Judicial Review & Dual SovereigntyONLY REFERENCE AN ARTICLE IF I

Judicial Review & Dual Sovereignty
ONLY REFERENCE AN ARTICLE IF IT’S THE BASIS OF
YOUR ANSWER. EXAMPLE: “ARTICLE 3 IN THE US
CONSTITUTION SERVES AS A STRONG MODEL FOE
JUSDICIAL CREATION”
DO NOT CITE A FULL CASE (EXAMPLE:MAPP V OHIO, 237
f2d, 1998)
Limit your response to 100 words total for both parts
Part #1 : Judicial Review
How does judicial review balance the governmental powers
between the different governmental branches, the President, the
Legislature and the Supreme Court?
Part 2: Dual Sovereignty
What powers should be decided by the federal government, and
only the federal government, under a dual sovereignty system
of government?
Policy Futures in Education
Volume 12 Number 3 2014
www.wwwords.co.uk/PFIE
417
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.3.417
Constructive Controversy as a Means of Teaching
Citizens how to Engage in Political Discourse
DAVID W. JOHNSON & ROGER T. JOHNSON

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
ABSTRACT Positive political discourse is the heart of
democracy. The purposes of political discourse
include making an effective decision about the course the
society should take and building a moral
bond among all members of the society. A responsibility of
social sciences within a democratic society
is to provide the theory, research, and normative procedures
needed to make political discourse
constructive. A theory underlying political discourse is
constructive controversy. There is considerable
research that indicates controversy results in significant
increases in the quality and creativity of
decision making and problem solving, the quality of
relationships among citizens, and improvements
in the psychological health of the citizenry. From the validated
theory, both a teaching and decision
making procedure has been developed and field tested. The
theory of constructive controversy, the
supporting research, and the normative procedure provide a
valid empirically based process for
political discourse.
Introduction
In a democratic society, each generation has to learn how to
participate in the democratic process.
To be good citizens, individuals need to learn how to engage in
collective decision making about
community and societal issues (Dalton, 2007). Collective
decision making involves political
discourse. While the word ‘discourse’ has been defined in many
different ways by linguists and
others (Foucault, 1970; Fairclough, 1995; Jaworski & Coupland,
1999), according to Webster’s

Dictionary (Merrian-Webster, 2003), the concept ‘discourse’
has two major meanings: (a) formal
communication of thoughts about a serious subject through
words (spoken or written); and (b)
rationality or the ability to reason. ‘Political discourse’ is the
formal exchange of reasoned views as
to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken
to solve a societal problem. In
political discourse there is an emphasis first on dissensus and
conflict among positions (Ranciere,
1995/1999; Mouffe, 2000), and then, as the decision is made,
consensus and agreement among
advocates of the opposing and differing positions is sought.
Mouffe (2000) especially emphasizes that there are emotional
and non-rational aspects to
holding and advocating positions and that true consensus may
be rare. What may be more
common is that a temporary decision is made by majority vote
that leaves minority opinions
unsatisfied. The holders of minority positions will support the
majority out of respect and concern
for the majority (and the majority will protect the rights of the
holders of the minority positions
out of the same respect and concern) until the next election
occurs, and the underlying
disagreements surface and are argued again.
While the conflict among positions may never be fully resolved,
it is the moral bond created
by mutual commitment to the common good and the society’s
values (e.g. equality, justice) that
holds the society together. Given its combination of rational and
irrational elements, two of the
major purposes of political discourse are as follows. First, it is
intended to involve all citizens in the

making of the decision. Rule by the people means all the
people. Citizen involvement is
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.2304%2Fpfie.2014
.12.3.417&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-01-01
David W. Johnson & Roger T. Johnson
418
characterized by presenting positions, attempting to persuade
others (through valid information
and logic), listening to others, gathering new information and
subsequently adjusting positions,
clarifying what course of action would be most effective in
solving the societal problem, and voting
for the candidates who will implement that course of action.
Second, political discourse is intended
to build a moral bond among all citizens of the society. Not
only the current generation, but also
each successful generation has to be taught the procedures,
competencies, attitudes, and values
needed to engage in positive political discourse. The success of
the democracy depends upon the
effectiveness of this socialization process, which in turn
depends on its being based on a social
science theory, validated by research, from which a clear
procedure for political discourse may be
derived. This article, therefore, focuses on three questions:
1. What is the nature of positive and negative political
discourse? Citizens need to understand
what political discourse is and the difference between positive
and negative political discourse.
They also need to become skilled in the use of the procedure for

engaging in positive political
discourse.
2. What is the theory and validating research on constructive
controversy that underlies the
political discourse process? A basic social science theory is
needed that organizes what is known
about positive political discourse and leads to a program of
research aimed at improving our
understanding of political discourse and the conditions under
which it is constructive. The
theory is known as constructive controversy.
3. What is the normative procedure that may be used to teach
citizens how to engage in positive
political discourse? A normative procedure, extrapolated from a
validated theory (i.e.
constructive controversy), needs to be used to socialize
children, adolescents, and young adults
into the competencies and attitudes needed to engage in positive
political discourse. Using the
procedure in instructional and decision making situations would
teach each successive
generation the steps needed to engage in constructive political
discourse, as well as an
understanding of positive political discourse.
Using constructive controversy in schools may be one of the
most effective ways of teaching new
generations how to engage in positive political discourse and be
effective citizens in a democracy.
Constructive controversy has been used in Azerbaijan, the
Czech Republic, Lithuania, and the
United States of America (USA) by secondary school teachers
as part of the ‘Deliberating in a
Democracy Project’ to teach students how to be citizens in a

democracy (Avery et al, 2006). A
related procedure, cooperative learning, has been used to teach
elementary and secondary students
in Armenia how to be citizens in a democracy (Hovhannisyan et
al, 2005). Thus, in both mature
and developing democracies, constructive controversy has been
used to socialize citizens into the
understandings, attitudes, and competencies they need to
participate effectively in political
discourse.
Decision Making
Political discourse is a method of decision making in a
democracy. A decision implies that some
agreement prevails as to which of several courses of action is
most desirable for achieving a goal
(Johnson & Johnson, 2012). Effective democratic decisions tend
to be of high quality, reflecting the
best reasoned judgment of the citizens. The process of making
the decision at its best increases the
commitment of all citizens to: (a) implement the decision
(whether they agree with it or not), and
(b) the democratic process. The process also increases the
cohesiveness of the society. The process
ensures that the rights of the political minority (those who
disagree with the decision) should be
protected until the issue is reopened in the next election.
Finally, the decision-making capabilities of
the democracy are enhanced, or at least not lessened.
In the USA, Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of the
American Republic considered
conflict among positions and the resulting political discourse to
be the heart of democracy. They
believed that instead of the social rank within which a person

was born determining one’s influence
(i.e. the higher your social rank, the more influence you had on
social policy and decision making),
the basis of influence within society should be discourse in a
free and open discussion characterized
by conflict among ideas and opinions (i.e. whoever had the most
compelling arguments supported
by accurate information and logic has the most influence on
social policy and decision making).
419
Jefferson (1815) noted inquiry resulted from differences of
opinion, and then reveals the truth.
James Madison (Farrand, 1966), described political discourse as
(a) including open-minded
consideration of other points of view and (b) keeping
conclusions tentative by realizing that one’s
current knowledge is not the whole truth. The views of political
discourse of Jefferson, Madison,
and their contemporaries were grounded in the philosophy and
thought of the 1700s. The
philosopher Edmund Burke (1790/2006), for example,
recommended conflict among ideas by
stating that our skills are sharpened, and our nerves are
strengthened, by those who wrestle with us
(not by those who give in to our will).
Development of a Moral Bond among Citizens
Among the most important effects of political discourse is its
impact on the cohesiveness of the

society and the moral bonds among citizens. In 1748, Baron
Charles de Montesquieu published The
Spirit of Laws (1798/2010) in which he explored the
relationship between people and different forms
of government. He concluded that while dictatorship survives
by the fear of the people, and
monarchy survives by the loyalty of the people, a free republic
(the most fragile of the three
political systems) survives on the virtue of the people. Virtue is
reflected in the way a person
balances his or her own needs with the needs of the society as a
whole. Motivation to be virtuous
comes from ‘a sense of belonging, a concern for the whole, a
moral bond with the community
whose life is at stake’. This moral bond is cultivated by
‘deliberating with fellow citizens about the
common good and helping shape the destiny of the political
community’ (Book 2, chapter 2, pp. 1,
2).
Establishing such a moral bond (to act in the service of the
common good and shape the
destiny of their society) requires (a) citizen participation in
their own governance and (b) a
common set of values. Participation involves both activel y
engaging in political discourse and
seeking out and valuing the participation of all other citizens,
especially when their views conflict
with one’s own. In the USA, the values underlying such
participation were primarily spelled out in
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (e.g.
equality, liberty, justice). De
Tocqueville (1945), in the mid-nineteenth century, concluded
that of the principal factors
maintaining democracy in the USA (situation and context, law,
and manners and customs of the

people), the most important was the general principles about
citizenship that Americans held in
common. He called these manners and customs ‘habits of the
heart’ and defined them as including
taking responsibility for the common good, trusting others to do
the same, being honest, having
self-discipline, and reciprocating good deeds. Much later, a
panel of distinguished political theorists
in the 1950s concluded that for democracy to exist, citizens
must (a) be committed to fundamental
values such as liberty and equality and (b) be in consensus on
the procedural norms by which
substantive decisions are made (Griffith et al, 1956).
Jefferson, Madison, Adams and the other founders of the
American Republic assumed that
political discourse would be positive. In actual practice,
however, instead of resulting in a
consensual decision and building a common moral bond,
political discourse can result in
divisiveness and dislike.
Negative Political Persuasion
There are dangers when political discussion becomes
destructive rather than illuminating.
Destructive political persuasion exists when misleading,
superficial, or irrelevant information is
presented in ways that decreases citizens’ understanding of the
issue, results in an absence of
thoughtful consideration of the issue, divides citizens into
warring camps who dislike each other,
and decreases citizen participation in the political process.
Discourse may be replaced by other
means of persuasion, such as using deceit through
misinformation, de-emphasizing and ignoring

important issues, positioning, pandering to voters, and
argumentum ad hominem which consists of
directing arguments at the opponent rather than at his or her
ideas and proposals (Johnson &
Johnson, 2007). Ad hominem arguments can involve questioning
the motives of the opponent,
accusing the opponent of acting on personal interest, accusing
the opponent of inconsistency, or
accusing the opponent of past misconduct. In essence, ad
hominem arguments communicate that
420
the opponent is ‘bad’, and therefore must be wrong. By focusing
attention on the candidates rather
than the issues, such persuasive procedures may be markedly
unhelpful in clarifying which course
of action should be adopted. In addition, ad hominem arguments
weaken the moral bond
underlying the democratic process, discourage others from
presenting opposing positions,
undermine trust in the political system and each other, and
undermine the overall positive
interdependence that holds society together. Negative
persuasive tactics may discredit political
discourse and disillusion citizens about the political process.
Political discourse may then be
ignored or rejected.
The power of the personal attack rather than discourse in
campaigning is illustrated by the
negativity effect. The negativity effect exists when a negative

trait affects an impression more than
a positive trait, everything else being equal (Vonk, 1993). There
is evidence that individuals tend to
pay special attention to negative information (Fiske, 1980;
Pratto & John, 1991) and weigh negative
information more heavily than positive information (Coovert &
Reeder, 1990; Taylor, 1991),
especially in regard to moral traits. In a wide variety of studi es,
ranging from forming impressions
about other people to evaluating positive and negative
information to reach a decision or
judgment, negative information figured more prominently than
positive information (Taylor,
1991). Capitalizing on the power of negativity, however, may be
inherently dangerous to the health
of a democracy. Adlai Stevenson (1952), for example, noted
that it is the American ‘tradition of
critical inquiry and discussion that informs our entire
civilization’, but critical inquiry only advances
the general welfare when its purpose is honest. He notes that
‘criticism, not as an instrument of
inquiry and reform, but as an instrument of power, quickly
degenerates into the techniques of
deceit and smear’.
What Stevenson and others point out is that when negative
personal attacks are used as an
instrument of power, they tend to: (a) increase intolerance
aimed at the other person and the views
he or she represents (which is directly opposite to the values of
democracy which emphasize
tolerance of others even if they are promoting unpopular views),
(b) undermine trust and other
influences on political participation, and (c) undermine the
overall positive interdependence and
moral bonds that hold society together. The more widespread

the use of negative personal attacks,
the greater tends to be the disillusionment of citizens about the
political process. Disillusionment
may result in decreased participation, as well as resentment and
a refusal to help implement the
will of the winners.
Procedure for Positive Political Discourse
The constructive engagement in positive political discourse is
dependent on having an effective
normative procedure. Positive political discourse may be seen
as a six step procedure (Johnson &
Johnson, 2007). First, citizens need the freedom and opportunity
to propose courses of action that
they believe will solve the problem under consideration. In the
USA such freedom of information
and speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the
Constitution or more universally by
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. Free expression of one’s views inherently
involves conflict among ideas (i.e.
controversy) as not everyone will have the same view of any
issue.
Second, individual or small groups of citizens initially decide
on what course of action is
needed to solve a societal problem. They come to an initial
conclusion. They organize what they
know into a coherent and reasoned position. They research their
position and prepare persuasive
presentations to convince others of their position’s validity.
They plan how to advocate their
position so that all citizens understand it thoroughly, give it a
fair and complete hearing, and are

convinced of its soundness.
Third, citizens present the best case possible for their position
and listen carefully to the
opposing presentations. Their advocacy takes place within the
cooperative framework of making
the best decision possible (i.e. goal interdependence) and
believing that a high-quality decision
cannot be made without considering the information organized
by advocates of opposing positions
(i.e. resource interdependence). They strive to gain insights into
opposing positions’ strengths and
weaknesses by learning the information provided in the
opposing presentations and understanding
the reasoning underlying the opposing positions.
421
Fourth, citizens engage in an open discussion characterized by
advocacy, refutation, and
rebuttal. The advocacy groups give opposing positions a ‘trial
by fire’ by attempting to refute them
by challenging the validity of their information and logic. They
probe and push each other’s
conclusions. They rebut attacks on their own position while
continuing to attempt to persuade
other citizens of its validity. Citizens continue to attempt to
learn thoroughly the opposing
positions to gain insights into their weaknesses and flaws. An
important skill in doing so is
‘confirming the other person’s competence while criticizing
their ideas’ (Johnson & Johnson, 2007).

The goal of persuading others to agree with one’s position is
never forgotten.
Fifth, citizens strive to see the issue from all perspectives
simultaneously and demonstrate
their understanding by summarizing accurately and completely
the opposing positions. This
ensures that the advocates of the opposing positions believe
they have been heard and understood.
Citizens are expected to be able to step back and objectively
view the issue from all sides. This
prevents advocacy leading to selective perception and bias in
viewing the issue.
Finally, citizens strive to create a synthesis that subsumes the
various positions being
advocated, or at the very least integrates the best information
and reasoning from all points of
view. A vote is taken in which the majority rules. The political
minority helps implement the
decision because they know: (a) they had a fair chance to
influence others’ opinions, (b) they will
have another chance to advocate their position in a set number
of years, and (c) their rights will be
protected in the meantime. Protection of rights of minority
opinion groups is critical for positive
political discourse to occur.
This procedure does not automatically appear when decisions
need to be made. It must be
learned and perfected. The most logical place to teach such a
procedure is within schools as citizens
are developing and growing up.
Need for Citizen Socialization

In a democracy, each generation has to be socialized into the
procedures, competencies, attitudes,
and values needed to engage in positive political discourse. The
health of the democracy depends
upon the effectiveness of this socialization process. In order to
do so, there are two things that are
essential. The first is a basic social science theory that
organizes what is known about positive
political discourse and leads to a program of research aimed at
improving our understanding of
political discourse and the conditions under which it is
constructive. The research validates the
theory. The second is a procedure for socializing children and
young adults into the nature of
positive discourse. A normative procedure for this socialization
has been extrapolated from the
theory (validated by research) so that: (a) citizens know the
steps needed to engage in constructive
political discourse, and (b) the procedure may be used to teach
each successive generation how to
engage in positive political discourse and thereby participate in
the political process. Both the social
science theory and the practical procedure for this particular
citizen socialization are known as
constructive controversy.
Constructive Controversy
A purpose of political discourse is to create consensus among
citizens as to which course of action
will best advance the long-term well-being of the country. In
presenting a position, individuals
should prepare well-reasoned and thoughtful positions
characterized by valid information and
sound logic. As different individuals present different positions
and views, a conflict occurs. The

conflict is characterized by dissent and arguing (Johnson &
Johnson, 2007). ‘Dissent’ may be
defined as differing in opinion or conclusion, especially from
the majority. Dissent often results in
an argument. An argument is a thesis statement or claim
supported by at least one reason, and
arguing is a social process in which two or more individuals
engage in a dialogue where arguments
are constructed, presented, and critiqued. Arguing is often
called dialectical argumentation because
a thesis and supporting reasons may be contradicted by an
antithesis and its supporting reasons. A
distinction may also been made between collaborative
argumentation (the goal to work
cooperatively to explore and critique different ideas, positions,
and conclusions) and adversarial
422
argumentation (the goal is to ‘win’ an argument as in a debate)
(Gilbert, 1997; Brown & Renshaw,
2000).
When different individuals have different views and conclusions
concerning the course of
action a society should take to solve its problems, the resulting
conflict is known as a controversy.
Constructive controversy exists when one person’s ideas,
information, conclusions, theories, and
opinions are incompatible with those of another, and the two
seek to reach an agreement (Johnson
et al, 1976; Johnson & Johnson, 1979, 1989, 2003, 2007, 2009).

Constructive controversy involves
what Aristotle called ‘deliberate discourse’ (i.e. the discussion
of the advantages and disadvantages
of proposed actions) aimed at synthesizing novel solutions (i.e.
creative problem solving).
Constructive controversy, as well as positive political
discourse, is a form of inquiry-based
advocacy. Advocacy is the presenting of a position and
providing reasons why others should adopt
it. Inquiry is investigating an issue to establish the best answer
or course of action; it involves
asking questions and seeking to learn the necessary facts to
answer the questions. Inquiry usually
begins with a focal point, something that captures the
participants’ attention, holds it, and
motivates them to investigate. Disinterested people do not
inquire. The presentations create the
focal point of the inquiry. Inquiry-based advocacy, therefore, is
two or more parties presenting
opposing positions in order to investigate an issue and establish
the underlying facts and logic
needed to reach a reasoned judgment about a course of action.
The opposite of constructive controversy is concurrence
seeking. Concurrence seeking occurs
when members of a group inhibit discussion to avoid any
disagreement or argument and
emphasize agreement. Concurrence seeking is close to Janis’
(1982) concept of ‘groupthink’ (i.e.
members of a decision-making group set aside their doubts and
misgivings about whatever policy is
favored by the emerging consensus so as to be able to concur
with the other members and thereby
preserve the harmonious atmosphere of the group).
Thus, constructive controversy may be managed in two ways –

through inquiry-based
advocacy and argumentation (i.e. constructive controversy) or
through seeking quick agreement
with little or no disagreement (i.e. concurrence seeking) (see
Figure 1).
Theory of Constructive Controversy
There is no more certain sign of a narrow mind, of stupidity,
and of arrogance, than to stand
aloof from those who think differently from us. (Walter Savage
Landor, cited in Forster, 1846)
The basic premise of constructive controversy theory is that the
way in which conflict among
conclusions is structured determines how individuals interact
with each other, which in turn
determines the conflict’s outcomes. Based on Lewin’s (1935)
field theory, Structure–Process–
Outcome Theory posits that the structure of the situation
determines the processes of
interpersonal interaction, which determines outcomes (Watson
& Johnson, 1972). The structure of
the situation contains the role definitions and normative
expectations that define what are
appropriate and inappropriate ways for individuals to interact
with each other in the situation, as
well as other situational influences such as the number of
people involved, spatial arrangements,
hierarchy of prestige, social sanctions, power, and the nature of
activities to be conducted. Changes
in any or all of these factors lead to changes in the interactions
of the group members, which
subsequently changes the outcomes of the individuals involved.
In terms of political discourse, the way in which disagreement

among positions is structured
determines the process of interaction among individuals, which
determines the nature and quality
of the outcomes, such as the people elected to office and the
policies adopted. Conflict among
group members as to which course of action is to be adopted
may be structured along a
continuum. At one end of the continuum, disagreement may be
structured as a constructive
controversy to encourage and promote argumentation, or at the
other end conflict may be
covered-up and suppress differences in opinion and conclusions
so that all group members conform
or concur with the majority view (i.e. concurrence seeking).
These two structures promote
different processes of interaction among individuals, which in
turn promote different outcomes.
423
Figure 1. Theory of controversy.
Source: Johnson & Johnson, 2007, reprinted by permission.
Processes of Interaction: constructive controversy vs.
concurrence seeking
The process through which constructive controversy creates
positive outcomes involves the

following theoretical assumptions (Johnson & Johnson, 1979,
1989, 2007, 2009) (see Table I and
Figure 1):
1. When individuals are presented with a problem or decision,
they have an initial conclusion
based on categorizing and organizing incomplete information,
their limited experiences, and
their specific perspective. They have a high degree of
confidence in their conclusions (i.e. they
freeze the epistemic process).
2. When individuals present their conclusion and its rationale to
others, they engage in cognitive
rehearsal, deepen their understanding of their position, and use
higher-level reasoning
strategies. The more they attempt to persuade others to agree
with them, the more committed
they may become to their position.
3. When individuals are confronted with different conclusions
based on other people’s
information, experiences, and perspectives, they become
uncertain as to the correctness of
their views and a state of conceptual conflict or disequilibrium
is aroused. They unfreeze their
epistemic process.
4. Uncertainty, conceptual conflict, or disequilibrium motivates
epistemic curiosity, an active
search for: (a) more information and new experiences (increased
specific content), and (b) a
more adequate cognitive perspective and reasoning process
(increased validity) in hopes of
resolving the uncertainty.

5. By adapting their cognitive perspective and reasoning
through understanding and
accommodating new information as well as the perspective and
reasoning of others,
424
individuals derive a new, reconceptualized, and reorganized
conclusion. Novel solutions and
decisions that, on balance, are qualitatively better are detected.
The positive feelings and
commitment individuals feel in creating a solution to the
problem together is extended to each
other and interpersonal attraction increases. A bond is built
among the participants. Their
competencies in managing conflicts constructively tend to
improve. The process may begin
again at this point or it may be terminated by freezing the
current conclusion and resolving any
dissonance by increasing confidence in the validity of the
conclusion.
In concurrence seeking, individuals present their position and
its rationale (see Figure 1). The
dominant, most initiated favored position is determined through
being presented and uncritically
adopted by the majority of the members. Dissenters are
pressured by the majority of members to
concur and conform to the majority opinion, and, if the
dissenters do not conform, they are viewed
as non-team players who obstruct team effectiveness (Collins &
Porras, 1994). Dissenters are given

a choice, concur with the majority opinion or face ridicule,
rejection, ostracism, and being disliked
(Freese & Fay, 2001; Nemeth & Goncalo, 2011). If they concur,
they experience a conflict between
their private and public positions. As a result, they often seek
out confirming information to
strengthen the majority position and view the issue only from
the majority’s perspective (thus
eliminating the possible consideration of divergent points of
view). Thus, there is a convergence of
thought and a narrowing of focus in members’ thinking. A false
consensus results, with all
members agreeing about the course of action the group is to
take, while privately some members
may believe that other courses of action would be more
effective.
Outcomes: research results
The relevance of constructive controversy for political
discourse may be seen in Table I. Almost all
of this research has been conducted in North America. The first
purpose of political discourse is to
promote high-quality decision making reflecting the best
reasoned judgment of the country’s
citizens. Compared with concurrence seeking (effect size [ES] =
0.68), debate (ES = 0.40), and
individualistic efforts (ES = 0.87), constructive controversy
tends to result in higher-quality
decisions (including decisions that involve ethical dilemmas)
and higher-quality solutions to
complex problems for which different viewpoints can plausibly
be developed (Johnson & Johnson,
1979, 1989, 2009). Controversy tends to promote more frequent
use of higher-level reasoning
strategies than do concurrence seeking (ES = 0.62), debate (ES

= 1.35), or individualistic efforts (ES
= 0.90). Constructive controversy tends to promote more
accurate and complete understanding of
opposing perspectives than do concurrence seeking (ES = 0.91),
debate (ES = 0.22), and
individualistic efforts (ES = 0.86). Thus, constructive
controversy tends to result in high-quality
decisions characterized by higher-level reasoning,
understanding of all relevant perspectives,
creative thinking, openness to influence, and continuing
motivation to learn more about the issue.
A second purpose of political discourse is to increase citizens’
commitment to implement the
decision (even if they do not agree with it) and participate in
future decision making. Individuals
who engaged in constructive controversies tended to like the
decision making task better than did
individuals who engaged in concurrence-seeking discussions
(ES = 0.58). Participating in a
controversy tends to result in participants re-evaluating their
attitudes about the issue,
incorporating opponent’s arguments into their own attitudes,
changing their attitudes, maintaining
their new attitudes over time, and generally having more
positive attitudes toward the experience,
the decision made, and the controversy procedure (Johnson &
Johnson, 2009).
A third purpose of political discourse is to improve the
cohesiveness of the democracy and the
moral bond among citizens. Constructive controversy tends to
promote greater liking among
participants than debate (ES = 0.72), concurrence seeking (ES =
0.24), or individualistic efforts (ES
= 0.81). Constructive controversy also tends to promote greater

social support among participants
than does debate (ES = 0.92), concurrence seeking (ES = 0.32),
or individualistic efforts (ES = 1.52).
Constructive controversy creates positive attitudes toward the
advocates of opposing positions
(Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Advocates of opposing positions, in
other words, are viewed positively
as sources of new information and perspectives that enhance
one’s own understanding and
judgments. They are not viewed as enemies. Engaging in the
controversy procedure brings people
together, even though they have different positions.
425
Dependent variable Mean SD n
Quality Of Decision Making
Controversy / Concurrence Seeking 0.68 0.41 15
Controversy / Debate 0.40 0.43 6
Controversy / Individualistic Efforts 0.87 0.47 19
Cognitive Reasoning
Perspective-Taking
Motivation

Attitudes
Interpersonal Attraction
Debate / Individualistic Efforts 0.46 0.13 2
Social Support
Self-Esteem
Note: For a more complete analysis, see Johnson & Johnson
(2007). Reprinted by permission.
Table I. Meta-analysis of controversy studies: average effect
size.
Fourth, engaging in political discourse should increase the
ability of citizens to do so even more
skillfully in the future. Participation in a constructive
controversy increases participants’ experience
and skills in doing so. Constructive controversy tends to
promote higher self-esteem than does
concurrence seeking (ES = 0.39), debate (ES = 0.51), or

individualistic efforts (ES = 0.85). In
addition, it promotes positive attitudes toward the procedure
and the advocates of opposing
positions, thereby increasing participants’ willingness to engage
in the political discourse procedure
in the future.
Fifth, political discourse is based on the premise that the rights
of the political minority (those
whose position is not adopted) will be protected until the
decision is reopened. Constructive
controversy, by promoting positive attitudes toward procedure,
the advocates of opposing
positions, and oneself, create the atmosphere in which
protection of minority rights is valued and
protected.
The health of democracies may be increased when participating
in political discourse
increases the quality of the decision, their commitment to
implement the decision, the
cohesiveness of the society and the moral bond among citizens,
and the positiveness of citizens’
attitudes toward the controversy procedure, the decision made,
and themselves. Constructive
controversy, therefore, provides a theory validated by research,
as well as a clear normative
procedure on which political discourse may be implemented.
426
Conditions Determining the Constructiveness of Controversy

Although controversies can operate in a beneficial way, they
will not do so under all conditions.
Whether controversy results in positive or negative
consequences depends on the conditions under
which it occurs and the way in which it is managed. These
conditions include the context within
which the controversy takes place and the level of participants’
social skills (Johnson & Johnson,
1979, 1989, 2007, 2009).
Cooperative Goal Structure
There are two possible contexts for controversy: cooperative
and competitive (Deutsch, 1973;
Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Positive political discourse is a
cooperative endeavor, aimed at
providing the best reasoned judgment possible to solve a
societal problem. Negative political
discourse is a competitive endeavor, aimed at winning over the
opposing side. Cooperation
provides a more supportive climate for disclosing and exploring
differences than competition
(Johnson & Johnson, 1991). In addition, there is considerable
evidence that within a cooperative (as
opposed to a competitive) context, constructive controversy is
characterized by more complete and
accurate communication, more accurate understanding of the
opponent’s position, greater
utilization of others’ information, greater understanding of what
others are feeling and why they
are feeling that way, feelings of comfort, pleasure, and
helpfulness in discussing opposing positions,
more open-minded listening to the opposing positions, greater
motivation to hear more about the
opponent’s arguments, more frequently seeking out individuals

with opposing opinions to test the
validity of their ideas, greater trust, and the reaching of more
integrated positions where both one’s
own and one’s opponent’s conclusions and reasoning are
synthesized into a final position (Johnson
& Johnson, 1989).
Skilled Disagreement
For controversies to be managed constructively, participants
need cooperative and conflict-
management skills (Johnson & Johnson, 2012; Johnson, 2013).
One skill is disagreeing with each
other’s ideas while confirming each other’s personal
competence. The use of this skill results in
being better liked and in the opponents being less critical of
one’s ideas, more interested in learning
more about one’s ideas, and more willing to incorporate one’s
information and reasoning into their
own analysis of the problem.
The second skill is perspective-taking (Johnson, 1971, 2013;
Johnson & Johnson, 1989). In
positive political discourse participants need to be able to see
the issue from all perspectives. In
negative political discourse, only one’s own perspective is se en
as important. A series of studies has
demonstrated that individuals engaged in a controversy were
more accurate in understanding their
opponents’ perspective than were persons involved in
concurrence-seeking discussions or
individualistic efforts. The greater the clarity of group
members’ understanding of all sides of the
issues and the more accurate the assessment of their validity
and relative merits, the more creative
the synthesis of all positions in a controversy tends to be.

Finally, perspective taking promotes
more positive perceptions of advocates of opposing positions
(Johnson, 1971).
Practical Procedures for Constructive Controversy
The constructive use of political discourse is dependent on
having a normative procedure that is
truly effective. Constructive controversy provides such a
procedure that is grounded in theory
validated by research. Two interrelated settings for which
procedures have been developed are
education (Johnson & Johnson, 2007) and any decision-making
situation (Johnson & Johnson,
2012). The most attention has been in using constructive
controversy in elementary and secondary
schools and in universities to promote academic learning, while
at the same time socializing
children, adolescents, and young adults into the competencies
needed to be citizens in a
democracy. Generally, students need to be educated for a
‘culture of argument’ (Walzer, 2004,
p. 107). Since constructive controversy is a process, it may be
used in almost any subject area, any
age student, and any topic being studied. In doing so, the
instructor organizes students into
427
cooperative learning groups of four, divides each group into two
pairs, assigns the pro position on
an issue to one pair and the con position to the other pair, and

then guides the students through the
following steps (Johnson & Johnson, 2007):
1. Research and Prepare a Position: Each pair develops the
position assigned, learns the relevant
information, and plans how to present the best case possible to
the other pair. This involves
both cognitive generation and cognitive validation. Pairs are
encouraged to compare notes
with pairs from other groups who represent the same position.
2. Present and Advocate Their Position: Each pair makes their
presentation to the opposing pair.
Each member of the pair has to participate in the presentation.
Students are to be as persuasive
and convincing as possible. Members of the opposing pair are
encouraged to take notes, listen
carefully to learn the information being presented, and clarify
anything they do not
understand.
3. Engage in an Open Discussion in which They Refute the
Opposing Position and Rebut Attacks
on Their Own Position: Students argue forcefully and
persuasively for their position,
presenting as many facts as they can (arranged in a logical
order) to support their point of view.
The group members analyze and critically evaluate the
information, rationale, and inductive
and deductive reasoning of the opposing pair, asking them for
the facts that support their point
of view. While refuting the arguments of the opposing pair,
students rebut attacks on their
position. Students keep in mind that the issue is complex and
they need to know both sides to
write a good report.

4. Reverse Perspectives: The pairs reverse perspectives and
present each other’s positions. In
arguing for the opposing position, students are forceful and
persuasive. They add any new
information that the opposing pair did not think to present. They
strive to see the issue from
both perspectives simultaneously.
5. Synthesize and Integrate the Best Evidence and Reasoning
into a Joint Position: The four
members of the group drop all advocacy and synthesize and
integrate what they know into
factual and judgmental conclusions that are summarized in a
joint position to which all sides
can agree. They: (a) finalize the report, (b) present their
conclusions to the class, (c)
individually take the test covering both sides of the issue, and
(d) process how well they
worked together.
Summary
This article focused on three questions. The first was, ‘What is
the nature of positive and negative
political discourse?’ The purpose of political discourse is to
involve all citizens in deciding which of
several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a
societal problem. Participation
involves persuading others through valid information and logic
and clarifying which course of
action would be most effective. This involves inquiry-based
advocacy. As Thomas Jefferson (1815)
noted, differences of opinion (when managed constructively)
results in inquiry, and from that
inquiry the truth (i.e. best reasoned judgment) is revealed. The

health of the democracy depends
upon the effectiveness with which each successive generation is
socialized into the procedures,
competencies, attitudes, and values needed to engage in positive
political discourse.
Political discourse may be positive or negative. In positive
political discourse, the quality of
the decision is determined by the decision’s impact on the long-
term common good of all members
of the society, and the reflection of a common set of values,
such as equality and justice for all
members of society. Disagreement is valued as it is seen as
helping to reveal the ‘truth’ as to which
course of action will be most effective. In negative political
discourse, the lack of quality is reflected
in short-term wins by some citizens at the expense of the
common good. There are dangers when
political discourse becomes destructive. Negative persuasive
tactics such as personal attacks do not
inform citizens, does not spur inquiry, and may discredit
political discourse and disillusion citizens
about the political process. More generally, it leads to
intolerance of others, distrust, and a
weakening of the moral bonds that hold society together.
The second question was, ‘What is the theory and validating
research on constructive
controversy that underlies the political discourse process?’. In
order to ensure that political
discourse is positive, there is a need for a guiding theory that
has been validated by research and

428
from which practical procedures may be operationalized.
Constructive controversy exists when
individuals’ ideas, opinions, theories, and conclusions are
incompatible and they seek to agree.
Constructive controversy theory posits that conflict among
ideas, theories, or conclusions leads to
uncertainty about the correctness of their views, which leads to
epistemic curiosity and the active
search for additional information and perspectives, which leads
to reconceptualized and refined
conclusions. A cooperative context is a prerequisite to
constructive controversy. Furthermore,
individuals must have (or develop) skills in challenging each
other’s positions, must follow the
canons of rational argument, and be actively involved. The
results of the research indicate that
controversy, compared to concurrence seeking, debate, and
individualistic learning, tends to result
in greater achievement and retention, cognitive and moral
reasoning, perspective-taking, open-
mindedness, creativity, task involvement, continuing
motivation, attitude change, interpersonal
attraction, and self-esteem. The results of the research indicate
that positive political discourse can
have broad effects on a wide variety of variables.
The third question was, ‘What is the normative procedure that
may be used to teach citizens
how to engage in positive political discourse?’. The operational
procedure involves assigning
students to groups of four and dividing it into two pairs and
assigning them opposing positions.
The pairs then: (a) prepare the best case possible for their

position, (b) present it to the other pair
and listen to the opposing position, (c) engage in a discussion in
which they attempt to refute the
other side and rebut attacks on their position, (d) reverse
perspectives and present the best case for
the other position, and (e) drop all advocacy and seek a
synthesis that takes both perspectives and
positions into account and that all four members can agree
upon. This procedure, which is being
used in many different countries and educational settings, is
simultaneously a means of increasing
academic achievement, while socializing students into the
understanding, attitudes, and
competencies they need to engage in positive political
discourse, and thereby be productive citizens
in a democracy.
References
Avery, P., Freeman, C., Greenwalt, K. & Trout, M. (2006) The
‘deliberating in a democracy project’. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, April 7-11, in San
Francisco, CA, USA.
Brown, R.A.J. & Renshaw, O.D. (2000) Collective
Argumentation: a sociocultural approach to reframing
classroom teaching and learning, in H. Cowie & G. van der
Aalsvoort (Eds) Social Interaction in Learning
and Instruction: the meaning of discourse for the construction of
knowledge, pp. 52-66. New York: Elsevier.
Burke, E. (1790/2006) Reflections on the Revolution in France,
p. 144. New York: Pearson Longman.
Collins, J.C. & Porras, J.I. (1994) Built to Last: successful
habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Collins.

Coovert, M. & Reeder, G. (1990) Negativity Effects in
Impression Formation: the role of unit formation and
schematic expectations, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 26, 49-62.
Dalton, R. (2007) The Good Citizen: how a younger generation
is reshaping American politics. Washington, DC: CQ
Press.
De Montesquieu, C. (1748/2010) The Spirit of Laws, trans.
Thomas Nugent. Digireads.com
De Tocqueville, A. (1945) Democracy in America, vol. 1, pp.
298-342. New York: Random House.
Deutsch, M. (1973) The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Fairclough, M. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London:
Longman.
Farrand, M. (Ed.) (1966) Jared Sparks Journal, Record of the
Federal Convention of 1787, vol. 3, p. 479. New
Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Fiske, S. (1980) Attention and Weight in Person Perception: the
impact of negative and extreme behavior,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889-906.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889
Forster, J. (1846) The Works and Life of Walter Savage Landor,
8 vols. New York: Ulan Press.
Foucault, M. (1970) The Order of Things. New York: Pantheon.
Freese, M. & Fay, D. (2001) Personal Initiative (PI): an active
performance concept for work in the 21st
century, Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-
3085(01)23005-6

Gilbert, M. (1997) Coalescent Argument. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
429
Griffith, E., Plamenatz, J. & Pennock, J. (1956) Cultural
Prerequisites to a Successfully Functioning
Democracy: a symposium, American Political Science Review,
50, 101-137.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1951601
Hovhannisyan, A., Varrella, G., Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.
(2005) Cooperative Learning and Building
Democracies, Cooperative Link, 20(1), 1-3.
Janis, I. (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy
decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (Eds) (1999) The Discourse
Reader. London: Routledge.
Jefferson, T. (1815) Letter to P.H. Wendover. March 13.
Johnson, D.W. (1971) Role-reversal: a summary and review of
the research, International Journal of Group
Tensions, 1, 318-334.
Johnson, D.W. (2013) Reaching out: interpersonal effectiveness
and self-actualization. 11th edn. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, F. & Johnson, R. (1976) Promoting
Constructive Conflict in the Classroom, Notre
Dame Journal of Education, 7, 163-168.

Johnson D.W. & Johnson, F. (2012) Joining Together: group
theory and group skills. 11th edn. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (1979) Conflict in the Classroom:
constructive controversy and learning,
Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543049001051
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (1989) Cooperation and
Competition: theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction
Book Company.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (1991) Cooperative Learning and
Classroom and School Climate, in B. Fraser
& H. Walberg (Eds) Educational Environments: evaluation,
antecedents and consequences, pp. 55-74. New
York: Pergamon.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R. (2003) Controversy and Peace
Education, Journal of Research in Education, 13(1),
71-91.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2007) Creative Controversy:
intellectual challenge in the classroom. 4th edn.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2009) Energizing Learning: the
instructional power of conflict, Educational
Researcher, 38(1), 37-52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08330540
Lewin, K. (1935) A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Merrian-Webster (2003) The Merriam-Webster Dictioinary.

New York: Merriam-Webster.
Mouffe, C. (2000) Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic
Pluralism, Political Science Series, 72, 1-17.
Nemeth, C.J. & Goncalo, J.A. (2011) Rogues and Heroes:
finding value in dissent, in J. Jetten & M. Hornsey
(Eds) Rebels in Groups: dissent, deviance, difference, and
defiance. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pratto, F. & John, O. (1991) Automatic Vigilance: the attention-
grabbing power of negative social
information, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
380-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.61.3.380
Ranciere, J. (1995/1999) Disagreement: politics and philosophy,
trans. J. Rose. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Stevenson, A.E. (1952) Major Campaign Speeches of Adlai E.
Stevenson. New York: Random House.
Taylor, S. (1991) Asymmetrical Effects of Positive and
Negative Events: the mobilization–minimization
hypothesis, Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67
Vonk, R. (1993) The Negativity Effect in Trait Ratings and in
Open-ended Descriptions of Persons, Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 269-278.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167293193003
Walzer, M. (2004) Politics and Passion: toward a more
egalitarian liberalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Watson, G. & Johnson, D.W. (1972) Social Psychology: issues

and insights. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
DAVID W. JOHNSON is an Emeritus Professor of Educational
Psychology at the University of
Minnesota. He is Co-Director of the Cooperative Learning
Center. He received his doctoral degree
from Columbia University. He has authored over 500 research
articles and book chapters. He is the
author of over 50 books. He is a past-editor of the American
Educational Research Journal. He held the
430
Emma M. Birkmaier Professorship in Educational Leadership at
the University of Minnesota from
1994 to 1997 and the Libra Endowed Chair for Visiting
Professor at the University of Maine in
1996-1997. He has received numerous professional awards from
the American Psychological
Association, the American Educational Research Association,
the International Association of
Conflict Management, and other professional organizations.
Correspondence: [email protected]
ROGER T. JOHNSON is a Professor of Education at the
University of Minnesota and is Co-
Director of the Cooperative Learning Center. He holds his
doctoral degree from the University of
California in Berkeley. In 1965 Dr Johnson received an award
for outstanding teaching from the
Jefferson County Schools, and has since been honored with

several national awards. He taught in
the Harvard-Newton Intern Program as a Master Teacher. He
was a curriculum developer with the
Elementary Science Study in the Educational Development
Center at Harvard University. For
three summers he taught classes in British primary schools at
the University of Sussex near
Brighton, UK. He has consulted with schools throughout the
world. Dr Johnson is the author of
numerous research articles, book chapters, and books.
Correspondence: [email protected]
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journal
Code=ujcc20
Journal of College and Character
ISSN: 2194-587X (Print) 1940-1639 (Online) Journal
homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujcc20
The Assessment of Service Through the Lens of
Social Change Leadership: A Phenomenological
Approach
Eric Lee Buschlen & Jonathan Reusch
To cite this article: Eric Lee Buschlen & Jonathan Reusch
(2016) The Assessment of Service
Through the Lens of Social Change Leadership: A
Phenomenological Approach, Journal of College
and Character, 17:2, 82-100, DOI:
10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224

To link to this article:
https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
Published online: 18 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1075
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journal
Code=ujcc20
https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujcc20
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.10
80/2194587X.2016.1159224
https://doi.org/10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalC
ode=ujcc20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalC
ode=ujcc20&show=instructions
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/2194587X.2016.1
159224
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/2194587X.2016.1
159224
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/2194587X.20
16.1159224&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-05-18
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/2194587X.20
16.1159224&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2016-05-18
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/2194587X.20
16.1159224#tabModule

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/2194587X.20
16.1159224#tabModule
The Assessment of Service Through the Lens of Social
Change Leadership: A Phenomenological Approach
Eric Lee Buschlen, Central Michigan Universitya
Jonathan Reusch, Oakland Universityb
Abstract
Service to others plays a key role in the development of one’s
worldview. To study this key role,
authors examined a sample of 38 student narratives in three
phases: before, during, and 45 days after
they served at an alternative break site around the United States.
Students kept a prompt-based
journal inspired by the tenets of the social change model of
leadership. Key themes identified in this
project outline participants’ democratic approach to team
conflict, the development of an activist
persona, and an enhanced focus on personal privilege. Thi s
qualitative project promotes adding the
student voice to the quantitative measures that are more
commonly reported through annual
programmatic assessment reports. This approach should better
outline the depth of student learning
in similar co-curricular programs with a complimentary goal of
programmatic enhancement.
“It was the greatest experience of my life,” a student reflected
after returning from a week-long service trip.
But what does that really mean? It is often assumed that
students who engage in long-term service projects

(like alternative breaks) are positively transformed in the
process. However, what is the best way to share
their stories and assess student learning? The answer is through
structured qualitative research. More often,
considerable numbers and percentages are reported by higher
education institutions through year-end
reports outlining the number of hours served, number of sites
served, or even a per hour cash equivalency
is noted for the related service act (Buschlen, 2013). The
student experience is often lost in these measures.
To examine this phenomenon, student narratives were collected
through prompt-based journaling before,
during, and 45 days after students served at an alternative break
site in the United States. Seider (2013)
suggested examining participant expectations prior to the
service event, and this project followed that
suggestion. By examining the expectations and more thoroughly
understanding the reasons why students
aEric L. Buschlen ([email protected]) is an associate professor
in the Department of Educational Leadership at Central
Michigan University. His research interests include service acts
as leadership development, leadership education, and youth
leadership development.
bJonathan Reusch ([email protected]) is an academic adviser
and adjunct instructor working in the First Year Advising
Center
at Oakland University. His research interests including
mentoring, alternative breaks impacts, and faculty tenure factors
in the
academic profession.
82 Peer Reviewed Article
Journal of College & Character VOLUME 17, No. 2, May 2016

doi:10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
http://journals.naspa.org/jcc © NASPA 2016 JCC
mailto:[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
desire to seek social change in the world, educators can be able
to build a more focused curriculum that
drives the goals of that college or university (Johnson, 2014).
Two pilot data collections were conducted prior to this project,
with each using a similar format for
the journal prompts. This project focused specifically on
alternative break sponsored events, while the
pilots were week-long service projects sponsored by the
National Relief Network, a Michigan-based
nonprofit. All of the projects focused on the personal reflections
of traditional-aged college students.
This project was funded through a 2013 NASPA SAPAA
(Student Affairs Partnering with Academic
Affairs) Research Grant to highlight the usefulness of
qualitative data in annual assessment reports. As
such, any and all materials are available by contacting the
research team. The journal prompts for this
project can be seen in Appendix A. Data were collected from a
regional, midwestern university with one of
the largest alternative break programs in the nation. To
complete the assessment cycle, a formal report was
shared with that campus volunteer center to enhance future
student experiences, program marketing, and
pre-trip trainings. This article focuses on themes uncovered
through a qualitative analysis of the data.
The purpose behind this research project was to capture the
shared experiences of college students

volunteering a week of their time during a domestic alternative
breaks service trip by sharing that data with
a campus volunteer center for assessment purposes. The sample
(n = 38) consisted of students who traveled
more than 800 miles to serve others. The goal was to move
beyond the normally reported quantitative
values such as number of student participants, number of hours
served, number of sites served (Skendall,
2012), and to delve more deeply into an understanding of how
service to others impacts the character and
leadership development of undergraduate students. Student
authored reflections were both framed and
examined through the lens of the social change model of
leadership (SCML) (HERI, 1996).
The research question driving this project is the following:
What are the shared experiences of
college students that complete a SCML formatted, prompt-based
journal before, during, and 45 days after
an alternative breaks service trip? While previous research has
studied the outcomes of service to others
through quantitative or mixed methods approaches, this project
looks strictly at student authored personal
narratives based on the lens of the SCML (HERI, 1996;
Komives & Wagner, 2009). As leadership
educators implement both curricular and co-curricular service-
based programs around the nation, a need
exists for better understanding of how a student’s character
develops through service and additionally how
that personal data can serve as useful assessment data to support
the viability and future success of campus
volunteer centers. This study, in part, addresses that issue.
Through the use of the SCML in writing the
journal prompts, accompanied by the model itself to further
examine the data, the researchers were able to
assess key elements of social change and individual

development.
The following literature review examines leadership education,
service-learning, and volunteerism in
a collegiate setting. Next, the constructs of the SCML wil l be
outlined and explained. A subsequent section
will examine the methodological protocol, followed by results
and implications for similar programs.
Review of Literature
Currently in academe, credit-based leadership programs are
starting to populate college campuses, but the
growth trend has been slow (Owen, 2012). Robinson (2011)
argued higher education should cultivate
leadership in its students as part of its education and “create
conditions that make this possible” (p. 4). In
these credit-based courses, educators rely on experiences from
inside and outside the classroom to help
expand a student’s leadership and civic knowledge through
exposure to community service, team
dynamics, empathy, stewardship, and deep personal reflection
(Astin, 1993; Arnold & Welch, 2007;
Service Assessment Through Social Change Leadership 83
JCC © NASPA 2016 http://journals.naspa.org/jcc
doi:10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
Berger & Milem, 2002; Buschlen & Dvorak, 2011; Komives,
Lucas, & McMahon, 1998; Mumford &
Manley, 2003).
Jacob (2006) argued that developing future business leaders is

quite different from developing
socially and civically engaged, ethical leaders seeking to serve
others. The need for the latter pushes
leadership educators beyond traditional classroom experiences
to develop leadership trainings focused on
cultural awareness, community engagement, multiculturalism,
ethical practices, and service-based philan-
thropy (Dugan, 2006). Leadership educators must not simply
develop good managers, educators must
develop effective, ethical, and collaborative leaders (Komives,
Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen,
2006). In addition, universities should create opportunities for
more service-based projects to provide on-
going exposure to the practice of compassiona te leadership
(Berger & Milem, 2002). Clearly, a function of
college and university programs is to create citizens ready to
contribute at all levels of leadership (Arnold &
Welch, 2007; Buschlen & Dvorak, 2011).
Higher education prepares students for careers and empowers
individuals to become active citizens
engaged in their communities (Robinson, 2011); at times this is
fostered through acts of service-learning
(Einfield & Collins, 2008). Students engaged in service-learning
demonstrate positive gains in areas of
“commitment to their communities, racial understanding,
developing social values, leadership abilities, self-
confidence, and critical thinking” (Hynes & Nykiel, 2004, pp.
3–4). Additionally, it is important to understand
that leadership and character development are not pre-defined
as unique elements (Mumford, Marks, Connelly,
Zaccaro, & Reiter-Palmon, 2000). Leadership is a process that
continues to evolve throughout one’s life. A
potential key indicator in leading others may be serving others
(Buschlen & Goffnett, 2013). As colleges and
universities continue to develop alternative break-like service

programs along with other academic service-
learning endeavors such as classes, practicums, and internships
(Goffnett, Helferich, & Buschlen, 2013) to
create seamless leadership learning (Buschlen & Guthrie, 2014),
a need exists to better understand individual,
collective, and organizational outcomes from these real -to-life
service experiences.
Servant Leadership
Servant leadership addresses the idea of serving others while
assuming the role of leader (Northouse,
2016). Several factors play a role while students partake in an
immersion service trip. Students are able to
make positive changes while developing their servant leadership
lens. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) outlined
five key factors from 80 leaders and 388 raters, and the results
included an altruistic calling, emotional
healing, persuasive mapping, wisdom, and organizational
stewardship, with significant connections to
transformational leadership.
One might argue an immersive service trip aids in the student’s
ability to identify themselves as
servant leaders while gaining a stronger sense of self-identity,
character, and satisfaction through service
(Buschlen & Goffnett, 2013). The feelings associated with
serving others lead to an increase in emotional
intelligence, and are a powerful piece of the leadership process
(George, 2000). One who aspires to lead
must be able to understand and manage the moods and emotions
in oneself and others (McCleskey, 2014).
Alternative break immersion trips look to include these various
components through student learning
outcomes. When students push themselves to become better
“selves” while working as a team, they begin

to fulfill aspects found in servant leadership (Barbuto &
Wheeler, 2006).
84 Journal of College & Character VOLUME 17, No. 2, May
2016
doi:10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
Experiential Service-Learning and Volunteering
Service-learning is recognized as educational experiences where
students impact a community in a mean-
ingful way while directly connecting that experience to
classroom learning (Herlitzke, 2012; Buschlen &
Goffnett, 2013). Universities are offering experiences to their
students through internships, immersion trips,
academic coursework, and other practicums (Buschlen &
Goffnett, 2013). Additionally, learning should be
directly related to the service, as this close connection allows
students to learn concepts in real-world
settings (Herlitzke, 2012). These elements align closely with the
goals of many co-curricular programs. The
American Association of Community Colleges suggested six
measurable outcomes addressed through
service-learning when added to the curriculum such as
communication, career and teamwork, civic
responsibility, global understanding and citizenship, academic
development, and educational success
(Prentice & Robinson, 2010).
Students volunteer as committee members, assistants, and
planners, as well as overall organizers for
out of class, week-long service trips (Burke & Liljenstolpe,

1992; McCurley & Lynch, 2006). These roles
help students build emotional well-being, leadership, and
character (Windsor, Anstey, & Rodgers, 2008).
Additionally, student participants who serve on immersion trips,
such as alternative breaks, report a greater
ability to cope with stress and a stronger sense of vocational
identity compared to students who do not
participate (Mills, Bersamina, & Plante, 2007).
Alternative Breaks Programs
Alternative breaks is an experiential, trip-based learning
opportunity for students that started in the early
1990s (Break Away, 2016). These trips are typically one week
long and tend to focus on a specific
community issue; however students are often trained and
educated on the issue(s) in advance of the trip.
These fall, winter, and spring breaks (domestic and
international) expose students to social issues with a
goal of deepening the student’s commitment to self, teams, and
to the larger community by promoting
lifelong, active citizenship (Break Away, 2016). Break Away, a
key national alternative breaks organization,
estimated that in 2015, more than 23,783 students served,
volunteering more than 1,229,903 hours for
2,593 community partners (Break Away, 2016). Boyle-Baise
and Langford (2004) conducted a study for
eight candidates who participated in an immersion trip, similar
to an alternative break, and found that
participants deeply learned from their experiences through the
immersion trips, especially from the host
community, and had more motivation to serve their local
communities after returning (Boyle-Baise &
Langford, 2004; Einfeld & Collins, 2008).
Through pre-trip trainings, students become rooted in the

reflection process, problem solving, and
with the appropriate social issue linked to the site they will visit
(Break Away, 2016). This combina-
tion represents a key facet of leadership education (Buschlen &
Guthrie, 2014). In a similar study,
DuPre (2010) reported three major themes that emerged:
forming relationships with peers, forming
relationships with those whom they served, and a noted growth
in leadership skills and abilities.
Building on these findings, student responses were examined in
three phases: before, during, and 45
days after the service event.
doi:10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
The Assessment of Service Trips
As alternative break programs expand, there are several vital
reasons to assess student learning. When the
assessment movement started a few decades ago, it primarily
focused on academic programs. This move-
ment has now shifted to include additional aspects of the
university experience (Ewell, 2009) to increase
accountability and ultimately to enhance programs. Consistent
assessment of both curricular and co-
curricular learning is essential for programmatic advancement
(Banta, 1997). As more states move toward
performance-based funding models to increase accountability
and efficiency in state funded institutions, all
programs must be prepared to outline their success (McKeown-
Moak, 2013), and this need for preparation

includes co-curricular programs. Locally, there is a similar
effect, as many entities within a student affairs
division compete for budget dollars at the college or university
level. Formal assessment of service trips
will allow volunteer centers to move beyond anecdotal evidence
by providing data to support the existence
of these programs. Collecting and sharing assessment data for
co-curricular programs also has the potential
to impact recruitment and retention of students as tuition
continues to increase, and university consumers
are examining the competition (Rutherford & Rabovsky, 2014).
This research design promotes the use of a qualitative data
collection method to bolster and support
the more readily available quantitative data (e.g., hours served,
number of student participants, sites visited,
cash donations collected) with the goal of enhancing student
learning, future programmatic decisions, and
year-end reports. The additional qualitative data explain and
outline student growth and learning in a
meaningful way while complementing numeric data. Therefore,
volunteer centers that house similar service
programs will appear more competitive and strategic to
students, parents, educational administrators, and
potentially legislators when compared to other student affairs
offices not currently examining student
learning in a dynamic, holistic manner. Finally, by following
holistic assessment protocols (Falchikov,
2005), volunteer centers can enhance their programs by
providing stronger pre-trip trainings, refined
marketing, and targeted outreach; the potential is there for
enhanced student learning.
Following the completion of this project, the collected data
were appropriately shared with the
director of the center overseeing this particular alternative

break program. The key themes reinforced
programmatic gains and student learning, while the anonymous
data also outlined improvement areas (e.g.,
need for better pre-trip training, stronger training tied to trip-
specific social issues, and more targeted pre-
trip marketing). Local improvements in these areas are expected
to increase the center’s nationwide
standing as a premier alternative break program that focuses on
student growth and learning while
strategically examining the effectiveness of the program in a
holistic manner.
The Social Change Model
The SCML is designed to serve as both curriculum and co-
curriculum model for student leadership
development, using the Seven C’s of development (Buschlen &
Dvorak, 2011; HERI, 1996). This model
was used in the pilot studies that led to this data collection. The
SCML logically flows as participants are
asked to journal alone before the event (self), while on site
(team setting), and following the event to deeply
examine their level of social change. As a data collection tool,
the SCML can be used both qualitatively
and quantitatively. The SRLS survey (Socially Responsible
Leadership Scale) was developed to measure
for growth in the SCML. The SRLS can be administered one
time or as a pre-/post-test. Students can attend
an intervention (weekend retreat, seminar, semester-long class,
or training) and then be tested for impact.
This SCML model was used as a thematic framework to create
journal prompts and to examine the
2016

doi:10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
transcripts. The SCML (see Figure 1) was developed to aid in
the development of individual values (self),
group values (team), and community values (citizenship),
leading to a positive social change (Astin, 1993;
HERI, 1996). The SCML framework outlines a contemporary,
post-industrial leadership paradigm where
leadership is viewed as democratic. The SCML is inclusive of
leaders at all levels, with or without
designated roles, and posits that leadership is a process and not
a title/position with assumed power
(HERI, 1996). The SCML promotes values such as social
justice, equality, self-knowledge, empowerment,
teamwork, social responsibility, and service to the community
(HERI, 1996). This curriculum, when fused
with intentional theoretical and application-based activities,
creates a well-rounded leadership experience
(Buschlen & Dvorak, 2011; Buschlen & Johnson, 2014).
Individual Values (Self)
The individual values of the SCML promote the development of
certain qualities to promote effective
leadership development with three of the Seven C’s:
consciousness of self (self-awareness), congruence
(actions align with actions), and commitment (sustained
personal investment in a cause). Understanding
self is the basis for the other values in the SCML (Dugan &
Komives, 2007). Students who are more self-
aware are likely to be mindful and have an ability to observe
their own behavior(s) and conscious thoughts
(HERI, 1996).

Group Values (Team)
Teamwork with a group of peers on a service project is linked
to leadership development with three
additional C’s: collaboration (solving issues together), common
purpose (understanding the goal), and
controversy with civility (solving difference civilly). This
aspect of the SCML underlines the model’s
reliance on effective relationships, which are needed to achieve
common goals, share responsibility,
accountability, and power (HERI, 1996). Each group member
brings a unique viewpoint that may or
Figure 1. Social Change Model of Leadership.
Figure based on information from the Higher Education
Research Institute (HERI, 1996)
doi:10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
may not flow with the group’s direction (Dugan & Komives,
2007). Therefore, it is vital to a group’s
success that any disputes are settled in an open forum (HERI,
1996).
Citizenship Values (Community)
The final SCML construct outlines the seventh C of citizenship.
Individual values and group values connect
to community values in a number of ways. This aspect joins the

individual and/or the group to the larger
community by understanding interconnectivity of the entire
leadership effort (HERI, 1996). Citizenship
implies active participation by positively serving the larger
community (HERI, 1996). Citizenship is “the
value of caring about others” (HERI, 1996, p. 7). The
overarching value of the model is change, which
asserts students will believe they have the ability to create
lasting, positive social change.
To further understand the student service experience, the
research question is: What do college
students report on while completing a SCML formatted, prompt-
based journal before, during, and 45 days
after an alternative break service trip? The reflective processes
and its successive stages assist the learners
in adjusting their constructions of knowledge. In both academic
leadership programs and co-curricular
programs, personal reflection is key (Buschlen & Guthrie, 2014;
Jenkins, 2013), but an investigation of
structured reflections has not been implemented in the co-
curricular world. Many alternative break
programs ask students to reflect, and some students even keep a
journal regarding their experiences, but
it is uncommon for these journals to undergo a deep
examination found in this qualitative research project.
The section that follows will outline the methodology and
project participants.
Methodology
Buschlen and Warner (2014) and Buschlen, Warner, and
Goffnett (2015) outlined similar data collections
where participants kept prompt-based journals before, during,
and after two unique teams spent a week
cleaning up communities following natural disasters. These

pilot projects used a similar data collection tool
that was later refined for this project. Similar to these pilot
studies, this project took place in many states
around the country and involved a small number of participants
keeping a multi-tiered journal. To further
understand the recorded experience by examining participant
narratives, an aspect of phenomenology was
used called transcendental phenomenology (Creswell, 2013).
Phenomenology, as a method, reduces many
shared experiences down to a universal theme (Creswell, 2013).
Researchers using transcendental phenom-
enology deeply examine a phenomenon, attempt to remove their
personal connection to it as much as
possible, and collect multiple versions of narratives from those
who experienced the phenomenon
(Moustakas, 1994). In this case, the examined phenomenon
focused on unique groups of college students
serving communities around the United States during a week-
long service project. This form of qualitative
examination of narratives should allow for thoughtful
understanding of the student experience. This method
is prescribed to work well with groups of 5 to 25 individuals
who share the same experience (Polkinghorne,
1989). This project outlines narratives of small teams of 10 or
less participants.
Context
The settings varied and took place in several domestic sites. The
Winter Break group (December 2012)
included two participating teams. One team arrived in Austin,
TX, and the other served in the Florida
Everglades. Each group performed physical labor. One team
focused on the restoration of a zoo, while the

2016
doi:10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
other focused on invasive plants/species. Participants in both
trips reported enduring long days, being
exposed to new concepts and environments, benefitting from a
caring staff, and developing an appreciation
for plants and animals.
The Spring Break group (March 2013) included five teams that
focused their efforts on issue-based
projects. Two teams focused on Youth Advocacy (Selma, AL,
and Charleston, SC). Another team worked
with Somalian ESL students (both youth and adult) in
Minneapolis, MN. A fourth team focused their
efforts at a shelter in Chicago, IL, and the final team worked
with HIV/AIDS patients in Atlanta, GA.
Participants on these trips reported sizeable work projects,
emotional connections to their clients, caring
staff members, and the desire to offer future advocacy for
similar causes.
Participants
The overall sample was (n = 38). The Winter 2012 trip had 10
student participants from two unique trips
while the Spring 2013 trip consisted of 28 participants reporting
to five unique locations. Overall, there
were seven male and 31 female participants. Participants ranged
in age from 19–23. It should be noted that
not all participants chose to keep a journal for this project.
Similarly, some journals were brief while others

included greater detail. No additional demographic information
was collected. Therefore, this project
assumes that the demographics of a regional, midwestern
university would closely resemble the demo-
graphics of this sample, as programs are open to all students.
Data Collection Methods
Data were collected by means of pre-printed, SCML prompt-
based journals maintained by the participants.
The Winter 2012 group received prompts in three sealed
envelopes along with blank notebooks. The
journal prompts were taped inside the cover of each notebook
with specific directions as to when the
prompt should be opened. For the Spring 2013 data collection,
the format included the addition of text box
questions because this format was seen as a more manageable
method for students to be able to “fill each
box.” Instead of asking participants to journal on blank paper,
participants were given the same questions in
pre-printed booklets. The on-site questions were supplemented
with additional questions to capture context.
By providing a predefined spatial area, the research team
supposed that participants might not feel as
overwhelmed as they might be by beginning with a blank page.
Prior to each trip, verbal instructions were
given to each group from the research team. After the journals
were returned to the research team, they
were transcribed, and any identifying information was removed.
Due to the emotional nature of this deeply
reflective process, participants were allowed to request the
return of their journals following transcription.
Data Analysis
Journals were transcribed, and names were removed. The

research team used NVivo 10 software, a qualitative
software package that allows a researcher to code data by
placing them into several “piles” or nodes.
Researchers set up the nodes while they independently
examined the data. First separately then together, the
researchers examined the transcribed data for themes. In the
end, the nodes corresponded with pre-determined
SCML tenets and also corresponded with the timing of each
journal entry. The research team employed
interrater reliability for this project (Creswell, 2013), which
included open-ended, on-going discussion to
negotiate and compromise agreement while examining the same
transcripts (Creswell, 2013). There were no
doi:10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
major disagreements with regards to broad concepts. However,
further discussion focused on how best to align
the data. While data might have appeared to be thematically
similar, the research team differed semantically
with terminology and node organization. To come to a
consensus, raters agreed upon terminology and node
language to increase reliability. A small number of
discrepancies were eliminated to produce the final set or
transcribed experiences. Following the trip, a student researcher
reconvened and interviewed a small group of
participants to further promote data triangulation (Mills, 2010).
This process included small groups of
participants and a moderator in a discussion related to the initial
journal prompts. Questions were revisited
to align responses from both data collections: the journals and

the small groups. The research team then
examined both sets of transcripts for commonalities and
discrepancies.
Findings
The motivation behind this project was to examine student
narratives in three phases: before, during, and
45 days after a week-long alternative break service trip, while
also providing data to a volunteer center to
improve their program. To create a theoretical framework, the
journal prompts were framed using the tenets
of the SCML (HERI, 1996). It should be noted, that other
models might more closely align with the goals
of different programs. While the SCML fit well with this
program, the goal for each volunteer center
interested in this data collection method is to simply choose a
model that fits with their goals. Participant
responses provided grounded data based on their individual,
group, and community experiences. The
following tables outline key quotes directly linked to SCML
elements. Key group themes will be explored
in a later section. The participants in this project completed a
variety of tasks ranging from hands-on to
issue-based service while serving strangers.
As expected, the outcomes aligned well with the SCML, with
the participants outlining group success
as the most often reported theme. The student participants
reported a variety of related experiences that
outlined both a personal story as well as a collective one.
Students in this project appeared to understand
who they are (self), navigated conflict well through a shared
service commitment (group), and made an
impact on a community far away from home
(citizenship/change). In Table 1, selected participant quotes

reflect associations with key tenets of the social change model
of leadership.
Thematic Connections
Prior to the trip, participants reported a desire to continue to
serve others (implying previous experiences),
to be viewed as a good team member, to make lasting
friendships with the team and community served, and
they outlined a plan to pay it forward. The key concern before
the trip was team dysfunction. During the
trip, participants reported the immergence of diversity as a key
learning tool, the team’s shared vision or
goal as a motivating factor, and the realization of how shared
goals created long-lasting friendships. The
most commonly associated word in all of the journals while on-
site was “fun.” While not a very grandiose
term, it implies that students viewed their time, labor, stress,
and service to others as enjoyable. Key factors
reported after the trip included a changed worldview, a sense of
exceeded expectations, a desire to serve
more, and the development of an activist mindset. The
following themes were examined in three phases:
before, during, and 45 days after the trip. The researchers
examined the data first independently and then
together to delineate the following thematic connections. Some
of the themes flow from the SCML
prompts, while others emerged from the narratives.
2016
doi:10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224

Before the Trip
The fundamental SCML finding for the pre-trip stage articulates
that the participants in this study under-
stood their “self” more deeply due to past experiences with this
program. Understanding one’s “self” is
significant to one’s ability to function in the other facets of the
SCML (Dugan & Komives, 2007). Komives
et al. (2006) suggested that understanding the latter two (groups
and citizenship) require a deeper, more
critical understanding of leadership found in highly developed
students, those who clearly understand who
they are. A majority of the participants had been on multiple
trips and that helped to frame their pre-trip
expectations.
For me Alternative Breaks was really what started my passion
for social justice. Before, I would say that I
looked at the world through my high school lens or my coming
to college lens. After my first semester, I was
like “oh I know the world!” But through my first trip and the
second and the many since, I have continued to
fuel a passion for changing the world and doing what we can
while we are here to make the next generation a
better place. You know it’s honestly the core of what I have
decided to do with the rest of my life.
Table 1
Understanding “Self”
SCML Construct Quote
Consciousness of Self “Volunteering and service are two things
that I am passionate about.”

Commitment “I dedicated myself to travel across the country to
assist strangers because I think it’s important to help those in
need.”
Congruence “I would feel incomplete if I weren’t serving
others.”
Understanding “Groups”
Collaboration “This team is filled with people that all have a
similar goal.”
Controversy with Civility “Sometimes we would vote on what
people wanted to do or make compromises to make as many
people as possible happy.”
Common Purpose “We were all so emotionally overwhelmed
that it was FANTASTIC and it brought us together pretty
quickly.”
Understanding “Citizenship” and “Change”
Citizenship “Being a citizen is a responsibility to everyone
around you. You have the ability to help the people around you
and it’s your responsibility
to help them become more then what they thought they could
be.”
Change “(this trip) . . . showed me that there is so much more in
this world than what I knew before and it gave me more strength
and courage

to do things.”
doi:10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
During my first AB, it (my worldview) shattered. It shattered
what I thought the world was like because I
had never seen anything like that ever. Maybe my worldview
can just keep stretching and growing. New
passions are like candles where I can light a new one every time
that I do service and that really fuels me.
(Before AB) I never really felt quenched. I think that finding
service and finding out about myself, and
thinking about what this (AB) program has done for me—I
finally feel quenched. I now know what I am
going to do with the rest of my life. You can’t put a dollar
amount on it for me, because I feel like I am
making millions.
Through the experiential learning found in previous service
trips, participants developed a credo that
seemed to transcend the act of service and focused more on
societal impact. Since these experienced
participants reported higher levels of “self” knowledge prior to
the trip, they appear to be better equipped to
work in the other facets of the SCML.
During the Trip
The key thematic finding that emerged during the trip focused
on the teamwork of the group itself.

Participants reported an overwhelming desire to be democratic
with each other in order to “make things
work” regardless of title or position. The shared goal of ser vice
to others seemed to naturally trump most
(not all) conflict.
Any dispute or differing opinions were settled with a secret,
written vote. Majority ruled, no questions. It
helps to be able to work with a group of people who are
passionate about the issue. It makes us all more
motivated to work well together.
What caught me by surprise was how well my whole team
worked. There certainly was a lot of team
collaboration throughout this experience because many of the
tasks required everyone’s participation in
tandem. We have all bonded quite well and I believe we all have
an important role as a team—25 hours in a
car will do that!
Most of the participants in this study were traditional-aged
female college students, and Dugan
(2006) outlined that a group with this profile applies a more
democratic leadership scheme.
After the Trip
Three key themes emerged from the final journal entries,
recorded 45 days after a trip. First, students in this
project, who began as strangers, reported lasting, long-term
friendships with team members that persisted after
the trip. This aligned with the fact that most listed “making
friends” as a key expectation prior to the trip.
I don’t want to live a normal 9–5 job and come home to a
family. I need to give and create this second

family who loves service as much as I do. I have lasting
friendships with all of them. I see them all on a
weekly basis. I have never been so close to a group.
The group came together the last few days and it became like
we had known each other for years rather than
a total of a few weeks. My group and I are very close and we
have stayed in touch and been able to relate to
the feeling of needing to go back to Selma (AL).
2016
doi:10.1080/2194587X.2016.1159224
In this project, the common purpose of shared service seemed to
impact relationship development in
a positive way, and this common purpose supports DuPre’s
(2010) claim that students often seek projects to
build relationships with peers and with those they served.
The second theme outlines the participants’ development of an
activist persona. Participants reported
that the distance in time from the site fueled their passion for
more service connected to local, national, and
international causes similar to the site they served.
Now that I have returned I have continued to follow events that
are taking place at the school where I
volunteered. My group has also established a pen pal system
that has allowed us to maintain contact with
several of the students. I feel as if I now have a responsibility to
spread the word about the importance of

adult education and also serve as an advocate for individuals
who are seeking education in my community.
This trip has actually made a drastic impact on my life because
I have decided to change my career path.
I have changed my major because of AB, I have changed all my
priorities in life, I feel like I have learned
how to become so much more engaged in people and really
listen to what people are saying, because they
are so valuable.
The week of service had turned into months, and some reported
“changing majors” or even planning
to start a “new career” linked to the site’s cause. This outcome
shapes the interdependence found in the
transformational power of serving others. The service trip
impacted their passion to a higher, more ardent
level, which supports Boyle-Baise & Langford’s (2004) claim
that immersion trips motivate additional
service acts.
The final post-trip theme focuses on a reality event best viewed
as an altered emphasis on personal
privilege. Many participants reflected on their own fortunate
state of affairs and how this trip alerted them
to many hardships not commonplace in their current (or past)
existence.
When I complain about school, I remember our trip and try to
consider my complaint.
One of the lessons I learned is to not take anything for granted
because your life could change in the blink of
an eye. I am confident that I will create social change for the
rest of my life. I have been more thankful for

Judicial Review & Dual SovereigntyONLY REFERENCE AN ARTICLE IF I

Judicial Review & Dual SovereigntyONLY REFERENCE AN ARTICLE IF I

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Judicial Review & Dual SovereigntyONLY REFERENCE AN ARTICLE IF I

Similar to Judicial Review & Dual SovereigntyONLY REFERENCE AN ARTICLE IF I (15)

More from TatianaMajor22

More from TatianaMajor22 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Judicial Review & Dual SovereigntyONLY REFERENCE AN ARTICLE IF I