Salt Lake City: I gave the keynote luncheon address today at the International
Service-Learning Research Conference. I argued that we need research
to test whether service-learning (i.e., combinations of community service
with academic study) works as well or better than competing approaches
to civic education. The best way to prove causality is an experiment
in which students are randomly assigned to the "treatment"
(here, service-learning) or to a control group, and then the two groups
are compared. That’s the "gold standard," although there are
ways to approximate random selection if it proves to be impossible.
There has never been anything like a random experiment to test whether
(or how well) service-learning works as civic education.
Several people who spoke from the floor expressed the views that (a)
research will never settle any debates in education, because the results
are always murky and contested; and (b) policymakers won’t listen to
research, no matter how strong it may seem. I said that for us, research
is necessary but not sufficient. I realize that scholarly papers don’t
just jump off the shelf and pass legislation; we also need political
organization. The service-learning movement is beginning to organize
itself, as shown by the robust defense of Americorps this fall. But
research is necessary because we lack a large or wealthy constituency,
so policymakers don’t have to listen to us. Fortunately, there are some
decision-makers in government, higher education, and philanthropy who
genuinely want to achieve the best outcomes, and they would support
service-learning if it really seemed to work. At present, they
have reason to be skeptical.