There is a concept that has become extremely popular in management circles over the last decade or so: best practices. By that people mean the set of structures or programs that are most effective in achieving a particular desired end. Generally, these will be approaches that have resulted in success in numerous different situations in a number of different places. It is a popular concept because it prevents people from having to “reinvent the wheel.” If there are pitfalls that can be avoided and better ways already proven, we should do the things that work and eschew those that don’t.
No argument here.
However (and you knew this was coming, didn’t you?), in a field where success is tied to the idiosyncratic facts on the ground, the idea of best practices can be misleading and, in some cases, counterproductive. Community engagement is about the development of relationships with specific communities in a particular location. Virtually all facts about background, history, characters involved, and current concerns will be unique. Programming that grows out of those relationships should, similarly, be unique.
I am aware of a downtown development consulting team that, years ago, suggested that a city with no particular legacy of jazz develop a row of jazz clubs to stimulate traffic and vitality in its urban core. It worked in Memphis! Fortunately, city leaders did not follow that advice. They took a different approach, more closely related to the character of the city, that proved highly successful.
In community engagement, there are, of course, principles of effective practice. Relationship building requires respect, humility, ability to listen and hear, and skills in collaboration. There are even structural principles that are important–e.g., community engagement must have a seat at the table in internal decision making in arts organizations.
It is even true that examples of success can be helpful in simulating the imagination. There is not a broad public awareness of the potential the arts have for addressing community concerns; plus examples can fuel envy. Not a bad outcome.
So, when I am asked to give examples of successful community engagement projects, I pause and then provide a disclaimer. The purpose of the examples is to demonstrate that community engagement can be a valuable force in improving lives. However, no example should be taken as a template to be replicated. The program that works brilliantly in Peoria may fail miserably in Des Moines.
Engage (with specificity)!
Doug