Leadership Lesson #2
Introduction
My second leadership lesson focuses on the theme of civic engagement. This is something that is at the core of BSAN and social impact leadership more broadly. BSAN aims to engage students in the issue of substance use disorder (SUD) stigma, an issue within the national and even global community. Moreover, the mechanism behind which social impact leadership functions is typically rooted in civic engagement, with individuals passionate about a cause aiming to drive positive change in the community through large-scale engagement. Engagement does not have to mean formal volunteering, it can also be more "passive" in nature, such as staying informed, raising awareness, giving charitable donations, etc.
While BSAN has not struggled to obtain dedicated volunteers, we have noticed that there sometimes is hesitancy for those who approach our tables to get involved at all in something that does not seem to directly affect them. Involvement in this case does not necessarily entail volunteering for BSAN. We regard minimal involvement in the SUD cause to be supporting non-stigmatizing behaviors, namely, preparing for substance use interventions (Narcan administration), using non-stigmatizing language, and simply engaging in open conversations on SUD.
To better understand the thought process of these individuals, I propose the following inquiry question: What are the facilitators and barriers to civic engagement?
Literature Review
To answer this inquiry, I am focusing on two sources in the literature that examine civic engagement across different populations - the university population and the broader adult population. While BSAN is currently an initiative that operates on a university campus, we hope to potentially expand beyond this population one day.
A source entitled “Exploring Civic Engagement at an Urban Commuter Campus: Pathways and Barriers” by Johnson-Hakim et. al aims to address the inquiry at hand through the lens of an urban commuter university campus. The article reports that civic engagement has been declining among young adults for the past 40 years. Despite this, university is still regarded as an “essential environment” to help develop civic engagement; in fact, the article claims that “civic engagement is viewed as a part of an individual's transition from adolescence to adulthood” (Johnson-Hakim).
“Non-traditional” students, which represent those who are 25 years or older, and commuter students are becoming increasingly common. They have a different interaction with university community engagement than “traditional” students living on campus. To assess this difference, this study conducted focus groups with 19 students at Wichita State University, an urban commuter campus. Ages ranged from 19 to 31 years old, 90% of the students were commuters, and 13 majors were represented. The focus groups were asked a variety of semi-structured questions related to student civic involvement, such as their attitude towards involvement and barriers to engagement. Researchers completed thematic analysis of the focus group discussions and identified three distinct pathways to civic engagement - a personal request from someone they knew, workplace encouragement, and clear motivating basis for being engaged (such as direct impact on self or family). Two barriers were also identified - lack of availability and knowledge as well as feeling detached to the community as a temporary resident.
This source helped elucidate prominent facilitators and barriers to civic engagement. By discussing the matter of civic engagement with researchers directly in focus groups, a greater depth of information and insight was able to be gained than from other measures like a more rigid survey, leading to the identification of major themes. The themes aptly summarize significant facilitators and barriers, with one barrier appearing particularly unique to the university population - feeling detached from the community as a temporary resident. However, a limitation of this source relative to the inquiry at hand is the sample used in the focus groups. Urban commuter campuses do not represent all university campuses nor do they represent the general population. Furthermore, the sample size of 19 students is relatively small. Thus, this study provides a solid foundation for understanding facilitators and barriers to civic engagement but must be considered in conjunction with studies on individuals from different demographics.
The second source I analyzed was “Volunteerism, Health, and Civic Engagement among Older Adults” by Gottlieb and Gillespe. This source expands upon our understanding of civic engagement being concentrated within university students. The review examines the characteristics, motives, and impacts of civic engagement in the lives of older adults. Older adults (65+ years old) are considered the most generous volunteers, with 42% of older adults volunteering in the United States and averaging 269 volunteer hours per year. This high volunteer participation is attributed largely to an increase in free time and the strengthening of social ties offered by volunteering (social capital). Religiosity also appears to play a role, with religious organizations promoting involvement with other community institutions. Older adults who actively volunteer also have been shown to have higher quality of life - less depressive symptoms, less use of health services, greater general life satisfaction, and lower mortality rates - suggesting another underlying motivation to get involved in civic engagement. A barrier to civic engagement alluded to in the source is socioeconomic status. The majority of older volunteers are educated and middle class. The lack of lower class volunteers may be due to volunteer recruitment efforts not being focused on this group or this class being involved in more informal service such as helping neighbors and friends.
Through this source, we can gain another perspective on the inquiry question. Older adults exhibit motivations that differ from the younger population. Overall, it appears that volunteerism in older adults improves social and even physical health, suggesting very salient facilitators of civic engagement. Understanding the motivations behind this population is important as this population represents a significant portion of all volunteers within the United States. A limitation of this source relative to the inquiry question is that it does not adequately describe certain barriers older adults may encounter related to civic engagement. Socioeconomic status is briefly mentioned but other potential barriers are largely not discussed.
In summary, these sources have illuminated major facilitators and barriers to civic engagement within two populations that compose a considerable proportion of volunteers in the United States - university students and older adults. Age appeared to be a defining factor that informed different motivations for civic engagement. University students were referred to volunteering through their workplace that older, retired adults likely do not have, for instance. Moreover, some barriers were identified that also seem somewhat age-dependent. University students cite not having the time to volunteer whereas generally older adults have abundant free time. A significant limitation to this investigation, however, is the lack of examination of more intermediate ages (30 - 65 years old). In the literature, there was a noticeable absence of sources for civic engagement in this age group, suggesting a potential avenue for future research. It is also worth noting that both of these sources focused on civic engagement mainly in the form of volunteering which is also something disproportionately represented in the literature over more passive forms of civic engagement. Examining other forms of civic engagement would be useful in acquiring a more holistic understanding of the inquiry question.
Exploration of my Experience
Both of the sources provide interesting insight into my experiences with BSAN thus far. At tabling events, I often encounter a variety of comments justifying lack of engagement with the issue of SUD. Some students say they do not know anyone with a SUD, others say they do not engage in recreational activities often that may require a substance use intervention, and others just simply say they are not interested. While these explanations are understandable, BSAN aims to convey that SUD is an issue that affects the whole community. SUD is widespread with over 40 million Americans affected, meaning that understanding how to intervene in dire scenarios like overdoses is essential. Moreover, creating an environment more conducive to getting someone with SUD into recovery benefits not just the individual affected but the whole community, helping gradually reduce the rates of SUD nationally.
The source on university students helped me understand some of the fundamental reasoning behind these justifications. Lack of knowledge seems to be a significant component. Not being aware of how widespread the issue of SUD really is may make individuals less engaged with the issue. Being a temporary resident is an interesting point I had not considered before. I could see how it potentially plays into lack of engagement with the issue of SUD at our tabling events. Many associate substance use primarily with university aged individuals and therefore may believe that once they graduate, they likely will not have to encounter the issue again. In the future, I think we can work on addressing this misconception.
I would also like to briefly reflect on my experience with BSAN volunteers. Over the course of this year, I have been impressed by the passion and energy our 42 active volunteers have brought to tabling events. Through this investigation, I am now able to better understand some of their underlying motivations. Many volunteers have mentioned to me that they were recommended to join BSAN by personal recommendations by friends or from BSAN follow requests on Instagram. The first source seems to supply evidence reinforcing this notion of the importance of personalized outreach. Additionally, workplace reference was another factor identified that encouraged engagement. A number of our volunteers come from a pharmacy background which could have influenced their desire to get involved. Moving forward, to encourage even more engagement, BSAN can consider building more connections with pharmacy organizations on campus.
Additionally, though BSAN operates on a university campus, I think that considering older adults is still important. I remember a parent on a tour coming up to our table. They did not know much about Narcan but after we explained it they expressed how happy they were to see something on campus trying to address the larger issue of SUD. They mentioned that this is a “real-world” issue and something that needs to be dealt with beyond university. This experience exemplified to me that BSAN’s educational work perhaps can and should be extended to beyond university campuses. Given this, the source on older adults above, while not fully applicable to the general adult population, provided helpful insight on ways to potentially motivate adults in the future to become involved.
The overall lesson I have learned through my involvement in BSAN and examination of the literature is that civic engagement is multifaceted. It can be supported by various facilitators as well as discouraged by various barriers. These facilitators and barriers are not completely universal, suggesting the need for individualized consideration when trying to promote engagement with a cause to different groups.
Sources:
Gottlieb BH, Gillespie AA. Volunteerism, Health, and Civic Engagement among Older Adults. Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement. 2008;27(4):399-406. doi:10.3138/cja.27.4.399
Johnson-Hakim, S. M., Kirk, C. M., Rowley, R. L., Lien, A. D., Greenleaf, J. P., & Burdsal, C. A. (2013). Exploring Civic Engagement at an Urban Commuter Campus: Pathways and Barriers. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 41(4), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2013.818493