Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship

at Mississippi State University

A White Paper from the MSU Engaged Scholarship

White Paper Workgroup

Written by Marina Denny, Chair

December 2018

1 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2

BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP ............................................................................. 3

TO THE INSTITUTION............................................................................................................................................................ 3

TO THE FACULTY AND STAFF ............................................................................................................................................... 3

TO THE STUDENTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

TO THE COMMUNITY ........................................................................................................................................................... 4

WHAT ARE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP? .................................................................................. 4

MSU MODEL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 9

TIMELINE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP AT MSU ................................................................. 12

WAYS OF INCORPORATING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP ........................................................ 16

COMMUNITY-ENGAGED TEACHING AND LEARNING ............................................................................................................. 17

PROMOTION AND TENURE .................................................................................................................................................... 19

AWARDS AND OTHER RECOGNITION .................................................................................................................................... 20

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 21

TO ADMINISTRATORS ............................................................................................................................................................ 22

TO FACULTY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

MSU COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... 30

MSU COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31

“[O]UR OUTSTANDING UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES REMAIN… ONE OF THE GREATEST HOPES

FOR INTELLECTUAL AND CIVIC PROGRESS. [T]HE ACADEMY MUST BECOME A MORE VIGOROUS

PARTNER IN THE SEARCH FOR ANSWERS TO OUR MOST PRESSING SOCIAL, CIVIC, ECONOMIC,

AND MORAL PROBLEMS, AND MUST REAFFIRM ITS HISTORIC COMMITMENT TO…

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT.”

Ernest L. Boyer, 1996

2 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

The passage of the Morrill Act of 1862 paved the way for the creation of Mississippi State University (MSU), among

other land-grant institutions across this country, and mandated advocacy for the public good through the

unification of rigorous research, classical learning, and practical knowledge. Today, MSU is recognized as a top

research-intensive university engaged on a global scale. As such, the concepts of Community Engagement (CE)

and Engaged Scholarship (ES) are not new.

“Engagement is more than extension, conventional outreach, and public service” (Brunner, 2016, p.4).

Engagement transforms the traditional, didactic approach by which the university goes into a community to teach

and share expertise into a dynamic, reciprocal relationship through which the university and community are

partnered in the development, execution, and sharing of knowledge and ideas. It is a collaboration between higher

education and community based on reciprocity and mutual exchange of knowledge.

The official charge to the Engaged Scholarship White Paper Work Group by Dr. Judy Bonner, Provost and Executive

Vice President, to develop this document is included in the appendix. This white paper is not intended to replace

any of the rigorous research, teaching, and service efforts of faculty, staff, and administrators, nor is it meant to

minimize or dismiss the importance of traditional scholarship and knowledge for the sake of knowledge, sought

and protected within the hallowed halls of the institution. What it hopes to accomplish is to provide a platform

from which MSU personnel already heavily engaged in (or planning to engage in) CE and ES can find

acknowledgement of their work and from which administrators can begin to discuss ways to formalize and

legitimize that recognition. MSU’s current administration has made CE a priority and wishes all personnel to

consider ways in which they can strengthen their existing CE efforts or consider new opportunities.

The objectives of this white paper are to:

• Introduce CE and ES as integral components of the academy;

• Provide definitions, models, and methodologies across other institutions;

• Describe examples of CE and ES taking place at MSU;

• Offer recommendations for recognizing and fostering a culture of CE and ES through MSU policies and procedures, including promotion and tenure; and

• Suggest next steps for action and progress.

Finally, while there are many terms and acronyms used to denote Community Engagement and Engaged

Scholarship, the references (e.g. CES, Community-Engaged Scholarship, etc.) throughout this document are

intended to be synonymous with MSU’s use of CE and ES.

3 | P a g e

BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP

A land-grant university such as Mississippi State is

already heavily involved and engaged with the

community locally, regionally, nationally, and even

internationally. The majority of this engagement,

however, is generated from the Extension arm of the

institution and is often person-dependent rather than

an integral part of the fabric of the institution

(American Association of State Colleges and

Universities, 2002). As such, the bulk of the literature

on community-university engagement focuses on the

benefits to the community (Fitzgerald, Allen, &

Roberts, 2010). However, CE and ES not only

exemplifies the university’s mission, it enhances

opportunities for faculty, staff, and students to

embrace the scholarship of integration. “Community-

based research and teaching… enrich students’ educational experience, deepen the authenticity of faculty

research, create sustainable research opportunities through partnerships, fuel innovations in trans-disciplinary

research, and strengthen institutional stewardship” (Fitzgerald, Van Egeren, Bargerstock, & Zientek, 2017).

TO THE INSTITUTION

Structured, well-executed, and recorded CE and ES offers evidence that the university is fulfilling its land-grant mission to the public good (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011).

A positive public image of the university may encourage more contracts, more donor investments, and more legislative support (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008).

A reputation for public engagement becomes a competitive advantage for student recruitment (Rodin, 2007).

TO THE FACULTY AND STAFF

Teaching is enriched by having access to up-to-date content and real-world examples for use in the classroom.

Research is enhanced with new ideas and access to new or previously unavailable research sites and data.

There are heightened opportunities for interdisciplinary and cross-institutional research.

There is access to a greater diversity of extramural funding possibilities (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011).

TO THE STUDENTS

Undergraduate students engaged in service-learning and community-based research experience deeper learning and greater understanding of their respective subject matter (Eyler & Giles, 1999).

Public engagement represents the

convergence of public interest and

institutional self-interest. Benefits clearly

accrue to the communities that partner

with their local colleges and universities,

but benefits also accrue to the

institution, the students, and the faculty

(Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011, p.27).

4 | P a g e

They develop better leadership and critical thinking skills, demonstrate increased civic responsibility, earnbetter grades, and show a greater interest in graduate school than their counterparts (Antonio, Astin, & Cress,2000).

They have improved career readiness and a stronger resume (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011).

TO THE COMMUNITY

Community partners have access to unbiased faculty expertise (Fogelman, 2002) and greater human, financial,and physical resources (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011).

There is increased credibility for collaboratively produced work (Leiderman, Furco, Zapf, & Goss, 2003).

There is opportunity to act as co-creators of knowledge alongside higher education professional partners tobuild civic capacity (Barker et al. 2018).

There is a greater understanding of issues the community may be facing (Barker et al. 2018).

There are opportunities to contribute to and/or influence the university’s direction and programs (Beere,Votruba, & Wells, 2011).

WHAT ARE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP?

Community engagement, as defined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, is

collaboration between institutions of higher education 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. The purpose of CE is the partnership of college and university knowledge and resources with those of

the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship, research, and creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching

and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address

critical societal issues; and contribute to the public good. It is important to note here that there are four distinct

dimensions of CE (Figure 1) that may occur with or without scholarship (Swearer Center, n.d.).

“As democratizers of knowledge and education, research-intensive universities with land-grant heritage and

values collaborate with their partners to play critical roles in empowering individuals and the communities in

which they live and work. Similarly, we are engaged with and empowered by ideas, energy, and the support of

our partners outside the university. Connecting these engagements is at the heart of the partner relationships and

the work of engaged scholarship” (Simon, 2010, p.2-3). Dr. Lorilee Sandmann, Professor Emerita from the

University of Georgia, Engaged Leadership and Learning Services, explains that there are several methods and

models of community engagement in the contexts of teaching, research, and service (2018).

5 | P a g e

Engaged Teaching and Learning Engaged Research

Community-based learning

Service learning

Global learning

Civic learning

Community-based research

Public issue research

Translational research

Interdisciplinary research

Figure 1. The Dimensions of Community Engagement

Community Engagement

Mission Dimension

The Civic Mission of Higher Education

Partnership Dimension

Connecting to the Community

Epistemological Dimension

The New Production of Knowledge

Pedagogical Dimension

Improved Teaching and Learning

6 | P a g e

Boyer (1996) proposed a new paradigm of scholarship that assigns four “essential, interlocking functions” (p. 16)

to the professoriate: the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of sharing

knowledge, and the application of knowledge (Figure 2).

Scholarship of discovery

Universities are responsible for pushing

the boundaries of human knowledge

through research.

Application of

knowledge

To become reflective practitioners

and move from theory to practice and

back to theory, we not only make

knowledge useful but avoid

irrelevance as an institution.

Scholarship of

integration

There is a need to place these

discoveries in a broader, more

interdisciplinary context, inviting the

energies of different disciplines

to converge.

Scholarship of

sharing knowledge

Communicating knowledge and learning to

peers and students through publications,

and teaching keeps the flame of

scholarship burning.

Figure 2. Boyer’s New Paradigm of Scholarship

7 | P a g e

Dr. Sandmann identified several benefits of engaged scholarship (ES). ES addresses and solves public issues while

creating civically engaged students and faculty. If done well, it can enhance the public value of higher education,

improve revenue generation, enhance the integration of research and learning, and support a more diverse

campus climate. Dr. Sandmann’s interpretation of scholarship is one of a continuum (Figure 3), as originally

documented by Gibbons, et al. (1994).

Figure 3. Continuum of Scholarship

This paradigm of scholarship led to the creation of a diversity of institutional definitions and descriptions for CE

and ES. The definitions below offer a snapshot of how CE and ES are perceived at MSU and align with the Carnegie

Foundation, through which MSU holds its Community Engagement Classification. The full list of MSU’s community

engagement definitions are in the Appendix. The key takeaway here is that despite the minor nuances in these

descriptions, the underlying purpose of all of them is to promote community engagement and engaged

scholarship equally among teaching/learning, research, and service, without hierarchy or importance of one over

the others.

Community Engagement describes collaboration between MSU and partnering communities for the mutually

beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity while fulfilling MSU’s

mission of scholarly teaching, research, and service.

Community-Engaged Teaching/Learning denotes academically-based community engaged courses that may

integrate a range of teaching and learning strategies, including, but not limited to: service-learning, co-op,

externship, internship, practicum, clinical, capstone, research project, public service, practice-based learning,

experiential education, and experiential learning.

Community-Engaged Research refers to a research partnership between MSU and communities that is mutually

beneficial and includes some degree of shared decision-making and leadership between communities and MSU.

Community-Engaged Service defines collaboration between members of MSU and a community or community-

based group that results in beneficial services. Community service may, or may not, be related to an academic

program and can be performed by students, faculty, and staff. Community service includes co-curricular service

and civic engagement.

Scholarship of Engagement or Engaged Scholarship is scholarship resulting from the collaborative and mutually

beneficial partnership between university member(s) (i.e. faculty, staff, and/or student) and external non-higher

education partner(s). Engaged scholarship is typically created and communicated through any of the following

Traditional Academic Knowledge Generation

Pure, disciplinary, homogeneous,

expert-led, supply-driven, hierarchical, peer-reviewed, and almost exclusively

university-based

Engaged Knowledge Generation

Applied, problem-centered, transdisciplinary, heterogeneous,

hybrid, demand-driven, entrepreneurial, network-embedded

8 | P a g e

activities: discovery of new knowledge, development of new knowledge, dissemination of new knowledge, change

in learning, change in behavior, and/or change in conditions (Franz, 2009).

There is no one universally accepted model of CE and ES, and MSU has recently developed its own model. One of

the underpinnings for MSU’s model is Nancy Franz’s (2009) Engaged Scholarship Model (Figure 4), which draws

from the areas of education, program development, and evaluation to provide a holistic approach to engaged

scholarship. The grouping of concentric circles illustrates the interrelationship and equality among each

component of the model, with the inner circle serving as the foundation for the others. The other elements all

“have equal importance, allowing academics and communities to initiate work together at any point in the circle

to conduct engaged scholarship” (Franz, 2009, p.34).

Figure 4. Nancy Franz Engaged Scholarship Model

Although all circles in the Franz model are equal, the two-way partnership between academics and community

partners that benefits both the community and the scholar’s discipline, serves as the foundation and definition of

engaged scholarship. Each of the six entry or leverage points allow the scholars-community partnerships to create

9 | P a g e

and communicate scholarship. Discovering, developing, and disseminating knowledge and changing learning,

behaviors, and conditions offer scholars a range of equally valuable approaches to partner with communities while

benefiting the academic discipline and community partners. The expanded perspective of scholarly activities and

communications allows engaged scholars to better contextualize their scholarly work, and although the peer-

reviewed journal article remains the most easily recognized signal for productivity in higher education, engaged

scholarly productivity includes practice and process communications across any of the six points of the engaged

scholarship circle.

The teaching, outreach, and research missions of higher education support one another in best addressing

complex issues and provide an institutional view to the six leverage points: teaching (disseminating knowledge

and changing learning), outreach (changing behaviors and conditions), and research (creating and developing

knowledge). Engaged scholars typically work in all three missions within teams of other scholars and partners.

The outer ring illustrates internal and external factors and assumptions about engaged scholarship that either

inhibit or advance engaged scholarship across universities. Internal factors affecting engaged scholarship include

faculty reward and promotion and tenure systems, lack of interest in collaboration, institutional silos,

organizational history, funding, organizational leadership, peer mentoring, and organizational infrastructure.

External factors affecting engaged scholarship include community commitment, communication, collaboration,

flexibility, trust, mutually beneficial relationships, available resources, political environment, and unique context

of community. Assumptions about engaged scholarship include perceived value of the work, defining best

practices, and appropriate rewards. Engaged scholarship includes clear goals, adequate preparation, significant

results, effective presentation, and reflective critique.

MSU MODEL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Community engagement has always been and will remain at the core of MSU’s mission and vison to improve the

lives of Mississippians by providing a quality education regardless of the learner’s social class. Since the university’s

inception in 1878, this mission has grown to include research in the public interest through the Mississippi

Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES) and dissemination of that research to the populace through

MSU Extension.

Our current model of community engagement emphasizes collaboration between MSU and partnering

communities for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and

reciprocity while fulfilling MSU’s mission of scholarly teaching, research, and service. It is from this collaboration

that scholarship – including, but is not limited to, grants, research, scholarly publications, presentations, curricula,

and art and artistic performances – is produced. Engaged scholarship is typically created and communicated

through the discovery of, development of, or dissemination of new knowledge and/or the change in learning,

behavior, or conditions.

10 | P a g e

Reference: Modified by the authors from Linking Scholarships and Communities: Report of the Commission on Community-Engaged

Scholarship in the Health Professions

11 | P a g e

Additionally, the MSU Community Engagement Partnership Grid provides a broad spectrum of opportunities for

involvement and engagement for CE practitioners to find their “sweet spot” relative to their role and passions at

MSU.

MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP GRID

12 | P a g e

TIMELINE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP AT MSU:

PAST EFFORTS AND CURRENT AWARENESS, KNOWLEDGE, & PRACTICE

The process of introducing, defining, and integrating CE and ES at MSU has been many years in the making. The

first documented efforts came from the Scholarship of Extension Committee (2011 – 2012), which focused on

describing scholarship as it relates to the Extension function of faculty in the Division of Agriculture, Forestry, and

Veterinary Medicine (DAFVM). As the discussion ensued, the following key conclusions were drawn:

Faculty members display excellence, regardless of their appointment as clinical, Extension, research,

and/or teaching faculty.

Extension is a scholarly activity that consists of various aspects of teaching, research/creative activities,

and service. Extension focuses on creating, communicating, applying, and preserving knowledge for the

benefit of a specific clientele. Extension activity is broader than what is usually termed service because

Extension entails all aspects of scholarly public service in addition to planned, mission-based education

and outreach. Extension includes technical assistance and a variety of formal and informal educational

efforts. Central to these efforts is the ability to assess current and future clientele needs accurately and

develop effective programs to address those needs. Evaluation of Extension activities should principally

be based upon quality and impact rather than quantity of activity.

Extension scholarship may be demonstrated through efforts in teaching, research/creative activities,

and/or service (e.g., applied research as part of a demonstration effort for clientele, needs assessment,

development of Extension publications or curricula, etc.). Scholarship also may be demonstrated through

Extension efforts (e.g., poster sessions, presentations, articles, book chapters, etc. about the effectiveness

or results of Extension efforts).

The Office of Student Leadership & Community Engagement (SLCE) (2010) aspires to educate, enlighten, and

empower tomorrow’s leaders – everyday citizens who transform the social, educational, and economic fabric of

communities across our state and nation and around the globe. All programs use the Social Change Model of

Leadership Development and community engagement through a lens of social justice to foster an accessible and

inclusive community of students, staff, faculty, and community members committed to personal, intellectual, and

leadership development, community engagement, and social change. The leadership programs within the SLCE

are the Montgomery Leadership Program, the Day One Leadership Program, and leaderSTATE STEM.

The Montgomery Leadership Program (MLP) is a three semester, 6-credit hour social-change model of

leadership development program that annually enrolls cohorts of 40 upperclassmen. MLP uses

community-engaged learning, team-based learning, mentoring, and capstone projects to foster

engagement with the multidisciplinary contexts of social issues, the students’ own ethical and leadership

development, and the human condition. MLP students direct and staff leaderSTATE STEM and serve as

peer mentors and project managers for the Day One Leadership Program.

13 | P a g e

The Day One Leadership Program is a 2-credit hour lecture-laboratory social-change model of leadership

development and student success class that uses community-engaged learning, mentoring, and team-

based learning. Annually, Day One enrolls 200 first-semester freshman, 40 upperclassmen peer mentors,

and 40 faculty/staff mentors

leaderSTATE STEM is a partnership between SLCE, the Department of Geosciences, and the U.S. Army

Cadet Command consisting of a 5 day summer residential leadership and STEM education program for

360 high school Junior ROTC cadets from Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana and a STEM follow-on

program with Jackson Public Schools.

The Maroon Volunteer Center (MVC) was founded after Hurricane Katrina by the Center for Student Activities

and was relocated into The Office of Student Leadership and Community Engagement (SLCE) in 2010. The MVC

serves as a clearinghouse to match volunteers with about 120 community partners and hundreds of service

opportunities on and off campus. The MVC also directs facilities, programs, and activities that allows the MSU

community to utilize its talents, skills, and resources in collaboration with our surrounding communities to achieve

mutually beneficial outcomes. Currently the MVC recruits over 6,500 student, faculty, and staff to volunteer in the

community each academic year. Signature MVC projects include:

Maroon Edition Habitat for Humanity (est. 2010)

9/11 National Day of Service and Remembrance (est. 2011)

Make a Difference Day (est. 2011)

National Volunteer Week (est. 2011)

The Certified MSU Track and Field Meet Official Program (est. 2011)

Maroon Volunteer Center AmeriCorps VISTA Project (est. 2012)

Community Work Study Service Coordinator Program (est. 2012)

Service DAWGS Day (est. 2009, rev. 2012)

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service (est. 2012)

Personal Readiness and Emergency Preparation (est. 2012)

Bulldog Mentors Program (est. 2014)

The President’s Interfaith Community Service Campus Challenge (est. 2013)

The MSU Food Security Network (est. 2013)

America’s Sunday Suppers (est. 2015)

The MSU Big Event (est. 2012, rev. 2015)

The MVC also assists with facilitation of the following Community-Engaged Learning Courses with C-

designation:

HI 3343-C – Mississippi Delta History and Experiential Learning (est. 2012) – In this lecture-laboratory

community-engaged course, students earn three hours of history credit while engaging with the

multidisciplinary contexts, the ethical implications, and the human conditions of the uniquely American

Mississippi Delta.

14 | P a g e

S0 4153-C – Mentoring At-Risk Youth (est. 2016) - The MVC partners with the Department of Sociology

and Armstrong Middle School to train and place junior and senior level students in one-on-one mentoring

relationships with at-risk juveniles in the community.

Reporting to the Provost and Executive Vice President, the MSU Community Engagement Committee (CEC) was

established in 2011 and coordinates the advancement of community engagement, service-learning, and outreach

activities on-campus, within the region, and beyond. Elected members serve a three-year term. This committee

meets regularly to address issues of strategic planning and partnerships, education, and recognition and awards

pertaining to community engagement. Examples of the CEC’s efforts to date include:

Faculty Senate Roundtable – “Strengthening Community Engagement” (2017)

Carnegie Community Engagement Classification Update – Faculty Role and Recognition (est. 2017)

MSU Community Engagement Survey (2018)

MSTV Engaged (est. 2018)

MSU CE and ES Awards and Recognition Program (est. 2018)

The Center for Community-Engaged Learning (CCEL), established in 2013, aspires to bring learning to life by

engaging students, faculty, staff, and community collaborators in mutually beneficial partnerships linking

curricular learning objectives to community engagement. CCEL supports the mission of community partners and

the university; encourages the production of engaged scholarship; and fosters the ethical development of

participants and the civic capacity of communities. CCEL assists faculty wanting to reinforce, make relevant, and

extend classroom learning into communities by engaging learners with the multidisciplinary, social, and civic

contexts of the subject of study. This is accomplished by supporting new partnerships between faculty, staff, and

community collaborators; encouraging the adoption of and advancing the practice of community-engaged

learning; removing barriers and solving problems for faculty and community partners wanting to adopt

community-engaged learning; highlighting the work of those practicing community-engaged learning; and

securing resources for community-engaged learning practitioners.

In 2018, CCEL launched the Community-Engaged Learning (CEL) Fellows program. CEL Fellows is a 3 week-long

development seminar that provides an opportunity for selected faculty and staff members to integrate

community-engaged learning into their teaching, research and public service work, while becoming recognized

campus leaders in community-engaged learning pedagogy and community engagement. The program aims to

integrate the philosophy, pedagogy, and process of community-engaged learning into the MSU academic

environment. The fellowship includes a $1,000 faculty development award after completion of the seminar.

In the spring of 2017, the Faculty Senate Roundtable on the topic of “Strengthening Community Engagement”

was convened. Sequential small-group and summation sessions addressed four overlapping topics: 1) university-

level incentivizes and rewards for faculty participating in CE; 2) departmental-level opportunities to prepare

students for engaged citizenship; 3) educating MSU stakeholders on the depth and breadth of CE, and 4) the

strengths and limitations of CE for MSU faculty. University-level responses suggested that MSU should engage in

a President and/or Provost led effort communicating the significance of CE; create programs to recognize

exemplary CE personnel and projects; create systems to compensate faculty for CE; develop systems to inform,

fund, and advance CE; and refine the “service” segment of faculty evaluations beyond a catch-all. Department-

15 | P a g e

level responses suggested departments should improve attitudes, understanding, and culture related to CE;

support student development by using CE; advance curricular and co-curricular participation in CE; be more

engaged in K-12 educational partnerships; create sequential programs for students to participate in CE from

recruitment through graduation; and use CE for career preparation.

In 2018, the MSU Community Engagement Survey assessing the awareness, knowledge, and actions of CE and ES

was developed by the MSU Community Engagement Committee and electronically administered to faculty and

staff at both Starkville and Meridian campuses of Mississippi State University (MSU), as well as Extension and

Agriculture Experiment Station personnel throughout the state, through the Class Climate online survey software.

Results from that survey revealed that:

35% of respondents “know something about community engagement in higher education,” but 6% of

respondents “know nothing about community engagement in higher education.”

Over half of the respondents (51.8%) participate in community engagement programs and activities at

MSU while 21% do not know if they participate in these activities.

Over half (54%) of respondents directly collaborate as part of their formal job responsibilities and 57% of

respondents directly collaborate as part of their responsibilities not formally associated with their

position.

Of the faculty and staff participating in community engagement, almost 54% are involved in community

engagement in teaching and learning, 36.6% are involved in community engagement in research and

scholarship, and 73.6% are involved in community engagement in service.

57% of respondents indicated community engagement is used to improve student success at MSU and

beyond; 50% indicated community engagement is used to identify and promote select research that

capitalizes on existing strengths; and 45% indicated community engagement is used to enrich the

academic and cultural experiences of the faculty, staff, and students through global engagement.

The Mississippi State University Excellence in Community Engagement Awards program recognizes outstanding

accomplishments in community engagement in the categories of Community-Engaged Service, Community-

Engaged Teaching and Learning, Community-Engaged Research, and Scholarship of Engagement. The most

outstanding examples of a community engagement projects or programs in each of the four areas receive a $5,000

grant to further community engagement within Mississippi State’s threefold mission of learning, research, and

service. For information about the MSU CE and ES Awards and Recognition Program and the results of the 2018

awards, go to page 20 of this document.

16 | P a g e

WAYS OF INCORPORATING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP

The Faculty Senate Roundtable that convened in 2017 offered several recommendations to improve the

understanding of CE. They identified that the perceived strengths of CE included enhancing the reputation of MSU

by providing relatable benefits to our external stakeholders and attracting external funding; improving student

learning and development; engaging faculty in their strengths and passions; and increasing networks,

partnerships, and availability of MSU resources to communities. They also determined that the perceived

limitations of CE included a lack of recognition in P&T with an increased risk to junior faculty; lack of understanding

by faculty regarding CE framework, benefits, and opportunities for collaboration; increased risk to P&T at all levels

due to the fact that CE partnerships/results tend to develop slower than other types of primary-investigator-led

scholarship (due to the need for trust-building and learning phases); implementation of CE has additional

bureaucratic and legal barriers that may result in a faculty member’s reputational risk; and CE is often perceived

by faculty to be complicated and expensive to implement (high cost- low benefit relationship).

As such, it suggested that MSU do the following:

organize a CE educational campaign,

provide explicit examples of CE excellence,

create a system to recognize and value CE as scholarship and support promotion and tenure (P&T),

recognize that CE is more complicated and develops more slowly than other forms of scholarship,

engage alumni in CE,

engage stakeholders in the entire range of CE activities, and

think more strategically in building long-term “win-win” partnerships with communities that exist beyond

the short-term or grant-funded interactions.

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Institute for Community and Economic Engagement presents the

community-engaged approach to scholarship as a continuum (Figure 5). In this model, the authors posit that a

“continuum approach to scholarship expands who is a knowledge maker and what is a knowledge artifact” (Janke,

Medlin, & Holland, 2014, p.5). As such, it is inclusive of a diversity of knowledge; it assigns equal value to various

inquiries; it promotes inclusivity and implies choice; and it holds all academic scholarly and creative work,

however varied, to a set of common principles by which they are evaluated.

17 | P a g e

Figure 5. Primary and Secondary Artifacts of Scholarship

Many will understand that some (or all) of what they do in their job at MSU falls under the definition of Community

Engagement and/or Engaged Scholarship. Regardless of responsibilities or appointment (staff, faculty or

administration), however, the following are examples and suggestions of ways to incorporate CE and ES at the

various levels of the organization – individual, unit, department/school, college, university-wide – by focusing on

practices as well as potential policy changes.

COMMUNITY-ENGAGED TEACHING AND LEARNING

Pedagogical ideologies and practices have been evolving in higher education for decades, along with a

reexamination of effective teaching and the role of community engagement (Sturm, Eatman, Saltmarsh, & Bush,

2012). What has been suggested is that knowledge resides in places beyond the classroom and a new, diverse

18 | P a g e

generation of academics are seeking opportunities for engagement while pursuing the goal of tenure (Hoy &

Johnson, 2013). Service-learning, one

example of community-engaged learning, is a

disruptive practice in that it requires both the

educator and the learner to embrace

unknowns and emphasize student learning

rather than mastery or knowledge transfer

(Crabill & Butin, 2014). “To be comfortable

with the practice of service-learning and

other community-based teaching methods is

to be comfortable with a heuristic approach

to teaching, one that guides students to the

path, one that gives students tools for their

journey but does not necessarily accompany

them on every step of that journey”

(Alexander, 2014, p.99).

Provided in Table 1 is a modification of the

Bonner Student Developmental Model (Hoy

& Johnson, 2013) to help faculty inform the

process of assessing their current teaching

methodologies and re-framing their efforts

to more effectively incorporate community

engagement. Additionally, this model

provides a framework by which faculty can

better articulate the value and impact of their

existing service-learning work with students.

This model can also be used by

administrators to identify and be more

intentional about how community engagement is, or can be, integrated into various institutional practices

targeting undergraduate students. For more details about the original Bonner Student Developmental Model:

http://www.bonner.org/bonner-program-model/.

Finally, recent research points out that faculty using service-learning in their teaching efforts “appear to be

internally motivated and for the most part unlikely to stop using service-learning if they are not rewarded for

doing so” (Abes, Jackson, & Jones, 2002, p.15). However, those most likely to be dissuaded from using service-

learning are untenured faculty at research universities (Blissman, 2013). This alone should give administrators

pause and motivation to determine new and innovative ways to make CE and ES more widely and formally

accepted in promotion and tenure policies and procedures.

Community-based learning often relies on

fieldwork and cooperative experience. Students

in courses that require community-based

learning apply their skills and give something

back to the community so that they learn what

it means to be a citizen. Similarly, service-

learning courses also require students to apply

their skills to a community problem; however,

there is an additional component – reflection.

Students develop a deeper understanding of

their career field and of civics through service-

learning opportunities because they are asked

to think about what they are learning, how they

are learning, [and] what they are doing to help

their communities. Service-learning makes

learning a reciprocal relationship for students,

faculty, and community partners (Brunner,

2016, p.4).

19 | P a g e

Table 1. Modified Bonner Student Developmental Model

Level Skills and actions Institutional practices

Expectation:

Previous service experiences

Interest/ethic for service and community

Orientation

Exploration:

Intentional immersions into service

Time management, active listening, communication, goal setting, reflection

First-year experience; service-learning

Experience:

Commitment to place, issue, and partner/community

Balance budgeting, teamwork, conflict resolution, planning

Learning communities; diversity; core curriculum; writing intensive experiences

Example:

Leadership roles for partner/community and program

Delegation, event planning, peer management, fund raising, project management

Undergraduate research; writing intensive experiences; diversity and global learning; deliberative democracy

Excellence:

Integrated application of experience and learning

Public education, public speaking, marketing, networking, research, and evaluation

Capstones

PROMOTION AND TENURE

The guidelines for engaged scholarship, as established by Glassick, Huber, and Maerhoff (1997) and the Kellogg

Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1999) include well-defined goals, significant

results, and reflection. How these guidelines are interpreted and valued by faculty and administrators can affect

the promotion and tenure process (Franz, 2009).

It is no secret that at most North American universities, including land-grants, the very idea of CE and ES is

challenged by existing cultural norms, institutional values, and administrative policies and procedures. Yet if done

correctly, engaged scholarship is no less rigorous than traditional scholarship. In fact, it incorporates faculty

engagement with communities to help universities serve those communities while meeting their institutional

mission and vision (Sandmann, 2006). As such, it requires that it be an integral part of all three legs of the academy

– teaching, research, and service (Saltmarsh, Giles, Ward, & Buglione, 2009). However, institutional culture change

takes time, and so most faculty are unwilling to risk their promotion and tenure prospects by committing any part

of their time and effort to engaged scholarship.

It can be argued, though, that faculty efforts in engaged scholarship should be valued and rewarded equal to that

of traditional scholarship. “[E]merging scholars need to learn… how to value community partnerships, how to see

20 | P a g e

scholarship within a community project, [and] how to be open to interdisciplinary work…” (Brunner, 2016, p.13).

This requires support, mentoring, encouragement, and recognition, both formal and informal.

Another challenge to addressing the notion that community engagement endeavors cannot be scholarly is finding

a way to articulate its value and ability to shape knowledge (Brunner, 2016). Boyer (1996) and Foster (2010)

recommend an approach that integrates or overlaps teaching, service, and research, rather than viewing them as

disjointed and independent of each other. Ideally, this intersectionality may reduce workload and increase

productivity while contributing to institutional goals (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011).

Faculty value community engaged scholarship. “A

faculty member can have a research portfolio that

balances publications directed at academic audiences

with other professional or creative activities” (Barreno,

Elliott, Madueke, & Sarny, 2013, p.64). Examples of

scholarship include refereed publications, un-reviewed

materials*, films, videos, computer software, websites,

podcasts, invited addresses to professional associations

or groups, building university-community partnerships,

distance or blended learning, and course development.

Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship is not

a better or worse approach than traditional scholarship;

rather is it merely a different approach with easily

identifiable markers of success. As CE and ES become

more central to the research agenda at MSU, it should

be recognized like any other work carried out as part of

the faculty’s academic responsibilities.

*Un-reviewed material: These are publications, papers and other materials that have not been peer-reviewed prior

to publication. For example, articles in association newsletters or journals; publications for clients; papers

presented at scholarly or professional meetings; occasional papers; educational pamphlets; technical reports;

program manuals; briefs to governments or other bodies; reviews of scholarly articles, and research grant

applications (Barreno, Elliott, Madieke, & Sarny, 2013).

AWARDS AND OTHER RECOGNITION

The Mississippi State University Excellence in Community Engagement Awards annually recognizes outstanding

accomplishments in community engagement in the categories of Community-Engaged Service, Community-

As an example, if a faculty member

were to work with a community

partner with a class and then develop

scholarship from this partnership and

work, he/she would be engaging in

intersectional scholarship. The faculty

member would thus be serving the

community, teaching students skills,

and also publishing scholarship

(Brunner, 2016, p.15).

21 | P a g e

Engaged Teaching and Learning, Community-Engaged Research, and Scholarship of Engagement. The most

outstanding examples of a community engagement project or program in each of these four areas receives a

$5,000 grant to further community engagement within Mississippi State’s threefold mission of learning, research,

and service. Selected from more than 30 nominations from a variety of academic disciplines, the award winners

from 2018 include:

• “Water Borehole Drilling in Simwatachela, Zambia” for community-engaged service. Submitted by junior civil

engineering major Jennifer Hoang of Pass Christian, who serves as manager of MSU’s chapter of Engineers

Without Borders. This project is in partnership with the Simwatachela Sustainable Agricultural and Arts

Program.

• “Sweet Potato Innovation Challenge” for community-engaged teaching and learning. Submitted by Stephen

Meyers, assistant extension/research professor and sweet potato extension specialist, the project is in

partnership with the Mississippi Sweet Potato Council.

• “Bringing Tai Chi to Mississippi’s Aging Population for Healthy Body and Positive Emotion” for community-

engaged research. Submitted by Zhujun Pan, assistant professor of kinesiology, who partnered with Trinity

Place Retirement Community of Columbus.

• “Getting to Know Magnolia Bayou through Science, Arts, and Culture” for scholarship of engagement.

Submitted by Kelsey Johnson, assistant director of the College of Architecture, Art and Design’s Gulf Coast

Community Design Studio and in partnership with the Bay St. Louis Creative Arts Center and Hancock County

Boys and Girls Club.

For information about the 2018 Excellence in Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship award winners,

visit: https://www.msstate.edu/newsroom/article/2018/11/msu-announces-community-engagement-award-

honorees/.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This white paper is not intended to be a panacea for the issue of recognizing and integrating CE and ES into the

culture and institutional policies and procedures of MSU. With this in mind, it is recommended that readers use

the information presented here to inform locally-derived solutions and approaches for respective colleges,

departments/schools, and units, as appropriate. This will likely take place in two phases. The first phase is broad

agreement on the definition and principles of Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship. The second

phase is the development of infrastructure for a fully engaged university. “A fully engaged university enacts

institutional alignment with policies and practices that demonstrably support the integration of community

engagement scholarship with the core functions of the academy: research, teaching, and service” (Fitzgerald et

al., 2017, p.46).

22 | P a g e

RECOMMENDATION TO ADMINISTRATORS

1. Identify champions that are already engaged in

CE and ES, are interested in CE and ES, and are

invested in how CE and ES can be counted in the

promotion and tenure process, along with other

institutional policies and practices.

2. Review the language of existing policies and

strategic plans for evidence of statements

addressing CE and ES. If none exist, or if they are

ambiguous, consider adopting more specific

language that aligns with the institution’s

definition and model of CE and ES.

3. Keep CE and ES in the forefront of

communications with faculty, staff, and

administrators. Engage colleagues in critical

discourse to increase awareness and

understanding.

4. Develop a model and suitable criteria for peer

review of CE and ES, within the context of your

college, department/school, or unit. This may

include integrating community-based review.

5. Learn from the example of others. Reach out to

colleagues at other universities for which CE and ES are fully integrated and a natural part of the

organizational culture and norms. Listen to their stories of transition and heed their advice.

6. Develop Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to be used by promotion and tenure committees. This

evaluation criteria should be equally applicable to the three expressions of faculty work – teaching,

service, and research – in order to promote scholarship across and among all three areas. A summary of

primary evaluation criteria for the scholarship of CE and ES developed by Glassick, Taylor, and Maeroff

(1997) is provided in Table 2. Additionally, Table 3 offers a basic rubric for assessing scholarship.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO FACULTY

For any faculty seeking to engage in CE and ES, regardless of appointment, tenure eligibility or status, the following

are recommendations from others who pursued their passions in CE and ES and succeeded.

1. Who you know matters. Take the time to network with other faculty with similar interests. Additionally,

take advantage of resources by professional and academic associations involved with CE and ES.

It is often said that we measure what we

value, and we value what we measure.

Universities regularly measure and

report enrollment data, graduation

rates, and research dollars, yet for the

most, nothing they routinely measure

sheds light on the extent and impact of

their involvement with the broader

community. If colleges and universities

truly value public engagement, then this

must change: they must measure and

report not only the quantity of the work

but also its quality (Beere, Votruba, &

Wells, 2011, p.155).

23 | P a g e

2. Mentors make a difference. A good mentor is someone who can relate to your experiences and in whom

you can trust and confide. Don’t limit yourself to someone in your own department or even the same

institution if a better role model and advocate is elsewhere.

3. If you teach students, get them involved. Help your students understand how theory can be applied to

real-world situations by requiring them to use their knowledge and skills to work effectively with all

members of their community. These efforts can lead to meaningful research which can be published and

shared with academic and non-academic audiences alike. Collecting tangible documents and producing

reports can help demonstrate the impact of CE and ES to promotion and tenure committees.

4. Be proactive when selecting outside reviewers. Building your network of mentors and collaborators

should also include finding individuals who conduct and understand engaged scholarship and would be

willing to advocate on your behalf with well-written letters for your promotion and tenure packet.

5. Be patient. Without a paradigm shift in the university’s culture and procedural norms, formal

acknowledgement and recognition of CE and ES will be difficult and will take time. “Creating a fostering

environment for engaged scholarship will not happen overnight” (Brunner, 2016, p.20-21). However,

through ongoing education of and communication with faculty and administrators about the merits of CE

and ES with regard to students, teaching, research, and the local community, there will eventually be an

increase in understanding, trust, and recognition.

24 | P a g e

Table 2. General Evaluation Criteria for the Scholarship of Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship (Glassick, Taylor, & Maeroff, 1997)

Criteria Reflective Questions

Clear Goals Does the scholar state the basic purpose of his or her work clearly?

Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable?

Does the scholar identify important questions in the field?

Adequate Preparation

Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the field?

Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to his or her work?

Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the project forward?

Appropriate Methods

Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals?

Does the scholar apply effectively the methods selected?

Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances?

Significant Results

Does the scholar achieve the goals?

Does the scholar’s work add consequentially to the field?

Does the scholar’s work open additional areas for further exploration?

Effective Presentation

Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organization to present his or her

work?

Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating the work to its intended

audiences?

Does the scholar present his or her message with clarity and integrity?

Reflective Critique

Does the scholar critically evaluate his or her own work?

Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to his or her critique?

Does the scholar use evaluation to improve the quality of future work?

25 | P a g e

Table 3. Characteristics of Community Engaged Scholarship and Rubric for Assessing Scholarship

Note: This rubric is intended to be a guide for faculty implementing CE and ES and those assessing the scholarship

of those actions. The “Key Performance Indicator” column may have to be adapted based on the project,

community, and/or institutional contexts. The “Weight” column is blank to allow for customization and

prioritization of the characteristics.

Weight Key Performance Indicator Lowest Highest Total

Problem identification by the community

Conducting research on issues identified by the researcher

Stakeholder partnership drives research

Clear and important academic and community change goals – relevant research question(s)

Unidentifiable or unclear outcomes

Clear and measurable outcomes

Community involvement in research process

Engaging with community stakeholders as subjects

Includes all stakeholders and elicits under-represented perspectives

Clear and measurable community outcomes/transformation

Ambiguous and vague community outcomes

Clear and measurable outcomes

Significant results (e.g. builds community and institutional capacity)

Does not build capacity within the institution or community

Builds significant institutional and community capacity

Effective dissemination to academic and community audiences

No dissemination of impact or lessons learned

Collaborative scholarship and dissemination through a variety of community and peer-reviewed channels

Reflective critique: lessons learned to improve scholarship and community engagement

Does not include self-reflective, peer, community, and stakeholder critique/evaluation

Clear evidence of practice for both community and academic stakeholders

Leadership and personal contribution

Inflexible in adapting/anticipating changing contexts

Demonstrates ability to adapt to changing contexts

Consistently ethical behavior: socially responsible conduct of research, teaching, and service

Does not demonstrate social responsibility

Evidence of academic focus on equalizing power imbalances between stakeholders

(Adapted from Barreno, L.; Elliott, P.W.; Madueka, I.; & Sarny, D. 2013, September. Community engaged scholarship and faculty assessment: A review of Canadian practices.)

26

REFERENCES

Abes, E.S.; Jackson, G.; & Jones, S. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of service-

learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 9(1), 5-17.

Alexander, J. (2014). Disrupting a disruption or live everything. In S.L. Crabill & D. Butin (Eds.),

Community engagement 2.0? Dialogues on the future of the civic in the disrupted university. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2002). Stepping forward as stewards of place:

A guide for leading public engagement at state colleges and universities. Washington, D.C.

Antonio, A.L.; Astin, H.S.; & Cress, C.M. (2000). Community service and higher education: A look at the

nation’s faculty. Review of Higher Education, 23, 373-398.

Barker, Derek. W. M., Angela D. Allen, Alexandra Robinson, Foday Sulimani, Zach VanderVeen, and Dana

M. Walker. 2011. "Research On Civic Capacity: An Analysis Of Kettering Literature And Related

Scholarship". Kettering Foundation.

Barreno, L.; Elliott, P.W.; Madueka, I.; & Sarny, D. (2013, September). Community engaged scholarship

and faculty assessment: A review of Canadian practices. Research report prepared for the Faculty

Assessment Workgroup, Rewarding community engaged scholarship: Transforming university policies

and practices. University of Regina.

Beere, C.A.; Votruba, J.C.; & Wells, G.W. (2011). Becoming an engaged campus: A practical guide for

institutionalizing public engagement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blissman, B. (2013). Wisdom from the garden: Exploring faculty transformation. In Hoy, A. & Johnson, M.

(Eds.), Deepening community engagement in higher education: Forging new pathways. New York, NY:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Boyer, E.L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), 11-20.

Brunner, B.R. (Ed.). (2016). Creating citizens: Liberal arts, civic engagement, and the land-grant tradition.

Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2013). Classification description: Community

engagement elective classification. From

http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php?key=1213.

Connecticut Campus Compact Engaged Scholarship Advisory Committee. (2012). Framework for

community engaged scholarship. Fairfield, CT: Connecticut Campus Compact.

Eyler, J. & Giles, D.E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

27

Fitzgerald, H.E., Allen, A., & Roberts, P. (2010). Campus-community partnerships: Perspectives on

engaged research. In H.E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. Siefer (Eds.), Handbook on engaged scholarship:

Contemporary landscapes, future directions. Community-campus partnerships (Vol 2, pp.5-28). East

Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Fitzgerald, H.E., Van Egeren, L.A., Bargerstock, B.A., & Zientek, R. (2017). Community engagement

scholarship, research universities, and the scholarship of integration. In J. Sachs & L. Clark (Eds.),

Learning through community engagement: Vision and practice in higher education. Singapore: Springer

Science + Business Media.

Fogelman, E. (2002). Civic engagement at the University of Minnesota. Journal of Public Affairs, 6

(Supplemental Issue 1: Civic Engagement and Higher Education), 103-118.

Foster, K.M. (2010). Taking a stand: Community-engaged scholarship on the tenure track. Journal of

Community Engagement and Scholarship, 3, 20-30.

Franz, N. (2009). A holistic model of engaged scholarship: Telling the story across higher education’s

missions. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 13(4), 31-50.

Glassick, C.E.; Huber, M.T.; & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hoy, A. & Johnson, M. (2013). Deep, pervasive, and integrated: Developmental frameworks for students,

partnerships, faculty engagement, and centers. In Hoy, A. & Johnson, M. (Eds.), Deepening community

engagement in higher education: Forging new pathways. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Janke, E.M.; Medlin, K.B.; & Holland, B.A. (2014). Honoring the mosaic of talents and stewarding the

standards of high quality community-engaged scholarship. Excellence in Community Engagement &

Community-Engaged Scholarship. Vol. 2. University of North Carolina at Greensboro: Institute for

Community and Economic Engagement.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (1999). Returning to our roots:

The engaged institution. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State and Land-Grant Colleges.

Leiderman, S.; Furco, A.; Zapf, J.; & Goss, M. (2003). Building partnership with college campuses:

Community perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Council of Independent Colleges.

Rodin, J. (2007). The university & urban revival: Out of the ivory tower and into the streets. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Sandmann, L.R. (2006). Scholarship as architecture: Framing and enhancing community engagement.

Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 20, 80-84.

Saltmarsh, J.; Giles, D.E., Jr.; Ward, E.; & Buglione, S.M. (2009). Rewarding community-engaged

scholarship. New Directions for Higher Education, 147, 25-35.

28

Simon, L.K. (2010). Engaged scholarship in land-grant and research universities. In Fitzgerald, H.E., Burak,

C., & Seifer, S. (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions:

Vol. I: Institutional change. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Sturm, S.; Eatman, T.; Saltmarsh, J.; & Bush, A. (2011). Full participation: Building the architecture for

diversity and public engagement in higher education [White paper]. New York: Center for Institutional

and Social Change, Columbia University Law School.

Van Egeren, L.A., McNall, M., Cloutier, K., Bargerstock, B.A., & Doberneck, D.M. (2014). A framework for

policies and practices for institutional engagement. Paper presented at the Engagement Scholarship

Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, November 2014.

Weerts, D.J. & Sandmann, L.R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for

community engagement at research universities. Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 73-106.

29

APPENDIX

30

MSU COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DEFINITIONS

Communities consist of groups of people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interests, or

situational similarities at the local, regional/state, national, or global levels.

Community Partner includes any community-based individuals and organizations external to MSU.

Partnership is an association between communities and MSU to undertake a shared, mutually beneficial

action or endeavor.

Extension provides MSU’s research-based information, educational programs, and technology transfer

focused on issues and needs of the people of Mississippi, enabling them to make informed decisions about

their economic, social, and cultural well-being.

Civic Engagement is a type of community service that fosters citizenship through engagement in issues of

public interest and/or participation in governance activities.

Co-curricular Service is a type of community service performed by students that is not formally linked to

an academic curriculum, but fosters student learning.

Service-learning is a teaching and learning strategy that uses reflection to link community service with

academic course objectives to enrich the educational experience of students, teach civic responsibility,

and meet the needs of a community.

Scholarship is “creative intellectual work that is validated by peers and communicated” (Weiser &

Houglum, 1998) to the larger world. Scholarship includes, but is not limited to, obtaining grants,

conducting research, writing scholarly publications, delivering presentation, creating curricula, creating

art, and producing artistic performance.

Mutuality refers to an interdependence or shared interest, purpose, or benefit between two or more

collaborators.

Reciprocity refers to a mutually beneficial exchange between MSU and its community partners.

MSU Engaged Scholarship White Paper Workgroup

Dallas BreenStennis Institute of Government

Patty Ann BogueDepartment of Management and Information Systems

Kenya CistrunkDepartment of Sociology

Marina DennySchool of Human Sciences

Meggan FranksOffice of Student Leadership and Community Engagement

Jacob GinesSchool of Architecture

Brandi KarischDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science

Pamela RedwineMSU Extension

Michael RichardsonMSU Alumni Association

Becky SmithDeparment of Agricultural Economics

Special thanks to Cade Smith, Michelle Garraway, Xi Chen, and the members of the Community Engagement Committee for their contributions to this white paper.

31