McClellan 1 Chelsea McClellan UNIV 291 Dr.

Patrick Green 9/16/2012 Reflection B As with many aspects of life, ideas about community service, including what it is, who it should concern, and how it should be carried out, can be subject to differing opinions and discretions. Although many traditional views about community service exist, there are indeed very different approaches and perspectives of it. This differentiation is highlighted by the essay Starfish Hurling and Community Service, written by Keith Morton, which challenges many typical views of what community service is and how it should be organized. Similarly, Monsignor Ivan Illichs 1963 address to the Conference on InterAmerican Student Projects supports much of what Morton argues in his essay, and flies directly in the face of what service means to many people, particularly Americans. These differing opinions of service, particularly those as strongly worded as Illich and Mortons passages, can create tension, which Randy Stoecker, in his book, Research Methods for Community Change, attempts to reconcile. Mortons essay offers a very different perspective of community service, and challenges many traditional views of how it should be carried out in society. The basis of the essay is the classic story of a person throwing beached starfish back into the sea, and telling a curious onlooker that although he may not be able to help all the stranded starfish, he can at least make a difference to each one that he does manage to save. Morton charges the starfish thrower, and, in

McClellan 2 a broader context, many community service do-gooders, as foolhardy and naive. He insists that we must stop throwing ourselves into opportunities to do good and make differences, and instead step back and examine situations thoroughly and analytically before organizing a service effort. Ivan Illichs address to the CIASP confirms much of what Morton says in his article, and gives a voice to the starfish, as he speaks from the perspective of a community member violated by eager community service do-gooders. These perspectives challenge the views of many about community service, including mine, as I always believed that opportunities for service should be taken head-on, and could in no way be harmful to a community. After all, I was always taught to believe that I, like the starfish thrower, can make a difference, even if it is small and seemingly ineffective. However, after reading the two articles, I realized that there was much truth in what both authors had to say, although they voice their views in very assertive, almost cold ways. The most important point I took away from the two articles was that we must stop to truly assess a situation and organize a service effort before acting on it, and that effective communication and understanding between those doing service and those receiving it is crucial. Morton, for example, explained how the starfish thrower could have, if he had not thrown himself immediately into action, assembled a team to scour the entire beach, helping dozens more starfish, while Illich stated that Americans who tromp into Mexican communities looking to do good works are so far disconnected from the communities they are trying to serve that they essentially have no idea how to help them. These concepts truly resonated with me, and helped me to realize that even though our first thoughts and instincts may be to go headfirst into service, it may not always be the most practical or efficient course of action. Stoecker, in Research Methods for Community Change, explained this concept in a less abrasive, generally friendlier way. He provided examples of his own work in community-based

McClellan 3 projects where he, like the starfish thrower, charged blindly into service opportunities and wound up not only embarrassing himself, but scandalizing some community members he intended to help. For example, Stoecker cited his experience working with the Corella and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation, where he decided to introduce himself and his intentions to a group of faculty members. However, Stoecker was met almost immediately with objections from the faculty, who saw him as an interloper; that is, a predetermined outsider with a predetermined agenda. Stoeckers personal experiences help to illustrate the same ideas as Morton and Illich: that people should not throw themselves into service. However, he does it in a more personal, less accusatory way, helping to relieve some of the tension and hurt felt by readers of Morton and Illichs passages. Another key concept brought up in the passages is how critical the participation of the community itself is to a community-based research project. Morton, true to form, introduces this concept in a very assertive way, suggesting that the beached starfish in the story were perhaps put there for a reason, and that their demise may in fact be beneficial to the larger eco-system. In this way, Morton comes off almost as saying that the misfortune of some can be ignored to benefit the greater good. However, the point Morton tries to make here is that it isnt a wise move for outsiders of a community to intervene in an ecosystem without first understanding how all of its parts work together. Further, he advocates working with community members and learning from them about the issues in their community, thus keeping the members themselves involved in the service effort. Stoecker addresses this concept as well, coming from the angle of how critical understanding a community and allowing the citizens themselves to guide the research is. Stoecker spends a considerable amount of time discussing how community members can, and also why they should, be actively involved in a project and all of its steps, and strongly

McClellan 4 believes that allowing community members and organizers to stay in charge of a project is the best way for it to be carried out, as it generates the most long-term benefits for the community. After reading the ABCD Model, this idea of community member participation, and not tramping blindly into an ecosystem without understanding it, really became clear. The ABCD Model highlights the importance of allowing community-based research to be a two-way street, and how much a community can bring to the table when it breaks down and analyzes all of its assets. It helps show communities how much they can contribute to a cause, and puts the power of research into their hands, rather than those of a detached academic. Although Morton and Monsignor Illich, at first glance, seem to butt heads with traditional views about how service should be carried out, they make many critical points, which Stoecker confirms in Research Methods for Community Change. Most important of these points is the concept of putting the lead of research projects into the hands of community or organization members. Asset-mapping methods, like that outlined in the ABCD Model help to supplement this idea of community participation. A community thatcan break down and analyze its own assets is able to realize its full potential, and when partnered with a helpful researcher, can take the lead in its projects and give it momentum for continued social change. Reading all of the aforementioned passages truly informed my understanding of community-based research, and how it must be carried out in order for it to be successful. The passages helped me to realize that there is much more to community service than jumping into every opportunity I see to do good. Rather, I now understand that acting like an eager starfishthrower does not only fail to produce effective social change or long-term benefits to a community or organization, but can even harm it, as Illich so adamantly stresses. Service,

McClellan 5 research, and action must all be informed processes, and must be guided by the community. In my future endeavors with both community service and community-based research, including my work with Latinos Progressando, I will apply this new knowledge, and allow it to structure how I carry out service and research, so as to provide the most benefit to the community or organization I am serving.