NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ858609
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2009
Pages: 11
Abstractor: ERIC
Reference Count: 18
ISSN: ISSN-0271-0560
Rewarding Community-Engaged Scholarship
Saltmarsh, John; Giles, Dwight E., Jr.; Ward, Elaine; Buglione, Suzanne M.
New Directions for Higher Education, n147 p25-35 Fall 2009
Higher education leaders seeking to reshape institutional identity and establish community engagement as a core institutional value ultimately have to address how to embed the values of community engagement in the institutional reward policies that define the faculty roles of teaching, scholarship, and service. Furthermore, since the research university culture dominates the construction of faculty roles in higher education, community engagement must be recognized explicitly in the criteria for scholarly work if it is to reshape faculty culture. It cannot be relegated to either the faculty's teaching or service roles exclusively, but must be included as part of the faculty's scholarship and research role. Faculty scholarly work and its reward provide the context for the questions related to institutional reward policies that appear in the "optional questions" section of foundational indicators of the 2006 Carnegie community engagement framework. The questions on institutional reward policies are aimed at three aspects of rewarding community-engaged scholarship: what exists in current policy, which of the faculty roles are rewarded for community engagement, and if changes in the promotion and tenure guidelines to reward community-engaged scholarship have not been implemented, whether a process is under way to revise the current guidelines. This chapter presents findings that are part of a larger qualitative study of the applications, faculty handbooks, and key informant interviews from Carnegie community-engaged campuses. For the purposes of this study, the authors focused on campuses that emerged as the most engaged: those that received the classification for curricular engagement and for outreach and partnerships. The authors surmised that these campuses would be more likely to have community engagement articulated in the institutional reward policies. Of the 62 campuses that received the classification for curricular engagement and for outreach and partnerships, 33 elected to answer the question on reward policies and provided documentation to support their answer. For five of the campuses, the authors were unable to gain permission to use the application for this study. Eight campuses from Carnegie's 2005 pilot cohort for the classification are also included in the final sample. Finally, it should be noted that of the 33 campuses that answered yes to the question of whether the institution has policies that reward the scholarship of engagement, two of the institutions do not grant tenure. (Contains 1 table.)
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Subscription Department, 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774. Tel: 800-825-7550; Tel: 201-748-6645; Fax: 201-748-6021; e-mail:; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A