Campus Compact

Educating citizens • building communities

Campus Compact > Initiatives > The Research University Civic Engagement Network (TRUCEN)
Civic Engagement at Research Universities
> Research University Engaged Scholarship Toolkit > Section A: About Engaged Scholarship

contact-us.jpg

Section A: About Engaged Scholarship

1. What Is Engaged Scholarship?

2. How Does Engaged Scholarship Compare with Traditional (Discovery) Scholarship?

3. Why Do Engaged Scholarship?

4. How To Do Engaged Scholarship Well

5. Developing Scholars and Practitioners of Community-Engaged Research

6. Exemplars of Engaged Scholarship

(Back to Table of Contents)


1. What Is Engaged Scholarship?

 

  • Academic Affairs Committee of the Syracuse University Senate. (2007). Learning about scholarship in action in concept and practice: A white paper.http://universitysenate.syr.edu/academic/pdf/white-paper-nov-12-2007.pdf
    • In an address to the campus at the end of her inaugural year (April, 2005), Chancellor Nancy Cantor announced her vision of Syracuse University as a Creative Campus whose faculty and students would be deeply engaged with the world, interacting with local and global communities in productive relationships and activities that she named “scholarship in action.” Recognizing the difficulty of fitting such public or community-engaged scholarship into the traditional framework for defining and evaluating faculty work, she called on the Academic Affairs Committee of the Senate to study the issues related to implementing this vision. This is a study of scholarship of action both as a concept and as a set of faculty practices.
  • American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2002). Stepping forward as stewards of place: A guide for leading public engagement at state colleges and universities. Washington, DC: AASCU. www.aascu.org/pdf/stewardsofplace_02.pdf
    • This is AASCU’s task force report on public engagement, a practical and strategic guide for state college and university leaders who want to more deeply embed public engagement in the fabric of their institution at the campus, college, and departmental levels. The report includes sections on challenges and importance of, and recommendations and guidelines for, quality engaged practice.
  • Barge, J. & Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2008). Engaged scholarship and the creation of useful organizational knowledge. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36 (3), 251-265.  http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a794924686~db=all~order=page
    • Engaged scholarship represents one way for making research relevant to organizational practitioners by bridging the gap between theory and practice. Engaged scholarship is viewed as a form of collaborative inquiry between academics and practitioners that leverages their different perspectives to generate useful organizational knowledge. This article explores the possibilities associated with engaged scholarship in three specific contexts: (1) theory-building and research, (2) pedagogy, teaching, and education, and (3) institutional opportunities and constraints as they relate to issues of tenure and promotion and creation of the engaged campus.
  • Benson, L. Harkavy, I., & Puckett, J. (2007). Dewey’s dream: Universities and democracies in an age of education reform (especially pp. 77-113). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    • In this section of the book, the authors assert that by working toward solving the overall problems of the public school system, the University of Pennsylvania will be much better able to achieve its traditional mission to advance, preserve, and transmit knowledge. At the same time, the University will help produce well-educated citizens necessary for a genuine democratic society.
  • Boyer, E. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11-20. Boyer, E (1996).pdf
    • In this article, Boyer coined the term “scholarship of engagement” and discussed its relationship to his reconceptualization of scholarship as discovery, integration, application, and teaching. Posted with permission of the Journal of Public Service and Outreach (now the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement).
  • Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
    • This seminal work on the four types of scholarship–discovery, integration, application, and teaching–led the way for Boyer’s subsequent naming of the scholarship of engagement in his 1996 Journal of Public Service and Outreach article.
  • Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions. (2005). Linking scholarship and communities: Report of the Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions. Seattle: Community-Campus Partnerships for Health http://www.ccph.info/.
    • This comprehensive report, focused on the health professions, reviews a conceptualization of engaged scholarship, identifies the significant gap that exists between the promise of health professional schools as engaged institutions and the reality of how faculty members are typically judged and rewarded, and makes recommendations on how to close this gap. It acknowledges that recognizing and rewarding community engaged scholarship in the health professions will require changes not only in the wording of institutional policies and procedures but in the culture of institutions and professions. Leadership is needed from academic institutions and the external stakeholders that influence their values and priorities, including government, peer-reviewed journals, and accrediting bodies.
  • Cooper, D. (2009). The university in national development: The role of use-inspired research. Proposed comparative case studies of community-engaged research. Original Toolkit essay. PDF available at dcooper-toolkitfeb09
    • This essay by a University of Cape Town professor of sociology summarizes his community-engaged research concerns and activities, and proposes an investigation and theorization of how universities might become more deeply engaged with civil society, particularly with respect to research relations with local and regional government bodies, community and civic organizations, labor and other non-governmental organizations etc.
  • Couto, R. (2001). The promise of a scholarship of engagement. Academic Workplace, 4-7. http://www.nerche.org/images/stories/publications/The_Academic_Workplace_-_Vol._12_No._2_Spring_2001.pdf
    • The author discusses the key elements of participatory action research and the importance of engaging with the community population rather than social service providers, and provides some principles of good practice. He describes a case study that involved him and his students.
  • Fear, F., Rosaen, C., Bawden, R., & Foster-Fishman, P. (2006). Coming to critical engagement: an autoethnographic exploration:  Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
    • This volume is an outgrowth of discussion generated through and by faculty members of the engaged learning community at Michigan State University. It uses a blend of scholarly and personal inquiry coupled with collegial discourse to examine the nature of scholarly engagement. Descriptions of personal journeys in navigating university and community systems, examination of the ethics and value of the work are combined with theory and critical reflection to provide authentic and meaningful views of engaged scholarship.
  • Giles, D.E., Jr., (2008). Understanding an emerging field of scholarship: Toward a research agenda for engaged, public scholarship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12 (2)2, 97-106.
    • This article synthesizes contributions to two special issues of the Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement (Volume 12) to develop a comprehensive view of this emerging field, ‘which as yet has many names and a number of dif ferent emphases, conceptualizations, and research questions.’ It argues that only an engaged process can ultimately clarify this emerging field and enable it to move forward with a research agenda. Such a process would include practitioner and community voices, be interactive, and be encouraged and supported by additional outlets for scholarly exploration.
  • Holland, et al. (2010). Models of engaged scholarship: An interdisciplinary discussion. Collaborative Anthropologies, 3, 1-36.
    • This article reports on discussions of an interdisciplinary group of scholars at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) on various models of engaged scholarship in anthropology, public health, communications and other social and behavioral sciences, and the new ways of understanding engaged scholarship that are emerging at UNC and other research universities.  The models examined are: community-based participatory research; public anthropology and sociology; critical race theory; public dialogues; “crisis disciplines”; and social entrepreneurship.  The authors identify core themes and “problematics” across the models and offer suggestions for future research and practice.
  • Howard, J. (2007). Powerpoint slide of a Venn diagram that reflects the three essential components of engaged scholarship: involves the community, benefits the community, and advances the faculty member’s scholarship. University of Michigan. engaged-scholarship-venn-diagram.pdf.
  • Howard, J. (2007). Powerpoint slide: Distinguishing engaged scholarship from faculty volunteering and professional service. University of Michigan. distinguishing-engaged-scholarship.pdf.
    • Volunteering may benefit a community, but it doesn’t necessarily draw on the faculty member’s expertise nor advance her/his scholarship. Professional service draws on the faculty member’s expertise but doesn’t advance her/his scholarship. Engaged scholarship necessarily taps the faculty member’s expertise and advances her/his scholarship.
  • Howard, J. (2007) Powerpoint slide: Is it engaged scholarship? An exploratory assessment heuristic to assist campuses in determining whether or not a community-engaged project qualifies as engaged scholarship. University of Michigan. engaged-scholarship.pdf.
    • This heuristic or an adaptation thereof may be useful to campus administrators and faculty in distinguishing engaged scholarship from other forms of scholarship at their university.
  • Michigan State University Committee on Evaluating Quality Outreach. (1996, 2000). Points of distinction: A guidebook for planning and evaluating quality outreach. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Outreach and Engagement. http://outreach.msu.edu/documents/pod.pdf
    • This guidebook encourages discussion about the values and evidence associated with quality outreach and engagement. Four dimensions of quality outreach include: significance, context, scholarship, and impact. Components, sample evaluation questions, and qualitative and quantitative indicators for each dimension are suggested as rigorous ways for both individual faculty and academic units to plan, document, and evaluate outreach scholarship.
  • Nyden, P. (2006) The challenges and opportunities of engaged research. In Silka, L., ed., Scholarship in action: Applied research and community change (HUD’s Office of University Partnerships). www.oup.org/files/pubs/scholarship.pdf
    • The use of engaged methods such as collaborative university-community research, is examined as a way of strengthening traditional academic research. Particular focus is placed on a collaborative model combining university-based and community-based knowledge. The Loyola University Chicago Center for Urban Research and Learning is used as a case study. The incorporation of grassroots research into broader research initiatives promises to increase the quality of research and connections among communities at national and international levels.
  • O’Meara, K. & Rice, R.E. (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • This book features case studies of nine institutions grappling with reform of faculty roles and rewards and how institutional cultures, values, history, type, and internal and external forces influenced their efforts. The case studies are sandwiched between chapters tracing the history of the movement to redefine scholarship and the impact of this movement at the national level, and concludes with a guide to “best practices, strategies, and campus examples” and lessons learned from an inquiry into the scholarly work of faculty. While not focused on community-engaged scholarship per se, the book includes references to this work providing a rich institutionally focused context for considering it.
  • Presidents’ Declaration on the Civic Responsibility of Higher Education (1999). Campus Compact.
    • The purpose of this statement is to articulate the commitment of all sectors of higher education, public and private, two- and four-year, to their civic purposes and identify the behaviors that will make that commitment manifest. It was reviewed, refined and endorsed at a Presidents’ Leadership Colloquium convened by Campus Compact and the American Council on Education.
  • Roche, B., Guta, A., & Flicker, S. (2010). Peer research in action I: Models of practice. Community Based Research Working Paper Series. The Wellesley Institute, 2-18.  http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/uncategorized/peer-research-in-action/
    • This resource is the first paper of a three-part series by the Wellesley Institute that focuses on peer research models practiced in Toronto. The authors define peer research as, “a popular form of community-based research where community members are trained and supported to participate as co-researchers.”  How have CBR partnerships defined peer research and integrated it into their CBR projects? What challenges have these research projects encountered in the peer research process? The Wellesley Institute conducted interviews and held focus groups to answer these questions, and identified three models of peer research: advisory, employment, and partner models. The study suggests that the partner model has the greatest potential to facilitate true inclusion of community members, and concludes with recommendations for CBR teams on how to use a model of peer research to guide their work.
  • Sandmann, L. (2004). Powerpoint presentation: Where is the scholarship in the scholarship of engagement?  Located at http://www.usi.edu/ctle/docs/ScholarshipofEngagementVideoConferenceUSI.ppt
    • This presentation to the University of Southern Indiana looks at definitions of engagement, scholarship, scholarship of engagement, standards, and systems to support this work.
  • Sandmann, L. (2008). Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher education: A strategic review, 1996-2006. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 91-104.
    • During the past decade, the generalized concept of the scholarship of engagement has evolved. Once a broad call for higher education to be more responsible to communities, it is now a multifaceted field of responses. This article describes the evolution of the term; then, to clarify the “definitional anarchy” that has arisen around its use, it explores the past decade’s punctuations in the evolutionary progress of the concept. Finally, it calls for moving beyond descriptive, narrative works to more critical, empirical research as well as policy analysis and introduces the possibility that the next punctuation will be the development of engaged scholarship’s own theory.
  • Sandmann, L. (2009). Placing scholarly engagement “on the desk.” Original Toolkit essay. sandmann.pdf
    • This essay focuses on the need to frame engagement as scholarship and to gain support for faculty members who do this type of work from institutional leaders.
  • Schon, D. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 32(1), Nov-Dec, 44-52.
    • In this article, the author who coined the term “reflective practitioner,” insists that if we are going to broaden our conceptualization of scholarship we must commensurately broaden our conceptualization of epistemology, from only detached ways of knowing to more connected and community-based ways of knowing.
  • Scobey, D. (2004) Making use of all our faculties: Public scholarship and the future of Campus Compact. Campus Compact 20th anniversary celebration. http://www.compact.org/resources/future-of-campus-engagement/making-use-of-all-our-faculties-public-scholarship-and-the-future-of-campus-compact/4246/
  • Stanton, T. (2007). New times demand new scholarship II: Research universities and civic engagement—opportunities and challenges. Report of The Research University Community Engagement Network (TRUCEN). http://www.compact.org/initiatives/research_universities/
    • This report highlights the discussion at the UCLA TRUCEN gathering, with a focus on engaged scholarship. Figure 2, Degrees of Collaborative Processes in Engaged Scholarship, differentiates unilateral vs. mutual determination of each stage of a research process, from the research question to the application of findings. Figure 3, Outcomes of Engaged Research, demarcates four unequal quadrants reflecting low and high academic and community outcomes. The report also addresses scholarship on engagement, educating students for civic engagement, and institutionalizing civic engagement.
  • Walshok, M. (1995). Knowledge without borders: What America’s research universities can do for the economy, the workplace, and the community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • The author reveals the untapped potential of research universities for delivering and helping to apply the critical knowledge that society needs to maintain and build economic, workforce, and civic capabilities. She explores the evolution and expansion of America’s dependence on new knowledge and the importance of that knowledge as a critical resource that supports and drives virtually all social and economic progress.

↑top

2. How Does Engaged Scholarship Compare with Traditional (Discovery) Scholarship?

  • Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium’s Community Engagement Key Function Committee and the CTSA Community Engagement Workshop Planning Committee (2008). Researchers and their communities: The challenge of meaningful community engagement. http://www.ctsaweb.org/uploadedfiles/Best%20Practices%20in%20Community%20Engagement_Summary_2007-08.pdf
    • A summary of the best practices emerging from a series of national and regional workshops on community engagement held in five U.S. cities between May 2007 and October 2008.  The article, written in almost a newsletter format, critically examines previous roles and practices of Academic Health Centers, moves into definitions and illustrations of engaged scholarship in the field and offers recommendations for future practice. Definitions given and models illustrated have relevance and applicability far beyond the health fields.
  • Furco, A. (2002). A comparison of traditional scholarship and the scholarship of engagement. In Anderson J. & Douglass, J.A. et al, Promoting civic engagement at the University of California: Recommendations from the strategy group on civic and academic engagement (p. 10). Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education. The full report can found at http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/StrategyReport.2.06.pdf
    • In this University of California report Furco offers a useful chart that compares views on traditional scholarship of discovery and on scholarship of engagement along six dimensions. He suggests that scholarship of engagement must satisfy criteria related to the traditional views and also additional ones having to do with direct application to broader public issues, community impact, and that it is reviewed and validated by qualified peers in the community.
  • Jordan, C. (Ed.). (2007). Community-engaged scholarship review, promotion & tenure package. Peer Review Workgroup, Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/CES_RPT_Package.pdf (especially pp. 5-10)
    • This document delineates eight characteristics of quality and significant community-engaged scholarship: clear academic and community change goals, adequate preparation in content area and grounding in the community, appropriate academic and community methods, significant impact on disciplinary knowledge and the community, effective presentation and dissemination to academic and community audiences, reflective technique, contribution to the national engagement movement, and consistently ethical behavior.
  • McDonald, M.A. Powerpoint presentation: Practicing community-engaged research. Duke University. https://www.dtmi.duke.edu/about-us/organization/duke-center-for-community-research/Resources/comm-engaged-research.pdf/view
    • A community-engaged research approach can enable researchers to strengthen the links between research and practice and enhance translational results. To practice community-engaged research one needs to re-think the relationship of research and researchers to communities. The presentation distinguishes traditional from community-engaged research, with a focus on community-based participatory research. It addresses how to incorporate community-based approaches into traditional research and how the community can contribute to and strengthen research.

↑top

3. Why Do Engaged Scholarship?

  • Boyer, E. (1994). Creating the new American university. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 9, A. 48.
    • In this last page proclamation in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Boyer admonishes colleges and universities to become “part of the solution” for the pressing social ills of our times, and introduces the concept of the new American university that would be devoted to solving society’s social problems.
  • Boyte, H. & Hollander, E. (1999). Wingspread declaration on the civic responsibilities of research universities.  http://www.compact.org/initiatives/research_universities/wingspread_declaration
    • In this document university presidents, provosts, deans, and faculty members with extensive experience in higher education as well as representatives of professional associations, private foundations, and civic organizations have formulated strategies for renewing the civic mission of the research university, both by preparing students for responsible citizenship in a diverse democracy and engaging faculty members in developing and utilizing knowledge for the improvement of society.
  • Checkoway, B. (2008). Involving urban planning, social work, and public health faculty members in the civic renewal of the research university. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(4), 507-511.
    • What are some strategies for involving urban planning, social work, and public health faculty members in the civic renewalof the research university? At a time when citizens have “disengaged from democracy,” and universities have deemphasized their civic mission, this article examines ways in which these faculty members might join together and formulate strategies which complement their shared professional and public purposes on campus and in the community.
  • Colbeck, C. & Weaver, L. 2008. Faculty engagement in public scholarship: A motivation systems theory perspective. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(2), 7-33.
    • This study used the lens of motivation systems theory to explore why research university faculty engage in public scholarship. Analysis of motivational patterns, including goals, capability beliefs, context beliefs, and emotions, of twelve community-engaged faculty, is used to identify leverage points for other faculty and administrators who wish to support, increase, or enhance their own and others’ engagement in public scholarship.
  • Colbeck, C. & Wharton-Michael, P. (2006) Individual and organizational influences on faculty members’ engagement in public scholarship. In R. Eberly & J. Cohen (Eds.), A laboratory for public scholarship and democracy (pp. 17-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • This chapter proposes a conceptual framework for understanding influences on faculty work and for conducting research about individual, organizational, and epistemological factors that may shape faculty members’ engagement in public scholarship.
  • Cunningham, K. & McKinney, H. (2010). Towards the recognition and integration of action research and deliberative democracy. Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(1), 1 – 11.
    • This article asserts that the shared underlying value systems of action research (AR) and deliberative democracy (DD) can mutually reinforcing, with the former especially being a powerful means for engaging the academy in the latter. AR and DD are both grounded in principles of inclusion, equity, the co-generation of knowledge, and action. In making the case for the integration of AR and DD, the authors describe their commonalities and place AR in the context of other forms of engaged scholarship. They review outreach scholarship, community-based research and other forms of participatory research, examining each in terms of their alignment with deliberative democratic principles and their potential for furthering deliberative democracy generally. Engaging the academy in research on and for deliberative democracy requires the full recognition of AR and other forms of engaged scholarship.
  • Gibson, C. (2006). New times demand new scholarship: Research universities and civic engagement. A leadership agenda.Report of The Research University Community Engagement Network (TRUCEN).
    • This statement, which was endorsed by the participants of the first TRUCEN meeting at Tufts University in 2005, argues that because of research universities’ significant academic and societal influence, world class faculty, outstanding students, state-of-the-art research facilities, and considerable financial resources, they are well-positioned to lead the higher education sector to ensure deep and long-lasting commitment to civic engagement. It includes sections on engaged scholarship and why it should be important to research universities with examples from member institutions.
  • Gibson, C. (2006). Research universities and engaged scholarship: A leadership agenda for renewing the civic mission of higher education. Prepared for Campus Compact’s 20th anniversary celebration. Research Universities and Engaged Scholarship
    • Because research universities “set the bar” for scholarship across higher education, they are positioned to promote and advance new forms of scholarship that link the intellectual assets of higher education institutions to solving public problems and issues. This essay includes criteria for engaged scholarship, barriers, and reasons for doing it.
  • Gonzalez, K. & Padilla, R. (Eds.). (2008). Doing the public good: Latino/a scholars engage civic participation. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
    • Through the lenses of personal reflection and auto-ethnography—and drawing on such rich philosophical foundations as the Spanish tradition of higher learning, and the activist principles of the Chicano movement—these writers explore the intersections of private and public good, and how the tension between them has played out in their own lives, and the commitments they have made to their intellectual community and to their cultural and family communities. Through memoirs, reflections, and poetry, these authors recount their personal journeys and struggles—often informed by a spiritual connectedness and always driven by a concern for social justice—and show how they have found individual paths to promoting the public good in their classrooms and in the world beyond.
  • National Association of State University and Land Grant Colleges (2001). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. In Executive summaries of the reports of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. Washington, DC: NASULGC. www.cpn.org/topics/youth/highered/pdfs/Land_Grant_Engaged_Institution.pdf
    • This report reviews the rationale for higher education institutions to be engaged with communities, guiding characteristics that define an engaged institution, and a set of recommendations including developing incentives to encourage faculty involvement in engagement.
  • O’Meara, K. (2008). Motivation for faculty community engagement: Learning from exemplars. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 7-29.
    • This study examines the motivations of sixty-eight faculty who are community engaged exemplars. Motivations include personal commitments to specific issues, neighborhoods, and people, perceived fit between community engagement and disciplinary goals, and desire to teach well. Motivations are intrinsic and extrinsic, rooted in personal goals, identity, and organizational cultures. Findings suggest motivation likely varies by type of engagement and depth of involvement over time.
  • O’Meara, K. (2009). Making the case for the new American scholar. Original Toolkit essay. omeara-making-the-case.pdf
    • This essay advocates articulation of a broader role for academic faculty in American democracy beyond their technical expertise as critical for making the case for community engaged research.
  • Oldfield, S. (2007).  Making sense of multiple conversations: Research, teaching, and activism in and with communities in South African cities.  South African Geographical Journal, 89 (2) 104-110.
    • In South Africa research is produced in multiple conversations that include conventional academic disciplinary communities, but it also extends beyond the university, engaging with a range of social and political institutions and actors. As a result, the relationship between research, theory and politics frames research in explicit and implicit ways. The author, a researcher, teacher, and activist, examines the ways in which her engagement with community organizations articulates with her research and teaching. Just as importantly, she discusses the ways in which her research and teaching are shaped by community-based agendas that not only inform the research, but also sustain the relationships critical to carrying it out. The overlapping nature of research, teaching and activism is more than a political and contextual imperative. Potentially it is a theoretical strength that adds depth, reflexivity, and, in the relationships built, the construction of robust urban knowledge.
  • Perold, H. (2005). Strengthening the civic roles and social responsibilities of higher education: Building a global network: A Report on the Talloires Conference 2005, Tufts University.
    • The Talloires Conference, held in Talloires, France in September 2005, was the first international meeting of heads of universities committed to strengthening the civic roles and social responsibilities of higher education. This report outlines the three-day conference, which addressed topics such as civic engagement as a global movement, civic engagement in public policy and higher education, placing civic engagement at the center of institutions, and how to create a global network of leaders in civic engagement. This report also includes the Talloires Declaration on Civic Engagement, which aims to set high standards for universities to be civically engaged and to design proposals on ways that universities can increase their positive impact on society.
  • Scobey, D. (2004) Making use of all our faculties: Public scholarship and the future of Campus Compact. Campus Compact 20th anniversary celebration. Available through Campus Compact, 617-357-1881.
    • The author argues on behalf of community collaboration as a transformative medium of scholarly and artistic production, and offers personal case studies.
  • Simon, Lou Anna K. (2009).  Embracing the world grant ideal: Affirming the Morrill Act for a twenty-first century global society. A monograph. http://www.worldgrantideal.msu.edu/index.php
    • The approaching 2012 sesquicentennial of the signing of the Morrill Act provides an occasion to celebrate the enduring power of the land-grant vision of higher education as an instrument of individual, social, and economic transformation in this nation. The Morrill Act created a new type of higher education institution in the 19th century. Now, according to the president of Michigan State University, the most pressing need in higher education is to encourage universities to evolve in ways that align them more effectively to advance the public good—to affirm the ideals of the Morrill Act and its core values through each institution’s commitments and actions, regardless of its roots.
  • Stanton, T. and Wagner, J. (2010), Educating for democratic citizenship: Antecedents, prospects and models for renewing the civic mission of graduate education at research universities. In Fitzgerald, H.E., Burack, C., & Seifer, S. (Eds.). Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions. Vol. 1: Institutional Change. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press (In press).
    • This paper was originally prepared as background for the Stanford Symposium on Civic Engagement and Graduate Education at Research Universities, sponsored by California Campus Compact at Stanford University on April 24, 2006. It is an account of the historical and organizational contexts that have shaped the asymmetry between engaged scholarship in undergraduate and graduate education, where the values of civic engagement have become increasingly separate from the values of advanced study and career development.

↑top

4. How to Do Engaged Scholarship Well

  • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2011).  Principles of community engagement, second edition. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/communityengagement/pce_execsummary.html
    • This “primer” provides public health professionals, health care providers, researchers, and community-based leaders and organizations with both a science base and practical guidance for engaging partners in projects that may affect them. The principles of engagement can be used by people in a range of roles, from the program funder who needs to know how to support community engagement to the researcher or community leader who needs hands-on, practical information on how to mobilize the members of a community to partner in research initiatives. In addition, it provides tools for those who are leading efforts to improve population health through community engagement.
  • Ahmed, S. M &. Palermo, A. S. (2010). Community engagement in research: Frameworks for education and peer review. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1380-1387.
    • This paper describes the National Institutes of Health Director’s Council of Public Representatives’ (DCPR) community engagement framework, which was designed to educate researchers to create and sustain authentic community – academic partnerships that will increase accountability and equality between the partners.  The framework includes values, strategies to operationalize each value, and potential outcomes of their use in community engaged research, as well as a peer review criteria for evaluating research that engages communities.
  • Ansley, F. & Gaventa, J. (1997). Researching for democracy and democratizing research. Change, 29(1), 46-54.
    • Noting that the current, conventional approach to research does little to strengthen scholars’ participation in civic life, this article advocates and describes models of research that promote more democratic inquiry methods, more reciprocal relationships between researchers and their subjects, and new collaborations between research institutions and communities. Examples of programs and initiatives are offered.
  • Bringle, R. & Hatcher, J. (2002). Campus-community partnerships for health: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503-516.
    • This article focuses on campus-community partnerships thats can leverage both campus and community resources to address critical issues in local communities. Campus-community partnerships are described as a series of interpersonal relationships between (a) campus administrators, faculty, staff, and students and (b) community leaders, agency personnel, and members of communities. The phases of relationships (i.e., initiation, development, maintenance, dissolution) and the dynamics of relationships (i.e., exchanges, equity, distribution of power) are explored to provide service-learning instructors and campus personnel with a clearer understanding of how to develop healthy campus-community partnerships.
  • Bastida, E.M. et al (2010). Ethics and community-based participatory research: Perspectives from the field. Health Promotion Practice, 11(1), 16-20.
    • The increase in health disparities signifies the importance of employing an ethical approach to CBPR. This article provides background on various ethical issues in health promotion and education practices/projects, and then uses a CBPR project located in the Lower Rio Grande Valley as a case example to discuss “ethical issues such as the importance of increased community involvement in research, ensuring that communities benefit from the research, sharing leadership roles, and sensitive issues regarding data collection and sharing”. The researchers from this project worked with community members to develop a code of ethics to guide the intervention, which was comprised of six principles: respect, fiduciary transparency, fairness, informed consent: always voluntary; reciprocity; and equal voice and disclosure. The article discusses these principles and in conclusion advises practitioners to employ them in order to build develop trusting relationships, that can help reduce the potential for less-than-optimal outcomes and more likely develop into “meaningful and sustainable partnerships”.
  • Brown, et al. (2006) The Transformative Engagement Process: Foundations and supports for university-community partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 11,(1), 9-21.
    • This article describes Michigan State University’s “transformative engagement process,” an interactive process in which all partners – academic and community – apply critical thinking skills to complex community problems. Based on Mezirow’s transformational learning (1991) it is iterative in nature and informed by a university-wide model of engagement built on the land-grant tradition and by grounded principles from the literature and developing engagement practice.  To be successful, partners must have appropriate and multiple ways – face to face and electronic – of making and sustaining connections to each other and to information that will help them move through transformations.  The structures are designed to meet the needs of those engaged in partnerships while promoting evidence-based best practices in community agencies.
  • Cooper, T.L. (2009). Challenges of civic engagement research. Original Toolkit essay. Challenges-of-civic-engagement.pdf
    • A brief practical essay addressing six critical areas for faculty consideration in undertaking community engaged research: institutional context; establishing legitimacy; community credibility; funding; methodological difficulties; collaboration.
  • Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, Community engagement framework for peer review guidancehttp://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/3-Peer_Review_Framework.pdf
    • This resource provides a table containing criteria suggested for reviewers who wish to assess community engagement research proposals effectively, and evaluate research applications involving community engagement. The framework is designed for both principal investigators (from academic institutions) and co-investigators (from academic institutions or communities)
  • Examining Community-Institutional Partnerships for Prevention Research Group. (2006). Developing and sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: A skill-building curriculum. http://www.cbprcurriculum.info
    • With interest in community-based participatory research (CBPR) growing, there is a commensurate need and demand for educational resources to build the knowledge and skills needed to develop and sustain effective CBPR partnerships. This evidence-based curriculum is intended as a tool for community-institutional partnerships using or planning to use a CBPR approach to improving health, but it is relevant for all CBPR efforts. It can be used by partnerships just forming as well as mature ones. Chapters include: getting grounded, starting a partnership, developing a partnership, trust and communication, securing and distributing funding, disseminating results, and sustainability.
  • Fear, F., Bawden, R. Rosaen, C., and Foster-Fishman, P. (2002). A model of engaged learning: Frames of reference and scholarly underpinnings. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 7(3), 55-68.
    • This article seeks to make explicit the essential features of an engagement model based on the separate engagement experiences of four colleagues–a sociologist, rural developer, teacher educator, and community psychologist. Shares and discusses what engagement means to them, then shares interpretations of the conceptual, philosophical, and normative underpinnings of their work.
  • Fitzgerald, H., Burack, C. & Seifer, S. (2011).  Handbook of engaged scholarship, Volume 1: Institutional change; Volume 2: Community-campus partnerships. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
    • In these two volumes contributors capture the rich diversity of institutions and partnerships that characterize the contemporary landscape and future of engaged scholarship. Volume 1 addresses such issues as the application of engaged scholarship across types of colleges and universities and the current state of the movement. Volume 2 contains essays on such topics as current typologies, measuring effectiveness and accreditation, community–campus partnership development, national organizational models, and the future landscape.
  • Gust, S. & Jordan, C. (2006). The community impact statement: A tool for creating healthy partnerships.Minneapolis.
    • This set of guiding questions is intended to help community and university partners discuss critical issues as they develop and sustain partnerships for community-based participatory research. In order to create partnerships that share knowledge and reap mutual benefits, partners are invited to consider questions in four areas: Preparing the Ground; Making the Connections/Building the Relationships; Doing the Work; and The Harvest: Evaluation/Dissemination/Policy Implications/Completion. The process grew out of the lessons learned by community members, University of Minnesota faculty, and representatives of other public and private organizations involved in the Phillips Neighborhood Healthy Housing Collaborative. [A companion piece to Gust, S. & Jordan, C. (2006), immediately below.]
  • Gust, S. & Jordan, C. (2006) The community impact statement: A prenuptial agreement for community-campus partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 11(2), 155-169.
    • Like a prenuptial agreement when there are resources to share, these authors advocate that those seeking to establish community-campus partnerships develop an agreement before the work the partnership begins. The strength and success of the partnership is dependent on the process by which the relationship and its assets are clearly defined. Guidelines are presented for such a community impact statement.
  • Israel, B., Eng, E., Schulz, A., & Parker, E. (2005). Methods in communitybased participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • A comprehensive publication on how to do CBPR, including partnership formation, community assessment, defining a research question, documenting and evaluating partnerships, and disseminating and applying the results.
  • Jordan, C. (Ed.). (2007). Community-engaged scholarship review, promotion & tenure package. Peer Review Workgroup, Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health.  http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/CES_RPT_Package.pdf (especially pp. 5-10)
    • This document delineates eight characteristics of quality and significant community-engaged scholarship: clear academic and community change goals, adequate preparation in content area and grounding in the community, appropriate academic and community methods, significant impact on disciplinary knowledge and the community, effective presentation and dissemination to academic and community audiences, reflective technique, contribution to the national engagement movement, and consistently ethical behavior.
  • Lavery, J.V. et al. (2010). Towards a framework for community engagement in global health research. Trends in Parasitology, 26(6), 279-283.
    • Community engaged research is most challenging for global public health scientific ventures, particularly those involving new and controversial strategies and those in which risks and/or rewards for communities may be poorly understood. In this context, according to these authors, “…too few researchers authentically grapple with questions about what the precise nature of a given research community is, what constitutes fair and meaningful authorization by a community, whether dissenting voices should be afforded a fair opportunity for expression, or whether some control of important aspects of a research project can truly be ceded to the community without compromising the quality or integrity of the research.” (Lavery et al, 282)  In response these authors describe a framework that provides a starting point for broader discussions of community engaged scholarship ethics in global health research, particularly as it relates to the development, evaluation and application of new technologies.
  • Minkler, M. & Wallerstein, N. (Eds.). (2008). Community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • This resource on the theory and application of community-based participatory research focuses on health, but the application is universal. The book contains information on a wide variety of topics including planning and conducting research, working with communities, promoting social change, and core research methods.  An appendix of tools, guides, checklists, sample protocols, and much more is included
  • Ochocka, J., Moolag, E. & Janzen, R. (2010). A Framework for entry: PAR values and engagement strategies in community research. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 3, 1-19.
    • The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the significance of entry in community-based research projects and to present a framework for entry that is influenced by principles of participatory action research (PAR): empowerment, supportive relationships, social justice, ongoing reciprocal education, and respect for diversity. This study examines the four entry stages of a mental health CBPR project in Ontario Canada, and analyzes the ways these principles were successfully applied and also how they were difficult to implement. Considering the entry process as critical in setting the tone for the project/partnership, the paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of combining PAR principles and engagement strategies in the initial stages of entry in order to develop reciprocal and honest relationships between the researchers and the community members.
  • Sandmann, L., Foster-Fishman, P., Lloyd, J., Rauhe, W., & Rosaen, C. (2000). Managing critical tensions: How to strengthen the scholarship component of outreach. Change, 32(1), 44-52.
    • Central to scholarship in outreach is the management of several critical tensions that emerge during planning, implementing, and evaluating endeavors. How can one produce outcomes valued by the academy and community? Analysis uses Michigan State University’s Points of Distinction framework including significance, attention to context, scholarship, and impact.
  • Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N.,Stoecker, R., Donohue, P. (2003). Community-based research in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
    • This book presents a model of community-based research (CBR) that engages community members with students and faculty in the course of their academic work. Noting that CBR is collaborative and change-oriented and finds its research questions in the needs of communities, it presents a dynamic research model that combines classroom learning with social action in ways that can ultimately empower community groups to address their own agendas and shape their own futures.
  • Valente, Thomas W. et al. (2010). A network assessment of community-based participatory research: Linking communities and universities to reduce cancer disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 100(7), 1319-1325.
    • Although the development of CBPR has been accompanied by growth in empirical studies on the operations and impacts of CBPR programs, there are few studies that evaluate the effectiveness of CBPR programs. Weaving an Islander Network for Cancer Awareness Research and Training (WINCART) initiative is based in Southern California. The goal of WINCART is to decrease cancer disparities among Pacific Islander communities by connecting community-based organizations (CBOs) and academic institutions that work in cancer education, research, and training. Can community-based outreach activities increase links between CBOs and academic researchers? This paper describes a 2-year study that employed social network analysis to assess the effectiveness of WINCART by measuring degrees of communication, collaboration, client referral, and formal agreements among organizations. 147 people from 11 CBOs and 5 universities were interviewed.  Results revealed that “CBOs increased their connectedness with one another (b= 0.44; P < .05) and to the universities (b = 0.46; P<.05), but that university researchers did not increase their connectedness to each other or to CBOs” (Valente, 1319). This research not only demonstrates how a community-based program can improve communication between CBO’s, but that social network analysis is a credible evaluation method for CBPR programs.
  • Weerts, D. J. & Sandmann, L. R. (2010). Community engagement and boundary- spanning roles at research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 632-657.
    • From the Carnegie Foundation classification system for university commitment to community engagement, to the establishment of professional networks focusing on engagement, progress has been made in recognizing the value of engaged scholarship. However, there has been an uneven adoption of engaged scholarship work by research universities in comparison to non-research institutions. This study uses boundary-spanning theory to determine ways that research universities build bridges with community partners, and therefore increase institutional capacity for engagement. The research questions guiding this study include: (a) How are boundary-spanning roles understood and defined across research institutions in the context of university-community engagement?(b) Who are the primary university-community boundary-spanning agents at research institutions, and what are their roles? and (c) To what extent do these boundary- spanning practices facilitate or inhibit university-community engagement? This paper provides a literature review of relevant works and cites the work of Friedman and Podolny (1992) to explain the conceptual components of boundary spanning and the methods used. By understanding the roles of boundary spanners and their activities, research institutions will be able to improve their methods of engagement with communities.
  • Wingspread (2006), Achieving the promise of authentic community-higher education partnerships: A community partner summit, April 24-26, 2006: Wingspread Conference Center, Racine, WI. Link to an executive summary:  http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/FINALCPS_Executive_Summary.pdf .
    • Partnerships between communities and higher educational institutions as a strategy for social change are gaining recognition and momentum. Despite being formed with the best of intentions, however, authentic partnerships are very difficult to achieve. While academic partners have extensively documented their experiences and lessons learned, the voices of community partners are largely missing. If true partnerships are to be achieved, community partners must harness their own experiences, lessons learned, and collective wisdom into a national, organized effort. With guidance from a planning committee of community leaders, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health convened a Community Partner Summit in 2006. A diverse group of 23 community leaders, each experience in community higher education partnerships, engaged in a purposeful national dialogue that emphasized lessons learned and generated recommendations and action steps that participants are taking individually and collectively. (Description adapted from Executive Summary, cited above.)

 

5. Developing Scholars and Practitioners of Community-Engaged Research

  • Griffith, Derek M. et al. (2009). The origins and overview of the W. K. Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 3(4), 335-348.
    • This paper describes the history, components and evaluations of the W. K. Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program (CHSP). From 1998 to 2007, CHSP trained 46 postdoctoral fellows to develop and enhance skills in working with communities and engage in community-based participatory research (CBPR). Its design and implementation exemplified the partnership principles at the core of the training it provided. Evaluations have shown that CHSP has had substantial impact not only on its participants, but also on academic institutions, community-based organizations (CBOs), policies relating to research funding and implementation, and professional organizations.  A key element in this impact has been the continued interaction of CHSP alumni and their academic and community mentors and partners.  Key lessons learned from the evaluations are explored.
  • Masuda, J.R. et al. (2011) Building capacity for community-based participatory research for health disparities in Canada: The Case of ”Partnerships in Community Health Research”. Health Promotion Practice, 12(2), 280-292.
    • Despite increasing support for community-based participatory research (CBPR) to reduce health disparities, challenges at the individual and institutional levels have restricted its adoption.  One such challenge is the lack of in-depth and experiential training opportunities for CBPR practitioners – both academic and community-based. This article describes Partnerships in Community Health Research (PCHR), a program centered at the University of British Columbia, which was designed to provide an integrated, multiyear program for both graduate students and community members to develop knowledge, skills, and experience to engage collaboratively in CBPR. PCHR is a unique training program in that the researchers and community members enter as “equal learners”, community members identify the research projects, and partnerships are sustained beyond one group of learners. To assess the PCHR model, the article outlines two dimensions (learner readiness to engage in CBPR; the extent to which actual projects meet established CPBR criteria for success), and two PCHR learner projects as case studies to portray both achievements and lessons learned.
  • Sandmann, L., Saltmarsh, J. & O’Meara, K. (2008). An integrated model for advancing the scholarship of engagement: Creating academic homes for the engaged scholar. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 47-64.
    • A integrated model is offered for the preparation of future faculty that addresses the transformation of institutions of higher education into supportive environments for the next generation of engaged scholars. Drawing on the knowledge bases of the scholarship of engagement, institutional change, preparing future faculty, the role of disciplinary associations, and promising practice for institutional engagement, the model provides a framework for approaches that would prepare individuals (primarily doctoral students and early career faculty) as learners of engagement while instigating and catalyzing institutions as learning organizations (Sandmann, Saltmarsh & O’Meara, 47). This model has implications for determining how the scholarship of engagement has transformed institutional culture and identity of universities, and whether this change truly signifies a shift in the dominant culture of higher education.

6. Exemplars of Engaged Scholarship

  • Browne, R. et al. (2009). Community – academic partnerships: Lessons learned from replicating a salon-based health education and promotion program. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 3(3), 241-248.
    • This article examines a partnership between the Arthur Ashe Institute for Urban Health (AAIUH), two community-based organizations (CBOs), three universities, and 17 beauty salons. This partnership was created to replicate a salon-based health education and promotion program in African-American and Latino communities in Philadelphia, and its formation was guided by common understanding of four key principles: mutually agreeing on and implementing predefined plans and processes; sharing expertise, resources, and methods; a commitment to building capacity; a commitment to shared credits and rewards. These principles are described, as well as the challenges and lessons learned from both the development of the community-academic partnership and the program replication process. In conclusion, the article demonstrates the overall effectiveness of the partnership and program replication, citing indicators such as leveraging additional funding and results from salon-based surveys that showed a large increase in community me
  • Campus Compact (2009). Models of civic engagement initiatives at research universities.
    • TRUCEN member research universities have provided examples of how they structure civic and community engagement initiatives and activities on campuses.
  • Cuthill, M. (2010). Working together: A methodological case study of ‘Engaged Scholarship’.  Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 3, 20–37.
    • This paper explores the University of Queensland’s Boilerhouse Community Engagement Centre (UQ Boilerhouse) as a case study for engaged scholarship in practice. Informed by principles of participatory action research (PAR), the paper describes the three stages of the methodological framework guiding the work of UQ Boilerhouse: project development and design, data collection and analysis, and reporting and project evaluation. In conclusion, the paper examines ways in which PAR can effectively promote participatory democracy, and discusses particular constraints and challenges of the PAR process.
  • Griffith, Derek M. et al. (2009). The origins and overview of the W. K. Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 3(4), 335-348.
    • This paper describes the history, components and evaluations of the W. K. Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program (CHSP). From 1998 to 2007, CHSP trained 46 postdoctoral fellows to develop and enhance skills in working with communities and engage in community-based participatory research (CBPR). Its design and implementation exemplified the partnership principles at the core of the training it provided. Evaluations have shown that CHSP has had substantial impact not only on its participants, but also on academic institutions, community-based organizations (CBOs), policies relating to research funding and implementation, and professional organizations.  A key element in this impact has been the continued interaction of CHSP alumni and their academic and community mentors and partners.  Key lessons learned from the evaluations are explored.
  • Hall, M. et al (2009).  Gateways: International journal of community research and engagement. http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/ijcre
    • This special edition frames emerging responses to the challenges of social responsiveness at the University of Cape Town. The articles include university-community collaborations around the HIV/AIDS crisis, managing coastal resources, xenophobia, disaster planning and innovation in manufacturing. Gateways is a refereed journal concerned with the practice and processes of community research and other forms of engagement. It provides a forum for academics, practitioners and community representatives to pursue issues and reflect on practices related to interactions between tertiary institutions and community organizations: academic interventions in community; community-based projects with links to the tertiary sector; and community initiatives.
  • Jernigan, V. B. B. (2010). Community-based participatory research with Native American communities: The Chronic Disease Self-Management Program. Health Promotion Practice, 11(6), 888-899.
    • This article provides an overview of the use of Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) with Native American communities and discusses the translation of the Stanford Chronic Disease Self-Management Program using a CBPR approach with an urban Native American community. This article highlights not only how the CBPR process facilitates the successful translation of the Stanford program but also how CBPR is used within this community to build community capacity.  The author provides a detailed account of her experience and concludes that the project’s success was due to its “truly peer-led” participatory approach and the empowerment of those who participated.
  • Johnson, J.C. et al. (2009). Building community participatory research coalitions from the ground up: The Philadelphia Area Research Community Coalition. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 3(1), 61-72.
    • The Philadelphia Area Research Community Coalition (PARCC) was formed in 2005 by the University of Pennsylvania – Cheyney University of Pennsylvania EXPORT Center. PARCC is a community-academic research partnership that is comprised of 22 organizations and programs of distinct sizes and varied experience in health research. This paper explores PARCC’s process of developing this coalition, the outcomes achieved, governing principles and lessons learned. The developmental processes reviewed include the partnership’s conceptual framework, methods of recruitment of members, working with varied community and academic perspectives on research, the contextual significance of trust as a core tenet of PARCC, and the establishment of the coalition’s structure and internal processes (governance and operating principles). The paper describes PARCC’s success and attributes it to factors such as trust between members of the community and academia, committed leaders and members, preexisting relationships, and effective research training programs. Challenges facing PARCC include a lack of academic scholars willing and able to join community research projects and securing long-term funding. The paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of training partners in the early stages of engagement while trust, governance structure and operations are still developing.
  • McClellan, M. (2009). History at work: a public history project. Original Toolkit Essay. History-at work.pdf
    • Michelle McClellan, historian at the University of Michigan, received an Arts of Citizenship engaged scholarship grant for developing and teaching a public history course and for scholarship deriving from her work on a public history project. In this two-part article, McClellan describes the proposed project that was awarded Arts of Citizenship funding, then reflects on the experience—how it will affect her future teaching and future historical scholarship.
  • Michigan State University et al (2006-2009). The engaged scholar magazine.  http://engagedscholar.msu.edu/Default.aspx
    • The Engaged Scholar Magazine focuses on collaborative partnerships between Michigan State University and its external constituents—partnerships forged for mutual benefit and learning, with an emphasis on research. The magazine is published annually, in the fall of each year, in both hard copy and web versions. Annual issues are themed, e.g. sustainability, cultural entrepreneurship, families. Current and archived magazine editions are available online as are editions of the Engaged Scholar E-Newsletter, a quarterly online supplement to The Engaged Scholar Magazine.
  • Minkler, M. et al (2008). Promoting healthy public policy through community-based participatory research: Ten case studies, PolicyLink and School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley. http://www.policylink.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lkIXLbMNJrE&b=5136581&ct=6996033
    • 10 case studies of diverse community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships around the United States that have in common a commitment to foster healthy public policy through scholarly research findings that are translated and used in ways that can promote the public’s health and well-being.
  • Nyden, P. (2009). Collaborative university-community research teams. Original Toolkit essay. Collaborative-university-community-research-teams.pdf
    • This essay profiles Loyola University’s Center for Urban Research and Learning (CURL), which organizes and sponsors collaborative university-community research in the Chicago area, which emphasizes the bringing of a “communities eyes, ears, and voice to the research table.”
  • Tendulkar, S.A. et al. (2010). A funding initiative for community-based participatory research: Lessons from the Harvard Catalyst Seed Grants. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 5(1), 35- 44.
    • In 2008 Harvard University was awarded a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). The Harvard CTSA project (also known as the Harvard Catalyst) and its Community Advisory Board (CERAB) developed a seed grant initiative to enhance community-academic research projects by providing funding directly to community partners, thus aiming to address power differentials. This article describes the goals and design of the initiative, the methods used to award seed grants, and provides a list of funded projects. Although 28 projects were successfully funded, the initiative experienced three main challenges: differences in the research readiness of communities, insufficient time to build the partnership and complete a project, and engaging academic researchers. More specifically, attracting researchers who were both interested in a community-identified research question and skilled in CBPR was difficult due to a shortage of CBPR mentors, limited funding for researchers, “the absence of protected academic time for CBPR”, and “the negative impact of pursuing CBPR on tenure prospects”. (Tendulkar et al, 42). The article concludes by emphasizing need to understand the context, capacity, and CBPR experience of the community-organization prior to funding a project, and building a more encouraging academic environment for CBPR by sharpening its definition and demonstrating its multifaceted value to both investigators and community partners.
  • University of California, Santa Cruz et al (2010). Engaged institutions enriching communities and strengthening families website. http://www.engagedinstitutions.org/
    • This website was created for leaders and participants of a cluster of university-community partnership projects at four state universities: the University of Texas at El Paso; the University of California at Santa Cruz; the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities; and Pennsylvania State University. It provides specific information about cluster activities as well as general information and resources on university engagement.

top

(Back to Table of Contents)

(To next section: Engaged Scholarship and Review, Promotion, and Tenure)

Campus Compact's Professional Development Institute taught me more in 5 days than I would have learned on my own in 2 years!"

-Institute evaluation respondent