CHE Outreach Taskforce Progress Report to CHE College Assembly April 2003

1
CHE Outreach Taskforce Progress Reportto CHE
College AssemblyApril 2003
2
CHE OUTREACH TASKFORCE

• Members
• Rose Allen Extension educator
• Sharon Danes Family Social Science faculty
• Bill Doherty Family Social Science faculty
• Jeff Edleson School of Social Work faculty
• Yvonne Everling, staff support
• David Hollister, co-chair, Social Work faculty
• Kim Johnson, Design, Housing and Apparel faculty
• Brittany McCarthy-Barnes, CHE External Relations
  staff
• Yvette Perry, Family Social Science doctoral
  student
• Bill Schafer, Food Science and Nutrition faculty
• Catherine Solheim, co-chair, CHE associate dean
• Becky Yust, Design, Housing and Apparel head

3
Charge

• To define outreach scholarship
• To identify standards of excellence for outreach
  scholarship
• To identify outcomes of excellent research
• To identify ways to document and measure outreach
  scholarship for peer review

4
Challenge I

• Transcending the dichotomy between disciplinary
  work and work for the public good.
• Pitting disciplinary work against work for the
  public good is not helpful
• Current teaching, discovery and service work that
  contributes to the public good is not universally
  understood or explicitly articulated

5
CHE Faculty Scholarship Model
6
Strategy Frame CHE Faculty Work Using a Typology

• Type 1 Disciplinary Work
• All faculty should be able to articulate the
  contributions of their discovery, teaching and
  service work to the public good
• Departments and the College should discuss goals
  related to public value mission, vision and
  goals should clearly articulate public good
  contributions

7
Typology continued

• Type 2 Outreach Work
• Extends the expertise of faculty beyond physical
  boundaries of College
• While not scholarship, should be considered in
  workload, valued, and rewarded

8
Typology continued

• Type 3 Engagement Work
• Involves two-way collaboration co-definition of
  problems, work together to achieve results, etc.
• Typically integrates application, teaching, and
  discovery

9
Challenge 2 Articulating the public good

• Who and by what process is public good defined?
• How do we address tensions that arise when we
  disagree about the definitions?

10
Strategy Begin the dialogue

• Encourage departments to discuss faculty work for
  the public good
• Articulate and communicate departmental and
  individual faculty contributions to the public
  good
• Engage advisory groups, students, staff in
  defining public good

11
Challenge 3 Defining the scholarship of
engagement

• Type 1, 2, or 3 work can contribute to the public
  good and thus contribute to the overall
  engagement goals of a department or college
• There is confusion over the difference between
  activity and scholarship
• There is mostly one standard used as evidence of
  scholarship disciplinary journal publication
  (note DHA has developed more inclusive evidence
  e.g. creative works)

12
Strategy Define engagement scholarship

• Activity does not equal scholarship
• Scholarship must meet criteria
• Clear goals and questions
• Integration of existing literature
• Appropriate methods
• Measurable outcomes that demonstrate impact
• Findings communicated
• Results reflectively critiqued

13
Scholarship criteria continued

• Discipline-based review via journal publications
  is not only means to evaluate engaged scholarship
• Evidence of engagement scholarship may be very
  different lay publications may be appropriate
  dissemination strategy community partners may be
  evaluators evidence of new practice adopted or
  policy changed may demonstrate impact

14
Challenge 4 Recognizing faculty scholarship
diversity

• Differences in appointment type
• Differences in skill, interest and phase of
  academic career

15
Strategy Recognize faculty appointment and
responsibility

• Faculty with Extension appointment focus
  relatively more on outreach activity and
  engagement scholarship
• Faculty may focus more or less on outreach
  activity and engagement scholarship as they move
  through the cycle of scholarship
• All types of faculty work (disciplinary,
  outreach, and engagement) across the dimensions
  of scholarship (teaching, discovery and service)
  should be recognized and rewarded on an equal
  basis

16
Challenge 5 Dealing with lack of consensus on
terminology

• The term Outreach may be limiting
• denotes direction (outward)
• denotes location (outside)

17
Challenge 5 continued

• The term Engagement is used two ways
• as a meta-descriptor
• Denotes unit that is accessible, neutral, etc.
  (Kellogg Commission report)
• as a form of scholarship
• Denotes community involvement
• Denotes two-way relationship

18
Challenge 5 continued

• The term professional service is recommended by
  American Association for Higher Education
• Assumes two-way flow of knowledge
• Entrenched in academic culture so professional
  is necessary modifier
• Used in CHE departments and college tenure and
  promotion documents plus University policy
  inconsistent interpretation

19
Strategy TBD due to lack of consensus

• Recommend deciding on term
• Create shared meaning via discussion
• Use with consistency in CHE documents and
  communications