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 B: Engaged Scholarship and Review, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT)

membership.jpg

Section B: Engaged Scholarship and Review, Promotion, and Tenure (RPT)

1. Rationales for Giving Engaged Scholarship Standing in Research University RPT Processes

2. Policies for Encouraging and Assessing Engaged Scholarship in RPT Processes

3. Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Engaged Scholarship in RPT Processes

4. Demonstrating Quality and Impacts of Engaged Scholarship

5. Tenure and Promotion Portfolio Exemplars

(Back to table of contents)


 

1. Rationales for Giving Engaged Scholarship Standing in Research University RPT Processes

  • Ellison, J & Eatman, T. (2008). Scholarship in public: Knowledge creation and tenure policy in the engaged university, Imagining America, Syracuse University. http://imaginingamerica.org/TTI/TTI.html
    • In this comprehensive report Imagining America’s Tenure Team discusses and recommends rationales, policies, and strategies for strengthening public engagement within a continua of: 1) scholarship with which academic public engagement has full and equal standing, 2) scholarly and creative artifact, 3) professional pathways for faculty, including the choice to be a civic professional, and 4) actions for institutional change Emphasis is on enabling engaged faculty to prepare for and successfully gain tenure and promotion. Curricular models are also provided.
  • Freeman E, Gust S, Aloshen D. (2009). Why faculty promotion and tenure matters to community partners. Metropolitan Universities Journal; 20(2), 87-103. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Why+Faculty+Promotion+and+Tenure+Matters+to+Community+Partners&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp=on
    • Three community partners, experienced with and engaged in partnerships between universities and communities with varying challenges of success and failure, examine the specific challenge of review, promotion, and tenure for community-engaged faculty and its impact on the community. They explain how retaining and valuing community-engaged faculty who can both represent the academy to the community and bring the community into the academy are essential to helping secure the common good.
  • Holland, B. & Bennett, H. (2009). Metropolitan universities. 20(2).  Indianapolis: Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. http://muj.uc.iupui.edu/abstracts/v20_n2.html
    • This issue of Metropolitan Universities includes papers emanating from the work of the Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, a three-year (2004-2007) initiative designed to build capacity for community-engaged scholarship (CES) in health professional schools, several of which address issues related to review, promotion and tenure of engaged scholars.  Of note is one article (Freeman, E., Gust, S., and Aloshen, D.) that provides perspective from community partners.
  • Jordan C. (2006). Developing criteria for review of community-engaged scholars for promotion or tenure, Community- Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborativehttp://depts.washington.edu/ccph/pdf_files/Developing%20Criteria%20for%20Review%20of%20CES.pdf
    • This document provides edited, distilled information from the websites of several institutions (including research universities) and entities that have recognized and seek to reward community-engaged scholarship (CES). Most are health science schools or departments. Three are not: one represents an entire university, one a social science department and the other a national body. For the most part, the information gathered from each institution’s website is organized into three general headings—definition of scholarship or faculty work, criteria for review, and documentation. In some areas, such as teaching, sections are skipped as they did not appear directly relevant to CES.
  • Scott, J. (2007). Engaging academia in community research: Overcoming obstacles and providing incentives, Center for Urban and Environmental Solutions (CUES), Florida Atlantic University,http://consensus.fsu.edu/bog-fcrc/pdfs2/Engaging_Academic_in_Community_Research_FAU.doc
    • In 2007, in order to learn more about the disconnect between university goals to be engaged in their home community and a university culture and structure that devalue or lack support for that engagement CUES initiated a scan, summarized in this report, highlighting an upward trend: An increasing number of universities (particularly land grant and urban universities) are emphasizing the importance of engaged-community research and starting to address the mismatch between university goals for engaged-community research and the university culture and structure that typically do not value and nurture such research. The core information for this report was gathered through a review of literature on engaged-community research and a scan designed to identify what a sample set of universities across the country are doing to create a more supportive environment for community-engaged research.
  • University of Illinois at Chicago. (2000). Report of the task force on the scholarship of engagement,http://www.uic.edu/depts/oaa/TFSEreport.pdf
    • The Task Force on the Scholarship of Engagement, appointed by Provost Elizabeth Hoffman in 2000, met and discussed how UIC could better evaluate and reward the scholarship of engagement as one aspect of the mission of UIC as a public land grant university. In this report, the term scholarship of engagement is used to highlight a way of thinking of what is often called public service: a focus on partnerships, not one-sided outreach; the co-creation of knowledge; and involvement in real-world problems that can enrich research and teaching rather than be separate from them.

      Drawing heavily on “A Faculty Guide for Relating Public Service to the Promotion and Tenure Review Process” (1993), prepared by the UIC Senate Committee on Continuing Education and Public Service, the report discusses characteristics of the scholarship of engagement and suggests ways to document it in order to evaluate and reward it.

↑top

 

2. Policies for Encouraging and Assessing Engaged Scholarship in RPT Processes

  • Campus Compact, Strategies for creating an engaged campus: Faculty development, an advanced service-learning toolkit.http://www.compact.org/advancedtoolkit/faculty.html
    • Creating faculty reward and evaluation systems that take faculty community based work into account is a critical step in moving a campus toward engagement. Here you will find a wealth of material, including handbooks, policies, and criteria, from colleges and universities that have grappled with this issue, some of which are research institutions.
  • Engaged Scholarship: Research/Scholarship/Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee Of the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on University-Community Engagement, University of South Florida, Report. http://www.coedu.usf.edu/main/CommunityEngagement/What_Is_CEScholarship.html
    • The University of South Florida (USF) Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on University-Community Engagement issued this report to promote ways in which to align academic policy with the University’s institutional commitment to community engagement. The creation of a “culture” of community engagement in the faculty, staff, and students is essential to align practices with the institution’s strong community commitment; culture is more likely to develop if rewards, recognition, incentives and institutional support for focused community engagement are provided on a regular and sustained basis. The report offers guidelines for annual review, promotion and tenure, asserting that scholarship should be viewed broadly with both rigor and as containing multiple expressions. Significance of results is a critical component, but their assessment should include their impact on others outside conventional academic environments. Additional considerations of community based-scholarship are discussed, such as allotting adequate time to create and sustain partnerships, co-authorship, and ensuring mutual benefit. The report calls for institutional support mechanisms to engage faculty in partnerships such as annual rewards for engaged scholarship and mentoring to help faculty understand how to establish and maintain community partnerships.
  • 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.
  • Glass, C., Doberneck, D., & Schweitzer, J. (2008). Outreach and engagement in promotion and tenure, National Center for the Study of University Engagement, Michigan State University
    • In 2001, Michigan State University’s Office of University Outreach and Engagement significantly revised the university’s reappointment, promotion, and tenure review form to embed opportunities to report outreach and engagement throughout the form. The revisions reflected MSU’s definition of outreach and engagement as a form of scholarship that cuts across institutional missions of teaching, research, and service; emphasized the use of multiple forms of evidence to document quality; and encouraged reporting of integrated scholarship. Six years later, researchers examined how and to what extent outreach and engagement activities were reported on the revised form. The study focused on over 200 forms of current MSU faculty who successfully underwent promotion and tenure between 2002-2006. Data from the faculty section of the forms were analyzed by demographic variables (i.e., gender, ethnicity), appointment variables (i.e., college, recommended rank) and engagement variables (i.e., type, intensity, degree). Study findings are summarized in a poster, http://ncsue.msu.edu/files/PT_Poster.pdf, and the research process is explained in a Powerpoint presentation (http://ncsue.msu.edu/files/OutreachEngagementPromotionTenure.pdf.).
  • Lowenstein, S. & Harvan, R. (2005). Broadening the definition of scholarship: A strategy to recognize and reward clinician-teachers at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. In O’Meara K.A. and Rice, R.E, Eds. Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship (pp. 230-251). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    • This chapter describes a school of medicine’s attempt to reform policies and procedures for promotion and tenure in ways that recognize and reward teaching and clinical practice. By restructuring faculty appointments on a single track and redefining scholarship to include teaching, integration and application (Boyer, 1990), the school sought to reform a practice that consigned faculty who emphasize teaching and clinical practice to second-class status. The authors provide profiles of clinician-teacher promotion candidates, both successful and not, which include alternative forms of scholarship in teaching, integration and application. While this case study was not focused on recognition and rewards for community-engaged research, those concerned with strengthening recognition and rewards for this kind of scholarship may wish to pursue a similar change in RPT policies.
  • Michigan State University Committee on Evaluating Quality Outreach. (1996, 2000). Points of distinction: A guidebook for planning & evaluating quality outreach, Michigan State University, available at: http://outreach.msu.edu/documents/pod.pdf
    • MSU’s Committee on Evaluating Outreach defines outreach “as a form of scholarship that involves generating, transmitting, applying, and preserving knowledge for the direct benefit of external audiences in ways that are consistent with university and unit mission.” It encourages units to “adopt specific operational definitions, as needed, to establish consensus on what types of activities will be viewed as outreach, the relative value of those activities compared to other aspect’s of a unit’s mission, and how these activities will be evaluated and rewarded.” The Committee’s Guidebook seeks to develop a campus-wide understanding of what constitutes high quality outreach, assist units in articulating definitions and expectations consistent with their mission, values, and context, and suggests ways of rewarding outreach achievements in tenure, promotion, and annual salary reviews.

  • Nyden, P. (2003). Academic incentives for faculty participation in community-based participatory research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18, 576-585.
    • Recognizing the need to overcome the obstacles of traditional university- and discipline-oriented research approaches, a variety of incentives to promote community-based participatory research (CBPR) are presented. Experiences of existing CBPR researchers are used in outlining how this methodological approach can appeal to faculty: the common ground shared by faculty and community leaders in challenging the status quo; opportunities to have an impact on local, regional, and national policy; and opening doors for new research and funding opportunities. Strategies for promoting CBPR in universities are provided in getting CBPR started, changing institutional practices currently inhibiting CBPR, and institutionalizing CBPR. Among the specific strategies are: development of faculty research networks; team approaches to CBPR; mentoring faculty and students; using existing national CBPR networks; modifying tenure and promotion guidelines; development of appropriate measures of CBPR scholarship; ear- marking university resources to support CBPR; using Institutional Review Boards to promote CBPR; making CBPR- oriented faculty appointments; and creating CBPR centers (Nyden, 2003. p. 576).
  • O’Meara, K.A. (2001). Working Paper No. 25 Scholarship unbound: Assessing service as scholarship in promotion and tenure, New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE).  http://www.nerche.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=38
    • This paper examines how four colleges and universities with exemplary programs for assessing service as scholarship implemented these policies within colleges of education. Case studies suggest that policies to assess service as scholarship can increase consistency among an institution’s service mission, faculty workload, and reward system; expand faculty’s views of scholarship; boost faculty satisfaction; and strengthen the quality of an institution’s service culture.
  • Task Force on the Institutionalization of Public Sociology (2007). Standards of public sociology: Guidelines for use by academic departments in personnel reviews, http://pubsoc.wisc.edu/pandt.html
    • The American Sociology Association encourages public sociology activities, public sociology research, and the education of future sociologists who will engage in such work. In this context, this Task Force developed and recommended standards of public sociology to insure continued rigorous research and professional development. The standards are intended for use by sociology departments as they review departmental academic personnel guidelines, and as they advise colleges and universities on elements of broader university tenure and promotion guidelines that relate to public scholarship. The standards do not reflect any official policy of the American Sociological Association, but should be treated as a working document that can be of value to departments considering revision of tenure and promotion guidelines.
  • Vogelgesang, L.J., Denson, N. & Jayakumar, U.M. (2010). What determines faculty-engaged scholarship? The Review of Higher Education, 33(4), 437-472.
    • This paper reports on a study of the role and impact of higher education institutions’ organizational and disciplinary culture on the inclination and ability of faculty members to undertake sustained, community-engaged scholarship.  The authors found that while disciplinary and organization culture shapes the ways in which faculty are socialized and influences their behavior, including their commitment to service and scholarship conducted in and with local communities, their findings also suggest that “faculty commitment to community can transcend a non-conducive reward structure.” (p. 467).  An extensive review of relevant literature is included.

↑top

 

3. Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Engaged Scholarship in RPT Processes

  • Casey, K. M. (2011) Engaged scholarship and promotion and tenure at Michigan State University: What do we know? PowerPoint presentation at The Research University Civic Engagement Network (TRUCEN) annual meeting.
    • A summary of work undertaken at Michigan State by Church, R.L., Zimmerman, D.L., Doberneck, D.M. et al to define and distinguish engaged scholarship and integrate it with tenure and promotion processes and forms.  The types and extent of engaged scholarship reported by MSU faculty between 2001 and 2006 are reported.
  • Clearinghouse and National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement, Evaluation criteria for the scholarship of engagement, http://schoe.coe.uga.edu/evaluation/evaluation_criteria.html
    • The National Review Board conceives of engaged scholarship as academically relevant work that simultaneously meets campus mission and goals as well as community needs. It should incorporate communities’ issues which can be within or integrative across teaching, research and service. The Review Board’s criteria are designed to be used by institutions to assess and evaluate engaged scholarship, especially in tenure and review processes. They have been adapted from Scholarship Assessed: A Special Report on Faculty Evaluation, (Glassick, Huber & Maeroff, 1997) to more closely reflect a unique fit with engaged scholarship. Specific evaluative criteria are offered related to goals and objectives; context, literature, and best practices; methods; results; communication and dissemination; reflective critique of the scholar.
  • Jordan, C. et al (2009).  CES4Health.info: Community-engaged scholarship for health, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. http://www.ces4health.info/index.aspx
    • CES4Health.info is a free, online mechanism for peer-reviewing, publishing and disseminating products of health-related community-engaged scholarship that are in forms other than journal articles.  For example, videos, manuals, curricula and products developed through service-learning, community-based participatory research and other community engaged work.

      On this website you will find high quality tools and resources that can be directly downloaded or obtained from the author, typically free-of-charge. Search for high-quality tools and resources; submit products for review; apply to be a peer reviewer; contribute to the field of community-engaged scholarship and the health of communities. All products posted on CES4Health.info have been reviewed and recommended by expert academic and community reviewers.

  • Mikkelsen M, Gelmon SB, Seifer SD, Kauper-Brown J (2005). Community-engaged scholarship for health collaborative: Review, tenure and promotion analysis protocol. Seattle, WA: Community-Campus Partnerships for Health,  http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/healthcollab.html
    • This protocol was used by the Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative to assess school and university review, promotion and tenure guidelines against criteria established by the Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions. For information on the Collaborative go to:  http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/kellogg3.html
  • Michigan State University, Reappointment, promotion, and tenure review form. http://ncsue.msu.edu/publications/reappointment.aspx
    • In 2001, MSU’s Office of University Outreach and Engagement (UOE) undertook a major revision of the Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Review Form to embed outreach and engagement as well as extension, urban, and international work into the form. A form was produced that reflects MSU’s definition of outreach and engagement as scholarly activity that cuts across teaching, research, and service. The form suggests types of evidence candidates can report on, and chairs and deans review, within the teaching and research sections, as well as a revised community-based service section.
  • North Carolina State University (2006). Policies: reappointment, promotion, and tenure, and statements of mutual expectations.
    • One of the strategies of the University of North Carolina Tomorrow initiative, with respect to outreach, societal engagement, and both economic and community development, is that campuses set high standards in their faculty reappointment, promotion, and tenure policies that encourage and reward public service by faculty. North Carolina State University addressed these issues in its recent revisions of policies for reappointment, promotion and tenure:  http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/employment/epa/REG05.20.27.php

      The policies focus on definition of six realms of faculty responsibility, development of statement of mutual expectations, and the importance of creative scholarship in all six realms.

↑top

 

4. Demonstrating Quality and Impacts of Engaged Scholarship

  • Calleson D, Kauper-Brown J, & Seifer S. (2005). Community-engaged scholarship toolkit, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health,  http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/toolkit.html
    • CCPH has developed an online toolkit to provide health professions faculty with a set of tools to carefully plan and document their community-engaged scholarship and produce strong portfolios for promotion and tenure. The toolkit includes sections advising faculty in preparing for promotion and/or tenure review, specific details for creating a strong portfolio, examples of successful portfolio components from community-engaged faculty and references and resources.
  • Driscoll, A., & Lynton, E.A. (1999). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
    • This book responds to the need of faculty members to document the scholarship of service and professional service activities by providing insights, guidelines, and examples for faculty as they prepare to review and reward such work. Sixteen examples of documentations are given in a style and format appropriate for submission to peer review on the faculty member’s campus. This book is best used with “Making the Case for Professional Service.
  • Gelmon, S. & Agre-Kippenhan, S. (2002). Keeping the scholarship of engagement in the review process.  http://web2.bio.utk.edu/outreach/pdfs/Promotion,Tenure,%20Engaged%20Scholar.pdf
    • This article summarizes advice and suggestions on how to prepare for and navigate the tenure and promotion process as an engaged scholar. While many of the suggestions are specific to those seeking advancement in the context of the scholarship of engagement, most are relevant to all who seek tenure and promotion.
  • Jordan, C. (2009). Practical tools for overcoming the challenges of advancing your career as an engaged scholar, Original Toolkit Essay. Practical tools.pdf.
    • The community-engaged scholar often experiences challenges to career advancement (Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions, 2005). Fortunately, a variety of resources and tools are emerging to assist in overcoming these hurdles. This article reviews the challenges, in terms of developing skills, securing recognition for community-engaged scholarly work, and particularly in successfully navigating the promotion and tenure (P and T) system. This review is followed by presentation of several resources for addressing these challenges.
  • 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/toolkit.html
    • This resource and guide describes eight characteristics of quality community-engaged scholarship, and includes a sample dossier that shows how a community-engaged scholar may present his or her work to review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) committees. A group exercise simulating an RPT committee process can be used as an educational tool with RPT committees.
  • Jordan, C. Ed. (2010).  CES4Health.info!  Faculty for the Engaged Campus project, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. http://www.ces4health.info/
    • CES4Health.info is a free, online mechanism for peer-reviewing, publishing and disseminating products of health-related community-engaged scholarship that are in forms other than journal articles. On this website are high quality tools and resources that can be directly downloaded or obtained from the author, typically free-of-charge. All products posted on CES4Health.info have been reviewed and recommended by expert academic and community reviewers.
  • Jordan, C. M. et al. (2009). CES4Health.info: Development of a mechanism for the peer review and dissemination of innovative products of community-engaged scholarship. International Journal of Prevention Practice and Research. 1(1), 21- 28.
    • Community-engaged research, teaching, and service can result in the development of innovative products intended for application by diverse stakeholders that include practitioners, policymakers, nonprofit organizations, community members, and academics. Such products may take the form of manuals, policy briefs, curricula, slide presentations, video presentations and websites, for examples. Until recently there was no accepted mechanism in place to peer review these products, and their dissemination was often limited to the community with which the engaged work was conducted. As a result, these products may not “count” in the promotion and tenure process, and opportunities for community impact may be lost. This paper describes the development and pilot testing of CES4Health.info, a mechanism for the rigorous peer review and online dissemination of products of community-engaged scholarship that are in forms other than journal articles.
  • Michigan State University Committee on Evaluating Quality Outreach. (1996, 2000).Developing a faculty outreach portfolio, Tool E, in Points of distinction: A guidebook for planning & evaluating quality outreach, p. 38, Michigan State University,http://outreach.msu.edu/documents/pod.pdf
    • Suggestions for developing an outreach portfolio for peer review committees to evaluate the quality of an individual’s outreach efforts, especially for promotion and tenure. http://impactmeasure.org/files/Backgrounder_Info_on_Impact_Study.pdf

      This brief paper provides background for an impact study of community-university research alliances and partnerships that address social/health issues. Researchers from five community-university partnerships joined together to develop a reliable and valid survey measure of the community impacts of research partnerships between universities and community agencies that address social or health issues. The focus was to be on mid-term impacts—the influence of partnerships on individuals, partner agencies, and target communities or systems. The aim of this project is to benefit members of research partnerships who wish to evaluate their effectiveness and adjust their activities to meet community needs. The instrument also allows community stakeholders and advisory boards to capture the success of their collaborative research initiatives.

  • Moore, T. L. & Ward, K. (2008). Documenting engagement: Faculty perspectives on self-representation for promotion and tenure. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,12(4), 5-24.
    • Documentation of community-engaged scholarship is critical to aligning faculty work with most institutions’ promotion and tenure guidelines and meeting institutional goals. At a research university where the dossier for promotion and tenure needs to show clear evidence of contribution in an area of research, presenting and documenting work in the community in a way that reflects teaching, research, and service may represent a challenge. This article presents findings from an analysis of documents and artifacts representing how faculty present their work to their institutional and disciplinary colleagues.  Four approaches to documentation are identified:  as part of traditional faculty roles for teaching, research and service; as something that synthesizes all three of these roles; as a new and important “public work;” as a guide for colleagues and administrators who review and assess the dossier. Implications of these findings for faculty, administrators and scholars researching engagement are explored.
  • National Center for the Study of University Engagement, Assessment of impact of embedding of outreach and engagement in the 2001 revision of the reappointment, promotion, and tenure review form, Michigan State University,  http://ncsue.msu.edu/publications/reappointment.aspx
    • In 2001, MSU’s Office of University Outreach and Engagement (UOE) undertook a major revision of the Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Review Form to embed outreach and engagement as well as extension, urban, and international work into the form. Along with UOE, a faculty team, academic governance, and the Office of the Provost, a form was produced that better reflects MSU’s definition of outreach and engagement as scholarly activity that cuts across teaching, research, and service. The form suggests types of evidence candidates can report on, and chairs and deans review, within the teaching and research sections, as well as a revised community-based service section. The form also provides opportunity for candidates to describe integration of their work.
  • Sandmann, L. (2008). Engaged scholarship in context: Approaches and issues. http://www.uky.edu/UE/KEC2008/Presentations/Sandmann_Keynote.pdf
    • In this presentation and “Documenting and Evaluating Engaged Scholarship” (below), Sandmann offers practical guidelines for assessing community-engaged scholarship, “making the case,” and preparing portfolios.
  • Seifer, S. (2007). Making the best case for community-engaged scholarship in promotion and tenure review, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health,http://www.ncsu.edu/extension/news/documents/Seifer-Ap-E-CBPR.pdf
    • The Peer Review Work Group of the Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative (Jordan, 2007) articulated eight characteristics of high quality engaged scholarship. Excerpts from these guidelines, particularly as they pertain to research, are highlighted in this brief essay. They may be useful both to community-engaged faculty to guide the documentation needed for their review, promotion, and tenure portfolio, and to RPT committees as a tool for assessing cases that emphasize community-engaged scholarship.

↑top

 

5. Tenure and Promotion Portfolio Exemplars

  • Liese, L. H. (2002). Personal statement for final tenure review, University of Utah. liese-personal-stmt.doc
    • Tenure review statement by social work faculty member who presents himself as a “civically engaged scholar, an identity which I believe is not only reflected in my research, teaching, and service but which, importantly, allows me to integrate my scholarly activities in these three critical areas.” (Used with permission.)
  • Stanton, T. (2009). Interview with Hank Liese, associate professor-social work, University of Utah. Inverness, CA. stanton-liese-interview.pdf
    • This interview summary provides reflections from Hank Liese on his tenure review process at the University of Utah. Serves as context and background to Liese’s “Personal Statement” (Liese, L.H., 2002), above. (Used with permission.)

↑top

(Back to table of contents)

(To next section: Resources for Engaged Scholarship at Research Universities)

Thanks for your continued outstanding leadership at Campus Compact. Your publications and programs are always top-notch. I sincerely appreciate all you have done for us in the trenches."

-William F. Moeller, Director, Center for Civic Education and Service, Florida State University