By Dawn Jacob
October 12, 2021
Amy McKiernan is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA, where she also serves as Director of the Ethics Across Campus & the Curriculum program. McKiernan holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Vanderbilt University, where she focused on ethics and feminist philosophy, and an M.A. in philosophy and social policy from American University.
As a graduate student at Vanderbilt, McKiernan served, along with graduate colleagues, as a volunteer on death row, facilitating a philosophy reading group with incarcerated individuals. This work was informed by principles of reciprocal education which still guide McKiernan’s community-engaged projects. She credits this work with teaching her the importance of questioning assumptions that result from dichotomous thinking: many insiders on death row also experienced harm and abuse, undermining the assumption that someone is either a "victim" or a "perpetrator" but never both. This work also reinforced for McKiernan the importance of ensuring that those most directly impacted by structural injustice always remain at the center of conversations about how to address the root causes of oppression and violence.
Prior to the pandemic, McKiernan was working with undergraduate students and elementary teachers to design and deliver a Philosophy with Children program to local third-graders. During the school year, undergraduate volunteers visited the school multiple times and led the children in philosophically-informed discussions of ideas raised in children's books such as Frog and Toad Together and Oh, the Places You’ll Go!
McKiernan is currently working with Dr. Gary Kirk, the director of Dickinson’s Center for Civic Learning and Action, on a research project critically examining the ethics of simulation as a pedagogical strategy. Their work encourages attention to and discussion of moral risks involved in using simulations (such as the Oxfam Hunger Banquet) to teach students about disability, parenting, incarceration, homelessness, and other topics. Such research excites McKiernan because it involves considering how we can ensure that, in aiming at community-engaged goals and goals related to social movements and social justice, we don’t lose sight of other core moral values.
In the following interview, she discusses building and maintaining relationships with community partners, co-designing projects, and cultivating awareness of our limitations and possibilities.
On values and navigating value conflicts with community partners
Within my work, I try to uphold the values of compassion, the importance of building trust, humility, creativity, and critical thinking aimed at seeking truth. I've also found that humor (when it invites and does not exclude) goes a long way in attending to the defensiveness some folks feel when engaging in conversation about difficult topics.
For example, when advocating for ending the death penalty in the U.S., I focus on having a shared goal with collaborators, even if we disagree on other fronts. When designing a project aimed at eradicating capital punishment, I may find that I am aligned with a community partner who I may disagree with about reproductive justice. Navigating our difference in values is difficult, but I remain committed to fostering the relationship, keeping my eyes on the goal, and building a foundation of trust, while knowing the person working with me may disagree with me if we discussed the larger constellation of moral problems. For this to work well, though, all parties involved must demonstrate respect for all involved, even—and especially—when they disagree.
Working with community partners and creating space for partners to co-design projects
I think sometimes with community-engaged work it may feel as though we’re adding yet another thing to someone’s plate. And that’s where it’s important to make sure that a community partner understands that we plan to work on this withthem, and we’re not saying to them ‘You should be doing this,’ and then walking away from that kind of vision.
In meetings with community partners, I tend to use a discussion question like, ‘What did you anticipate we would talk about that we haven’t?’ I think that can be useful for creating some space. You’re signaling ‘Yes, I’m organized. Yes, I’m committed. But at the same time, I think we ought to design this together, so that it feels as much your project as it is mine, and ours.’
We’re not self-transparent, and unless we take the time to reflect on ourselves, we may not even know what our major hesitations or excitements are about doing this work. So, building that in can help a lot, especially if there’s an opportunity for each person to speak.
Sensitivity to partners’ internal dynamics
Reading the room does become important because sometimes you’ll see that community partners have pre-established dynamics. They have interactions with each other all the time when we’re not there, so I tend to listen or even pick up on how they’re interacting with each other.
Not over-promising, building trust with follow-through and minding one’s limitations
When working with the insiders on death row, I learned not to make promises I could not keep. This is difficult, as the social norms surrounding expectations and excuses shift based on context. I learned to be mindful of my limitations and not to say I could make copies, or find a book, or contact someone on the outside if I did not think I could get this done by the next time we went into the prison. Trust was key in this environment. Saying I would do something and following through built trust.
Making space for growth, self-awareness, and transformation
I learned about the importance of self-trust as I built trust with the insiders. Can I reasonably expect to get something done by next time? If yes, I commit. If not, I explain that I am at capacity this week with respect to work, but I would be happy to do it in the future or assist in finding another person to satisfy the request.
I think it is important to regularly remind folks involved in community-engaged work to reflect on what they need and what they have to offer. To prevent burn-out or conflicts that arise from people being over-extended/under-nourished/under-rested/anxious or depressed, we should build in opportunities for self-reflection.
The fact that we are not self-transparent also means we may learn something new about ourselves from community-engaged work; we may change our minds; we may refine our values. I think it helps to remind all involved that community-engaged work may transform who we are and who we become. So, regularly reminding a group of the goals--while leaving room for people to grow--creates a balanced environment when engaging in social change projects.
Diversity, equity, inclusion, and collaboration
The superintendent of schools specifically asked if we would consider the elementary school where we delivered the Philosophy for Children program because of its economic and racial diversity. He noted that Dickinson students tend not to work with this school often because it is not located within walking distance to campus, whereas the elementary school near campus, which already has many resources, benefits from college volunteers on a regular basis. We agreed and reserved campus vans to make this work.
Moving from “for” to “with” community: co-designing through brainstorming together
When working with the third-grade teachers at Hamilton elementary, we used the start of a new semester as an opportunity to meet and think together about what worked well, what challenges we faced, and how to move forward. We brainstormed with them about what books to use for the following semester. At this meeting with the undergraduate students and the third-grade teachers, I noticed how important it was for us to share space and brainstorm together about how to move forward. This transformed the program from one that we created and brought to the elementary school into one we shaped with elementary school teachers based on the needs of their students.
Trauma-informed pedagogy as a critical entry point into diversity, equity and inclusion work.
The teachers also suggested doing some reading on trauma-informed pedagogy. They said, “You’re going to be working with students who sometimes are coming from a difficult morning at home or sometimes will have an emotional reaction to something. Don’t make assumptions about what that might be about. Instead, get curious about it and let the teacher know if something hit a nerve for a student.” We ended up building that in at the request of the teachers. It’s one thing to use the language of a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusivity, but in my practices so far—whether that was in the prison or doing work with students in elementary school—really attending to the possibility that the people who you’re working with have experienced trauma is important, and the language of trauma is not publicized in the same way.
Building equity into the organization of collaboration
I served as a volunteer for four years on death row in Nashville. We had a philosophy and social justice reading group and I was a member of a subcommittee of people aiming to address the root causes of domestic violence. We did not make decisions using a top-down model; we used a consensus decision-making model to decide on the readings and activities for the group. We also regularly began with an opening question and ended with a closing question. This way, we built it into the structure of each meeting that each participant would have time to speak.
Expanding what counts as expertise in scholarly publications: Including practitioners and popular writing as sources
Lately, as I work on a book project at the intersections of practical ethics and feminist care ethics, I am thinking about who I cite as experts and authorities. I am challenging myself to include the work of practitioners and people most directly impacted by the moral problems I am considering as I write. I want to be sure to look to sources like pamphlets, zines, and newsletters alongside peer-reviewed scholarly articles.