Cathy Jordan, PhD Associate Professor of Pediatrics

2. Community-engaged Teaching and Scholarship: Making it Count in Promotion and Tenure Cathy Jordan, PhD Associate Professor of Pediatrics Director, Children, Youth and Family Consortium University of Minnesota Member, Community Campus Partnerships for Health Co-Director, Faculty for the Engaged Campus

3. Agenda • Define terms relevant to engaged research and teaching • Discuss scholarship from engaged teaching • Present challenges facing community-engaged scholars • Describe Faculty for the Engaged Campus • Introduce CES4Health.info

4. Definitions • Engagement • Community engagement is the application of institutional resources to address and solve challenges facing communities through collaboration with these communities

6. - Scholarship "Scholarship is teaching, discovery, integration, application and engagement; clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective presentation, and reflective critique that is rigorous and peer-reviewed.” (Boyer) Or, Scholarship = creative intellectual work that contributes significantly to knowledge in the field and has impact, is communicated and valued and is reviewed by peers.

7. - Community-engaged Scholarship • "Community-engaged scholarship (CES) is scholarship that involves the faculty member in a mutually beneficial partnership with the community.” This could be within a research, teaching, programmatic or other kind of activity. Linking Scholarship and Communities: The Report of the Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions

8. Finding Scholarship in Engaged Teaching • Common misconception – engaged teaching methods such as service-learning are not necessarily scholarship. • Must use a scholarly approach (grounded in work that came before) • Must document and create product that can be disseminated and subjected to critique

9. Challenges of P and T for CES • Review committees don’t understand CES • Misconceptions about rigor • Confusing CES with “just service” • You see connections between discipline and engaged work; others may not

10. Challenges (continued) • Faculty don’t understand CES • Not producing scholarship from engagement, or confusing engagement with scholarship (service-learning example) • Not integrating engagement into research and teaching; making it an add-on • Not documenting engaged scholarship in c.v. or dossier

11. Challenges (continued) • The traditions of the system • Need for expanded definition of impact (not just publications and journal impact scores) • Demonstrate community impact • Need for acceptance of alternative forms of scholarly products (not just peer-reviewed journal articles)

12. Challenges (continued) • P & T is about you as an individual. Engaged work is usually a group effort and credit for its impact is shared. • Requirement to demonstrate leadership in field and national/international reputation • In CES, leadership/reputation tend to be local. Must be intentional to expand reputation

13. Faculty for the Engaged Campus History: • 2004-2007: Community-engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative • Funded by US Dept of Ed FIPSE program • Under auspices of Community- Campus Partnerships for Health

14. 9 health professions school worked to, collectively and on individual campuses, support CES through culture and institutional change • 3 gaps identified • Faculty development pathways • Mentors and dossier external reviewers • Mechanism for peer review and broad dissemination of innovative products

15. Faculty for the Engaged Campus 2nd FIPSE grant • 3 parts = the 3 gaps • Competency-based CES faculty development • 6 universities received small grants • CCPH Database of Faculty Mentors and Portfolio Reviewers • .

16. What is CES4Health.info? • Mechanism for the rigorous peer review and online dissemination of innovative products of health-related (broadly defined) CES that are in forms other than journal manuscripts • Documentary, training video, curriculum, manual, guide, report, website, toolkit, policy brief

17. Outcomes • Faculty and grad students who author products that are published through CES4Health.info can note them in the peer-reviewed publications section of their curriculum vitae and describe them as peer-reviewed scholarly products. • CES4Health.info provides authors with a measure of impact by tracking how often each product is accessed and how it is used.

18. Outcomes (con’t) • Useful products will be more broadly disseminated, increasing the likelihood that they will be taken up, used and have impact in more communities

19. Development of CES4Health.info • Fall 2007 – Fall 2008 • Design team: community and academic • Designed review criteria, author instructions, application, rating form • Winter 2008 – summer 2008 • Pilot testing, portal development, beta testing • Recruited authors and acad/comm reviewers (60) • Many, many reviewer training calls

20. Sept 2009 – now • Focus on populating site • 21 products submitted • 3 Accepted • 12 Accepted with revision • 2 rejected • 4 under review • November 3, 2009 – public launch!

22. Submission and Review • Author submits online application and product • Application provides info about: • Development of the product • Significance/impact of the product • Rigor of the work that led to the product (allows assessment of scholarly nature of the work)

23. Review process mirrors typical journals • Editorial staff – editor, 3 associate editors, editorial board • Editor screens for community engagement and health related criteria • Products assigned to 3-4 reviewers • 2 academic • 1-2 community

24. Using P & T to Shift Culture • When faculty make their best case for P and T as community-engaged scholars, they: • Educate administrators and P & T committees • Focus attention on increasing the university’s relevance and impact • Focus attention on enhancing learning outcomes • Raise visibility of CES • Enhance credibility of CES • Create a career advancement pathway for those who will come later • Possibility create a need for changes in P & T guidelines