opportunities, community engagement 
professionals may find a community of support to sustain us through this difficult work. 

Facing difficult issues, we approach with “a passion for the possible” 
 
Steindl-Rast considers the concluding statement, “a passion for the possible,” of William Sloane 
Coffin’s autobiography, Once to Every Man, as an invitation to consider how we must approach 
the crucial issues we face every day. Steindl-Rast states,  
 

As we go forward, the apparent limits of the possible will be pushed back further and 
further into the region of the seemingly impossible. Sooner or later we realize that the 
possible has no fixed limits. [...] The exploration animated by a passion for the possible 
is, of course, our religious quest, spurred on by the restlessness of our human heart. Hope 
makes our religious quest what it is. The very notion of quest implies hope. (Steindl-Rast, 
p. 125) 

 
Five Themes of an Engagement of Hope 
 
The following five themes emerged through our collaborative inquiry as we analyzed our 
reflections, deliberated, and interrogated this notion of an engagement of hope. Rooted in our 
observations working with non-profit organizations (often faith-based), as well as our 
professional experiences in the community engagement field, these themes define and shape an 
engagement of hope. 
 
 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              143 

Challenging Unjust Structures 
 
As stated previously, a foundational principle of an engagement of hope is the tension derived 
from community engagement that recognizes inequity and injustice. This requires us to 
acknowledge institutional racism and inequity, to accept our role within the unjust systems in 
which we participate, and then to challenge them in practice, policy, and position. As anchor 
institutions we are called to provide educational practices within and outside the walls of our 
institutions through community partnerships which are mutually reciprocal relationships where 
faculty, community residents, and community organizations are co-educators to create a just 
society for everyone. 
 
Rigorous academic experiences should not only enhance the development of all college students, 
they should also disrupt existing inequalities by bolstering students who have been historically 
marginalized or excluded from higher education (Bowman and Culver 2018). Increasing social 
and economic equity is just one way that effectual instructional practices promote the public 
good. Other societal benefits include improving local communities through partnerships, 
preparing students to be educated citizens of diverse societies and empowering them to identify 
and challenge systems of inequality (Trolian and Culver, 2020). This is how universities can 
provide an engagement of hope which is characterized by the honest and persistent work of faith 
communities that elevate the voices of people, challenge unjust structures, and integrate 
community histories with the potential and possibility for a better future.  

 
The Common Good 
 
Community engagement that is anchored in hope is rooted in the inherent belief of the goodness 
of people juxtaposed with working toward the aspirational goal of the public good or common 
good. The tension of the individual versus the good of the community is situated not at odds, but 
through mutual consideration. Faith-based higher education institutions in partnership with faith 
or non-faith based community organizations are called to serve the public good. Cantor, Englot, 
and Higgins (2013) have specifically called on universities to consider how to leverage their 
unique strengths in order to break down university and community barriers. Matthew Kotchen 
(2012) states, “Pure public goods have two defining features. One is ‘non‐rivalry,’ meaning that 
one person’s enjoyment of a good does not diminish the ability of other people to enjoy the same 
good. The other is ‘non‐excludability,’ meaning that people cannot be prevented from enjoying 
the good.”  
 
An engagement of hope is characterized by the honest and persistent work of faith communities 
that elevate the voices of people, challenge unjust structures, and integrate community histories 
with the potential and possibility of a better future. Our critical reflections revealed examples of 
faith-based organizations who exemplified this engagement approach: 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              144 

 
As we think about the public good, I am reminded of a Chicago urban community on the 
Westside of Chicago called North Lawndale. Lawndale Christian Community Church 
(LCCC) has been the beacon of hope for a once-plighted community filled with poverty, 
lack of medical care and affordable housing, high rates of recidivism, and food 
insecurities. In 1978, members of Lawndale Community Church surveyed a group of 
Lawndale residents about their greatest needs. The residents listed the following: 
inexpensive health care, basketball gym, improved housing, and competent and 
affordable legal services. The voice of the people was heard and the following 
engagement of hope was fulfilled:  
 

● Lawndale Christian Health Center from hope to possibility to reality in 1984.  
● Lawndale Christian Development Center was established in 1987 to provide 

economic development within the community - affordable housing, restaurants, 
etc. In 2006, they developed the Dr. King Legacy Apartments, Museum, and 
commercial corridor on the land where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. lived while 
fighting for housing and workers’ rights in the 1960’s.  

● Hope House was established in 1995 as a place of refuge for men reentering 
society from prison to break the cycle of recidivism and provide shelter and job 
readiness skills. In the same year, Lou Malnati’s Pizzeria, a sit-down restaurant 
opened which provides employment for local residents and Hope House residents.  

● In 2003, the first ever Hip Hop Church was established for the youth in the 
community and in 2007, the church purchased and renovated an old firehouse and 
developed an arts community center providing culinary arts, dance and music 
studio, and workforce development.  

● In 2010, Lawndale Christian Legal Center was established providing free legal 
services for youth and young adults 24 years of age and younger.  

● In 2012, to continue to combat health inequity in the community an additional 
health clinic, fitness center, conference center, and sit down cafe was built.  

● In 2019, with a partnership with Chicago Botanical Gardens, Lawndale Health 
Center built the Farm on Ogden which provides urban agriculture with fresh 
vegetables for health patients and community residents as well as food security 
and job placement for youth and formerly incarcerated men and women. In the 
same year, just a block away, the Lawndale Senior Health Center was built to 
specifically serve senior residents providing healthcare services and day senior 
programming.  

 
This example, of a faith based organization who for over 40 years have been intentional 
about their engagement of hope when they allowed the voice of the residents to dictate 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              145 

how they would serve the community for the public good. [Critical reflection of Cynthia 
Stewart] 
 

During one feedback session, this example was presented and a few of the participants 
commented on what a joy it was to hear good things happening in Chicago in spite of what they 
hear from the national media about the increase of violence and lack of resources in urban 
communities. 
 
Collaborative Courage 
 
Community engagement is an act of courage in and of itself, as it relies on hope for a better 
future. In his consideration of the value of the community of the church, Ronald Rolheiser 
references Edward Shillebeeckx: “what we dream alone remains a dream, but what we dream 
with others can become a reality.” Rolheiser goes on to consider the church community in the 
following way: “Alone, standing apart from community, I am no more powerful than my own 
personality and charisma, which in a world of six billion--[now closer to 8 billion]--people, will 
not make much of a difference.[...] The first thing I should do, if I hope to help bring about some 
justice and peace on this planet, is begin to dream with others within a world-wide body of 
persons committed to the same dream” (Rolheiser, p. 138-9). The imperative seems clear: we 
must dream with others through an engagement of hope. Community engagement is 
collaborative in nature, requiring individuals in different sectors, organizations, communities, 
and backgrounds to generate, create, produce, and develop together. As previously stated, an 
engagement of hope is persistent, resilient, and courageous because the focus is on the creation 
of good; it exemplifies grit. 
 
Faith-based institutions are significant influencers in the community both as institutional 
structures and the degree to which they develop coalitions in the community. Engaged 
institutions partner with communities in order to collectively meet both parties’ needs, hopes, 
and desires. Engaged universities embrace communities as equal partners who work with, not 
for, universities in a mutual exchange to discover new knowledge and promote and apply 
learning (Karasik, 1993). This collaborative paradigm redefines universities from curators of 
knowledge to dialectic partners who must reconsider how they operationalize teaching for the 
benefit of all (Torres, 2000)—“a successful collaborative process [that] enables a group of 
people and organizations to combine the complementary knowledge, skills and resources so they 
can accomplish more together than they can on their own” (Center for the Advancement of 
Collaborative Strategies and Health, 2002, p. 2). 
  
 
 
 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              146 

Community-Centered 
 
An engagement of hope is community-centered, emerging from community knowledge, 
experience, voice, trust, and ideation. Such engagement recognizes community histories and 
honors them with a seat at the table. Because such engagement is consistently working toward 
the aspirational goal of the common good, the community is the center point and anchor to 
ground engagement in form, practice, and delivery. Leiderman and colleagues (2002) found that 
a commitment to ensure mutual benefit leads to the development of trust and accountability in a 
community partnership. Trust is a critical component of community partnerships, and Schulz and 
colleagues (2003) consider the role of mutual trust in assessing the effectiveness of participatory 
research partnerships. These relationships are built on a two-way exchange that explicitly seeks 
mutual benefit and, ultimately, transformation (Dostilio, p.169). Our critical reflections animated 
this as we explored this theme of community-centered from the lens of an engagement of hope: 

 
Jennifer Turner, affectionately known as Mama J, is an iconic culture bearer, historian, 
and storyteller for over three decades with the Community Book Center (CBC) in New 
Orleans. Hundreds of university students have visited the CBC and Mama J often will ask 
them, “What do you get, and what does the community get?” Her question echoes 
sentiments from community voices who have grown weary of the expression of mutually 
beneficial relationships without experiencing the embodied actions and behaviors of true 
reciprocity.  
 
An equity and community-centered theory of change understands this polarity and 
approaches it like the “practice of joining” developed by Esteban Del Rio and John 
Loggins are critical to creating social cohesion to enact and embody change (Del Rio, 
Loggins 2019). The practice of joining draws from critical service-learning in that there is 
an attentiveness to both pedagogy and a reflective process (Mitchell 2008). Del Rio and 
Loggins suggest that a joining practice must integrate mindfulness in order to be fully 
present and accepting of what emerges in community engaged work (Del Rio, Loggins 
2019) and they suggest the following process:  

 
● Reflect on the habits and assumptions, conditions, and purposes that guide 

individual and institutional actions, attitudes, behaviors 
● Discern which of those support the anchor mission and those that undermine the 

anchor mission 
● Identify changes necessary in strategy, but also in work routines and mental 

frameworks (personal and professional habits and assumptions that inform 
individual and collective work, and the conditions and purposes of that work) 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              147 

● Commit to collectively setting the purpose and creating the conditions for culture 
change. Do so by empowering faculty, staff, students, and most importantly, 
community partners 

● Assess: it is most useful to discern outcomes and assessment of critical 
commitments as part of the normal assessment procedure 

● Repeat: this last point returns to the beginning of the cycle and closes the loop for 
what should be an ongoing process. People always make meaning, and as flexible 
and mutable as culture can be, it also persists through the routines of everyday 
life. (Critical reflection of Chris Nayve) 

 
Individual Goodness 
 
An engagement of hope clearly focuses on the experience, knowledge, skills, and gifts of the 
individual. It elevates the voice and experience of individuals, and it is rooted in the inherent 
belief of the goodness of people as well as working toward the aspirational goal of the public 
good or common good. The emphasis on individual goodness stems from the early work of 
McKnight and Kretzmann (1993) who coined the term Asset Based Community Development 
(ABCD) in the late 1980s. While service providers and academics went into urban communities 
plagued with poverty, disinvestment, poor health, racism, oppression, crime, and lack of 
resources, their response was to provide a need-based approach, which focused on what 
communities lacked, deficiency, scarcity, and need. This approach did not provide hope, but 
continued the cycle of shame and hopelessness within many urban communities. McKnight and 
Kretzmann’s ABCD model of community engagement changed the way that service providers 
and academics entered into urban communities, and they shifted the focus on the assets, 
including the knowledge, skills, and gifts of the residents within that community. Luther Snow 
(2014) in his chapter Assets, Innovation, and Academia, reflects on McKnight and Kretzmann’s 
concept of framing good in urban communities as assets, rather than deficiencies:  
 

They noticed the good in communities. They observed that sometimes residents were 
getting things done together that the outside professionals could not accomplish. They 
saw community-based organizing, economic development, health promotion, teaching 
and learning, sharing and networking. And wherever something good was going on in 
communities, they realized that folks were not focused on needs. Instead, they focused on 
assets. They reflected on their gifts, passion and talents, rather than their deficiencies. 
They took the reins of their associations, groups, and organizations, instead of depending 
on outside agencies. They appreciated the physical and economic assets in their 
communities, and figured out what they could do by connecting those assets in new ways. 
(Snow, p. 33) 
 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              148 

An engagement of hope elevates this critical shift to not only recognize the goodness of 
individuals within communities, but also the experience of individuals living in the community. 
 
For example, Mitchell (2008) challenges us to move toward critical service-learning pedagogy 
because it raises a critical consciousness of the individual learner in the community as well as the 
experience of individuals living in the community: 
 

Critical service-learning pedagogy fosters a critical consciousness, allowing students to 
combine action and reflection in classroom and community to examine both the historical 
precedents of the social problems addressed in their service placements and the impact of 
their personal action/inaction in maintaining and transforming those problems. This 
analysis allows students to connect their own lives to the lives of those with whom they 
work in their service experiences. (p. 54) 
 

The tension, or polarity, of the common good juxtaposed with individual goodness is not 
elements that are at odds within community engagement, but rather elements that are both 
important and ideals of engagement. Critical service-learning pedagogy captures this as it 
“encourages contemplation on both personal and institutional contributions to social problems 
and measures that may lead to social change” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 54). 
 
Faith-based non-profit organizations and churches lead in this area of honoring individual 
goodness through their programs and services. Our critical reflections demonstrated many 
examples to animate this work: 
 
 The work of Taller de José in the Little Village community of Chicago, a primarily  

Latinx community, often referred to as “Little Mexico,” demonstrates how a faith-based 
non-profit organization models and emphasizes the goodness of individuals in the 
community. I have learned so much working with them. Supported by the Congregation 
of St. Joseph, this organization focuses on accompaniment -- walking with individuals in 
the community to address their needs and connect them to the resources required to meet 
those needs.  
 
As I reflect, I am reminded that their model of accompaniment is a way to address and 
elevate individual goodness. The mission of this organization states it clearly: “Taller de 
José accompanies individuals, serving as a bridge to connect them to the health, legal, 
and social services needed to achieve their goals. As a member of the Congregation of St. 
Joseph Mission Network, we create more connected communities.” (Taller De José) The 
vision statement, however, articulates an emphasis on both social justice and elevating 
the dignity of each individual: 
 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              149 

By fostering the model of accompaniment, Taller de José: 
 
● Challenges social structure in order to create a culture of inclusivity and 

mutuality 
● Creates, maintains, and supports just relationships with individuals and 

organizations 
● Seeks to create systemic change to promote a more just and equitable society 
● Cultivates a consciousness of the inherent worth of each person 
( Taller De José) 

 
The staff of this organization (called companeras/os) literally physically and emotionally 
walk alongside community members as they navigate complex systems (legal system, 
hospitals, immigration, social services) and connect the community members to 
resources. As they support each individual that comes to their doors, they approach them 
as the “dear neighbor” -- a core value of the sisters who comprise the Congregation of St. 
Joseph-- and honor their individual experiences, priorities, issues, and strengths. They 
walk with them, wherever they may need to go. They wait with them, sometimes for 
hours. They translate for them and help them find the buildings and offices in this large, 
complex city of Chicago. And most of all, they listen to each person - for what they want 
and need, for what they hope and dream. Their work and the impact they have on the 
Chicago community - one person at a time- reminds me to center individual goodness in 
my work every day. The work of Taller de José, and the sisters within the Congregation 
of St. Joseph, who founded it, remind me there is an actionable way to center individual 
goodness too - we merely need to walk alongside and accompany each other. [Critical 
reflection of Patrick Green] 
 

It is the work of many faith-based community organizations that serve as models and activate 
these five themes through their programs and services. 

 
Implications: Moving the community engagement field  
 
The engagement of hope is a conceptual framework and equity-focused theory of change model 
rooted in faith-based work, and reflexively moves beyond community engagement at faith-based 
institutions. It is applicable to community engagement approaches at all institutions, public or 
private, community college or four-year universities. It builds upon past and current community 
engagement frameworks, but responds to the current context of higher education. In effect, an 
engagement of hope framework proposes that we learn together and develop shared 
understandings within the complex contexts of our practice, whether that be faith, social justice, 
urban, rural, or constituency-based. 
 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              150 

The community engagement field has long been focused on institutionalizing the work in the 
higher education sector. In an effort to legitimize service-learning and community engagement, 
early adopters demonstrated its effectiveness through evidence-based studies, built a canon of 
literature throughout the past several decades, fostered numerous resources for practice, and 
developed professional organizations. A second generation of scholars have emerged, and a third 
generation of early career scholar-practitioners have now contributed extensively to the field. Yet 
the focus on institutionalization, organizational structures, and higher education course 
development has long been the point of entry. This surfaced during both of our feedback sessions 
with professionals in community engagement, and the focus has historically been on the service 
activity. The feedback from professionals during these sessions was not only affirmative 
validating the resonance of this framework, but also noted how this framework changes the 
narrative of community engagement. For example, in one of the interactive feedback sessions, 
distinguished scholar of community engagement, Barbara Holland noted the engagement of hope 
framework alters the interpretation of community engagement: 
 

“From the early beginnings of higher education engagement in community partnerships, 
campus-based organizers tended to focus mostly on the details and stresses of launching 
and delivery the activities. The necessary attention to preparation, logistics, and delivery 
could be overwhelming, leading to a view that a completed activity was a successful 
activity. The incredibly thin staffing and budgeting for community-based student learning 
programs certainly did not provide much of a base for critical assessment or formal 
research on the impacts on students or communities…good, bad, or indifferent. Without a 
formal and ongoing campus/community dialogue, engagement was largely supported by 
interested faculty with a particular passion for engagement. This framework, by 
introducing hope and faith into the dialogue between higher education and communities, 
describes a potential path that may lead to new methods of campus/community dialogue 
that lead to specific initiatives that aim to create lasting change and improvements in 
communities. The focus on the essence of hope may help lead higher education 
engagement practices to be more successful in creating engagement initiatives that are 
co-developed in ways that fulfill the visions and goals of all involved.” (CUMU Learning 
and Sharing series: Expanding Your Work through an Engagement of Hope Interactive 
Workshop, May 13, 2021; personal communication, June 28, 2021) 
 

As Holland notes, emphasis has traditionally been on institutionalizing the activity of community 
engagement. This may emerge from a service-learning course or a community engagement 
program at the institution of higher education. The location of community engagement has been 
from the institution to the community, although many place-based community engagement 
initiatives have tried to challenge this approach. The conceptual framework and theory of change 
evolving from an engagement of hope, with its emphasis on co-development, is a departure from 
this common point of entry; it is not, however, a side door or alternative gateway. It is a different 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              151 

place, rather, a new location; a community engagement of hope is seeking a new landscape, 
altogether, in the blurred spaces between communities and institutions. 
 
The implications of this theory of change is moving the community engagement field to build 
upon its current strengths and to re-center its focus addressing community outcomes and impact 
and de-center the activity. It is important to frame this article within the context of the global 
health pandemic, current racial justice movements, and deepening challenges to democratic 
structures in society. While these social issues have long plagued society, it is clear we are in a 
unique moment in history where the intersection and impacts of these social issues have very real 
immediate impacts, and unforeseen generational consequences. For these reasons, the 
engagement of hope framework and theory of change rooted in equity is explicitly focused on 
justice (social, economic, racial, and environmental), and it anchors the community at its core. It 
challenges traditional notions of knowledge, as community members are elevated as knowers 
and generators of knowledge. It is boundless, as it challenges us to dream and vision in and with 
community members. Through this lens, the point of entry is the community, not the academy. 
Given the new landscape in the community, there may not be a clear map, but there are many 
guides as our community partners walk with us, and we walk with our community partners. 

 
Conclusion: Re-centering Relationships amidst Polarities in an Engagement of 
Hope 
 
In addition to the new point of entry, this theory of change radically centers the individual 
experience through relationships in community engagement. As practitioner-scholars situated in 
professional positions related to community engagement, we spend a considerable amount of 
time listening to faculty, staff, students, and community partners, reading about and researching 
best practices, and engaging key leaders in the field. Together, each year, we facilitate hundreds 
of meetings with various key stakeholders, review dozens of books and articles, and engage with 
expert consultations. Through consistent efforts to create a strategy for more fully 
institutionalizing community engagement across our institutions, the return to common questions 
arose around more formal rewards and incentives structures, centralization of departments and 
offices, broader promotion of initiatives, and additional resources along with staffing to support 
and elevate the work within the university. In short, the institution is commonly centered on the 
evolution of the practice, or activity, of community engagement, and thus defined as the entity 
that needs to evolve and change in pursuit of doing community engagement work better.  
 
The institutional work focused on the activity, systems, structures and/or practice can sometimes 
slow or deter the relationship work we do and practitioners are called to do. As reflected through 
our writing process: 
 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              152 

We are facilitating programs, supporting engaged faculty, meeting with community 
members and residents, and cultivating awareness around historical moments in the city. 
At the same time, we are laughing with local pastors, crying with residents who are 
grieving the loss of community members, experiencing resolute anger with local activists, 
and considering how to move forward the greater good in relationship with others. I find 
myself reflecting upon the gifts, talents, and influence I have to enact change alongside 
the gifts, talents, and influence that others bring. Structures and systems can sometimes 
discourage me; and, people make decisions that disempower some and empower others. 
The push and pull of the institution and the individual can leave me feeling tired and 
overwhelmed. And yet, like many of my colleagues, I return. I return to the meetings, the 
discussions of rewards and incentives structures, the events, the programs, the coffee 
shops, the planning and the executing. I do so because of the relationships I have 
developed. (Critical reflection of Dan Bergen) 
 

As noted in this critical reflection, there exists a tension between the individual relationships we 
cultivate in community engagement work and the institutional systems and structures we attempt 
to address. During our feedback sessions, multiple community engagement professionals 
identified how the engagement of hope framework emphasizes intentional interactions. Such 
intentionality challenges us to focus on relationships in a new way. 
 
Similar to Doherty and Barry’s concept of tension in Jesuit spirituality, an engagement of hope 
“functions best when these tensions are alive, and clearly felt, [...] when [we] experience 
ourselves in the pulls of both sides of each polarity” (7). The engagement of hope framework 
moves to a theory of action as we enter into this tension, experiencing the push and pull of such 
polarities as individual goodness and the common good. If it seems like an oxymoron to center 
the individual within efforts of community engagement, it is essential to clarify: this is not about 
centering the power of any one individual, but rather about centering the individual experience 
while we work toward the public good.  
 
Our inquiry approach became one akin to how some educators consider a problem through 
“human-centered design thinking.” Just as some of the fundamental tenets of this process warrant 
spending time with people in the environment, resisting being restricted by your own knowledge, 
considering the whole journey of the relationship or product, and persisting through prototyping, 
or utilizing collaborative courage in recognizing it takes time to evolve these relationships, our 
approach centered the human experience of relationship (Human-Centered Design Thinking, 
September 2, 2021). Our goal in this exploration was to diminish the temptation towards 
“transactionalism” derived out of a need for efficiency and, subsequently, to further explore the 
emphasis on relationship.  
 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              153 

Scholarly efforts to “institutionalize” community engagement have shifted the focus from the 
moment of relationship to the institution. This article argues for a radical re-centering of the 
individual experience of relationship in community engagement. This re-centering is based on 
the premise that it is time for the community engagement movement to stop trying to justify 
itself within the constraints of higher education institutions often facing what Andrew J. 
Hoffman defines as a crisis: 
 

“Academic research is becoming increasingly irrelevant as the work becomes too insular, 
the language too opaque, the journals too inaccessible, and the cultural norms of 
disciplinary boundaries too balkanized. We need to break out of our siloed research 
communities and bring our work to a world that needs it.” (Hoffman, 2021, p. ix) 
 

While engaged faculty members are working to advance their research agendas in partnership 
with local organizations, it is most often the relationships they discuss when articulating their 
work in dialogue with others. Our experiences working with faculty and community partners 
consistently reveal it is the network and connection to one another that proves valuable, whether 
connecting to other faculty or to community members and organizations.  
 
In other words, an engagement of hope begins with the fundamental calling to serve one another 
and to be in relationship with each other. As a theory of change, an engagement of hope centers 
the moment of relationship between two individuals, while holding space for the tension, the 
push and pull, of the institutional and individual experience, of the common good and individual 
goodness. As U.S. youth poet laureate, Amanda Gorman, shared in her inaugural poem, “The 
Hill We Climb,” we may all ask “where can we find light in this never-ending shade?” as we 
have “weathered and witnessed,” and more so: 
 

That even as we grieved, we grew 
That even as we hurt, we hoped 
That even as we tired, we tried 
 

Yet Gorman (2021) reminds us of hope as an actionable theory of change, as she concludes: 
 

For there is always light, 
if only we're brave enough to see it, 
if only we're brave enough to be it. 
 

Such hope informs, inspires, and catalyzes community engagement work toward outcomes and 
impact beyond our current measures. In that moment of relationship and connection with each 
other, and amidst the space for tension, an engagement of hope emerges and has the power to 
transform us.  

 



© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              154 

References 
 
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. & Tight, M. (1996) How to research (Buckingham, Open University 
 Press).  

 
Bowman, Nicholas, and Culver, K.C. (2018), “Promoting equity and student learning: Rigor in 

 undergraduate academic experiences.” New Directions for Higher Education, no. 181: 
 47-57 

 
 Bray, J.N., Lee, J., Smith, L.L., & York, L. (2000) Collaborative Inquiry in Practice: Action, 

 reflection, and meaning making. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publishing, Inc. 
 
 Bridges D., McGee S. (2011) Collaborative Inquiry. In: Higgs J., Titchen A., Horsfall D., 

 Bridges D. (Eds.) Creative Spaces for Qualitative Researching. Practice, Education, 
 Work and Society, Vol 5. Sense Publishers.  

  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-761- 5_21  
 

Bringle, R.G., & Hatcher, J.A. (2002). University-community partnerships: The terms of 
 engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 503-516. 
 
Cantor, Nancy, Civic Engagement: The University as a Public Good, Liberal Education, Spring, 
 2004. 
 
Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative 
 research. San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass. 
 
Connell, J. P., Kubisch, A. C., 1998. Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation 

of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects, and Problems. 
Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Downloaded on 5/18/21 
http://www.dmeforpeace.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/06/08071320ApplyingTheoryofChangeApproach.pdf  

 
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five 
 approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
 
De Rio, E., and Loggins, J. Aligning Equity, Engagement, and Social Innovation in Anchor 

Initiatives, Metropolitan Universities Vol. 30 No. 1 (February 2019), 
https://doi.org/10.18060/22377 

 
Doherty, R. G. and Barry, W. A. (2002). Contemplatives in Action: The Jesuit Way. Paulist 
 Press, New York. 
 
Donohoo, J. (2013). Collaborative inquiry for educators: A facilitator’s guide to school 
 improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. 
 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-761-%095_21
http://www.dmeforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/08071320ApplyingTheoryofChangeApproach.pdf
http://www.dmeforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/08071320ApplyingTheoryofChangeApproach.pdf
https://doi.org/10.18060/22377


© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              155 

Dostilio, L. D. (Ed.). (2017). The community engagement professional in higher education: A 
 competency model for an emerging field. Campus Compact 
 
Dostilio, L. D. and Perry, L.G. (2017). An Explanation of Community Engagement Professionals 
 as Professionals and Leaders. In Dostilio, L. D. (Ed.). (2017). The community 
 engagement professional in higher education: A competency model for an emerging field. 
 Campus Compact. 
 
DuBow, W. M., & Litzler, E. (2019). The Development and Use of a Theory of Change to Align 
 Programs and Evaluation in a Complex, National Initiative. American Journal of 
 Evaluation, 40(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018778132 
 
Enos, S., & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a theory and practice of campus-community 
 partnerships. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Building partnerships for service-learning (pp. 20-41). 
 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
 
Freire, P. (2007/1994). Pedagogy of Hope. New York: Continuum. 
 
Gorman, A. (2021). The Hill We Climb. Accessed June 9, 2021 from: 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/amanda-gorman-inaugural-poem-
transcript/index.html 

 
Green, P. M., Eddins, E. A., Berkey, B., & Meixner, C. (2018). Exploring the borderlands 

through collaborative inquiry: A narrative introduction. In B. Berkey, C. Meixner, P. M. 
Green, & E. E. Rountree (Eds.), Reconceptualizing faculty development in service-
learning /community engagement: Exploring intersections, frameworks, and models of 
practice (pp.1–23). Stylus Publishing. 

 
Green, P.M., Stewart, C.P., Bergen, D.J. & Nayve, C. (2020). Faith and Community Engagement 
 at Anchor Institutions: Exploring the Intersection and Turning toward an Engagement of 
 Hope. Metropolitan Universities, 31(3), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.18060/24784 
 
Hoffman, A.J. (2021). The Engaged Scholar: Expanding the Impact of Academic Research in 
 Today’s World. Stanford U Press.  
 
Hughes, Langston, From The Collected Poems of Langston Hughes, 1994 by The Estate of 
 Langston Hughes. Used by permission of Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, 
 Inc. 
 
Human-centered course design. Found at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-

opinion/seven-tenets-human-centred-design, September 2, 2021 
 
Kretzmann, J.P. & McKnight, J.L. (1993) Building communities from the inside out: A path 
 toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications.  
 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018778132
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/amanda-gorman-inaugural-poem-transcript/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/20/politics/amanda-gorman-inaugural-poem-transcript/index.html
https://doi.org/10.18060/24784
https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/seven-tenets-human-centred-design
https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/seven-tenets-human-centred-design


© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              156 

Leiderman, S., Furco, A., Zapf, J., & Goss, M. (2002) Building partnerships with college 
 campuses: Community perspectives. Retrieved from 
 files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED481879.pdf 
 
Leshem, S., Trafford, V., (2007). Overlooking the conceptual framework. Innovations in 
 Education and Teaching International Vol. 44, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 93–105 
 
Lytle, S. L. (2008). Practitioner inquiry and the practice of teaching: Some thoughts on “better.” 
 Research in the Teaching of English, 42(3), 373–379.  
 https://search.proquest.com/docview/215344856?accountid¼12598  
 
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and 
 emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  
 
Modras, R. (2004). Ignatian Humanism: A Dynamic Spirituality for the 21st Century. Loyola 
 Press, Chicago.  
 
Nexus Community Partners found at 

https://www.nexuscp.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/ImpactsofCEModel_2020.pdf 
 
Nouwen, H. (2013). Discernment: Reading the Signs of Daily Life. HarperCollins, New York.  
 
 
Novak, B. Decisions. In Davis, A. and Lynn, E. (Eds.). (2006). The civically engaged reader: A 
 diverse collection of short provocative readings on civic activity. Chicago: Great Books 
 Foundation. 
 
 
Pieper, J. (1997). Faith, hope, love. Ignatius Press, San Francisco. 
 
Punch, K. F. (2000) Developing effective research proposal (London, Sage) 
 
Ravitch, S. M. (2014). The transformative power of taking an inquiry stance on practice: 
 Practitioner research as narrative and counter-narrative. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban 
 Education, 11(1), 5–10. 
 
 Reason, P. (1996). Reflections on the Purposes of Human Inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 15–
 28. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200103 
 
Reinholz, D.L., Andrews, T.C. Change theory and theory of change: what’s the difference 
 anyway? IJ STEM Ed 7, 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3  
 
Rendón, L. I. (2014). Sentipensante (seeing/thinking) pedagogy: Educating for wholeness, social 
 justice, and liberation. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing. 
 

https://search.proquest.com/docview/215344856?accountid%C2%BC12598
https://www.nexuscp.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/04/ImpactsofCEModel_2020.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200103
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-0202-3


© The Author 2021. Published by the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. www.cumuonline.org 
Metropolitan Universities | DOI 10.18060/25527 | October 20, 2021              157 

Rolheiser, R. (1999). The Holy Longing: The Search for a Christian Spirituality. Doubleday, 
 New York.  
 
Salipante, P., & Aram, J. D. (2003). Managers as knowledge generators: The nature of 
 practitioner-scholar research in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Management and 
 Leadership, 14, 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.26  
 
Salter-McNeil, Brenda (2020), Becoming Brave, Finding the Courage to Pursue Racial Justice 
 Now, Michigan: Brazos Press,  
 
Steindl-Rast, D. (1984). Gratefulness, the Heart of Prayer: An Approach to Life in Fullness. 
 Paulist Press, New York.  
 
Taller De José. (2021). Downloaded on 10/7/21 https://tallerdejose.org/about/  
 
Trolian, T. Culver, KC (2020), “Advancing Evidence-Based Instruction for the Public Good,” 
 New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 164, Winter 2020.  
 Tutu, D. (2016). Ten Pieces of Wisdom to Inspire Changemakers in 2016. Downloaded 
 on 10/7/21 http://www.tutufoundationusa.org/2016/01/03/ten-quotes-from-desmond-tutu- 
 to-inspire-change-makers-in-2016/ 
 
West, C. (2021). Cornel West Quotes about Truth, Love, and Justice. Downloaded on 10/7/21 
 https://everydaypower.com/cornel-west-quotes/  
 
Website Resources for Lawndale Christian Community Church retrieved June 5, 2021 
 

• Lawndale Christian Community Church  
• Lawndale Christian Development Center 
• Lawndale Dr. Martin Luther King Legacy Apartments 
• Lawndale Christian Health Center  
• Lawndale Christian Senior Center  
• Lawndale Christian Law Center  
• The Firehouse Community Arts Center 
• Lawndale Farm on Ogden  
• Lawndale Christian Community Church Hope House  

 

https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.26
http://www.tutufoundationusa.org/2016/01/03/ten-quotes-from-desmond-tutu-
http://www.lawndalechurch.org/
https://lcdc.net/contact/
https://lcdc.net/mlk-historical-memorial-district/
https://lawndale.org/
https://lawndale.org/senior-center
https://lclc.net/
https://thefcac.org/about/
https://lawndale.org/farm-on-ogden
http://lawndalechurch.org/hope-house.html

	Patrick M. Green1,  Daniel J. Bergen2, Cynthia P. Stewart3, and Christopher Nayve4