Hilos del mismo tejido: Weaving community perspectives into community-based global learning through critical micro-ethnographic testimonio

Abstract: Scholarship on service learning and community engagement (SLCE) in the global arena continues to receive criticism for the centrality of the global north and exclusion of community voice. In this study, I focused on community-based global learning (CBGL) programs because of their potential for both positive and harmful impact (García & Longo, 2013). The purpose of this study was to examine how the founder of one non-governmental organization in the Sololá department of Guatemala described her community’s experiences with international volunteers and to explore how these reflections can inform university-community partnerships in CBGL programs. Using integral methodological pluralism, which facilitates connections across converging worldviews and knowledge systems, I employed two methodologies – testimonio and critical micro-ethnography – to address my research questions. Through narrative and ethnographic methods, I co-constructed a critical narrative recounting experiences of the Guatemalan community with foreign volunteers.
Findings from this study illustrated a continued gap between established SLCE and CBGL best practices and the lived experiences of community partners. The co-constructed testimonio reflected issues in the field of CBGL as well as aspirations for reciprocal partnerships outlined in the literature review. Through analysis of the testimonio that emerged from this study, I identified six key phases that require intentional collaboration with community partners: (1) institutional preparation, (2) partnership development, (3) program design, (4) pre-departure learning objectives, (5) program cycle debrief and evaluation, and (6) alumni engagement. Engaging in these phases in collaboration with community partners can ensure that reciprocity remains at the forefront of program design.

Narrative: Though higher education institutions often view international programs as opportunities to answer increasing calls to develop students’ capacity to thrive in a globalized society (LeCrom et al., 2015), scholarship on service learning and community engagement (SLCE) in the global arena continues to receive criticism for the centrality of the global north and exclusion of community voice. In this study, I examined community-based global learning (CBGL) given the potential for both positive and harmful impact (García & Longo, 2013). While CBGL programs may contribute to local change efforts, they often prioritize student learning outcomes, make superficial contributions, and/or perpetuate global inequities (Smaller & O’Sullivan, 2018). Through this study, I examined how the founder (Gigi) of one non-governmental organization in the Sololá department of Guatemala described her community’s experiences with international volunteers and explored how these reflections can inform university-community partnerships.
An extensive literature review examining the field of CBGL guided this study. Despite decades of recognition that literature is lacking, gaps remain around community impact. Specifically, I identified three gaps related to the research questions: (1) literature continues to exclude community voices from processes of CBGL theory, practice, and pedagogy development (Kennedy et al., 2020); (2) research surfacing community perspectives generally focus narrowly on specific CBGL programs (Lough & Toms, 2018); and (3) CBGL scholars and educators often promote positive outcomes and minimize adverse effects (Niehaus & Nyunt, 2020). Scholarship addressing these gaps is necessary to foster reciprocal partnerships with communities and better develop students’ critical global competence.
Underpinning this study was a complex theoretical framework that reflected my onto-epistemological foundations in social constructionism (Berger & Luckmann, 1967), critical theory (Larrain, 1996), and indigenization (Smith, 2012); my ethical commitment to engaged scholarship (Jacquez et al., 2016); and my conceptual framing of intercultural leadership (Benavides, 2020) and interculturalidad (Aman, 2017). Additionally, I drew upon critical hope (Duncan-Andrade, 2009) and critical humility (Cariou, 2020) to promote ethical action for liberation and to address the historical legacy of exploitation of Indigenous communities via academic scholarship. This study was conducted within a context that maintains strong connection to Indigenous Maya identity. The title of this study translates to Threads of the Same Tapestry. Weaving is a central aspect of Maya cultures, and woven fabrics represent complexity in the Maya cosmovision (Prechtel & Carlsen, 1988). With this framing in mind, I use the metaphor of weaving to unravel and weave together the threads of local knowledge and academic conventions.
In this study, I intentionally decentered the primacy of the global north and situated local knowledge as an equally valid way of making meaning. I drew upon integral methodological pluralism (Wilber, 2006), which suggests converging worldviews and epistemologies remain incommensurable so long as we attempt to make meaning of them through conflicting approaches. Wilber’s (2006) integral model challenges scholars to make meaning of reality across four quadrants, or perspectives: (1) interior, individual (subjective); (2) exterior, individual (objective); (3) interior, collective (intersubjective); and (4) exterior, collective (interobjective). Respectively, these explore social-emotional, behavioral, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions of social reality (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2010). In this study, I used two methodologies relevant to the individual and collective subjectivity domains. Testimonio (Delgado Bernal et al., 2016) allowed me to explore the meaning-making of Gigi and her community regarding their experiences with foreign volunteers (individual subjective), while critical micro-ethnographic methods (Pavlakis, 2020; Wolcott, 1990) provided a deeper understanding of the worldviews and cultural contexts involved in the study (collective subjective). To bridge the knowledge systems of the local community and academic tradition, I employed a blend of fieldwork (Gill et al., 2014), pláticas (Fierros & Delgado Bernal, 2016), researcher reflexivity (RedCorn, 2022), and member checking (Kiely & Hartman, 2011) to co-construct a critical narrative detailing the Guatemalan community’s experiences with foreign volunteers.
The co-constructed testimonio approach (Pérez Huber, 2009) maintained the polyvocal authenticity of original stories while weaving these together to (re)present the community’s experiences with foreign volunteers. I embraced the collectivist nature of testimonio (Beverley, 2004) and the Guatemalan context to write this as a first-person narrative from Gigi’s lens. Through the use of testimonio and non-exploitative means of data collection, I indigenized the research process and validated local ways of being, knowing, and doing.
Two themes emerged from this study: Hilos Enredados (entangled threads) and Tejiendo los Hilos (weaving the threads). Together, these findings evoked an image of one tapestry as a reflection of the ties that bind us together as one humanity. The first theme surfaced challenges the community has faced in foreign partnerships, recognizing that weaving is not always a perfect process. Despite literature suggesting that reciprocity is a standard best practice for these programs, Gigi’s testimonio aligns with scholars’ critiques of how reciprocity is understood, as well as institutional and personal barriers to reciprocity. The second theme highlights the dream of a better tomorrow, weaving anew the unraveled threads presented in the previous theme. The findings of this study illustrated a continued gap between established best practices in SLCE and CBGL and lived experiences of our community partners. Given the history of exploitation and unilateral global partnerships, higher education institutions must strengthen their commitment to reciprocity with community partners to design ethical learning experiences for students that align with the interests and needs of the community.
Through analysis of the testimonio, I identified an iterative process consisting of six key phases that require intentional collaboration with community partners. These phases emphasize overarching program design, institutional-level decision-making, and engagement between university and community partners and focus primarily on the conditions necessary for establishing and maintaining partnerships, as opposed to providing significant insights into curricular design. Collaboratively working through these phases with community partners ensures reciprocity remains at the forefront of program design. I also offer several directions for future research – SLCE and CBGL scholars should (a) surface and center community perspectives, (b) collaborate with local researchers, (c) enable scholarship opportunities by women and Indigenous researchers, and (d) further explore the possibilities of integrated research design.

References available upon request.

Keywords: Community-based global learning; Community perspectives; Reciprocal partnerships