Reciprocity: Saying What We Mean and Meaning What We Say
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Fall 2012, pp.17-32
Reciprocity: Saying What We Mean and Meaning What We Say
Lina D. Dostilio Sarah M. Brackmann Kathleen E. Edwards
Duquesne University Southwestern University University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
Barbara Harrison Brandon W. Kliewer Patti H. Clayton
Brock University Florida Gulf Coast University PHC Ventures, IUPUI
Reciprocity is a foundational concept in service-learning and community engagement, yet it is frequently
referred to in the literature without precise conceptualization or critical examination, in effect suggesting a
shared understanding of the concept among practitioners and scholars. However, understandings and appli-
cations of the term vary widely, and unexamined or unintentionally differing conceptualizations of reciproc-
ity can lead to confusion in practice and can hinder research. This article examines meanings of reciprocity
from multiple perspectives and highlights the larger implications of how we characterize the concept in
research and practice, using the method of concept review. In this concept review we examine the ways in
which the concept of reciprocity has been and could be produced and given meaning within the existing body
of service-learning and community engagement literature and in other disciplines and epistemologies (e.g.,
philosophy, evolutionary biology, leadership, Indigenous meaning-making). Central to this concept review is
the goal of distinguishing broad categories of meaning so that we and our community engagement colleagues
might be able to make more explicit our position with regard to the specific meanings of reciprocity we intend,
which in turn can inform our development of research constructs, practices, and interpretations.
Vignette 1: Public schools in a particular com- another, outcomes of the research project, and
munity have been defined as under-performing meaning-making of their findings and future
according to standards established by the federal research and practice.
government. Due to budgetary constraints, the
school district is limited in its capacity to offer Vignette 3: Within a city and its surrounding
additional academic remediation to students. townships rapid population growth has led to sig-
Concurrently, education majors attending a near- nificant expansion of housing construction, com-
by university seek opportunities for practical mercial development, and creation of recreation-
experience as teachers. School administrators al amenities on previously undeveloped land. A
and faculty members from the university recog- group of community organization staff, residents,
nize an opportunity to form a partnership. students, and university faculty who had been
Faculty members coordinate students to orga- working together on various other projects realize
nize and lead an after-school tutoring program they share a concern about the future of the area’s
throughout the school district. natural open spaces. They begin to come togeth-
er once a week to discuss the significance of
Vignette 2: A coalition of individuals from vari- those open spaces (e.g., historical, ecological,
ous community and university entities are educational, spiritual, metaphorical). This combi-
engaged in a health disparity research project. nation of various perspectives, relationships to
They recognize that their differing positionalities the area, and community building over time
and experiences (e.g., social class, race, gender, eventually move them in the direction of cata-
community histories, organizational cultures) loguing the unique natural resources that will be
influence their perspectives and expectations of lost without protection and developing land man-
the collaboration and, therefore, that they may agement protocols for these areas. As the group
possess different perspectives on how to best works together, meeting by meeting and year by
accomplish the project. They intentionally con- year, an organizational identity emerges: an
sider each others’ ways of thinking and acting entirely new initiative that transcends the scope
and choose to conduct the project in a way that of the university, existing community organiza-
reflects the collective group’s priorities and val- tions, or citizen groups. The members of the
ues. The process of consideration iteratively group experience transformation within their
alters their process of engagement with one respective identities: some coming to consider
17Dostilio et al.
themselves political activists, some engaged Lowery et al. (2006) point and which the everyday
scholars, and some community leaders. experiences of many practitioner-scholars confirm.
Rather than assuming that there is more of an estab-
Reciprocity is a foundational concept within service-
lished or agreed-upon framing of the concept than
learning and community engagement, yet it is fre-
there really is or that the concept is either synony-
quently referred to in the literature without precise
mous with or paradigmatically distinct from such
conceptualization or critical examination, suggesting
related terms as mutuality, the field will benefit from
a shared understanding of the concept that may, in
deliberate examination of the meanings associated
fact, not exist and a “problematic lack of precision with reciprocity.
around…fundamental concepts” (Bringle & Clayton, In this article we critically examine and seek clari-
2012, p. 102). While there are elements of engage- ty around meanings of reciprocity by reviewing con-
ment that can arguably be called reciprocal within ceptions of reciprocity within the service-learning
each of the three opening vignettes, applying the and community engagement (SL-CE) literature and
term without qualification or refinement to all three within an illustrative selection of disciplines and
scenarios may be an indicator of and a contributor to epistemologies (DEs) beyond the SL-CE literature,
conceptual and practical confusion. including, for example, philosophy, evolutionary
Among community engagement practitioners and biology, leadership, and Indigenous meaning-mak-
scholars, the term reciprocity appears to be what lin- ing. We explore the perspectives offered by the DEs
guistic philosophers call a “premature ultimate,” a with an eye to what light can be shed on the concept
term “held in such reverence that its invocation effec- of reciprocity as we think about its use in our own
tively ends any further debate or critical analysis” field. The DEs provide various lenses through which
(Brookfield, 2007, p. 64). Use of the term can, inten- to consider the conceptualization of the concept of
tionally or unintentionally, elicit and refer to meaning reciprocity as it has been and can be informed by an
that is assumed and unquestioned (Hessler, 2000). In array of knowledge traditions. The discussion here
such instances there is a risk of the concept being thus responds to, echoes, and further develops
applied as dogma, in which case the vibrancy and Lowery et al.’s (2006) call to service-learning practi-
robustness associated with it are diluted. tioners and scholars to “extend their focus to encom-
At the same time, the term reciprocity—as has pass the many issues embodied in this concept…
been suggested regarding the term civic engagement [and] to more clearly stipulate the theoretical per-
(Berger, 2009)—can be cast so widely and so vari- spectives grounding their [work]” (p. 56).
ously that it loses meaning. Understandings and Guiding questions underlying this discussion
applications of the concept of reciprocity may vary include: (a) How has the concept of reciprocity been
widely, distinctions among uses of the term may be produced and given meaning within the existing body
overlooked, and this term may be easily conflated of SL-CE literature? (b) How has the concept of reci-
with others. procity been produced and given meaning in other
A particularly prevalent and problematic confla- DEs? (c) How can consideration of multiple perspec-
tion occurs between the terms mutually beneficial tives on the concept reframe the way community
and reciprocal, which are often used interchangeably engagement practitioner-scholars discuss elements of
and, we suggest, uncritically. One of the few exam- reciprocity? (d) What are the larger implications for
ples of works that speak to this conflation, the community-engaged practice and research of recog-
Democratic Engagement White Paper (Saltmarsh, nizing the multiple ways meaning is attached to and
Hartley, & Clayton, 2009), makes the claim that the produced through the concept of reciprocity?
concepts of mutuality and reciprocity emerge from This article introduces the method of concept review;
and characterize distinct paradigms of engagement: describes the ways in which reciprocity has been con-
technocratic and democratic. The white paper explic- ceptualized and discussed within SL-CE literature
itly contrasts mutuality and reciprocity, defining the through a review of the Michigan Journal of
former as “each party in the relationship benefit[ing] Community Service Learning, the Advances in Service-
from its involvement” (p. 8) and the latter as an epis- Learning Research series, and other central texts; con-
temological position in which authority and responsi- sults a variety of DEs to investigate potential theoreti-
bility for knowledge creation are shared—an orienta- cal underpinnings of the concept; brings these diverse
tion that the authors claim moves engagement from conceptions into conversation with the SL-CE litera-
an approach of university expertise being used for ture; and concludes with a discussion of implications.
communities to an approach of universities collabo- Method
rating with communities. The white paper does not
extend its examination of the concept of reciprocity We use the method of concept review to enhance
to investigate the multiple uses of the term to which clarity and intentionality in the use of reciprocity as a
18Saying What We Mean and Meaning What We Say
central and critical term within SL-CE research and In this article we similarly consider implications of
practice. Concept review, or conceptual analysis, pro- more intentionally defining and declaring our use of
vides a means to bring specificity to a phenomenon the term reciprocity.
of interest—such as in Krebs’ (1970) review of altru- In conducting this concept review, we used an iter-
ism—as well as to stimulate thought about the ways ative and inductive process to develop an organizing
in which a term is used—such as in Baccarini’s schema of orientations toward reciprocity. Our analy-
(1996) review of project complexity. Unlike the sis of the literature utilized a constant comparative
Krebs and Baccarini reviews, which provide a singu- method (Merriam, 2009) whereby we simultaneous-
lar definition of the concept under analysis, this arti- ly brought the SL-CE literature and the selected DEs
cle does not position one conception, or interpreta- into conversation with one another to generate
tion, of reciprocity as true or inherently preferable. themes. Although some researchers hold that con-
Rather, we seek to make explicit, by way of illustra- stant comparative methods should be used only in
tive examples, the diversity of meanings contained grounded theory studies (e.g. Steinberg, Bringle, &
within the term. Central to this analysis is the goal of McGuire, 2013), other researchers who utilize
distinguishing broad categories of meaning so that grounded theory (e.g. Charmaz, 2006) note that its
we and our colleagues in SL-CE might be able to methods can enhance other qualitative approaches.
make more explicit our positions as practitioner- Merriam (2009) suggests that qualitative research is
scholars with regard to the specific meanings of rec- by its nature comparative research and, therefore, the
iprocity we intend, which in turn can inform our constant comparative method is valuable more gen-
development of research constructs, our practices, erally, beyond the realm of grounded theory, as a
and our understanding of alternative interpretations. method of analysis in qualitative research.
This article follows the approach used by Rogers Through a convergent process (Guba & Lincoln,
(2001) in his concept review of reflection. Rogers 1981) of analyzing the SL-CE literature in conjunc-
asserts that the frequency of references to reflection tion with the DEs, we established a framework for
within educational practice and research does not categorizing reciprocity according to three orienta-
translate to clear use of the term. He recognizes that tions. These three orientations are distinct in many
multiple terms are used to describe reflective process- ways but are alike in that they each provide a partic-
es and that the term reflection is used interchangeably ular interpretation that adds important and useful
with other terms. This article similarly delves into nuance to the meaning of the concept of reciprocity.
select works in SL-CE to determine how the concept We suggest that the term’s meaning, without such
of reciprocity is represented within this literature. nuancing, might be best captured by the image of a
Rogers (2001) examines a variety of theoretical reciprocating saw: simple back and forth movement.
perspectives on reflection to help bring forward sim- We find this image a useful foil against which to
ilarities and differences across conceptions. In this explore enhanced meanings of the term because our
article we consult a diverse group of DEs to perform conviction is that the term reciprocity is rarely
the same function, not purporting to offer an exhaus- intended to convey only this back and forth move-
tive review but rather considering perspectives that ment; rather, uses of the term generally have implied
are particularly salient to the concept of reciprocity as connotations, and these connotations are often diver-
it is used within the SL-CE community of practition- gent. We suggest, then, that particular meanings of
er-scholars. The DEs used herein represent the disci- reciprocity are best conveyed by introducing a
plines and epistemologies of particular interest to the descriptor or adjective that lends greater specificity
authors; by no means exhaustive of knowledge tradi- and precision and thus clarifies one’s intended mean-
tions, they serve to illustrate that the concept of reci- ing. The three distinct but related orientations we
procity is characterized by multiple analytic consid- postulate and examine here are:
erations and frames of reference, and they provide
insights into the complexities and nuances of its • Exchange. Participants give and receive some-
meanings across contexts. Our analysis of the DEs thing from the others that they would not oth-
also includes disciplinary theories and epistemologi- erwise have. In this orientation, reciprocity is
cal understandings that do not explicitly use the term the interchange of benefits, resources, or
reciprocity but that embody elements of it or ideas actions (as per vignette 1).
related to it, which can provide additional, relevant • Influence. The processes and/or outcomes of
nuances and insights. the collaboration are iteratively changed as a
Finally, acknowledging that reflection continues to result of being influenced by the participants
be a challenging concept for educators to employ, and their contributed ways of knowing and
Rogers (2001) leverages his concept analysis to draw doing. In this orientation, reciprocity is
out the implications of better understanding the term. expressed as a relational connection that is
19Dostilio et al.
informed by personal, social, and environmen- their participation in the experience” (p. 66). In other
tal contexts (as per vignette 2). instances, the term refers to qualities of relational
• Generativity. As a function of the collaborative processes. For example, Sandmann, Kliewer, Kim,
relationship, participants (who have or develop and Omerikwa (2010) suggest that “reciprocity can
identities as co-creators) become and/or pro- be defined as the negotiated process of working with
duce something new together that would not a partner as opposed to doing something to or for a
otherwise exist. This orientation may involve partner [emphasis added]” (p. 5). And the term is
transformation of individual ways of knowing used to refer to both outcomes and processes, and
and being or of the systems of which the rela- sometimes to an intermingling of the two. Gonsier-
tionship is a part. The collaboration may extend Gerdin and Royce-Davis (2005), for example, sug-
beyond the initial focus as outcomes, as ways gest that reciprocity is “inherent” (p. 54) in service-
of knowing, and as systems of belonging learning relationships and that “the reciprocity creat-
evolve (as per vignette 3). ed through collaboration as colleagues alters the tra-
ditional teacher-student relationships” (p. 55). As
In the next section we explore how the concept of another example, Warter and Grossman (2001)
reciprocity has been produced and given meaning define reciprocity in terms of both bi-directionality
within the existing body of SL-CE literature, as well of influence and mutuality of outcomes, stating that
as through the lenses of the three orientations. “a reciprocal relationship involves service partici-
Reciprocity in the Service-Learning and pants and recipients mutually providing and receiv-
Community Engagement Literature ing a service or educational experience” (p. 88).
Looking at issues of the MJCSL, we find reciproci-
A review of the SL-CE literature reveals multiple ty cast in terms of the university’s relationship with
conceptions of reciprocity with varying levels of community organizations and, relatedly, the identity of
attention to their meaning. We reviewed articles in the community partners. Reciprocity is often contrasted
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning with unidirectional service or charity. Kiely (2004)
(1995-2011; referred to herein as MJCSL), the shows how one-way service differs from reciprocal
Advances in Service-Learning Research series (2002- relationships “in which students draw strength from
2011; referred to herein as Advances), and other cen- and appreciate the knowledge, ability, and resilience”
tral works as a starting point for establishing how rec- of the people with whom they are in partnership (p.
iprocity has been used in the SL-CE literature. 13). Dorado and Giles (2004) suggest that “reciproci-
Reciprocity is widely recognized as a core con- ty views the community as active partners in learning
struct in service-learning, particularly in the area of and serving, not just passive recipients of the service
community-university and community member-stu- provided by service-learning students” (p. 32). Puma,
dent partnerships (e.g., Billig, 2001; Schaffer, Bennett, Cutforth, Tombari, and Stein (2009) similar-
Williams Paris, & Vogel, 2003; Vernon & Foster, ly point to reciprocity being demonstrated by commu-
2002) but also in other contexts, such as relationships nity partners in their “having choice in the level of
between students and instructors (e.g., Pribbenow, involvement in the project and being fully engaged in
2005) and between research and practice (e.g., Giles, the creation and critique of the knowledge created” (p.
2010; Stanton, 2000). Scanning early issues of 43). Varlotta (1996) and Pompa (2002) conceptualize
Advances we find that many articles identify reci- reciprocity in terms of being with rather than doing for.
procity as a feature of community engagement; Several of the conceptions of reciprocity surfaced in
rarely is the term explicitly conceptualized or criti- this review imply that all partners in service-learning
cally examined, however. A scan of MJCSL confirms are affected by the others, suggest that all contribute to
the frequent use of the term reciprocity or reciprocal the work, and echo Sigmon’s (1979) positioning of all
without precise definition and often in conjunction participants in service-learning as teachers and learn-
with, or interchangeably with, the words mutual, ers, servers and served (e.g., Marchel, 2003; Skilton-
mutuality, or mutual benefit. Sylvester & Erwin, 2000).
Some authors more substantially frame the term. Throughout both Advances and MJCSL, under-
For example, looking at issues of Advances, we find standings of reciprocity arise from and are given
reciprocity conceived of as an outcome, as a process, voice by each of the various constituents of commu-
or as both. In the cases in which reciprocity refers to nity engagement (i.e., students, community organiza-
a type of outcome, the term is often used synony- tion staff, faculty, campus administrators/staff, com-
mously with mutual benefit. Elson, Johns, and Petrie munity residents). Reciprocity is viewed as relevant
(2007), for example, identify reciprocity as “one of in relationships between the full range of individuals
the fundamental characteristics of SL…whereby stu- and organizations and in a wide range of contexts,
dents and community members both benefit from including partnerships, teaching and learning, and
20Saying What We Mean and Meaning What We Say
research. Reciprocity is framed and structured in a identities. They conceptualize reciprocity as the
variety of ways, including as a function of epistemol- “constant interplay between giving and receiving,
ogy, identity, relationship qualities, and power. between teaching and learning” (p. 16) and suggest
With this general, illustrative review of the litera- that transforming students’ and partners’ perspectives
ture from MJCSL and Advances as background, we on false dichotomies (i.e., fortunate/unfortunate,
turn now to an examination of the uses of the term privileged/underprivileged) leads to greater benefits
reciprocity in works that provide particular insight for all involved: “When boundaries between
into the meanings of the concept, including but tran- providers and recipients become blurred, status dif-
scending these two collections. In particular, we con- ferences are brought into greater balance ...and are
sider these works in light of the orientations toward less likely to stand in the way of mutual benefits,
reciprocity identified within this article’s organizing including mutual learning” (p. 25).
schema: exchange, influence, and generativity. There are also takes on the concept of reciprocity in
The idea of reciprocity is, in some of the founda- the SL-CE literature that seem to adopt one of these
tional literature, posited as a fundamental condition of three orientations—exchange, influence, generativi-
service-learning pedagogy. Though they do not use the ty—as primary. Kendall (1990), for example, defines
term reciprocity here, Honnett and Poulson (1989) reciprocity in service-learning clearly as “the
reflect the spirit of the concept in declaring that “ser- exchange of both giving and receiving between the
vice, combined with learning, adds value to each and ‘server’ and the person or group ‘being served’"(p.
transforms both” (p.1). The service focus benefits 21-22). Examining community-campus engagement
from the learning focus, and the learning focus bene- more generally, Saltmarsh et al. (2009) make an
fits from the service focus; each focus shapes how the explicit distinction between the exchange-based rela-
other is enacted; and their integration produces a new, tionships of technocratic engagement, which they
synergistic whole that reflects a transformation beyond label mutuality, and the generative relationships of
the norms that would otherwise hold. Thus, this early democratic engagement, which they label reciprocity:
summary of principles of good practice in service-
learning conceptualizes the pedagogy as reciprocal in Reciprocity signals an epistemological shift that
values not only expert knowledge that is rational,
accordance with all three of the orientations toward
analytic and positivist but also values a different
reciprocity that frame our concept review—exchange kind of rationality that is more relational, local-
(parties benefit), influence (parties impact the work), ized, and contextual and favors mutual deference
and generativity (together the parties produce systemic between lay persons and academics. (p. 9-10)
change, create new value, and/or undergo transforma-
tion in their way of being). In both early (1979) and As a final example, building on the contrast
later (1996) work, Sigmon establishes the integration Saltmarsh et al. (2009) draw between mutuality and
of identities and roles whereby reciprocity and the contrast Enos and Morton (2003)
draw between transactional and transformational
each participant is server and served, care giver partnerships—the former involving mutually-benefi-
and care acquirer, contributor and contributed to.
cial exchange of goods and/or services and the latter
Learning and teaching in a service-learning
arrangement is also a task for each of the part- involving mutual growth and change (of individuals
ners in the relationship…each of the parties and of systems)—Jameson, Clayton, and Jaeger
views the other as contributor and beneficiary. (2011) pose a similar distinction between thin and
(1996, p. 4) thick reciprocity, linking the former to mutually-ben-
eficial transactions and the latter to mutual transfor-
Labeling this dynamic “a mutuality and reciprocity mation. Thin reciprocity, they suggest, is “grounded
principle” (1996, p. 4), and perhaps thereby con- in a minimalist...understanding of the commitment to
tributing to the conflation of these two terms, Sigmon reciprocity that has become the standard for authen-
here articulates mutual benefit (all are served, all are tic engagement” (p. 263). Thick reciprocity
acquirers of care, all are contributed to), influence
(all serve one another, all teach, all learn), and trans- emphasizes shared voice and power and insists
formation (all understand themselves and one anoth- upon collaborative knowledge construction and
er in multi-faceted and non-hierarchical ways) as joint ownership of work processes and products
[and thereby] aligns well with ... democratic
constitutive of reciprocity in service-learning. As a
approaches to civic engagement [that] encourage
third example of implicitly or explicitly integrating
all partners to grow and to challenge and support
two or more of these three orientations as their frame- one another’s growth. (p. 264)
work, Donahue, Bowyer, and Rosenberg (2003)
describe reciprocity in a way that combines exchange Jameson et al. provide a sample community engage-
for mutual benefit and transformation of individual ment scenario to suggest the ways in which thin and
21Dostilio et al.
thick reciprocity may co-exist and to explore possi- logical science, philosophical, and leadership theo-
bilities for cultivating the latter from the former. They ries, an exchange orientation becomes evident within
advocate for using (what is called here) generativity- some conceptualizations of reciprocity. A possible
oriented reciprocity to design partnerships in com- definition of exchange-based reciprocity is the inter-
munity-engaged scholarship. Their interpretation of change (or giving and receiving) of benefits,
reciprocity explicitly includes activating the potential resources, or actions. The exchange can be affirma-
for transformative learning (Cranton, 2006; Mezirow, tive or negative, and it may be equal or proportional
2000) that they suggest is inherent in positioning all (Aristotle, trans. 1999); further, it may be motivated
partners as co-educators, co-learners, and co-genera- by diverse interests (Gouldner, 1960). The works that
tors of knowledge. inform the understanding of reciprocity as exchange-
Thus, although the majority of the SL-CE literature based include the logic of collective action (Olson,
takes reciprocity as a given and well-established con- 1965), Tit for Tat strategy (Axelrod, 1984), Strong
cept and neither defines nor examines it, there are a Reciprocity theory (Bowles & Gintis, 2011; Gintis,
handful of works that establish a particular interpreta- Bowles, Boyd, & Fehr, 2006), the Norm of
tion and/or engage with the multiple potential mean- Reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), the Theory of Inequity
ings of the term. That subset of the literature, some of (Adams, 1965), Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
which we have considered here, suggests the possibil- theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), and various forms
ity and potential utility of the organizing schema of of biological symbiosis. The DEs we draw on in this
exchange-oriented, influence-oriented, and generativ- discussion highlight three important ideas: (a) differ-
ity-oriented conceptions. In the following section we ing motivations exist for enacting reciprocity; (b)
survey these perspectives on reciprocity in some these motivations yield differing means of continuing
depth, as they emerge in a range of DEs. reciprocity; (c) reciprocity can produce equitable
interchanges but can also be maintained in inequitable
Perspectives on Reciprocity: conditions. Within each of these three ideas, an
Disciplines and Epistemologies important analytic consideration emerges: reciprocity
can be present at individual and/or collective levels.
In the October 2008 volume of Educational Within an exchange-based orientation, the reasons
Researcher, a spirited debate was initiated by the for engaging in a reciprocal process or seeking a rec-
proposition that clinical education research has a ten- iprocal outcome range from individual survival to
dency to forego the disciplinary roots of its theoretical collective action to contractual obligation. The logic
arguments and, as a result, positions various knowl- of collective action (Olson, 1965), Norm of
edge and concepts as innovations with disregard for Reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), and Tit for Tat
their existence in other disciplinary spaces. This debate exchange strategy (Axelrod, 1984) suggest that the
has relevance for research in SL-CE. Responding to process of reciprocity is invoked to maximize indi-
Bringle’s (2003; see also Clayton, Bringle, & Hatcher, vidual gain while promoting collective action.
2013) assertion that theory from cognate areas can Gouldner describes this process in terms of individ-
enrich understanding of research and practice in SL- ual survival and collective stability. Individuals
CE, we draw upon a number of DEs that offer differ- engage one another in reciprocal interactions to
ent ways to understand reciprocity so that we might ensure their individual well-being as well as collec-
reflexively examine our field’s uses of the term. tive stability. Interacting reciprocally, in Gouldner’s
Through examination of select, illustrative DEs we work, appears to be intentional as a means to protect
seek greater definition and depth to the organizing oneself and social order. Within Gintis et al.’s (2006)
framework of exchange-oriented, influence-oriented, theory of strong reciprocity, reciprocal interaction
and generativity-oriented conceptions of reciprocity. appears less intentional and people are cast as cultur-
Themes emerging from the literature within each ally predisposed to seek reciprocal interchange.
section make visible certain analytic considera- LMX theory characterizes reciprocity as a byproduct
tions—observations of varying dynamics or condi- of relationships in which contractual roles are ful-
tions affected by and contributing to reciprocity— filled and surpassed.
that can inform both practice and further research Exchange-oriented reciprocity is enacted and sus-
into the concept of reciprocity. There are other ana- tained in a variety of ways. One explanation is that it is
lytic considerations beyond what are indicated here, important for participants in an exchange to receive
but those represented are particularly salient to our some form of incentive, value, or private good
field’s conceptualizations of reciprocity. (Adams, 1965; Olson, 1965). Another explanation is
Exchange-Oriented Reciprocity that even when there is no personal gain, the presence
of an authority (external to the individuals involved in
Upon review of collective action, sociological, bio- the exchange) may drive reciprocal action. This
22Saying What We Mean and Meaning What We Say
authority may be one that is coercive (Olson) or a rec- understanding of exchange-based reciprocity: (a) self
ognized leader or authority figure (Graen & Uhl-Bein, interest, (b) mutual interest, and (c) other interest.
1995). Some of the selected DEs suggest that reci- Self interest promotes a focus on self benefit (getting
procity is sustained or abandoned because we are pre- out more or at least the same as what one puts into the
disposed to reciprocate someone else’s desire to exchange without consideration of the other); mutual
engage or disengage (Axelrod, 1984; Gintis et al., interest attends to assuring that both parties benefit,
2006). This predisposition is strong enough that when or receive mutual benefits; and other interest places
reciprocal norms are violated individuals will pursue primary focus on the other’s benefit.
punishment of the other or retribution (Gintis et al.). Within Indigenous epistemes, exchange is the min-
Similarly, evolutionary biology (e.g., Trivers, 1971) imum form of reciprocity. Because “Indigenous epis-
suggests that both reputation and the probability of temologies live within a relational web… all aspects
future interactions can influence the likelihood of of them must be understood from that vantage point"
altruistic behaviors within pairs of interacting individ- (Kovach, 2009, p. 57). This relational web also
uals and within larger groupings; upstream reciprocity expands our consideration of reciprocity from a
occurs when an individual’s helpful act leads to the focus primarily on individuals to a focus on more col-
recipient helping a third individual, and downstream lective identities (e.g., families, tribes, nations) as
reciprocity occurs when helping another makes it well. Thus, within an Indigenous perspective, reci-
more likely to be helped by a third party in the future. procity “ensures an ecological and cosmological bal-
Another impetus for enacting and sustaining reciproc- ance” (Kovach, 2009, p. 57) and so may appear dif-
ity is the quality or closeness of relationships (Graen & ferent than a Western and positivist understanding of
Uhl-Bien). Within the LMX theory, leaders and fol- exchange orientation. Framed in a Western perspec-
lowers may enact reciprocity to meet their contractual tive, it may appear more akin to an influence or a
obligations but may also exceed those obligations generativity orientation, which will be discussed in
when trust and loyalty are developed. the next sections.
With regard to equity, exchange-based reciprocity Taken together, these elements of exchange-based
seeks equitable exchange (Adams, 1965) but can also reciprocity shape an understanding of the concept that
be maintained in inequitable conditions (Gouldner, is more nuanced than the simple give and take that we
1960). Adams’ Theory of Inequity explains that the often ascribe to exchange. Though the primary focus
input and output of the exchange between individuals is on interchange between individuals (whether it be
must be both recognized and considered relevant to for self benefit or for collective action), there are a
the individuals’ continued well-being. Axelrod’s range of factors that deepen and sustain the exchange.
(1984) Tit for Tat strategy implies that an individual In addition to nuancing the exchange orientation of
will reciprocate based on the other’s prior behaviors reciprocity, these DEs point to a particularly salient
(whether that behavior has proven to be cooperative or analytic consideration that must be taken into account
disengaging), thus encouraging continued interaction when using or inquiring into the concept: reciprocity
based on expectation of future equity even in light of can be found at the individual and collective levels. As
current inequity. From ecology, mutualism is a form made clear in the preceding discussion, individual
of symbiosis in which both parties benefit, and it can gain and collective stability can be achieved through
take various forms: obligate (survival depends on exchange-oriented reciprocity (Axlerod, 1984;
exchange), facultative (exchange is helpful but not Gouldner, 1960; Olson, 1965).
required for survival) forms, or commensalist, (one Influence-Oriented Reciprocity
benefits without significant gain or harm to the other;
the exchange lacks equity but can be maintained in When works from social-psychology, Indigenous
the absence of competition for shared resources). epistemes, ethics, political philosophy, and feminist
Most of the selected DEs place value on self-inter- thought are brought into conversation with one anoth-
est as a motivator of exchange-based reciprocity er, the influence orientation of reciprocity emerges.
(Adams, 1965; Gintis et al., 2006; Gouldner, 1960; Influence-oriented reciprocity is characterized by its
Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Olson, 1965). Within these iterative nature and by the condition of interrelated-
works there is a distinction between self interest that ness—personal, social, and environmental factors
is concerned with private goods (Olson) and self iteratively influence the way in which something is
interest that is focused on stability of the social order done. The analytic consideration brought forward by
(Gouldner). There is a further distinction between this orientation is that processes or outcomes (or both)
interest that is self focused and that which is collec- can be influenced as a result of the iterative and inter-
tive focused. Within the Norm of Reciprocity, related interactions within a collaboration.
Gouldner explores the role of interest, describing Bandura’s (1977) Reciprocal Determinism sug-
three forms of interest that are all relevant to an gests that a phenomenon of interest is produced when
23Dostilio et al. personal, social, and environmental factors influence account the social embeddedness and relationality of one another in a reciprocal process. Their reciprocal these elements within the process of evaluating jus- influence upon one another is not necessarily equal in tice. Young’s feminist critique of Rawls’s work is force or stable over time. The interrelated influence focused on the procedural elements of the theory: a between factors depicted within reciprocal determin- process characterized by such reciprocity does not ism highlights the use of reciprocity to describe the necessarily lead to just outcomes. influence of product (or outcome) as well as process. Rawlsian conceptions of influence-oriented reci- Reciprocal determinism rejects a linear cause and procity are expressed in relation to value-neutral effect between factors and phenomena and embraces processes but have the goal of defining the require- an interactive, interrelated influence in which the fac- ments of justice. Articulated in the language of Rawls’s tors, each in a unique way, affect one another and the theory, individuals are not required to accept a univer- outcome, and the outcome affects the factors. sal conception of the good while developing consid- This interrelatedness is also present in Indigenous ered judgments that will be used to articulate princi- epistemes. The concept of reciprocity within ples of justice. The desire to follow a value-neutral Indigenous meaning-making is firmly understood process is contrasted with Young’s approach to influ- within a web of relationships that is holistically con- ence-oriented reciprocity. Young provides a conception sidered. Harris and Wasilewski (2004) describe a of reciprocity that assumes the concerns of identity process by which North American tribes in the 1980s politics have been marginalized and require special and 1990s collectively identified “four core values attention when considering elements of justice. which cross generation, geography, and Bandura (1977) and Indigenous meaning-making tribe…Relationship, Responsibility, Reciprocity, and embrace the interrelated influence inherent in all social Redistribution” (p. 492). These core values support interaction as the basis for explaining social motiva- and rely on each other in a dynamically iterative tion, network formation, and relationship functions. process for the purposes of allowing the community Just as we observed in the exchange-oriented reci- to continue. Therefore reciprocity cannot be separat- procity section, the DEs discussed herein character- ed from the individuals, families, communities, and ize influence-oriented reciprocity but also make visi- generations or the time and place that provide it con- ble a particular consideration for analysis: reciproci- text and influence it. ty can be present within a process, an outcome, or Through the interrelatedness of a collaboration’s both; further, it can actually be a process or an out- context, members’ positionalities, and ways of mak- come of engagement, depending on the type of inter- ing meaning and the iterative effect they have on one action at play. another, either the process or outcome (or both) is Generativity-Oriented Reciprocity influenced. This is the primary analytic consideration brought forward by influence-oriented reciprocity. Underpinnings of a third conception of reciprocity Rawls (1971, 1999) developed an account of reci- can be found in a review of emerging sciences (e.g., procity as a process in A Theory of Justice. The pro- ecology, systems theory, quantum physics, chaos the- cedural expression of reciprocity inherent in Rawls’s ory), non-Western epistemologies, and theory related theory is designed to “nullify the effects of specific to transformational learning. In this framing, reci- contingencies which put men [sic] at odds, and tempt procity is not a characteristic of the exchange-based them to exploit social and natural circumstances to or influence-based interactions between and among their own advantage” (p. 118). The understanding of individuals as traditionally constructed; rather, the reciprocity underlying the original position provides concept refers to interrelatedness of beings and the a space in which considered judgments about justice broader world around them as well as the potential can be evaluated without bias: the veil of ignorance synergies that emerge from their relationships. The prevents knowledge of the identity of and conse- contrast between this orientation and previous orien- quences to the self. Feminist theorists have critiqued tations makes clear the analytic consideration that Rawls’s work for not seriously considering and reciprocity can effect a change in what entities do or accounting for the dynamics of identity politics. in what and how entities are. Young (1990) argues that Rawlsian accounts of jus- In “Towards an Ecological Worldview,” Sterling tice fail to recognize and consider a number of ele- (1990) summarizes western civilization’s contempo- ments critical to defining the requirements of justice. rary shift from the paradigm of modern science (i.e., Young would consider and include factors associated Cartesian, Newtonian) to the ecological paradigm with identity politics, or politics of inclusion, within (see Tarnas, 1991 for a similar discussion). The mod- the original position. Rather “than nullify(ing) the ern scientific worldview is grounded in hierarchical effects of specific contingencies” (Rawls, 1971, dualism—which privileges mind over body, thought 1999, p. 118), Young (1990) calls for taking into over feeling, quantitative over qualitative, humans 24
Saying What We Mean and Meaning What We Say
over nature; it is mechanistic, atomistic, positivist, yet regarding which, prior to the encounter [with mar-
reductionist, and focused on instrumental value. The ginalized individuals and groups], they are not even
emerging ecological worldview, in contrast, chal- aware” (Steinman, 2011, p. 11). This new way of
lenges the separation between knower (subject) and being can contribute to authentic relationship-build-
known (object) assumed in the modern model and ing that honors people’s multiple forms of meaning-
posits instead that reality is fundamentally relational making, traditions, and cultures instead of rendering
and web-like. According to Sterling, “Developments them invisible, manipulating them to fit within domi-
at the leading edges of physics, mathematics, chem- nant paradigms, or merely acknowledging them. The
istry, biology, and neurophysiology are giving rise to potential of reciprocity within these new spaces is
a new holistic science which extends the common generativity-oriented in that it opens the possibility
idea that 'everything is related' to a degree that for new and different ways of being, processes, and
stretches comprehension” (p. 81). The ecological outcomes to emerge.
paradigm is one of integration and “systemic syner- This conceptualization in terms of generativity
gy” (p. 82). Rather than being understood in terms of also can be further enriched through the lens of trans-
linear cause and effect only, phenomena are under- formational learning theory. Through generative
stood to be constitutive of each other and the broad- experiences, such as those of co-construction and
er, dynamic systems of which they are a part and exposure to multiple worldviews, participants may
comprise. From quantum particles to global ecosys- engage with new ways of thinking or being that may
tems, relationships “may be described in terms of challenge or confront previously held ideas and con-
processes of co-definition, synchronism, dynamic victions, cause them to question their assumptions
balance, and synergism” (p. 81). This perspective and perspectives, and lead to new understandings and
suggests that reciprocity is best understood not as a actions (Cranton, 2006). As a result of transforma-
relationship between atomistically-construed individ- tional experiences the “order may be disturbed,
uals engaged in a utilitarian calculus of costs and and...new relationships, identities, and values may
benefits but rather in terms of the transformative emerge” (Enos & Morton, 2003, p. 24).
power of relationality and the co-construction of Transformational experiences can involve an incre-
emergent systems of collaboration. mental process of change that results in the conclu-
Similar to this emerging ecological paradigm, non- sion that “I was a different person then” (Cranton, p.
western epistemologies also provide insight into the 71). Transformation of identity (at some level) may
understanding of reciprocity as generative. In many then be an outcome of generativity, in that a genera-
Indigenous cultures, there is no conception of the self tivity-orientation to reciprocity enables individuals to
as an individual, separate from other individuals: learn about and honor each other’s diverse perspec-
“We can only be a ‘self’ in a community. We are tives and ways of knowing and/or doing. A generative
simultaneously both autonomous and connected… approach to reciprocity extends beyond the task at
We have to let the realities of others into our concep- hand in an open-ended manner; identities and ways
tual and emotional spaces and vice versa” (Harris & of being in relationship, commitments to each other,
Wasilewski, 2004, p. 495). The purposes for enacting processes of collaboration, and envisioned outcomes
reciprocity suggest that the process allows for the evolve. Something greater than each respective enti-
potential that new levels of understanding can be ties’ potential impact is created, synergistically.
opened up, ones that could not exist except within In sum, generativity-oriented reciprocity emerges
reciprocal relationality to each other (Kirkness & within the domain of a worldview in which objects,
Barnhardt, 2001). Objects, people, and forms of people, and forms of knowledge exist fundamentally
knowledge are not conceived of atomistically, but in relation to one other. Power, privilege, and oppres-
rather in relation to each other (Wilson, 2008). sion are actively and intentionally considered within
The concept of “making space” can enhance recip- this orientation. This form of reciprocity can lead to
rocal relationality and, thus, generativity-oriented rec- transformation and second-order change within indi-
iprocity, especially for SL-CE relationships under- viduals, systems, and paradigms. From these charac-
stood within contexts of power, privilege, and oppres- teristics emerge the key analytic consideration:
sion. Steinman (2011) applies this concept—original- Generative reciprocity can affect not only the doing
ly theorized within the reconciliation efforts of the of engagement (as in influence-oriented reciprocity)
Canadian government and First Nations—to service- but also the ways of being related to engagement.
learning as a way to move relationships from being DE Summary
understood by what we do together to being under-
stood by how we are together. Making space “requires As a result of consulting disciplines and epistemes
[those with privilege] to think outside of frameworks outside of SL-CE literature, the categories of
that structure their own thoughts and experiences and exchange-, influence-, and generativity-oriented
25Dostilio et al.
reciprocity become more robustly defined. Particular such as the following: To what extent and on what
analytic considerations that are important to take into terms is such inequity legitimately included within
account when conceptualizing, enacting, and investi- our understanding and practice of reciprocity? What
gating reciprocity are made visible, including the ways tolerance of an inequitable interchange is appropriate
in which reciprocity can be sought at the individual or in the arc of a broader relationship that is more equi-
collective levels; how reciprocity can be enacted as a tably reciprocal in the long term?
process, an outcome, or both; and its role as a tool to Vignette 2. Within the second vignette, we see a
realize alternative ways of being as well as doing. more complexly engaged partnership. The conditions
included in Vignette 2 highlight how influence-ori-
Analysis: Conceptions of Reciprocity ented reciprocity can include the processes and out-
Drawing upon the review of extant SL-CE litera- comes of collaboration being iteratively informed by
ture, we conclude that to this point reciprocity has interrelated factors. Influence-orientations to reci-
been largely undefined or not located within any par- procity involve mechanisms to define the engage-
ticular conception, with the exception of a few key ment process and core elements of knowledge pro-
works. Turning to a select group of DEs, we trace a duction. The SL-CE literature and DE review deepen
divergence of conceptions of reciprocity. When our understanding of influence-oriented reciprocity
brought into conversation with one another, the SL- to include two potential applications: influence on
CE literature and illustrative DEs supply an organiz- process and influence on outcome. Within the
ing framework that draws out different orientations vignette, participants recognize the different perspec-
within the concept of reciprocity. Upon revisiting the tives and contexts represented within the group and
DEs, a few analytic considerations are made visible. by honoring these, design the process they use, the
Here, we return to the vignettes offered at the start of meanings they make, and the products they produce
the article and use these as a means to synthesize the to reflect those diverse perspectives and contexts.
learning we accrue from the SL-CE and DE reviews. Vignette 3. The outcome of vignette 3 is that the
Vignette 1. The configuration of the partnership participants of the partnership create something
described in Vignette 1 captures exchange-orienta- entirely new from their engagement than was con-
tions to reciprocity, primarily because the way partic- ceivable from within their individual perspectives.
ipants behave and the services offered remain largely Generativity-oriented reciprocity can create anew (be
unaffected by the collaborative relationship or the it new endeavors or paradigms). Based on an episte-
unique experiences and perspectives of other partici- mology of co-production of knowledge, this orienta-
pants. The faculty and students provide tutoring that tion toward reciprocity is built upon a commitment to
is conceived and conducted solely by their own frame relationality that works to honor in a deep way the
of reference, as does the school district when it seeks worldviews, traditions, and various cultures of all
a solution (academic remediation) that is uninformed members of the partnership (as in influence-oriented
by any other paradigm or collaborative experience. reciprocity, but here toward the partners’ ways of
Students have a place to develop and hone teaching being in addition to their ways of doing). This effort
skills, and the community partner has the capacity to toward authentic being paves the way for previously
offer tutoring in return. inconceivable ways of engaging to emerge.
The vignette is most easily explained as embodying The additional elements necessary for a generativ-
the common conception of reciprocity portrayed in ity-oriented reciprocity include a broader conceptual-
the SL-CE literature. Given only the information pro- ization of relationships, as well as processes, that
vided in the vignette, it could well be an example of include the co-definition of issues to be addressed
the ways in which reciprocity is potentially conflated and resulting synergistic co-generation of knowl-
with mutual benefit. Turning to the DE review, we can edge. Partners engaged in generativity-oriented reci-
complicate the example (in at least one way) by sug- procity consider the systems of power in which they
gesting that should the tutoring services be found to are embedded and recognize that those systems con-
be less helpful than intended or the after-school pro- struct the differences of identity and privilege that
gram found to offer a poor learning experience for they experience.
college students, inequity within the exchange will The vignettes illustrate the characterizations of the
occur. Does this appearance of inequity mean that rec- different orientations toward reciprocity examined in
iprocity is not present? According to the review of this article but do so merely as an exercise to high-
DEs that contribute to the exchange orientation, light the distinctiveness of each. Actual SL-CE col-
inequity and reciprocity can co-exist within an laborations likely embody more than one orientation,
exchange-orientation, at least within the short-term. whether concurrently or throughout the evolution of
Perhaps if the example in this vignette is part of a a partnership. Reciprocity may be enacted in differ-
long-term partnership, we need to consider questions ent ways at varying levels of a coalition or organiza-
26Saying What We Mean and Meaning What We Say
tion, and the larger map of interactions (e.g., the over- sider and discuss a collaborative process at such
all relationship between a university and the sur- length that useful and valuable outcomes are not
rounding community or between an academic attained. The influence orientation also involves con-
department and an community organization) might sidering each participant’s positionality and experi-
be evaluated differently than a subset of the relation- ences so that what is produced and how collaboration
ships comprising it (e.g., those between faculty and proceeds is shaped accordingly; an uncritical
students in a particular course or between students approach to this would be employing a simplistic
and community partners in a particular semester’s appreciation of diversity and overstating the depth of
service-learning project) with respect to the orienta- one’s consideration of multiple perspectives as
tion toward reciprocity embodied therein. For exam- shapers of what is done together. To enact the influ-
ple, exchange-oriented reciprocity may exist within a ence orientation critically, and with integrity, one must
small unit of a much larger collaboration that values take the personal and interpersonal risks associated
and pursues generativity-oriented reciprocity. with trying to understand difference and allowing it to
The framework offered here does not preference meaningfully influence the process, interactions, out-
one orientation over another but instead recognizes comes, and meaning-making of the collaboration.
different elements of each. We expect that individual Feminist theory and Indigenous epistemology pro-
scholar-practitioners may note examples of all three vide perspectives that caution against idealizing the
within their practice and scholarship; may have a mutual transformation and co-creation invited by the
preference for one over the others, which may evolve generativity-oriented conception of reciprocity. Young
over time; and may even feel inclined to advocate for (1990) points to the “assimilationist ideal” held with-
one orientation over another. Encouraging and facili- in approaches to work that do not value group differ-
tating this sort of clarity of meaning and preference ences (p. 163). Similarly, Jones and Jenkins (2008)
is exactly the purpose of this article. assert the importance of acknowledging and contend-
Bringing the three orientations into conversation
ing with the “indigene-colonizer hyphen”: whereas
with one another highlights potential challenges or
“colonizer peoples assert the us [emphasis added] in a
limitations of each and yields cautionary suggestions
shared modern life, Indigenous peoples—as a matter
that should perhaps be taken into account when eval-
of political, practical, and identity survival as
uating the appropriateness and implications of each
Indigenous peoples—insist on a profound difference
orientation. We briefly note here, as a basis for fur-
at the Self-Other border. The hyphen is nonnego-
ther investigation, examples of the potential risks
associated with embracing any of these orientations tiable” (p. 475). To postulate mutual transformation
toward reciprocity uncritically. with authenticity (Haig-Brown & Archibald, 1996), it
Exchange-orientated approaches based on mutual is imperative to avoid thinking of transformation in
benefits and responsibilities may provide valuable terms of sameness and to approach co-creation of
services and outcomes for stakeholders and partici- knowledge with awareness of the distinct epistemolo-
pants but are not likely to conceive of, or achieve, gies that influence individuals’ and groups’ values
transformative goals. Exchange-oriented reciprocity regarding and approaches to knowledge creation. The
does not necessarily invite knowledge of the others practice of and commitment to “making space” can
with whom one interacts and thus may allow be one way of avoiding asking “[partners] to fit with-
anonymity when such is not desired. It does not invite in our cultural paradigm—to have the intercultural
consideration of whether expanded roles and identi- dialogue on our terms” (Regan, as cited in Steinman,
ties are or should be at stake in a relationship. An issue 2011, p. 11), which is key to enacting generativity-ori-
of potential concern to SL-CE practitioner-scholars is ented reciprocity with integrity.
the risk of an unsatisfactory level of inequity in
Implications
exchange-based reciprocity. Relationships of trust,
strong mechanisms to facilitate honest communica- As SL-CE theory and practice matures there will
tion regarding costs and benefits, and taking into be more opportunities to consider the assumptions
account the power dynamics that can inhibit truth- underlying core concepts of the field. To date, there
telling are needed for exchange-oriented reciprocity has not been an intentional effort to maintain a con-
to be conducted with integrity. sistent theoretical or practical expression of reciproc-
With regard to the influence orientation, the empha- ity. Our concept review offers three orientations to
sis placed on quality of process may obfuscate real- reciprocity that can bring specificity to articulations
ization of mutually beneficial outcomes. Considera- of the types of reciprocity observed or pursued with-
tion of multiple, interrelated factors and openness to in practice and research. The following section con-
them changing the processes and outcomes of collab- siders some of the implications of this framework for
oration can take significant time. It is possible to con- theory and practice.
27You can also read
