Transcript Strengthening Your Engagement Dossier

Nancy Franz
Director , ISU Extension and Outreach Professional Development
Nancy’s engagement journey
 32 years with Cooperative Extension in Wisconsin,






New York, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Iowa
Many positions and departments
Three times up for tenure/promotion
Help many others up for tenure/promotion
Chair of P&T committee and member at all levels
External dossier reviewer 3-5 annually
Silent sports, reading, gardening, dark chocolate




Your name
Position
Institution
Tenure/promotion journey






Engaged scholarship
Faculty voices on engagement and engaged
scholarship
Engaged scholarship P&T resources
Documentation of engagement in the
academic dossier
Best practices list
Other good engagement stuff
Enhance research
Enhance teaching
Student growth and development
 Scholar growth and development
 Address social, economic, and
environmental issues
 Make a difference in the world



Approaches to Engagement and Scholarship
SCHOLARSHIP
LOW
E
N
G
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
Engagement
Engaged Scholarship
•Mutual benefit
•Exchange
knowledge/resources
•Reciprocal partnership
Principles of engagement
+
Principles of scholarship
Service
Scholarship
•One way/expert presentation
to groups
•Internal committees
•Professional associations
•Original intellectual work
•Communicated
•Validated by peers
Dr. Nancy Franz 2009
Figure 1. Franz Engaged Scholarship Model
Internal and External Factors
Research
Develop
knowledge
Disseminating
knowledge
Discover
knowledge
Teaching
Academia
community
legacy that grows the field
Condition
Change
Outreach
Learning
change
Behavior
change
Engagement Assumptions
At your table, review the research report about
engagement at Virginia Tech
 What surprised you
 What insights do you see for P&T
 What messages do you see from the faculty
 What other data do you find interesting






Making Outreach Visible: A Guide to
Documenting Professional Service and
Outreach (1999) Driscoll and Lynton
Uniscope – Penn State
Journal of Extension (2008, 46(4), O’Neill)
New Directions for Evaluation (2008, #118,
Chapter 1, Jordan, Hage, Mote)
Scholarship Assessed (1997, Glassick et al)
The Disciplines Speak (1995, Diamond &
Adam)





New Directions for Institutional Research
(2002, #114, Colbeck)
Community Engaged Scholarship (2005,
Calleson et al.)
Higher Education Exchange (2006, Barker)
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
Engagement
Community Campus Partnership for Health
www.communityengagedscholarship.info




The Academic Portfolio (2009) (Sheldin and
Miller)
Campus compact www.compact.org
Promotion, Tenure, and the Engaged Scholar
(2002) in AAHE Bulletin (Gelmon and AgreKippenhan)
Principles of Best Practices for CommunityBased Research (2003) (Strand, Marullo,
Cutforth, Stoecker, and Donohue)
 Map your efforts
 Determine what impact will be
measured
 Collect and analyze data
 Tell your story
 Situation
 Inputs
 Outputs
 Outcomes
 Assumptions
 External Factors



Text
Concept Map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_map
Logic Model
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/
pdf/LMfront.pdf



Processes used in your educational efforts to
report program/teaching/research quality
Products from your educational/research
efforts to report impact on individuals and
communities
Performance of the instructor/researcher for
personal and program/teaching/research
quality





What new knowledge was discovered, developed,
disseminated?
What did participants learn?
How have participant aspirations or motivations
changed due to the program? (i.e. intent to change
behavior)
What are participants doing differently as a result of
the program?
How much have economic, environmental, or social
conditions changed due to your efforts?
Peer products
 Articles
 Conferences
▪ Posters
▪ Presentations
▪ Abstracts
▪ proceedings
 Grants/competitive contracts
 Books/texts/chapters/monographs
Applied products
 Curricula/texts
 Educational materials
 Guides/handbooks
 Policies
 Research briefs
 Social marketing/Apps
 Training and technical assistance
Community Products









Forums/workshops /seminars
Newsletters
Web sites
Presentations
Reports
Designs
Displays
Community attained grants/funding
Community awards
Off campus service learning
Internships/practicum/clinical
Coop positions with
organizations/agencies/companies
 Deliberation/public scholarship
 Student led/assisted community
seminars/forums/deliberation
 Community study tour
 Community projects
 Community-based participatory action research
 Participatory or empowermentevaluation



Case Study
Observation
Focus Group/Interview
 Secondary Data
 Survey/Questionnaire



 Title
 Relevance
 Response
 Results
See:
http://connect.ag.vt.edu/impactwr
iting
Glassick et al. (1997)
- Clear goals
- Adequate preparation
- Appropriate methods
- Significant results
- Effective presentation
- Reflective critique
ISU tenure guidelines
- Documentation of candidate’s scholarship
and position responsibilities
- Definition of scholarship
- Effectiveness in areas of responsibility
- other
Diamond and Adam
- High level of discipline-related experience
- Break new ground/innovative
- Can be replicated or elaborated
- Can be documented
- Can be peer reviewed
- Significant impact
At your table:
- What do you see as dossier review
criteria at your institution?
- What matters?
- Other thoughts about dossier
review?
Ultimately, RPT decisions rest on values and
judgments, not on measurement or clear
expectations.
Fairweather
New Directions for Institutional
Research (2002, #114, pg. 97)

Virginia Tech Focus Groups
 At your table review the article on engagement at
Virginia Tech
▪ What does this context value for tenure and promotion?
▪ What are the challenges for engaged faculty to gain
support?
▪ What supports are in place for engaged scholarship?
▪ Other observations





How does your institution’s mission align with
your work?
How do your institution’s measures of
assessment fit with your work?
How does your institution’s strategic plan
mesh with your work?
What is your academic appointment?
What is your contribution to your discipline,
department, college, institution?
At your table:
Record the engagement P&T best practices
you’ve gleaned from today’s discussions and
materials.
Share them with the group







Start early – engagement takes time
Documentation is an ongoing process
Write for an academic audience
Focus on faculty work, not on the project
Find a balance between process and
impact/products
Be clear about the intellectual question or
working hypothesis behind the work
Tell the significance of the impact and how it
is determined or evaluated






Align engagement with discipline,
department, campus, and national priorities
Share only the information that illustrates
context or scholarship
Link current and past work with future work
Select mentors and learn the criteria used for
your review
Know the expected format for the dossier
Get to know your dossier reviewers and their
expectations






Create a documentation file system
Develop a disciplinary, department, and
eventually national niche
Publish and present early and often
Select service roles carefully and turn them
into scholarship
Make activities that matter a high priority (i.e.
writing)
Demonstrate value in all you do
Focus
Be new, the first, or better than others
Be aware of what influences faculty scholarly work
and manage it (i.e. assignment, rewards, time,
resources, personal priorities, performance review,
P&T documents, culture)
 Engage many peer reviewers as you go
 Find ways to bridge the gaps between tenure
expectations and the actual day to day work of faculty
 Reach more than one goal with each activity/project
and get maximum products out of each effort







Use each other as resources on the tenure
trail
Attend NOSC
Celebrate success
Keep in touch