The Carnegie Classification for Institutions Engaged with Community: Challenges, Benefits, and Understandings from the Documentation Process

1
The Carnegie Classification for Institutions
Engaged with Community Challenges, Benefits, and
Understandings from the Documentation Process

• Amy Driscoll, Associate Senior Scholar
• Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
  Teaching
• SHEEO
• Chicago, IL
• August, 2006

2
Elective Classification for Community Engagement

• An elective classification is one that relies on
  voluntary participation by institutions, and does
  not include the full universe of institutions.
•  
• The term, community engagement, is proposed
  because it offers the widest coverage, the
  broadest conception of interactions with
  community, and promotes inclusiveness in the
  classification.

3
Definition

• Community Engagement describes the collaboration
  between higher education institutions and their
  larger communities (local, regional/state,
  national, global) for the mutually beneficial
  exchange of knowledge and resources in a context
  of partnership and reciprocity.

4
Definition (continued)

• Community Engagement may achieve the following
• Enhanced teaching and learning of relevant
  curriculum
• Expanded research and scholarship
• Preparation of engaged citizens
• Response to societal issues
• Contributions to the public good
• Strengthened civic responsibility

5
Intentions Of Classification Of Community
Engagement

• Affirmation and documentation of the diversity of
  campuses and their approaches to community
  engagement
• Indicators that recognize the good work that
  has been done while encouraging ongoing
  development toward the ideals of community
  engagement
• Encouragement of inquiry and learning in the
  process of documentation

6
Intentions (continued)

• Instrumentation and documentation that provide
  useful information for institutions
• Documentation that describes the scope of
  institutional engagement
• A framework that builds on current work of other
  organizations for a shared base of measurement or
  documentation
• A documentation process that is practical and
  makes use of existing data

7
Foundational Indicators

• Institutional Identity and Culture
• Institutional Commitment

8
Indicator Institutional Identity and
Culture

• Documentation Examples
• missions (institutional, departmental)
• marketing materials (brochures, etc.)
• website
• community perceptions
• celebrations, recognitions, events

9
Indicator Institutional Commitment

• Documentation Examples
• executive leadership
• strategic plan
• budgetary allocations (internal/external)
• infrastructure (Centers, Offices, etc.)
• community voice in planning
• faculty development
• assessment/recording mechanisms

10
Indicator Institutional Commitment (continued)

• Documentation Examples
• promotion and tenure policies
• transcript notations of student engagement
• student voice or leadership role
• search/recruitment priorities

11
Categories Of Community Engagement

• Curricular Engagement
• Outreach and Partnerships

12
Examples Of Curricular Engagement

• Service learning or Community-based
• learning
• Internships
• Community Leadership programs
• Community-based capstones
• Faculty scholarship related to curricular
  engagement

13
Examples Of Outreach and Partnerships

• Professional Development Centers
• Program Evaluations Community Based Action
  Research
• Collaborative Libraries, Museums
• Extension courses
• Co-curricular service
• Partnerships

14
Benefits of the New Classification

• Public recognition and visibility
• Accountability
• Catalyst for change
• Institutional Identity
• Self-assessment and self-study

15
External Pulls towards Engagement

• Federal and State policy, funding
• Nonprofit organizations, funding
• Educational Associations, programs
• Community conditions/context
• Institutional rankings
• Accreditation standards
• (Brukardt, 2005)

16
Internal Push towards Engagement

• Mission (differentiation)
• Campus leadership
• Deep, active, relevant learning
• Expanding view of scholarship
• Public accountability
• Accreditation standards

17
Accreditation Process and/or Carnegie Pilot
Project

• Focuses institution-wide attention
• Assures public of institutional quality
• Supports institutional improvement
• Creates critical data sets
• Facilitates decisions, planning
• Spurs institutional, strategic change
• (Brukardt, 2005)

18
Faculty Work In and With the Community IUPUI
Model
19
Performance Measures for CE IUPUI

• Enhance Capacity for Civic Engagement
• Advocacy and support in all aspects of
  institutional work
• Internal resources and infrastructure
• External funding for civic engagement
• Documented quality and impact
• Visit http//www.iport.iupui.edu

20
Performance Measures for CE IUPUI

• Enhance Civic Activities, Partnerships, and
  Patient Client Services
• Academic community-based learning in variety of
  settings
• Community-based research, scholarship and
  creative activity
• Professional service in and with
• Participation in community service

21
Performance Measures for CE IUPUI

• Intensify Commitment and Accountability to
  Indianapolis, Central Indiana, and Indiana
• Community participation in development,
  implementation, evaluation of CE
• Campus participation in .
• Regular forums on the campus community agenda
• Contributions to the climate for diversity

22
Carnegie Project IUPUI

• Refined our thinking/doing
• How to gather information
• Whos responsible
• National recognition
• New colleagues/projects
• Campus strengths/weaknesses
• Action steps for Council on CE
• Feedback loop to Deans