What Department Barriers Exist for Engaged Universities?

1. What Department Barriers Exist for Engaged Universities? Alice Warren & Patricia M. Sobrero North Carolina State University UPCEA South September 30, 2012

2. Expected Outcomes • Setting the Stage • Review of Department Standards • Findings, Conclusions, Implications • How this Applies to Continuing Education • What We Need to Know Next

3. Judith Ramaley, 2000President Winona State University “unless the institution as a whole embraces the value as well as the validity of engagement as legitimate scholarly workand provides both moral support and concrete financial resources to sustain this work, engagement will remain individually defined by the interests of committed faculty and sporadic in nature” (Ramaley, 2000, p. 9).

4. University Changes Leading to Study • Community Engagement Scholarship Movement Expanding Globally • Carnegie designation as Engaged University, 2006 • Benchmarking Economic Development Impacts Reports I & 2 See: http://www.ncsu.edu/extension/BEDI.html

5. University Changes Leading to Study • Scholarship of Engagement Task Force Integrating Learning, Discovery, and Engagement through the Scholarship of Engagement (2010) See http://www.ncsu.edu/extension/scholarship_engagement/engagement.html • Engagement Scholarship Symposiums, Forums, and Department Head Interviews, 2010,2011

6. Department Standards based on 6 Realms of Scholarship – 64 Departments • Teaching and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students; • Discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry; • Creative artistry and literature; • Technological and managerial innovation; • Extension and engagement constituencies outside the university; and • Service in professional societies and service, and engagement within the university itself (NCSU, 2010, p. 28). They are outlined in Regulation 05.20.20 – Reappointment Promotion ad Tenure Dossier Format Requirements, found in NCSU Policies, Regulations & Rules.

7. Department Standards Findings 100% included traditional areas: service, research, and teaching, reams 1, 2, 6 73% included realm 5, community engagement scholarship (CES) 8 of 9 colleges included CES 20.3% of NCSU Departments do not include Realm 5, CES as an option (5 of 9 colleges) Realm 3 creative artistry and literature = 16% Realm 4, technological and managerial innovation = 25%

8. Purpose • The study was expected to accomplish the following objectives while benchmarking the status of scholarship based on the N.C. State six realms: • Determine the extent that faculty members understand the importance of aligning their Statements of Mutual Expectations (SME) with the six realms of faculty responsibility when preparing their dossiers for promotion and tenure. • Determine the level of priority given for extension and community engagement scholarship in making promotion and tenure decisions. • Determine the level of faculty efforts in extension and community engagement scholarship • Determine the perceptions about the value of community engaged participatory research.

9. Findings - Demographics • Nearly 69% of the respondents had less than seven years of experience as a department head as summarized in Table 1. • Only 5 (9.6%) of the 52 respondents had 10 years or more experience as a department head. • In 2011 NCSU had over sixty eight percent of the department heads with six or less years of experience. This compares with the actual percentage of NCSU department heads each year since 2000. • By 2012, 64% had less than 6 years of experience.

10. Findings - Demographics

11. Faculty Knowledge about the Reappointment, Promotion, & Tenure (RPT) Process • How well do faculty understand the importance of aligning their Statement of Expectations (SME) and the Six Scholarship Realms when preparing dossiers?

12. Department Heads’ Perceptions About the Stages of Revising Faculty Members’ SMEs?

13. How Well Do Faculty Understand the Importance of Aligning Their Statement of Mutual Expectations (SME) and the Six Scholarship Realms of Faculty Responsibility When Preparing Their Dossiers Distribution of the Use of Six Realms of Faculty Responsibilities When Making Decisions about Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Distribution of the Use of Six Realms of Faculty Responsibilities When Making Decisions about Reappointment, Promotion, & Tenure

14. How Well Do Faculty Understand the Importance of Aligning Their Statement of Mutual Expectations (SME) and the Six Scholarship Realms of Faculty Responsibility When Preparing Their Dossiers Note. Scale: 1=0%, 2=1-9%, 3=10=19%, 4=20-29%, 5=30-39%, 6=40-49%, 7=50-59%, 8=60-69%, 9=70-79%, 10=80-89%, 11=90-100% Note. Scale: 1=0%, 2=1-9%, 3=10=19%, 4=20-29%, 5=30-39%, 6=40-49%, 7=50-59%, 8=60-69%, 9=70-79%, 10=80-89%, 11=90-100% General Distribution of the Six Realms of Faculty Responsibilities on Faculty Members’ Statement of Mutual Expectations Note: Scale: 1=0%, 2=1-9%, 3=10=19%, 4=20-29%, 5=30-39%, 6=40-49%, 7=50-59%, 8=60-69%, 9=70-79%, 10=80-89%, 11=90-100%

15. Perceptions of Department Heads about the Value of Different Types of Research When Making Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Decisions Note: 1=Not valued, 2=Minimally valued, 3=Somewhat valued, 4=Highly valued

16. Perceptions of Department Heads about the RPT Value of Publishing in Different Journals Note: Scale: 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Agree, & 4=Strongly agree

17. What Department Heads Value When Making RPT Decisions about Faculty Note: Scale: 1=Not valued, 2=Minimally valued, 3=Somewhat valued, & 4=Highly valued

18. Department Heads’ Perceived Value of Different Categories of Engagement for Making RPT Decisions about Faculty Note: Scale: 1=Not valued, 2=Minimally valued, 3=Somewhat valued, & 4=Highly valued

19. Conclusions • Significant effort must continue in order to change the department culture and acceptance of community engagement scholarship (tenured & non-tenured faculty) • It is critical to expand the training of faculty, department heads, and RPT committee members so they have the tools, metrics, and scholarship standards for each of the six realms of scholarship. • Engagement faculty members need several mentors who will coach them on documentation of their community engagement scholarship so this work is in alignment with the N.C. State institutional guidance. • Make changes in university reporting so faculty can report integration of learning, discovery, and engagement rather than being forced to choose one category exclusively. Reporting integrated mission areas should be considered for: 1) extramural funding, self or department funded projects, 2) peer reviewed products, 3) dossier formats, 4) Statements of Mutual Expectations, and 5) Faculty Activity Report forms.

20. Recommendations Support, Funding & Leadership Needed to capture the value and quality of community engagement scholarship. Example: Continuous Training of Department and Unit Directors. N.C. State should continue to monitor the status of community engagement scholarship for faculty, community partners, and beneficiaries of the partnership. These statistics should be included in university reports for academy community engagement integrated into the curriculum and for non-formal teaching and learning across the state. Observation: Engagement accomplishments and scholarship may have larger numbers of learners and result in numerous outcomes from any of the types seven types of community capital (Flora, 2004). Currently these numbers are often omitted because they are large numbers when compared to student outcomes, or the undergraduate and graduate student body. This is a disservice to this mission area, the faculty members who partner with communities to measure these outcomes, and to the public who wants to know how we are engaged with the people of North Carolina.

21. Recommendations There is a lack of published peer reviewed community engagement scholarship due to departments’ failure to give credit for this type of scholarship. The problem with this situation is that community engagement scholarship programs, projects, and accomplishments do not become part of the academic record of the university or its faculty. The nation and world have no way to build on to this excellent engagement scholarship work, or to challenge findings. Community engagement scholarship must become more than the work of individual faculty members who persist in a traditional dominant culture. Observation: All aspects of N.C. State’s community engagement should be visible, publishable through a variety of methods, and known to the world. Regional, national and global partnerships can be built with institutional and departmental support. The faculty and community partners of N.C. State University can become known globally for their significant community engagement that integrates learning, discovery and engagement and results in scholarship.

22. Alignment of Scholarship Recognition for all Realms of Scholarship across Higher Education

23. International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame

24. Definition of Community Engagement Scholarship

25. Partners to Continuing Education Community Engagement

26. Question 1 • How do we begin to understand • perceptions of these shareholders?

27. Question 2 • How do these perceptions contribute to the language and • processes we use ourselves?

28. Question 3 • How do we benchmark where • we are?

29. Benchmarks to Understanding Continuing Education’s Role in Community Engagement Scholarship