Enhancing the Campus Climate for Scholarship: A Successful Action Project

1. Enhancing the Campus Climate for Scholarship: A Successful Action Project Cynthia A. Prosen, Ph.D.and Jill B.K. Leonard, Ph.D. Northern Michigan University

2. Characteristics of Northern Mich Univ • Public comprehensive master’s institution in Upper Peninsula of MI • Offer diplomas, certificates, associate, baccalaureate, masters and two terminal degrees • ~9,500 students • Five unions represent NMU employees

3. Enhancing the Campus Climate for Scholarship • Intent? • Improve communication b/n faculty and administration • Identify barriers to scholarship • Improve dissemination of scholarly findings • Increase undergraduate participation in faculty-sponsored scholarship • Both the Project and the Process were important for our success

4. Where were we as an AQIP Institution? • From: • Action Projects = AQIP • Poor understanding of CQI • This is YOUR problem • To: • Action Projects are OUR ideas • Action Projects are a part of CQI • This is OUR problem • AQIP ≠4-letter word; AQIP = opportunity

5. Action Project Selection Process • Systems Appraisal has suggestions • Some Projects come from the “bottom up” • From May to September…. • Asked entire campus for Action Project ideas • Posted 22 ideas on website; encouraged comments • President’s Council ranked ideas • New idea emerged • Campus again asked for comment • Three projects selected, widely publicized

6. The timing was right for this project • Consistent with University Mission • Consistent with Road Map to 2015 • Teaching = Scholarship • Increasing pressure to recruit students • Increasing credentials (and expectations) of new faculty hires • Long drumbeat history: • Scholarship is my hobby • Scholarship is not supported by administration

7. Committee Selection Process • How many? • Too many: Nothing accomplished • Too few: Not enough hands on deck • Representation • All academic colleges • Biol, Poly Sci, Chem, Health, Art & Design, Psych, English, Physics • Secretarial POV • Library • Grants and Research • Selected vs. Volunteered

8. Getting A Positive Start • Administrative buy in • Developing an activity plan • Use the expertise available

9. The Big (Theoretical) Issues • Action Projects may need to define concepts • Defining scholarship • Different ideas! Four forms of scholarship (Boyer) Excellent… but, they carry baggage Disciplinary application issues Unifying definition that still allows flexibility Very important given Union issues

10. “The process of scholarship is one of problem solving through conceptual means that leads to an outcome that can be evaluated and presented to others.” • “We do not expect that scholarship will be the same across campus, nor even for all forms of scholarship to be equally valued by different areas, rather it is the ability to come to consensus within a disciplinary group and to clearly express this consensus to those outside the group that is critical.” • “We do not find scholarship and professional development to be synonymous.”

11. Working Committee Dividing and conquering • Two types of work • By the entire WorkingCommittee • Theoretical issues • Integrating themes • Developing recommendations • By subgroups • Data collection/generation • Hot topics (e.g. Faculty Time Allocation) • Integration of information Students Outreach Data Infrastructure Time

12. The Search for Data • Data is Critical • Validation and removal of “agenda” • Inclusivity of diverse sources • Linked to Outcomes Assessment • Became clear that we needed data that was unavailable • Importance of analysis • Unbiased interpretation • Presentation styles • Needs to be effectively portrayed to people with diverse backgrounds • Charts, graphs, stats and other crazy bits

14. Outreach • General • Forums • Broad surveys (electronic media) • Specific individuals/groups • Focus groups • Bargaining units • Researchers, admin, etc. • Outreach needs to be seen as having an impact on the process

15. Reporting Back… • Reporting • Along the way and final • Interim update (to all parties) • Final Report • To AQIP • To the Admin • To the campus community • Presentation matters! • Having a grant writer on your team is not a bad idea…

16. Recommendations – 22! A. Support. This is a broad area encompassing issues of time, pay, infrastructure, and environment. The thrust of this area is to ensure that University expectations regarding scholarship are backed up with an appropriate level of support for scholarship. There are 11 recommendations under this category. • Themes – organize and lump… B. Encourage. As the distinctions between researcher and teacher continue to blur, it’s important that the University encourages faculty to pursue their own scholarship and to integrate research and scholarly activities into the curriculum. There are five recommendations under this category. C. Value. While the issues of value and support overlap with regards to funding, valuing scholarship also encompasses non-financial issues like acknowledgement and appreciation of scholarship activities by the University administration and unions. There are two recommendations under this category. D. Assess.It is critical that the University administration and the faculty unions negotiate a way to systematically document faculty scholarship. In addition, this information should be combined with assessment of student scholarship and published in annual report. There are four recommendations under this category.

17. Recommendations • Recs were specific and varied • Money vs nonmoney • Need a new position vs need to collect data • Negotiated vs non-negotiated • Negotiate strategy to assign load for mentoring of student projects • Curricular reform to allow students to use projects in majors • Links to student scholarship

18. Recommendation – Include Process • Timelines, processes, assessment A.11 Recommendation: We propose the revision of a current AIS staff position to include liaison duties to faculty for scholarship-related needs, including coordination among computer-related units, basic support, assistance with nonstandard software and hardware needs, etc. Process: AIS will develop a strategy during Fall 2008 with implementation by July 1, 2009. Position personnel will develop outreach strategies to the faculty and implement these strategies by December 2009. Personnel will collect data on the effectiveness of this program. Assessment: Successful revision and filling of position. Development of a Plan submitted to AIS. Collection of baseline information on implementation accompanied

19. And the rest of the story…. • Final Report truly remarkable • Shared with President’s Council, Deans and Departments, Website, Vice Presidents ….pretty much everyone on campus • Which recommendations could be pursued? • President, two Vice Presidents, and President’s Council • Implementation fell to • Provost, Deans, Grants and Research, Controller, Unions, Committee Head

20. What have we done • Grants and Research Office • Formed! • Hired second grant writer • Post-award training programs for faculty/staff • Website development (ARRA information) • University Scholars Program • 25 new undergraduate scholars selected • Grant Writing “Boot Camp” • Administration agreed: Offer incentives • Research and Scholarship Advisory Council (RSAC ) formed

21. What else have we done? • Celebration of Student Research and Creative Works • Academic Service Learning now included • Dance, recitals, art, class projects (Econ) • More presentations, many more attendees • Negotiations with Unions • Compliance Progress - Graduate Student • Student research • Wildcat Incentive Fund: up to $25,000/award • Public display of work: Grants and Research • BOT meetings

22. What do we have to do next? • Student credit for scholarship • Needs to become consistent part of curriculum • Faculty credit for mentoring: “load” issue • Compliance officer: Full time • Summer scholarship support • Appoint head of student scholarship programs • Hire AIS (library) liaison • Create campus wide convocation series • Collect info on faculty AND student scholarship • Assess internal grant recipients

23. What did we learn from this project? • Campus wide buy-in essential for success • Collective bargaining unit involvement essential – but sometimes difficult • Importance of outcomes assessment data • How will we know when we are done? • Concrete recommendations • Make it easy to say yes, hard to say no

24. Tips for success • Include multiple disciplines and personnel groups • Be open, seek input from outside the team • Include ALL viewpoints; talk to the opposition • Base some Action Projects on campus-identified need • Secure administrative support • Select committed (busy?) people • Use the proclivities and abilities of committee members • Make specific recommendations; include Process and Assessment

25. Why did this work? • Cross-campus importance at onset • Cross-campus input received • Impact of Final Report • Presentation style important (just say yes) • And….it Enhanced the Campus Climate for AQIP

26. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? http:// webb.nmu.edu/aqip cprosen@nmu.edu OR jileonar@nmu.edu NMU President Les Wong making opening remarks at the Open Forum …Administrative support!