Reflecting on SLCE from the lens of a global south practitioner-researcher; critical service-learning and the Caribbean context.

Abstract: Service-based learning is grounded in the understanding that education is aligned to social responsibility and that “learning must be meaningful and active” (Kolb, 1984; Zenter, 2011 as cited in Pacho 2015 pp. 8). With this in mind, SLCE practitioners take on the mantle of engaging and shaping pedagogy that creates a space for learners to enhance their social responsibility and be meaningful participants within society even as students. Dissecting personal experiences, as an individual who was actively involved in community engagement as a student, to a SLCE practitioner at a Caribbean higher education institution for almost a decade and now a PhD researcher focusing on SLCE in a comparative education theoretical background , I see a strong need to critically reflect. Reflection centered on what SLCE in the global south looks like.
Reflecting on the dichotomies of the global north and global south experiences in creating and establishing SLCE pedagogy, it becomes more apparent that deeper considerations need to be taken related to the nuances which shape Caribbean higher education. As practitioners, we cannot continue to blindly implement global north educational trends while not considering regionally sensitive and specialized frameworks in adapting SLCE to varied settings. SLCE in Caribbean higher education will and should look and feel differently to programs and activities in other regions of the world. This discussion will reflect on where and how Caribbean practitioners should approach SLCE as they enhance their own professional development, ensuring that praxis in education is promoted.

Narrative: This discussion will frame a dialogue around SLCE pedagogy best-suited to a global south settings, the Caribbean. The hope is that this can be translated into a future model more conscious of global south settings. With this in mind, the discussion will center on potential nuanced differences between SLCE in the global north and global south, attention being paid to what, if any, are the differences in the meanings attributed to SLCE in the global north and global south.
While SLCE has been studied widely in the North-American context, there is need to explore it in the Caribbean region context. This discussion will investigate embodied experiences in SLCE, guided by the understanding of one’s context and positionality in the field and how it all reconnects to the higher educational institution and the wider society. One usually needs to feel or experience something to effectively speak to it; it is difficult for a SLCE practitioner to even expect growth, self-authorship and holistic development - key aspects of student development theories - in their students if they themselves have not been on the reflective journey which is a deeply entrenched element of SLCE (hooks, 1994; Latta et al., 2018).
Through critically reflecting on personal experiences, this discussion attempts to iterate the importance of self-reflective, critical thought in shaping society-specific experiential learning pedagogy in societies outside of the global north, with an emphasis on the English-speaking Caribbean. In looking at SLCE from a global south perspective, it is practical to understand and identify similarities and differences in what the global north and global south see as most beneficial in relation to holism and the development of self and even social justice in the society especially in relation to the role of SLCE. A society’s socio-cultural setting based on elements such as socio-economic development can determine the traits of holism which may be more valuable to the society’s setting. As practitioners of varied positionalities on a drive to enhance student development, it is necessary to ensure that the iterative reflective process be a basis by which all SLCE programming are created and implemented, particularly beyond subjective social justice narratives.
Social justice is a universal philosophy though somewhat not clearly defined (Jost, & Kay, 2010) that speaks to reaching a state of societal equity in the distribution of resources and power along with the overall health and well-being of persons within the society (Ayala, Hage, and Wilcox, 2011). Despite the universality of the term, different regions and societies hold varied salient themes as their targets when using the term. One can then, determine that though social justice is universal, persons native to certain spaces may hold certain themes within social justice’s distribution of equity and the understanding of well-being to differing levels of importance. With this in mind, regions such as the Caribbean may view certain themes such a minority relations and racial disparities in a much different light to societies such as the United States. Topics such as these can cause disconnects as north-south collaborations take form with many US institutions opting to embark on SLCE activities within the global south. The nuances of this understanding of social justice being situationally relevant may not always take precedent in initial discussions and this may be an area where additional research is required.
Additionally, members of faculty and staff at higher education institutions around the world hold a certain level of privilege whether consciously recognised or not, simply by being associated with the institution. This privilege should be appropriately reflected upon as it can stand to be taken for granted that simply being able to interact with communities as a higher educational institution representative comes with a certain level of privilege when going into under-served and under-represented communities. Individuals can go into SLCE activities with the idea that they are there to save said communities while gaining some internal leverage through their altruistic actions; reinforcing the Freirean perspective of the oppressor, the oppressed and the subaltern. Latta et al. (2018, p. 37) speaks to the negative aspects and connotations of SLCE which include:
1.Reinforcing of stereotypes & exacerbating power differentials
2.Use of the community for educational gain (exploitation)
3.Ethical issues of tying credits to service for students
4.The ‘charity’ aspect of SLCE can maintain systemic issues
5.Exacerbating inequalities through forced service of unwilling students/staff
6.SLCE orientation processes can spread paternalism/saviour complexes.
This Freirian understanding of the implications of incorrectly executed SLCE activities creates a space for the understanding and implementation of critical pedagogy in relation to service-learning. Straubhaar (2014) speaks to the importance of educators, who can be seen as socially privileged individuals, to gain personal transformation (p. 381). Furthermore, the task of not conducting self-analysis as a practitioner, through critical reflection can further perpetuate the oppressor and oppressed dynamic making critical pedagogy crucial in the scope of education in all its forms.
Mitchell (2008) was able to identify these problematic aspects of SLCE and established the concept of critical service-learning (CSL). Mitchell’s work produced three main tenets; firstly, redistribution of power among all participants within SLCE relationships; secondly, the creation of authentic relationships within the classroom and community and lastly working from what is identified as a social change perspective (Latta et al., 2018 citing Mitchell 2008). The concept of CSL is one which disrupts the traditional negative connotations that can be hidden within service-learning, dismantling and exposing these attributes forcing institutions and practitioners to 'turn the mirror to themselves’ and reevaluate the programmes they conduct as well as themselves as a whole (Latta et al., 2018).
This turning of the mirror to see oneself is crucial. More so is the concept of reflecting with a specific goal of identifying personal biases, misconceptions and shortcoming related to global north to global south interactions. Be it through the foundations and theories of the pedagogy of SLCE or identifying that there should not be a one-size-fits-all to social justice; there is room for reflection, research and discussion moving forward in the field of SLCE globally.