Engaged Scholarship

Beginning fall 2016, the College of Education faculty has been approved to incorporate engaged scholarship in the retention, tenure, and promotion process. The Faculty Roles Committee has put together this website to help guide you as you explore this new option as a faculty member, as a chair, and as a member of the DPC. Please note that the work on this site is just an example (see the checklist under the "criteria" tab for information on what is required as part of an engaged scholarship submission and examples of what various components may look like). In no way is it meant to represent the only possible approach to address this new policy.

After a 6-year journey, we are excited about the policy and strongly believe that incorporating this work into the RTP process helps the faculty in the COE truly live our mission.

Faculty Roles and Expectations Strategic Planning Task Force Members:

• Lisa Kirtman, Associate Dean, Task Force Chair
• Erica Bowers, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Literacy and Reading Education
• John Hoffman, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Educational Leadership
• Adrian Jung, Professor, Department of Special Education
• Christopher Street, Professor, Department of Secondary Education

For an overview of the responsibilities, policies, and criteria related to this subject, please check back for updated content and documentation.

Responsibilities

Reviewer:

Submitted evidence will be reviewed to determine whether a given project is consistent with the definition and guidelines of engaged scholarship. Faculty are encouraged to submit multiple forms of evidence and to ensure that any letters of validation refer concretely to practices of engaged scholarship and reflect the criteria and standards outlined in this document.

Faculty Member:

The faculty member must make a case for why this work should be accepted as engaged scholarship. Engaged scholarship and traditional scholarship include a theoretical basis for the work. The quality of traditional scholarship, as determined by the retention, tenure, and promotion process, is typically evaluated by peer-reviewed journal dissemination. The quality of engaged scholarship is evaluated by the impact on community partners. When submitting traditional forms of scholarship, such as a journal article, it is the responsibility of the faculty member to document peer review by external individuals (e.g., journal reviewers and editors)--this demonstrates their mark of approval for the quality of the work (additional information may include the acceptance rate or impact factor for the journal). In engaged scholarship, RTP reviewers (DPC, chair, dean, etc.) will not consider peer reviews from other scholars; faculty submitting engaged scholarship items must include compelling evidence to document the quality of the engaged scholarship project.

Policy Language

A meaningful, high-quality, Engaged Scholarship project, as defined per the criteria that follow, may be substituted for one high-quality peer-reviewed publication for the purpose of meeting department standards for a rating of excellent in scholarly and creative activities. Engaged scholarship cannot be used to achieve a rating of good or lower.

For more information, please review your Department Personnel Standards.

Criteria

A meaningful, high-quality, Engaged Scholarship project includes a narrative that must address the following five criteria (Faculty must submit multiple forms of evidence for each area):

1. A clear rationale demonstrating the need for the work addressed and for the strategies and/or tools with which the work is carried out (The plan must be supported by evidence-based practices). Demonstration that the work is reciprocal in nature.
2. Work must have a conceptual or theoretical basis; i.e., it is conducted within the context of existing peer-reviewed knowledge. Normally, this is accomplished through a review of related work in the area, showing what has been done in the past and providing a rationale for why additional work is needed.
3. Demonstration of the quantitative and/or qualitative impact of the project. A clear impact on a district/community partner is required. This could include a letter from partners with documentation of measured impact on outcomes.
4. A description of the evaluation process and outcomes that includes the following: research questions informed by and situated within the literature; an analysis of findings that is contextualized within the particular community/district/school/classroom needs and the discipline; implications that illustrate the practical ways in which the project shaped or is shaping lived realities for the better; and directions for future work. Evaluation results and implemented changes based on this evaluation must be completed and disseminated before the faculty member can submit this work for the RTP process.
5. Evidence of dissemination activities and stakeholder feedback must be included. Dissemination may be accomplished in various ways, including formal presentations to partnership groups and reports for partners.

Please note: "It is essential that community-engaged scholars document their work to be scholarly, in that it creates, advances, or extends knowledge. Mere provision of community service, while being a form of community engagement, cannot be considered to be community-engaged scholarship."

Documentation

This section contains a checklist that will help you gather evidence for the minimum criteria required to produce a quality project. There are also examples of different pieces of evidence, such as letter-composition examples, a narrative example, and links to supporting documentation.

View the printable checklist worksheet (TBA file is in remediation)