Public service, activist architecture or social justice?: a typology for university-based community design centers and success lessons from different models

This dissertation examines the conditions that foster or hinder success of university-based community design centers (CDCs) in the United States. Little is known about the normative underpinnings of CDCs, how successful these centers have been, which factors have contributed to or impeded their success, and how they have responded to the changes in social, political, professional and economic contexts. Adopting Giddens' theory of structuration as a research framework, this study examined CDCs via a mixed-methods sequential research design: a cross-sectional survey of CDCs on current definitions of success and metrics in use; and in-depth interviews to document the centers' histories of change or stasis, and how these changes influenced their successes. The findings of the first phase were utilized to develop a comprehensive success model for current CDCs that comprise measures related to organizational impacts, activities, and capacities. In the multiple case study analysis, four major rationales were identified: universities for public service, pragmatist learning theories, civic professionalism, and social change. These four rationales were evident in all of the studied cases at varying degrees. Using the concept of permeability, the study also exemplified how the processes of CDCs had transformative impacts in institutional, societal, and personal contexts. Multidisciplinarity has also emerged as a theme for the current organizational transformations of CDCs. The main argument that emerged from these findings is that it is not possible to identify a singular model or best practice for CDCs. The strengths and unique potentials of CDCs depend on the alternative rationales, involved agencies, and their social, political and spatial contexts. However, capitalizing on the distinctive attributes of the institutional context (i.e. the university), I consider some possibilities for university-based CDCs with an interdisciplinary structure, pushing the professional, curricular, and institutional boundaries, and striving for systemic change and social justice. In addition to contributing to the theoretical knowledge base, the findings provide useful information to various CDCs across the country, particularly today as they struggle with financial constraints while the community needs they provide are increasingly in demand. Since CDCs have a long history of community service and engagement, the findings can inform other university-community partnerships.