Creating Citizens: Liberal Arts, Civic Engagement, and the Land-Grant Tradition - Hardcover

Hardcover

ISBN 10: 0817319077 ISBN 13: 9780817319076

Publisher: University of Alabama Press, 2016

Synopsis

In Creating Citizens, professors and administrators at Auburn University’s College of Liberal Arts recount valuable, first-hand experiences teaching Community and Civic Engagement (CCE). They demonstrate that, contrary to many expectations, CCE instruction both complements the mission of liberal arts curricula and powerfully advances the fundamental mission of American land-grand institutions.

The nine essays in Creating Citizens offer structures for incorporating CCE initiatives into university programs, instructional methods and techniques, and numerous case studies and examples undertaken at Auburn University but applicable at any university. Many contributors describe their own rewarding experiences with CCE and emphasize the ways outreach efforts reinvigorate their teaching or research.

Creating Citizens recounts the foundation of land-grant institutions by the Morrill Act of 1862. Their mission is to instruct in agriculture, military science, and mechanics, but these goals augmented rather than replaced an education in the classics, or liberal arts. Land-grant institutions, therefore, have a special calling to provide a broad spectrum of society with an education that not only enriched the personal lives of their students, but the communities they are a part of. Creating Citizens demonstrates the important opportunities CCE instruction represents to any university but are especially close to the heart of the mission of land-grant colleges.

In open societies, the role and mission of public institutions of higher learning that are supported by public subsidies are perennial subjects of interest and debate. Creating Citizens provides valuable insights of interest to educators, education administrators, students, and policy makers involved in the field of higher education.

About this title

About the Author

Brigitta R. Brunner is a professor in the School of Communication and Journalism at Auburn University. She has served as the associate director for the Public Relations Program, a research fellow with the Imagining America Engaged Undergraduate Research Group, a College of Liberal Arts Engaged Scholar, an Auburn University Provost’s Fellow, a fellow in the Southeastern Conference Academic Leadership Development Program, and a fellow in the Journalism and Mass Communication Leadership in Diversity program sponsored by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Creating Citizens

Liberal Arts, Civic Engagement, and the Land-Grant Tradition

By Brigitta R. Brunner

The University of Alabama Press

Copyright © 2016 University of Alabama Press
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-8173-1907-6

Contents

Introduction Brigitta R. Brunner, 
I. STRUCTURES DESIGNED TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, 
1. Engaged Scholarship's Place within the Tenure and Promotion Process Brigitta R. Brunner, 
2. A Profile of a University Community and Civic Engagement Political Science Internship William E. Kelly, 
II. COMMUNITY AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT METHOD AND TECHNIQUE, 
3. Community Inquiry in the Writing Classroom: Bridging Liberal Arts Education with the Work of Civic Engagement Chad Wickman, 
4. Bridges across Wire Kyes Stevens with James Emmett Ryan, 
5. An Exploration of Outreach Opportunities for College German Programs in Alabama Julia Pittman and Anne-Katrin Gramberg, 
III. COMMUNITY AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT EXAMPLES, 
6. Nobody Is Telling Our Story Nan Fairley, 
7. Culturing Connection, Growing Community: The Art in Agriculture Initiative Christopher McNulty and Barb Bondy, 
8. Group Parent-Child Interaction Therapy: Community-Based Research with a Family Focus Elizabeth Brestan-Knight and Timothy S. Thornberry Jr., 
9. Community and Civic Engagement, Civil Society, and Anthropological Research in India Kelly D. Alley, 
Conclusion Brigitta R. Brunner, 
Contributors, 

CHAPTER 1

Engaged Scholarship's Place within the Tenure and Promotion Process

Brigitta R. Brunner

Tenure and promotion reviews are always tense moments in any faculty member's life. The faculty member ponders many questions: Have I met the standards of my peers? Have I done everything I can? Did I do my best work? Will others understand my research agenda? In fact, some researchers describe the process as being undefined and unpredictable, noting that it is often difficult to understand how one's work will be judged (O'Meara, 2002; Rice, Sorcinelli & Austin, 2000; Rice, 1996). Couple that distress with a department chairperson or committee that doesn't understand what CCE is or what engaged scholarship involves, and you have one very stressed faculty member.

This chapter will define what is meant by the term "engaged scholarship" and will discuss the challenges faced by those involved in CCE and engaged scholarship. The chapter will then proceed with arguments for how and why CCE and engaged scholarship are important to institutions of higher education and how these topics fit within the university structure. Finally, suggestions for how faculty can gain more understanding for their work will be presented.

WHAT IS ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP?

Many institutions of higher learning define engaged scholarship using the guidelines established by Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff (1997) and the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1999). These guidelines suggest that engaged scholarship should include well-defined goals; provide significant results; and encourage reflection as well as respect for community partners, coordination, and responsiveness. These guidelines and their interpretation by faculty and administrators are important because they affect items like tenure and promotion, the perceived importance of engaged scholarship, and the value of working with community partners (Franz, 2009). A simplistic definition Franz (2009) developed suggests that engaged scholarship is a relationship between a faculty member and a community partner, which brings about a positive outcome for both the community and the faculty member's research agenda (Franz, 2009). This definition is based on the work of many scholars (see Boyer, 1996; Burns et al., 2003; UniSCOPE Learning Community, 2008; Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, 1999; McDowell, 2001; Peters, Jordan, Adamek & Alter, 2005; Rhodes, 2001; Townson, 2009) and places emphasis on how the relationship or partnership between the university and community leads to knowledge. Engaged scholarship therefore develops theory and research to enable practice and is dependent upon reflexivity and collaboration (Barge & Shockley-Zalabak, 2008; Eisenberg, 2005; Seibold, 2005; Simpson, 2005; Stohl, 2005).

As Sandmann (2006) points out, engaged scholarship is not isolated. It invites the community to be a part of the research, unlike traditional research, which often keeps the community in the role of research subjects. In engaged research, the community becomes one with the research. Research agendas are discussed with the public, and through this discourse, the issue may be refined. Furthermore, the data and findings are not only made public, but are shared in such a way that nonacademics can understand as well. For example, the findings are not only shared via traditional academic journals, but also by community reports, presentations, and the popular press. These additional steps expand the boundary of engaged scholarship across research, teaching, and service rather than keeping each within its individual silo.

However, what must be remembered is that engaged scholarship is not simply putting a new term on the category of service. It is the combination of teaching and research that leads to new ideas, new partnerships, and new knowledge that makes it unique and important. Engaged scholarship not only lives up to the rigors of traditional scholarship but also adds to it the engagement of faculty with the community; therefore, it not only meets higher education's expectations for scholarship, but it also helps institutions to meet their visions, missions, and goals, while serving the community (Sandmann, 2006). "Scholarship is what is being done, engaged scholarship is how it is done, and for the common or public good toward what end it is done" (Sandmann, 2006, p. 82, italics in original). This definition will be used throughout this chapter to give context to the term engaged scholarship.

ISSUES SURROUNDING ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP

Although interest in the public scholarship movement has brought attention to engaged scholarship, there are still issues surrounding the support of it (Mathews, 2005; Rhodes, 2001; UniSCOPE Learning Community, 2008). While some institutions have embraced engaged scholarship, many still struggle with developing ways to make it practical within the typical reward system (Dana & Emihovich, 2004). Researchers suggest that university structure, cultural norms and values, and the practices of administrators and other faculty often pose challenges to engaged scholarship (Driscoll & Lynton, 1999; Ellison & Eatman, 2008; Foster, 2010; Franz, 2005; Lynton, 1995; McDowell, 2001; O'Meara, 2000, 2002, 2003; UniSCOPE Learning Community, 2008; Votruba, 1996; Ward, 2003; Williams & Pettitt, 2003). To be an agent of change, engaged scholarship cannot be relegated to teaching or service; it must be a part of research, with explicit criteria that explain its role in scholarship (Saltmarsh, Giles, Ward & Buglione, 2009). There must be support from the university as well in terms of having CCE in the mission, strategic plan, resources, publications, curricula, and faculty work and rewards (Sandmann, 2006). These internal barriers thus make it foolhardy for faculty to stake their tenure and promotion on engaged scholarship without the full transformation of institutional culture, because engaged scholarship is not always understood or valued as scholarship (Kutal, Rich, Hessinger & Miller, 2009; Ellison & Eatman, 2008; O'Meara, 2002; Rice, Sorcinelli & Austin, 2000; Rice, 1996). Often untenured faculty are interested in engaged scholarship, but they do not know how to present it to a T&P committee (Franz, 2009). Unfortunately, it seems that even in departments and universities where engaged scholarship is embraced, nontenured faculty are often dissuaded from following that scholarship path in favor of research agendas that are more traditional in nature (O'Meara, 2002; Shapiro, Frank, May & Suskind, 2009). People, even departments, may view CCE negatively, which poses problems for those without tenure who are interested in engaged scholarship (Beere, Votruba & Wells, 2001; Sandmann, 2009). These newer faculty members hear the following: don't waste your time on those things about which you are passionate. However, new faculty and graduate students need support, not dissuasion, to become engaged scholars. Some of the things such emerging scholars need to learn are how to value community partnerships, how to see scholarship within a community project, how to be open to interdisciplinary work, and how to learn to listen, adapt, and be patient (Sandmann, 2006). These lessons can only be learned with support, mentoring, open minds, and understanding.

The idea of traditional scholarship seems to be an uncontested notion that scholarship is a peer-reviewed product, which is shared in academic and/or professional circles so that others can learn from it and build upon it (Barge & Shockley-Zalabak, 2008). Therefore, if an engaged scholar can demonstrate how his/her work fits within this schema, understanding and respect will be built among the naysayers. The engaged scholar can take on the role of mentor to educate those in his/her department about the rigors and expectations of his/her work. In addition, the faculty reward structure of many institutions further discourages those interested in engaged scholarship. For example, merit raises are often based on research production and/or teaching and not work, which some might consider service (Kutal, Rich, Hessinger & Miller, 2009). The reward system needs to be expanded for engaged scholarship to be fully embraced (Boyer, 1996); however, by tying CCE work to research one is able to do engaged scholarship while also reaping rewards from it. The way the institution defines CCE determines its place in the mind of the faculty member; unfortunately, it seems that most institutions define CCE and engaged scholarship as service and look to more traditional forms of scholarship as necessary for tenure and promotion (Driscoll, 2008; Saltmarsh, Giles, Ward & Buglione, 2009). Other barriers to engaged scholarship include the amount of time needed to develop such a research program, difficulty in demonstrating accomplishments and their impact to others, and the need for creativity and the difficulty of having to coordinate and work with others. However, if these struggles are overcome, faculty who develop a program of engaged scholarship often feel a sense of accomplishment due to their ability to reach and empower others, especially those who may not have had the same access to education.

Not only are there challenges within the academy but also outside it. For example, some researchers state that building trust with community partners while also working through social networks and bureaucracies are often difficult for an engaged scholar to do (Cheney, 2008; Foster, 2010). Other external barriers may include commitment, communication, collaboration, flexibility, trust, political environment, and resources (Judd & Adams, 2008; Franz, 2009). All these factors make for a true challenge when charting one's tenure and promotion on engaged scholarship endeavors.

FINDING A FIT FOR ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP WITHIN THE HIGHER EDUCATION STRUCTURE

Engaged scholarship should be embraced by institutions of higher learning because it is the essence of higher education (Franz, 2009). In addition, it also helps to build more meaningful relationships among faculty, students, and communities (Sandmann, 2006; 2009). Foster (2010) suggests that although institutions of higher learning were established to serve society, the definition of service has changed throughout the years. For example, land-grant universities were conceived to provide regionally significant research so as to add to the nation's economic development. Scientific discovery was always at the core of such research; however, land-grants always strongly emphasized application (Johnson, 1981). Although universities have traditionally served the government by providing research, they have also served the local community with programs such as professional development, continuing education, and clinics. However, such endeavors are typically considered service and not a means of conducting scholarship (Foster, 2010). One suggestion for how to raise the prestige of this work is to define it in terms of how it can shape knowledge. Boyer (1996) suggests that engaged scholarship creates a dialogue between academics and the community. This communication should be inclusive and collaborative, thereby allowing academics and community partners to participate in public problem solving. This reciprocity moves engaged scholarship beyond service and outreach (Saltmarsh, Giles, Ward & Buglione, 2009). By demonstrating how such work can be grounded in research and by disseminating the results to show their influence on theory and practice it is thus elevated to scholarship (Barge & Shockley-Zalabak, 2008; Foster, 2010; Hamos et al., 2009; Karp et al., 2008). Foster (2010) argues that faculty who are interested in engaged scholarship should embrace a concept he calls "intersectional scholarship." Such an approach means a faculty member would focus his/her attention on that work, which encourages the overlap of the three traditional academic activities — research, teaching, and service. Furthermore, integrating teaching, research, and service reduces workload and increases productivity while contributing to institutional goals (Beere, Votruba & Wells, 2011). It is a win-win-win combination.

Foster (2010) suggests that by using this system one is able to work within the community while also meeting research and teaching expectations. Rather than viewing the three areas as disjointed, they should be embraced as a whole. As an example, if a faculty member were to work with a community partner with a class and then develop scholarship from this partnership and work, he/she would be engaging in intersectional scholarship. The faculty member would thus be serving the community, teaching students skills, and also publishing scholarship.

Similarly, Franz (2009) puts forth a model to help put engaged scholarship into context for faculty, administrators, and the community. The Engaged Scholarship Model uses concentric circles to show the interrelation of the elements of the model and how no one element is more important than another. It shows the importance of all three of higher education's missions — research, teaching, and outreach/service. In addition, the model demonstrates how engaged scholarship relates not only to the faculty member, but also to the institution at large and external factors like community partners. The model's main emphasis is on the need for a clear definition of engaged scholarship so that there is understanding and consistency of application at all levels — faculty, institution, and community. Franz (2009) states that the engaged scholarship model is especially helpful to new faculty because it can help them to understand how to make engaged scholarship competitive in the tenure and promotion process. Additionally, the model provides a blueprint for how higher education can publicize the outcomes and benefits of engaged scholarship to the community and public, which can lead to a transformation in how an institution comes to value and reward engaged scholarship (Franz, 2009).

MAKING ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP COUNT

Although it may be difficult, faculty who are dedicated to engaged scholarship seem to have a choice. They can either decide to fight the current structure by reforming expectations and reward systems, or they can seek ways to fit their work within the current structure by explaining their work in terms that are understood in the current system (Calleson, Jordan & Seifer, 2005; Foster, 2010). To change the current structure, faculty would have to help cause institutional change. This change would have to recognize reciprocity in the tenure and promotion process. It would also have to demonstrate how engaged scholarship differs from traditional scholarship because of reciprocity and therefore would have to give alternate definitions for publication and peer-reviewed product (Saltmarsh, Giles, Ward & Buglione, 2009). This new definition for publication might be expanded to include technical reports and community partner reports (Saltmarsh, Giles, Ward & Buglione, 2009). In addition, peer-reviewed products would include items reviewed by community partners and external agencies (Saltmarsh, Giles, Ward & Buglione, 2009). Many established scholars are encouraging the development of policies that build support for those who choose engaged scholarship as their calling (Ellison & Eatman, 2008; Shapiro, Frank, May & Suskind, 2009). Kutal, Rich, Hessinger & Miller (2009), however, caution that such reform is limited unless there are also efforts to implement institutional and cultural change within the university, which would bring about new definitions for merit, support, and rewards for engaged scholarship.

SUGGESTIONS FOR DEVELOPING A SCHOLARSHIP RECORD BASED ON ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP

Many academics who choose to make engaged scholarship their calling do not realize the importance of their decision. Whether or not they recognize it, by choosing this path, they are demonstrating to others that the struggle is worth it. All the chapters in this volume have been case studies for the tenure and promotion process. Some authors used their work to demonstrate that CCE works as engaged scholarship to gain tenure. Others used their research for their quest for full professor. It is exciting to report that all of these pioneers were successful in their bids and have thus helped build the necessary bridges in their respective departments, and it is also exciting to see how these cases will educate faculty across campus. Following are some suggestions meant to help those who are considering embracing engaged scholarship as their way to earn tenure, promotion, or other faculty rewards.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Creating Citizens by Brigitta R. Brunner. Copyright © 2016 University of Alabama Press. Excerpted by permission of The University of Alabama Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: University of Alabama Press
• Publication date: 2016
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 0817319077
• ISBN 13: 9780817319076
• Binding: Hardcover
• Number of pages: 224
• Editor: Brunner Brigitta R.