How Do We Align the Direction of NCCES Leadership Capacity,

Program Outcomes, and Community Capacity & Vitality?

What Department Barriers Exist for Engaged Universities?

Alice Warren & Patricia M. Sobrero

North Carolina State UniversityUPCEA South

September 30, 2012

Expected OutcomesSetting the StageReview of Department StandardsFindings, Conclusions, ImplicationsHow this Applies to Continuing EducationWhat We Need to Know Next

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 work and 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).

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

University Changes Leading to StudyScholarship 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

Department Standards based on 6 Realms of Scholarship – 64 Departments

1) Teaching and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate

students;

2) Discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry;

3) Creative artistry and literature;

4) Technological and managerial innovation;

5) Extension and engagement constituencies outside the

university; and

6) 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.

Department Standards Findings

1. 100% included traditional areas: service, research, and teaching, reams 1, 2, 6

2. 73% included realm 5, community engagement scholarship (CES)

3. 8 of 9 colleges included CES4. 20.3% of NCSU Departments do not include

Realm 5, CES as an option (5 of 9 colleges)5. Realm 3 creative artistry and literature = 16%6. Realm 4, technological and managerial

innovation = 25%

Purpose

The study was expected to accomplish the following objectives while benchmarking the status of scholarship based on the N.C. State six realms:

1. 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.

2. Determine the level of priority given for extension and community engagement scholarship in making promotion and tenure decisions.

3. Determine the level of faculty efforts in extension and community engagement scholarship

4. Determine the perceptions about the value of community engaged participatory research.

Findings - Demographics

1. Nearly 69% of the respondents had less than seven years of experience as a department head as summarized in Table 1.

2. Only 5 (9.6%) of the 52 respondents had 10 years or more experience as a department head.

3. 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.

4. By 2012, 64% had less than 6 years of experience.

Findings - Demographics

Type of Responsibility Number of Respondents

Percentage of Respondents

As a candidate 39 75.0%

As a departmental voting faculty member 39 75.0%

As a department head 49 94.2%

As a member of a college RPT review committee 17 32.7%

As a member of the university RPT review committee

3 5.8%

Faculty Knowledge about theReappointment, 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?

Response Options Number of Respondents Percentage of Respondents

Not At All understand 1 2.0%

Not Very Well 2 3.9%

Fairly Well 20 39.2%

Very Well Understand 28 54.9%

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

Revising Stages n Mean SD

During their annual review process 45 2.5 .843

Upon reappointment 46 2.8 .947

Upon promotion 47 3.0 .885

When the scope of their work changes 49 3.7 .466

Distribution of the Use of Six Realms of Faculty Responsibilities When Making Decisions about

Reappointment, Promotion, & Tenure

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 DossiersDistribution of the Use of Six Realms of Faculty Responsibilities When Making Decisions about Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure

Six Realms of Faculty Responsibilities Number of Respondents

Percentage of Respondents

Teaching and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students

51 98.1%

Discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry

49 94.2%

Service in professional societies and service and engagement within the university itself

48 92.3%

Extension and engagement with constituencies outside the university

39 75.0%

Technical and managerial innovation 19 36.5%Creative artistry and literature 7 13.5%

General Distribution of the Six Realms of Faculty Responsibilities on Faculty Members’ Statement of Mutual Expectations

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

Six Realms of Faculty Responsibilities n Mean SD

Teaching and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students

51 5.7 1.53

Discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry 50 6.0 1.78Service in professional societies and service and engagement within the university itself

51 3.1 1.58

Extension and engagement with constituencies outside the university

45 3.2 2.05

Technological and managerial innovation 33 2.2 1.25Creative artistry and literature 28 2.0 2.21

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%

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%

Perceptions of Department Heads about the Value of Different Types of Research When Making Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Decisions

Types of Research n Mean SD

Basic research 52 3.8 .605

Applied research 51 3.7 .666

Community engaged participatory research 50 2.8 .938

Note: 1=Not valued, 2=Minimally valued, 3=Somewhat valued, 4=Highly valued

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

Perception about publishing n Mean SDFaculty who publish in peer reviewed research journals are likely to succeed in the RPT process.

52 3.7 0.612

Faculty who publish in peer reviewed teaching journals are likely to succeed in the RPT process.

52 2.7 1.024

Faculty who publish in peer reviewed community engagement journals are likely to succeed in the RPT process.

39 2.4 .940

Faculty who publish in more than one of the above journals (a, b, & c) are likely to succeed in the RPT process.

51 3.4 0.799

What Department Heads Value When Making RPT Decisions about Faculty

Note: Scale: 1=Not valued, 2=Minimally valued, 3=Somewhat valued, & 4=Highly valued

Types of Faculty Activities n Mean SD

Teaching & mentoring of students 51 3.9 0.300

Discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry

51 3.9 0.431

Creative artistry and literature 40 1.9 1.047

Technological and managerial innovation 41 2.6 0.948

Extension and engagement with constituents outside the University

49 3.2 0.816

Service in professional societies and service and engagement within the University

51 3.2 0.566

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

Types of Engagement Work n Mean SDClinical & diagnostic testing services 48 1.8 0.905

Co-curricular service learning 48 2.4 0.796

Curricular engagement in classes 48 3.1 0.799

Knowledge creation and transfer 51 3.8 0.541

Public events and understanding 48 2.8 0.668

Technical and expert assistance 48 2.8 0.751

Technology transfer and communication 49 2.7 1.011

University and industry cooperative partnership 45 3.0 0.965

Conclusions1. Significant effort must continue in order to change the department culture and

acceptance of community engagement scholarship (tenured & non-tenured faculty) 2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

1. Support, Funding & Leadership Needed to capture the value and quality of community engagement scholarship. Example: Continuous Training of Department and Unit Directors.

2. 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.

Recommendations

Recommendations3. 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.

Transformational CapacityIntegrated within NCCES

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

International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame

The scholarship of engagement is the collaborative generation, refinement,

conservation, and exchange of mutually beneficial and societally relevant knowledge

that is communicated to and validated by peers in academe and the community.

Definition of Community Engagement Scholarship

Partners to Continuing Education Community Engagement

YOU

Question 1

How do we begin to understand perceptions of these shareholders?

Question 2

How do these perceptions contribute to the language and processes we use ourselves?

Question 3

How do we benchmark where we are?

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

Where are we now?

CE Leaders

ExternalPartners

Corporate, Business, Non-Profits, & Gov.

Entities

CE Staff

CampusPeers

Ms. Alice S. WarrenVice Provost for Continuing EducationMcKimmon Center for Extension and Continuing EducationBox 7401Raleigh, NC 27695-7401 919.515.8929alice_warren@ncsu.edu

Dr. Patricia “Pat” M. SobreroAgricultural and Extension EducationProfessor, Extension SpecialistCampus Box 7607Raleigh, NC 27695-7607

919-513-2350pat_sobrero@ncsu.edu