People
           Tools
           Best Practice Models







 Ideas: What Does Field-Building Mean for Service-Learning Advocates?
by Melinda Fine, Ed. D.
Prepared for the Academy for Educational Development, October 2001


In 1998, as part of the work undertaken by the Academy for Educational Development for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation’s Learning In Deed initiative, I conducted an inquiry into “field-building,” a change strategy often cited by the leaders of nonprofit agencies. I interviewed a variety of experts to learn more about what the term means and how it is pursued by public and private organizations. Drawn from an earlier synthesis of my findings, this brief discussion of field-building can help service-learning advocates choose an effective array of strategies for expanding high-quality K-12 service-learning.

What is a Field?
A field is an area of specialized practice encompassing specific activities carried out by trained practitioners in particular settings. Typically a field’s practitioners require preparation in research- and craft-based knowledge, share a common language (including jargon), and have access to ongoing opportunities for professional education. They also acknowledge standards for practice, use vehicles for communication and information exchange, and enjoy credibility in the eyes of critical constituencies. These common factors are often called the “elements” of a field. For new fields of practice, advocates often aim to build the field by pursuing strategies to improve these “field elements” and thus strengthen, scale up, and sustain standard practice.

Eleven essential elements of a field include:
  • Identity. A field is based on a distinct and recognized practice that can be clearly described.
  • Knowledge base. A field has credible evidence, derived from research and practice, of results, as well as of the best ways for practitioners to obtain these results.
  • Workforce and leadership. A field has trained practitioners, researchers, and practitioner educators; the structures and institutions for training, credentialing, supporting, and retaining this workforce; incentives and organizations for leaders and leadership development; and ways of attracting a workforce reflecting those served through the practice.
  • Standard practice. A field has descriptions of standard practice that meet an acceptable level of quality. A common language is used to describe practice. Interventions meriting best-practice status demonstrate a capacity to achieve desired outcomes in culturally and developmentally responsive ways.
  • Practice settings. A field needs places that are appropriate and equipped for practice.
  • Information exchange. A field has vehicles for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information and knowledge, such as newsletters, conferences, journals, websites, and graduate curricula.
  • Infrastructure for collaboration. A field has structures and institutions that facilitate collaboration among its members and critical allies, including professional organizations, special convenings, networks, and conferences.
  • Resources. A field has adequate financial and other resources to ensure standard practice.
  • Critical mass of support. A field has the support of key constituencies––organizations and individuals critical to sustaining it––including practitioners, researchers, administrators, policymakers, clients or customers, influential leaders, and so on.
  • Advocates and systemic support. A field has adherents who work to foster the support of critical constituencies, garnering good will, securing various forms of support, and ensuring an appropriate policy context at all levels of government and within pertinent institutions.
  • Systemic support. A field also has systemic support, including appropriate public policy and incentives that encourage practitioners to learn and use standard practice.

    Is K-12 Service-Learning a Field?
    Some people question whether K-12 service-learning is a field. Indeed, service-learning can be considered a subspecialty within other areas of expertise, including experiential education and youth services. However, since K-12 service-learning is emerging as a distinct educational practice, a field-building framework can help advocates organize an effective array of strategies for increasing use of best-practice service-learning.

    How Does Field-Building Happen?
    The following table offers some examples of specific strategies used for field-building.

    Field Elements Strategies
     
    Knowledge Base Conduct relevant research studies.Establish communities of researchers.Create forums for debating research methodologies and sharing findings.Support ways of collecting and sharing craft-knowledge.Develop mechanisms for information exchange among researchers and practitioners.
     
    Standard Practice Codify standards of exemplary practice.Showcase exemplary models to guide practitioners and inform others.Develop and disseminate curricular guides, how-to materials, and other resources.Ensure adequate training and ongoing education for practitioners.Encourage shared language.Nurture practitioner leadership.
     
    Workforce and Leadership Provide educational opportunities and technical assistance.Establish support networks among practitioners, researchers, or advocates. Support grassroots peer-support efforts. Create structures to encourage and reward leadership.
     
    Infrastructure for Collaboration Create networks, professional organizations, conferences, think tanks, web-sites, and clearinghouses. Provide incentives for joining and contributing to field-focused organizations and events.
     
    Resources Identify public, philanthropic, and corporate sources of support.Deepen the knowledge base of potential and current funders.


    Such strategies are most powerful when undertaken in relation to one another: for example, “growing” a credible knowledge base is needed to strengthen standard practice, and building stakeholder support is crucial to creating a favorable policy climate. However, with service-learning, as in other fields, challenges inevitably arise when various approaches to field-building are pursued simultaneously. The classic dilemma is as follows: efforts to broaden practice inadvertently constrain the ability of those within the field to maintain high standards. Obviously advocates must pursue the right mix of field-building strategies.

    The challenge facing the service-learning community is to use a field-building framework to assess what specific strategies are needed to strengthen various field elements, which strategies have priority, how to leverage current efforts of relevant organization, and which organizations (or groups of organizations) are best suited for leading new work.