Civic Identity and Engagement Across Difference

Soria et al. (2015) found that community engagement fosters attitudes that appreciate diversity, practice shared power and accountability, and build relationships across difference. Service-learning (SL) and community engagement are frequently touted for raising awareness of diversity among white or majority students (Hurtado & Deangelo, 2012; Holsapple, 2012; Yoon et al., 2012). So as not to burden students of color with the responsibility to educate their white peers, Mitchell et al. (2012) argued for a critical approach that examines white supremacy. Other studies have found support for the notion that community engagement leads to greater cultural awareness, more nuanced thinking and attitudes toward diversity, confrontation of stereotypes through relationship development, and recognition of universality (Finley, 2011; Yoon et al., 2012; Holsapple, 2012; Hurtado & Deangelo, 2012).

These qualities may exist as a progression, as Hurtado and Deangelo (2012) found evidence from longitudinal surveys to support the notion that volunteerism and SL contribute to greater civic awareness and complex thinking strategies to participate in a diverse democracy. This reinforces the notion that longitudinal programs can foster a deeper civic learning progression over time, which is consistent with findings by Musil (2009) and Johnson (2017) that civic identity development unfolds in a sequential pattern.

Hart, Richardson, and Wilkenfeld (2011) imagined the co-existence of multiple civic identities, which resonates with the multiple identities that students can hold simultaneously on campus, as residents of the community where their campus is located and residents of their hometowns. Hart et al. (2011) indicated that scholars have not yet identified how civic identity can be fostered, while Johnson (2017) noted that there is limited research on how civic identity develops for college students.

Asset-based Commitment to Place

The field of community development has evolved from a deficiency analysis of “struggling communities” (Walzer et al., 2016) to embrace asset-based approaches. Taking inspiration from that shift, CEED offers a strength-based approach to developing student mindsets and challenging dominant narratives about Mississippi. This embodies a commitment to the flourishing of human potential in alignment with the vision of What Universities Owe Democracy as argued by Daniels, Shreve, and Spector (2021). The CEED curriculum includes a text by Clifton Taulbert, titled Who Owns the Ice House (Taulbert & Schoeniger, 2011). Taulbert and Schoeinger (2011) studies the example of his Uncle Cleve, a Black entrepreneur in the Mississippi Delta during the Jim Crow era and argues that, “the entrepreneur possessed a mindset that moved him or her beyond challenging circumstances, setting him or her apart” (p. xxvii). Taulbert and Schoeinger (2011) present eight mindset lessons, including choice, opportunity, action, knowledge, wealth, brand, community, and persistence. These lessons are rooted in a sense of pride, empowerment, and possibility in the face of adversity. Students of CEED have taught Who Owns the Ice House in correctional facilities and at youth summer enrichment programs.

The CEED program provides data to contextualize the historical inequities that are embedded through the social and physical environments in the Mississippi Delta and offers theoretical framing to counter the oppression of dominant groups through a resilient mindset and by harnessing the power of partnership. Liew (2016) argues for state intervention to offset the historical inequities built into the system and that “priorities should be given to ensuring equal access to employment opportunities and improving the employability skills of its population” (Liew, 2016, p. 630). Due to the rural nature of the state and the levels of persistent poverty in the region, CEED has expanded the University of Mississippi’s (UM) commitment to place beyond the immediate community by operating within a two-hour radius of campus.

Building the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

Entrepreneurial framing is central to the design of the CEED initiative, and our use of the term “entrepreneurial mindset” is rooted in Taulbert and Schoenginer’s (2011) empowerment framework. It should be noted here that the purpose of this article is not to reconcile or settle ongoing debates in the field about the definitions and boundaries of community engagement, entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, and social innovation. Rather, the goal is to consider how students define and embrace an entrepreneurial mindset to address community and social challenges, and to situate that shared definition within the context of civic identity development – specifically, an understanding of one’s own identity and how that shapes engagement across difference.

Catalyzing Entrepreneurship and Economic Development students consider the entrepreneurial mindset as defined by the Entrepreneurial Learning Initiative (2020), which is a humanistic outlook characterized by curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking; a desire to create value by solving problems for others and seeking out positive influence and critical guidance (para. 3). This definition, however, is at odds with the community-oriented ethos of solving problems with, rather than for, others. In their definition of social entrepreneurship, Perry, Lahm, Schauer, and Rumble (2016) offer language that resonates with aspects of civic identity that are responsible to the greater good: “a framework that demands a mission to create and sustain social value, pursue new opportunities to serve the mission, engage in a process of learning and adaptation, think and solve beyond available resources, and exhibit high accountability to the outcomes created and the constituencies served” (p. 3). This definition of social entrepreneurship, however, does not acknowledge the role of market forces that make entrepreneurship a promising lever for social change. CEED students are invited to critique and debate these frameworks, and to consider persistent poverty as a market failure that calls for solutions that have yet to be developed or scaled.

McMullen and Shepherd (2006) seek to reconcile several theories of the entrepreneur that address individual action while attending to systems-level impact. They propose a two-stage conceptual model that considers attention to and evaluation of potential entrepreneurial opportunities. Throughout their discussion, they address contextual factors around entrepreneurship, including a context of uncertainty, scarce resources, and the desire to respond to or create change (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006). These dynamics also apply to community engagement spaces, which are characterized by the evolving nature of community partnerships, competition for resources, and the desire to fulfill higher education’s public purpose through social change.

Like other entrepreneurship initiatives on campus, CEED engages students and is connected to chambers of commerce and small business development organizations. As a community engagement initiative, CEED also nurtures partnerships with grassroots organizations across north Mississippi and the Delta region. Given the realities of operating in a politically conservative state, CEED has embraced a conversation about how to harness market forces for social good. This brokering role positions the CEED initiative to contribute to the entrepreneurial ecosystem, which encompasses institutions, culture, and networks, as well as resources such as physical infrastructure, demand, intermediaries, talent, knowledge, leadership, and finance (Stam & Van de Ven, 2021). Universities can play a connecting role in developing the entrepreneurial ecosystem by developing talent, building social capital, and making connections across networks (Malecki, 2018).

Convening diverse stakeholders has become a hallmark of the CEED initiative, and this work is undertaken annually through the Mississippi Entrepreneurship Forum. The Mississippi Entrepreneurship Forum has grown from a gathering of academics and community partners working in rural community development to a statewide conference that includes representation from all eight public universities in Mississippi, traditional statewide economic development agencies, elected officials, and community-based organizations. Student entrepreneurs are featured as panelists and participate in a pitch competition. These synergistic activities contribute to the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the state, while centering the voices of student entrepreneurs.

The CEED initiative challenges students to apply the entrepreneurial mindset to disrupt the cycles of poverty and oppression in rural Mississippi. The entrepreneur is called on “not only to build their own business but to act in ways that purposely encourage entrepreneurship efforts of others” (Fortunato & McLaughlin, 2012, p. 4). This cascading model of cultivating entrepreneurship in others is enacted through informal mentorship within the CEED cohort, formal mentorship relationships with CEED alumni, and through youth entrepreneurship programming in partner communities.

Sense of Identity

The Sense of Identity theme contains categories that pertain to self-discovery, as well as the accompanying conflict and growth. Categories include evolving beliefs, interests, and ideas; aspects of shared identity with the community; being an outsider in the community; relational and developmental leadership; and internal conflict and personal growth. Respondents shared how their beliefs, interests, and ideas evolved through their participation in the CEED initiative. These changes were both conceptual and behavioral, such as a more nuanced understanding of entrepreneurship and an increased risk tolerance for starting a business or nonprofit venture.

James shared that his understanding of how to define a problem had shifted from abstract concepts to localized solutions. He explained, “I saw problems as things like high school graduation rates, incarceration rates, or literacy rates. But often interacting with students, they saw problems as something very specific, very local” (James Interview, 2020). Focusing on local manifestations of larger and systemic phenomena – such as finding jobs for high school students in a particular community rather than solving unemployment in Mississippi – can make the solutions more accessible and locally-tailored. The focus on local solutions resonates with the framing of civic identity espoused by Hart, Richardson and Wilkenfeld (2011), where it differs from moral identities in that civic identity is “linked to particular social groups located in specific geographic areas” (p. 774).

Depending on their racial identities and backgrounds, CEED students identified aspects of shared identity with the community, as well as being outsiders. These identifications hinged on a shared sense of racial identity with the community partners. The community partner organizations that worked with students on youth entrepreneurship and enrichment programming included three organizations in the Mississippi Delta led by African American female educators and one in north Mississippi led by a Hispanic immigrant female. When working in majority Black communities, Grisham-McLean staff intentionally created cross-racial teams of students. Lauryn, as a Black female student, shared how she took on a familiar role of translation when meeting with African American community partners and a white CEP: “I felt relatable… There’s just a little bit of translation that goes on between what you’re talking about and what they’re trying to get to. And where’s our midpoint? And so I think for me, my identity has always kind of been in that midpoint of – I feel like a translator” (Lauryn Interview, 2020). Lauryn used the term “code switching” to describe the process of translating nuanced communication between African American community partners and white university representatives. The sense among African American respondents was that a shared racial identity with community partners can open doors and accelerate the trust-building process, and even extend credibility with majority peers.

Students who did not share the racial identity of their community partners were also able to build trust over time. Lillian, a white female who led a summer enrichment program for Hispanic youth, shared that her Catholic faith allowed her to establish a rapport with the community partner at the local Catholic Charities affiliate. Identity in general and race in particular were influential in how students approached building trust and meeting community needs when working across racial lines. Lillian emphasized the importance of building relationships with community partners: “Identity and just race alone played a huge role in how we had to approach building trust in the community and creating a relationship with the partner to ensure success of the program and actually meet the needs of the students in the community” (Lillian Interview, 2020).

James built upon that analysis by considering the importance of being in diverse spaces and how his identity as a white male would be perceived by others: “Just being in places that were different, taking a step back, and thinking about my position in those places all were essential to thinking about my identity and then how my identity interacts with others” (James Interview, 2020). This growing awareness of identity and representation builds the capacity to engage across difference. Students draw on self-awareness and cultural humility to attend to power asymmetries inherent in their community partnerships (Schnaubelt et al., 2022), ultimately building relationships grounded in trust.

Respondents described how trust was built not only with community partners but also within the CEED cohort. The leadership qualities espoused by the respondents were decidedly relational, with an emphasis on guiding others into leadership roles and creating an environment that values listening and a robust exchange of ideas. Demarcus had an extensive background in community organizing prior to joining CEED, and embraced opportunities to learn about other approaches:

I think working with people that were so different than me has helped me grow – helped me actually start listening to people, and knowing that I don’t have to be the driver of the car all the time. That other folks can lead the way, even if they haven’t had as many experiences as I’ve had, or have had the experiences that I’ve had. (Demarcus Interview, 2020)

Like Demarcus, many respondents reported experiencing growth by stepping out of their comfort zone – an analogue to taking on entrepreneurial risk. For different students, this meant interrogating unexamined beliefs, sitting with the ambiguous timeframes of evolving community partnerships, or accepting public speaking opportunities on behalf of the university. In each of these instances, students reflected on the opportunity to create growth out of conflict.

Interpersonal and Organizational Approaches

The Interpersonal and Organizational Approaches theme consists of the following categories: networking and relationship building, making room for the best idea to emerge, the experience of being part of the CEED cohort, guidance from CEPs, and a focus on building trust and understanding local context. Each of these aspects describes how CEED students approach working with one another and navigating community partnership.

Community engagement work is anchored in personal relationships and organizational partnerships. Lauryn considered the relationships that she built through CEED to be her proudest achievement. She connected the notion of relationship building to collective action in her home state of Mississippi: “And I think that what’s important in Mississippi is people being able to synergize and work together. So that we can accomplish these common goals, rather than everybody trying to put one little coal on the one thousand different fires” (Lauryn Interview, 2020). The CEED cohort served as an incubator to apply this concept.

In the CEED cohort, students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, ages, life experiences, and academic disciplines created a marketplace of ideas where robust exchanges took place. The overarching focus, poverty alleviation, is a societal challenge that has no easy answers, so all ideas were up for consideration. As Kandace described it, “I was able to bring some of my culture and my background and my ideas – where my culture shaped my ideas – and talk about it with other CEED people who are not of the same demographic background as I am” (Kandace Interview, 2020). Both Lauryn and Emily emphasized the volume and thoughtfulness of questions asked: “CEED was the first place I learned that you need to have more questions than answers. So that I appreciated” (Lauryn Interview, 2020). This insight also speaks to how the CEED experience educates participants to contribute to the robust exchange of ideas that characterizes democratic pluralism (Daniels et al., 2021).

Being part of a diverse group of peers and coming prepared with more questions than answers are hallmarks of the CEED experience. Respondents also characterized other aspects of being part of the CEED cohort, such as stepping out of one’s comfort zone but doing so with support from CEPs and the structure of the Grisham-McLean Institute. Both Kendrick and Demarcus reflected on the experience of taking UM students out of their comfort zone in visiting communities around the state to experience firsthand the generational poverty, resilience, and creativity that coexist in those places. This is another juncture where CEPs play a critical role in facilitating reflection so students can translate their personal and disciplinary growth into justice-oriented action.

Kendrick (2020) characterized those community visits as a “wake-up call, almost a call to action” for students, while Demarcus (2020) recalled those trips as a chance to learn from his peers: “It gave me a chance to sit back and see how outsiders view the Mississippi Delta and view the people in the Delta and how that may or may not connect to their lives.” The experience of being in the CEED cohort appears to be a combination of physical presence in communities and having peers with whom to process and contextualize those experiences – particularly peers from different backgrounds.

It appears that some aspects of entrepreneurial start-up culture seeped their way into the culture of the CEED cohort. Multiple respondents referenced a comfort with failure, and characterized failure as an opportunity to learn, grow, and find their way to a better solution – crucially, for failed ideas to unfold in the classroom context, rather than using the community as a laboratory. James provided the example of reading a New York Times article about student achievement gaps and wanting to address the issue by fostering closer collaboration among community partners working in the education space. After gathering feedback on the idea, considering time and resource constraints, as well as his role as a student, James realized that a better solution would be to create an immersive summer learning program for youth.

Respondents reported that Grisham-McLean staff were instrumental in facilitating this creative, iterative culture. It must be mentioned again here that CEPs facilitated the focus group and interviews, so this category must be interpreted accordingly. From being sounding boards for conflict management to sharing their professional networks to insisting on high standards from students, CEPs developed a relationship with each member of the cohort. CEPs also, in the words of Demarcus, served as a bridge to connect students and community members: “Although [the students] may have had great ideas, you guys were that bridge to get us over” (Demarcus Interview, 2020). Emily, a white female, recalled taking a cue from the project manager when first visiting African American community partners to step back from task orientation and focus on building trust.

The culmination of these relationships, exchanges of ideas, and supportive structures was a concerted focus on building trust in the community. Students were prepared by their study of civil rights figures such as Fannie Lou Hamer (Asch, 2011) and ethnographic studies of rural poverty (Duncan, 2014). The community itself was viewed as a space where needs were framed as opportunities, and collaboration was guided by community voices. As Kandace explained, “instead of going in saying, ‘okay, this is what you need to do for your community to be better,’ I approach it as, ‘your community is already great. How can we make it greater?’” (Kandace Interview, 2020). In approaching the community partners with appreciation for their ideas and a desire to align student strengths with community interests, students moved away from a charity-oriented model to a community development approach.

The trust-building process was also heavily dependent on local context and individual personalities. Demarcus reflected on how the legacy of oppression can present obstacles for building trust, especially in the context of the Mississippi Delta and the University of Mississippi:

“There’s [exploitation] that has happened so many times to people of color that I think it’s beneficial to have someone that looks like me, looks like anyone else in the cohort who is Black, and has a southern dialect or just spoke just like people in those communities speak” (Demarcus Interview, 2020).

While a shared racial identity and modes of speech can build rapport, the process of building trust is a longer-term endeavor. As James put it, “we have to do it with a degree of empathy and understanding and that takes time” (James Interview, 2020).

Ultimately, this trust, empathy, and understanding in one partner community can help students to realize parallels across Mississippi. As Lauryn explained, “That historical context was something that was sorely lacking from my knowledge; I had a broader understanding of history, but not necessarily of how it affects people’s day-to-day lives” (Lauryn Interview, 2020). Understanding how historical, political, and economic forces shape the state then filters down to an appreciation for how those forces manifest in the local context, as well as with individual community partners who open doors to collaboration.

Strategic Action

The theme of strategic action describes how students mobilize their evolving sense of identity alongside interpersonal and organizational approaches to consider social change at scale. Categories within the theme of Strategic Action include developing a shared sense of entrepreneurship, taking entrepreneurial action, negotiation with empathy, serving as a conduit and resource broker, and seeking systemic and sustainable change.

Across the theses and interviews, CEED students provided their own definitions of entrepreneurship. While these definitions contained elements common to traditional conceptualizations of entrepreneurship – assumption of risk, passion, and dedication – they also described problem solving for the public good. Lauryn defined entrepreneurship very succinctly: “I view entrepreneurs as problem solvers… I think the best entrepreneurs are the people who are solving problems for other people” (Lauryn Interview, 2020). Lauryn is now Assistant Director of Entrepreneurship within a community engagement office at a research university in Texas. She has also founded a nonprofit organization dedicated to youth entrepreneurship education, runs her own apparel company, and has published a book about how purpose-driven work creates both community impact and meaning for individuals.

Several students addressed a collaborative approach to practicing entrepreneurship. CEED students mapped a progression of steps for entrepreneurial action, including: (1) identify team strengths and unmet needs in the community, (2) take a risk to step out of one’s comfort zone, and (3) create something that didn’t exist before. CEED students were also transformed in the process. As Kandace shared: “And the thing I’m most proud of is that I started a nonprofit. And that was, I feel – I know – I started that because of CEED. Because CEED developed an entrepreneurial spirit within me” (Kandace Interview, 2020). Kandace now holds a doctorate and runs her own counseling business; has published a book on self-care, personal growth, and healing; and serves as a community partner for CEED summer interns.

Two respondents, Lauryn and Kendrick, went into detail about the process of negotiation with community partners. Both reflected on their racial identity as Black Mississippians but also as university representatives from outside the community. Kendrick recalled the extensive networking he undertook to build trust in the community and ensure the success of the summer learning program. As he received input from students, parents, and community leaders, Kendrick’s strategy was to invert the traditional paradigm of university experts who impose programming on a community. He explained how he approached skeptics in the community:

“I want to make sure that what you’re seeing is what you wanted. So instead of me asking ‘how are you going to work with me?’ It’s ‘let me just see what can I do to work with you? Where can we go?’” (Kendrick Interview, 2020).

Kendrick describes a negotiation strategy that is rooted in empathy and a deep contextual awareness. This negotiation practices scaffolds on a sense of personal identity and their role within the CEED cohort to center community priorities and establish new programs. When brokering interactions in the community, CEED students were attuned to the importance of communication and serving as a conduit to connect community and campus resources. While the interpersonal theme addressed individual connection, the systemic-level iteration of that practice involved connecting the university with individuals and organizations that could most strategically deploy resources. One example that grew out of the youth summer program in a Hispanic farmworker community was a “Know Your Rights” workshop for migrant parents with questions about their immigration status amid escalating rhetoric from the Trump administration. This is an example of a CEED student brokering connections to share resources in support of immigrant rights.

Reflections on sustainable partnerships, and how higher education can connect disparate programs to a larger movement for social change, were threaded throughout the interviews. This is a call for higher education to fulfill its democratic purpose. Students addressed the importance of sustainability and a recognition that poverty alleviation is a long-term prospect. Kendrick acknowledged the frequently internalized mentality of Mississippi “being last” in many indicators of wellbeing: “It’s a slow and definitely grueling process because we’re last and we have to be willing to accept that we’re not first and everything, and it’s a challenge” (Kendrick Interview, 2020). At the same time, a sense of optimism also pervaded the student reflections, alongside a sense that colleges and universities can play a role in positive social change by partnering with communities.

While CEED students felt like ambassadors in linking university resources to community partner organizations, they were simultaneously mindful of the power dynamics implicit in those negotiations:

“Other insights I gained are about how our universities and communities interact together, and the power that universities have and how that power can be used for good, and for bad, and for all things in between. And the resources that universities have to work in partnership with communities” (Lillian Interview, 2020).

As much as universities can be a powerful partner, James also acknowledged that the project of poverty alleviation is much larger than any one intervention or field, and that the key is to implement local solutions that can be scaled to have a broader impact: “I still believe community and economic development has to be from a local perspective. But then on the same hand, as you scaffold the solutions, you do get more systemic change.” (James Interview, 2020). The CEED students shared a theory of social change that centered the entrepreneurial mindset within community-campus partnerships that could be scaled to have a systemic impact.