Community-engaged scholarship (CES) is the collaborative generation, refinement, conservation, and exchange of mutually beneficial and societally relevant knowledge that is generated in collaboration with, communicated to, and validated by peers in academe and the community.
Source: Jordan C (Editor). Community-Engaged Scholarship Review, Promotion & Tenure Package. Peer Review Workgroup, Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, 2007.
One way to understand community engaged scholarship is in terms of community engagement and scholarship. Although community engaged scholarship is more than the sum of these two concepts, understanding each one individually may aid the understanding of community engaged scholarship.
Different organizations have different definitions of scholarship. However, many definitions share a few key concepts:
- Publication and peer-review
- Advancing knowledge
- Documentation
- Discipline mastery
- Impact
Here are some example definitions:
- “Scholarship is work that is public, peer reviewed and available in a platform that others may build on...Scholarship is, at its heart, about contributing to a body of knowledge.” (Jordan 4)
- "The activity or work requires a high level of discipline-related expertise.
- The activity or work is conducted in a scholarly manner with
- clear goals
- adequate preparation
- appropriate methodology
- The activity or work and its results are appropriately and effectively documented and disseminated. This reporting should include a reflective critique that addresses the significance of the work, the process that was used, and what was learned.
- The activity or work has significance beyond the individual context.
- It breaks new ground or is innovative
- can be replicated or elaborated
- The activity or work, both process and product or result, is reviewed and judged to be meritorious and significant by a panel of one’s peers." (Diamond & Adam)
- “work that demonstrates a high level of discipline-related proficiency, is creative or original, is amendable to documentation, may be peer or constituent-reviewed, and has significant impact...In sum, scholarship involves learning through well-grounded faculty work and sharing that learning (in any of a variety of forms) so that others can critique and build on it.” (Janke & Shelton 1)
Different definitions of community engagement emphasize many of the same concepts:
- Reciprocity, mutuality, collaboration
- Public purposes
- Variety of potential research/creative activities
Here is one definition of community engagement: “the 'collaboration (among) institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity.’1” (Janke & Shelton 3)
- Community-engaged learning and teaching involves “activities that 1) honor principles of community engagement (reciprocal partnerships, public purpose), and 2) provide opportunities for students (both enrolled and not enrolled at UNCG) to collaborate with faculty and community members for the dual—and integrated— purposes of learning and service." Furthermore, it “may be enacted through a variety of practices, including, but not limited to: service-learning experiences, on-site courses, clinical experiences, professional internships, community-based research or creative activities, collaborative programs, study abroad courses and experiences, international instruction, and distance education courses--when these practices involve reciprocal partnerships with community members, groups, or organizations” (Janke & Shelton 7).
- Community-engaged research and/or creative activities “refers to research/creative activities, teaching, and service undertaken by faculty members in collaboration with community members (and often students) and that embody the characteristics of both community engagement...and scholarship” (Janke & Shelton 5).
- “Faculty may provide community-engaged service in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, collaborating with schools, organizations, businesses, advocacy groups, community groups, and civic and public agencies to develop policies, programs, grants, curricula, or understanding; developing and participating in partnerships between academic programs and external agencies, such as for the purposes of internships and service-learning courses; or providing leadership in or making significant contributions to economic and community development activities.” (Janke & Shelton 8)
Here are other related terms/concepts:
- The terms “(community) service” and “(community) outreach” here refer to the same concept, which Janke & Shelton say “may be provided in a uni-directional, often times ‘expert,’ model in which university resources are extended to serve community individuals, groups, organizations and the public in general” (4). This is in contrast to community engagement, which differs from service in that community-engaged scholarship integrates engagement with the community into research and teaching activities. Engagement is a feature of these scholarly activities, not a separate activity. Service implies offering one’s expertise and effort to the institution, the discipline or the community, but it lacks the core qualities of scholarship. Research, teaching, and service are reinforced through interdependent and synergistic community-academic engagements. (Jordan)
- Anchor institution: “...the current power and future potential of universities, hospitals, and other institutions with long-term, rooted investments in particular location to transform neighborhoods, cities, and regions” (Rutheiser).
- Collective Impact: Mobilizing multiple organizations to work for a common goal, as opposed to focusing on individual efforts. (Kania and Kramer)
- “The ‘community’ in community engagement is not defined by sector, such as private or public, forprofit or nonprofit; rather, community is broadly defined to include individuals, groups, and organizations external to campus that use collaborative processes for the purpose of contributing to the public good.” (Jordan 3)
- Further reading: Research Methods for Community Change pp. 63-4
- “Dissemination is not just publishing. It is teaching and consulting, community talks, legislative testimony, media presentations, etc. Dissemination is about putting knowledge in the public domain.” (Jordan 4)
- “’Reciprocity’ is the recognition, respect, and valuing of the knowledge, perspective, and resources that each partner contributes to the collaboration” (Janke & Shelton 3)
Sources:
Diamond, R. M. (1993) “Changing Priorities and the Faculty Reward System.” In Diamond, R. M., and Adam, B. E. Recognizing Faculty Work: Reward Systems for the Year 2000. New Directions in Higher Education, no. 81. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Janke, Emily M & Shelton, Terri L. (2011) Community Engagement: Terms and Definitions for Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. University of North Carolina - Greensboro. Community Engagement Initiative, Office of Research and Economic Development. https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/UNCG_Community_Engagement_TermsDefinitions_030111.pdf
Jordan C (Editor). (2007) Community-Engaged Scholarship Review, Promotion & Tenure Package. Peer Review Workgroup, Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. https://www.usf.edu/engagement/faculty/overview-of-community-engaged-research-and-scholarship.pdf
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(9), 36-41. https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Collective-Impact.pdf
Rutheiser, Charles. The Promise and Prospects of Anchor Institutions: some thoughts on an emerging field. PD&R Edge. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_hudpartrpt_062211.html
Community-Engaged Teaching
- Developing and delivering community-based instruction, such as service-learning experiences, on-site courses, clinical experiences, professional internships, and collaborative programs
- Developing and delivering off-campus teaching activities such as study-abroad courses and experiences, international instruction, and distance education courses
- Developing and delivering instruction to communities and other constituencies
Community-Engaged Research and Creative Activities
- Writing papers for refereed journals and conference proceedings
- Creating exhibits in educational and cultural institutions
- Disseminating community-engaged research through public programs and events
- Conducting and disseminating directed or contracted research
- Conducting and reporting program evaluation research or public policy analyses for other institutions and agencies
- Developing innovation solutions that address social, economic, or environmental challenges (e.g., inventions, patents, products, services, clinical procedures and practices)
Community Engagement (Service)
Consulting and providing technical assistance and/or services to public and private organizations
- Writing position papers for the general public
- Collaborating with schools, businesses, advocacy groups, community groups, and civic agencies to develop policies
- Providing leadership in or making significant contribution to economic and community development activities
Source:
Janke, Emily M & Shelton, Terri L. (2011) Community Engagement: Terms and Definitions for Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. University of North Carolina - Greensboro. Community Engagement Initiative, Office of Research and Economic Development. pp. 9 https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/UNCG_Community_Engagement_TermsDefinitions_030111.pdf
https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1193&context=jces
Community Engagement:
- proposes a different epistemological worldview than traditional academia.
- elevates the status of projects that are now considered “unconventional”
- expands the definition of an “acceptable” scholarly product
- expands the role of an individual faculty member in knowledge production
“What we see when we look around us is this: more faculty members with plural roles in complex projects are generating more diverse scholarly and creative artifacts. From these people and these artifacts come the pressure to craft more flexible systems of evaluation and reward.
Public scholarly and creative work is grounded in the assumption that knowledge is socially produced. As John Saltmarsh has argued, this ‘fundamental epistemological position’ leads us to understand ‘the role of the university within a larger domain of knowledge production.’” (Ellison & Eatman 7)
Traditional View | New View |
Secrecy assures quality | Transparency assures equity |
Merit is an empirically determined, objective concept | Merit is a socially constructed, subjective concept |
Competition improves performance | Collaboration improves outcomes |
Research should be organized around disciplines | Research should be organized around problems |
Research is the coin of the realm | Excellent teaching and service are crucial |
A life of the mind is first and foremost | A life of both the mind and the heart are essential to health and happiness |
Faculty thrive on autonomy | Faculty have a collective responsibility |
(Janke, et al. 7)
Sources:
Ellison, J., and T. K. Eatman. (2008) Scholarship in Public: Knowledge Creation and Tenure Policy in the Engaged University. Syracuse, NY: Imagining America. http://imaginingamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ScholarshipinPublicKnowledge.pdf
Janke, Emily M., et al. (2014) Honoring the Mosaic of Talents and Stewarding the Standards of High Quality Community-Engaged Scholarship. Excellence in Community Engagement & Community-Engaged Scholarship, vol. 2. https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Honoring-the-Mosaic-of-Talents-and-Stewarding-the-Standards-of-High-Quality-Community-Engaged-Scholarship.pdf
“The continuum of scholarship helps to foster an intellectually and culturally diverse faculty. Allowing faculty members to define themselves more flexibly may be an effective recruitment strategy, especially in light of data pointing to the high value that faculty of color and women faculty assign to community engagement and ‘multi-contextual’ environments...Today’s graduate students and incoming junior faculty self-identify as stronger scholars when they are actively participating in the making of a better world – they want to do work that pays, but also that matters. Many now have had multiple experiences with community service-learning through their K-12 and undergraduate experiences, and expect no less when they enter graduate school and begin to envision the future trajectories of their careers.” (Janke, et al. 4-5)
Source:
Janke, Emily M., et al. (2014) Honoring the Mosaic of Talents and Stewarding the Standards of High Quality Community-Engaged Scholarship. Excellence in Community Engagement & Community-Engaged Scholarship, vol. 2. https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Honoring-the-Mosaic-of-Talents-and-Stewarding-the-Standards-of-High-Quality-Community-Engaged-Scholarship.pdf
Community-engaged scholarship offers positive outcomes for various stakeholders, including faculty, community partners, students, and institutions. Some of these outcomes include (but are no means limited to):
- Scholarly products that faculty can publish and present
- More efficient, data-driven programming for community partners
- Civic competencies for students
- Improved town-gown relations for institutions.
Sources and further reading:
https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Baker.pdf
https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1193&context=jces
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1024170
https://journals.indianapolis.iu.edu/index.php/muj/article/view/20986
https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Baker.pdf
Stoecker, Randy. Research Methods for Community Change: A Project Based Approach. Second Edition, Sage Publications, 2013
A researcher may be tempted to first choose a topic of inquiry, then seek a relevant community partner. However, the community partner should be defining the objectives and the work, and faculty should fill that need, if they can.
- “Organize community members to have power over their own lives”
- Focusing on issues of interest to the community
- Involvement/participation in the work
- “Facilitate community members to choose issues and develop action plans”
- Asking community members what is important to them
- “Prevent exclusion and promote diversity of participation”
- Can build relationships, and even relationships among different kinds of people (race, class, etc)
- “Build and expand local leadership
- Support the action necessary to achieve community goals”
- No such thing as research for research’s sake or community development for community development’s sake
- (Research Methods for Community Change 53)
- “Does the community/organization have the capacity to participate?”
- I.e. How are they funded? Are they a stable organization? How is their track record with past projects? etc
- “What resources can the community/organization contribute?”
- I.e. Will an undue burden fall on the researcher?
- “Does the community/organization have research needs you can fulfill?”
- When seeking a community partner, it is best to not look for an organization to fill in the gaps of a pre-existing project. Ideally, the community has already defined a need, and the researcher collaborates with the community to fulfill that need with the same respect she/he/they would show an academic colleague. The researcher should be engaging with the community from a position of genuine care for their issues, not merely to advance in her/his/their career. And, the researcher with humility, understanding that allyship and support are often more valuable to communities than leadership.
- Another point of consideration is whether the researcher’s worldview is compatible with the community partner. Stoecker outlines two basic worldviews: functionalist and conflict.
- The functionalist worldview posits that stable societies change gradually, and that even people in different situations have common interests.
- The conflict worldview posits that society is composed of groups that are divided and in competition.
- Furthermore, researchers should consider whether to include students in the project. This has some potential drawbacks; for example, community partners may invest a large amount of time training volunteers who will only serve a short-time, and may or may not be enthusiastic about the work. Therefore, Stoecker recommends only involving students if they will truly add value to the project and to the community partner. And, if a research decides to include students in the project, she/he/they should plan for how the project will continue once the students leave (after the semester/academic year).
- In the same way the researcher is vetting the community partner, the community partner should be vetting the researcher. Stoecker lists four questions that community partners should be asking potential researchers:
- “Is the researcher willing to follow the community/organization’s lead?”
- In other words, is the researcher willing to give the community ownership of the data? Will the community have a substantive role in the project? Will the community be able to offer input to any publications that arise from the project?
- Stoecker recommends writing up informal contracts (“memorandum of understanding”) when beginning a partnership.
- “How good is the researcher at meeting deadlines?”
- As opposed to academia, where most deadlines can be fluid, community deadlines are stricter. It is crucial for the community that certain tasks are accomplished before funding application due dates and legislation dates, for example.
- “Can the researcher communicate in a community context?”
- I.e. Will any publications and/or presentations arising from the project be accessible, or will they be dense, boring, jargon-heavy, etc?
- “What experience does the researcher have?”
- I.e. Does the researcher have the training and expertise to do the project?
- Research Methods for Community Change (56-62, 64, 69-70)
Other important considerations include how conflicts will be resolved, how the project will be documented, how the results of the project will be used and/or communicated, what sort of input the community has on any scholarly products, etc.
Stoecker, Randy. Research Methods for Community Change: A Project Based Approach. Second Edition, Sage Publications, 2013
"Does the research matter to the community it is focused upon? Do community stakeholders have a meaningful role in the research design? How will research results be disseminated to the community and for what ends? How does the research serve the goals of the academic partners?"
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1024170
Skills required (pg 161-164): https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1024170.pdf
https://www.ccphealth.org/principles-of-partnership/
Jordan C (Editor). Community-Engaged Scholarship Review, Promotion & Tenure Package. Peer Review Workgroup, Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, 2007. pp. 5-6
“A scholar should clearly define objectives of scholarly work and clearly state basic questions of inquiry. Clarity of purpose provides a critical context for evaluating scholarly work. Evidence of clear goals includes:
- Clearly stating the basic purpose of the work and its value for public good
- Defining goals and objectives that are realistic and achievable
- Identifying intellectual and significant questions in the discipline and in the community
- Articulating one’s program of research and objectives
- Articulating one’s goals for teaching and student learning” (Jordan 5)
If involving students, see Service-Learning resources for assistance integrating engagement into the curriculum.
Source:
Jordan C (Editor). (2007) Community-Engaged Scholarship Review, Promotion & Tenure Package. Peer Review Workgroup, Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. https://www.usf.edu/engagement/faculty/overview-of-community-engaged-research-and-scholarship.pdf
Some competencies important for successfully conducting community-engaged scholarship include, but are not limited to:
- Understanding the basic principles and practice of CES
- Understanding various factors contributing to community issues
- Working effectively with community partners and look out for their safety
- Writing grants in a CES contexts
- Communicating results of CES for publication and dissemination
- Sharing knowledge and skills with community partners and other faculty
- Translating results of a project into policies
Source:
■ Clear Goals: Does the scholar state the basic purpose of his or her work clearly? Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable? Does the scholar identify important questions in the field? ■ Adequate Preparation: Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the field? Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to his or her work? Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the project forward? ■ Appropriate Methods: Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals? Does the scholar apply effectively the methods selected? Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances? ■ Significant Results: Does the scholar achieve the goals? Does the scholar’s work add consequentially to the field? Does the scholar’s work open additional areas for further exploration? ■ Effective Presentation: Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organization to present his or her work? Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating the work to its intended audiences? Does the scholar present his or her message with clarity and integrity? ■ Reflective Critique: Does the scholar critically evaluate his or her own work? Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to his or her critique? Does the scholar use evaluation to improve the quality of future work?
A. Clear Goals ■ How does the candidate’s work contribute to the department, college, and university mission, as well as the public good? ■ How does the candidate’s work identify and address significant questions arising from disciplinary, interdisciplinary and/or community questions? ■ How have the candidate’s objectives been formulated, refined, and achieved? B. The Context of Disciplinary Expertise, Theory, Literature, and Best Practices ■ How does the candidate show an understanding of relevant existing scholarship? ■ What skills and contributions does the candidate bring to the work? ■ Is the work intellectually compelling to the discipline, professional practice, interdisciplinary knowledge, and other communities? C. Appropriate Methods ■ What is the candidate’s rationale for selection of methods in relation to context and issue and community interests? ■ Were methods developed in collaboration with the community partners? ■ How does the candidate use methods appropriate to the goals, questions and context of the work? ■ How does the candidate effectively apply the methods selected? ■ Does the candidate modify procedures appropriately in response to changing circumstances? D. Significant Results ■ How does the candidate’s work add consequentially to the discipline, areas of practice, and to the community? ■ How are these outcomes evaluated and by whom? ■ Does the candidate’s work open additional areas for further exploration and collaboration? ■ Does the candidate’s work make a contribution consistent with the purpose and target of the work over a period of time? E. Effective Communication/Dissemination ■ Does the candidate communicate and disseminate effectively to appropriate academic audiences, practice areas, community partners, and public audiences/forums consistent with the mission of the institution? F. Reflective Critique ■ How does the candidate critically evaluate and refine the work? ■ What sources of evidence inform the critique? ■ In what ways have the discipline, practice areas, and community partners’ perspectives informed the critique?
Source:
https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/featured-pt-resources/
https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/pt-general-resources/
https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/pt-in-the-arts-humanities-and-design/
https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/pt-in-the-health-and-wellness-professions/
https://communityengagement.uncg.edu/pt-in-sociology-and-anthropology/
https://www.usf.edu/engagement/faculty/bothell-day2.pdf
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ945471.pdf
https://provost.illinois.edu/files/2016/08/Communication_9_Attach_3_Faculty_Guide.pdf
Source:
Ellison, J., and T. K. Eatman. (2008) Scholarship in Public: Knowledge Creation and Tenure Policy in the Engaged University. Syracuse, NY: Imagining America. pp. 21. http://imaginingamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ScholarshipinPublicKnowledge.pdf