Advertisement

The Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement

Helping Create the “New Normal” in American Higher Education?
  • Elaine WardEmail author
  • Suzanne Buglione
  • Dwight E. Giles Jr.
  • John Saltmarsh
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides a detailed exploration of how a long-standing University classification approach developed in the United States focuses on university-community engagement and the effects that this has on management approaches taken the university. This chapter reports findings from a study of the elective Carnegie Community Engagement Classification. This elective classification is a voluntary activity allowing universities to self assess and be given credit for things they do well given their overall mission and profile. Since 2004, this classification provides protocol for the accreditation of university engagement activity that goes beyond the standard kinds of service learning which we commonly find in universities, and attempts to go deeper to the institutionalization efforts of engagement across the entire university. Based on institutional studies and questionnaires, this chapter explores the extent to which something similar to a Carnegie classification can help to support universities in their efforts to make engagement more central to their mission, already identified by a number of contributors in this book as a vital antecedent condition for successful engagement.

Keywords

High Education Community Engagement Civic Engagement Transformational Change Scholarly Activity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  2. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Boyer, E. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. The Journal of Public Service and Community Outreach, 1(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
  4. Brint, S., & Levy, C. S. (1999). Professions and civic engagement: Trends in rhetoric and practice 1875–1995. In T. Skocpol & M. P. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy (pp. 163–211). Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brukardt, M. J., Holland, B., Percy, S., & Zimpher, N. (2004). Calling the question: Is higher education ready to commit to community engagement. A Wingspread statement.Google Scholar
  6. Burack, C., & Saltmarsh, J. (2006). Assessing the institutionalization of civic engagement. Boston: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  7. Campus Compact. (2000).Presidents’ declaration on the civic responsibility of higher education. Providence: Campus Compact.Google Scholar
  8. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/.
  9. Colbeck, C., & Wharton-Michael, P. (2006). Framework for researching influences on faculty scholarship. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 105, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, N. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Driscoll, A. (2008). Carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/. Accessed 22 Jan. 2008.
  13. Driscoll, A., & Lynton, E. (1999). Making outreach visible: A guide to documenting professional service and outreach. Washington: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  14. Eckel, P., Hill, B., & Green, M. (1998). On change: En route to transformation. Washington: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  15. Ehrlich, T. (Ed.). (2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. Westport: American Council on Education, Series on Higher Education, Oryx Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ehrlich, T., & Holland, E. (1999). Presidents’ declaration on the civic responsibility of higher education. Campus Compact. http://www.compact.org/resources/declaration/Declaration_2007.pdf.
  17. Furco, A. (2009). Issues in benchmarking and assessing institutional engagement. In L. Sandmann, C. Thornton, & A. Jaeger (Eds.), Institutionalizing community engagement in higher education: The first wave of Carnegie classified institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (New Directions for Higher Education, 147, 47–54).Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Giles, D. E. (2008). Understanding an emerging field of scholarship: Toward a research agenda for engaged, public scholarship. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(2), 97–106.Google Scholar
  20. Giles, D., Saltmarsh, J., Ward, E., & Buglione, S. (2008). An analysis of faculty reward policies for engaged scholarship at Carnegie classified community engaged institutions. Paper presented at the Annual Association for the Study of Higher Education, Jacksonville, Florida.Google Scholar
  21. Holland, B. A. (2001). A comprehensive model for assessing service-learning and community-university partnerships. New Directions for Higher Education, 114, 51–60.Google Scholar
  22. Hollander, E., Saltmarsh, J., & Zlotkowski, E. (2002). Indicators of engagement. In L. A. Simon, K. M. Brabeck, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Learning to serve: Promoting civil society through service-learning. Norwell: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  23. Kellogg Commission. (2001). The future of state and land-grant universities. Returning to our roots: Executive summaries of the reports of the Kellogg Commission on the future of state and land-grant universities. New York: NASULGC.Google Scholar
  24. Langseth, M., & Plater, W. M. (Eds.). (2004). Public work and the academy: An academic administrator’s guide to civic engagement and service learning. Bolton: Anker.Google Scholar
  25. Lynton, E. (1995b). Making the case for professional service. Washington: American Association for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  26. Lynton, E., & Elman, S. E. (1987). New priorities for the university. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. McCormick, A. C., & Zhao, C. (2005). Rethinking and reframing the Carnegie classification. Change, 37(5), 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Meara, K. (2008). Motivation for faculty community engagement: Learning from exemplars. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 7–29.Google Scholar
  29. O’Meara, K. (2012). Because I can: Exploring faculty civic agency (Kettering Foundation Working Paper 2012–1). Dayton: Kettering Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. E. (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Plater, W. M. (2004). Civic engagement, service-learning, and intentional leadership. In M. Langseth & W. M. Plater (Eds.), Public work and the academy: An academic administrator’s guide to civic engagement and service learning (pp. 1–23). Bolton: Anker.Google Scholar
  32. Rhoades, G. (2009). Carnegie, DuPont circle, and the AAUP: (Re)shaping a cosmopolitan, locally engaged professoriate. Change, 41(1), 8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Saltmarsh, J. (2011). Engagement and epistemology. In J. Saltmarsh & E. Zlotkowski (Eds.), Higher education and democracy: Essays on service-learning and civic engagement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (Eds.). (2011). ‘To serve a larger purpose’: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Saltmarsh, J., Hartley, M., & Clayton, P. H. (2009a). Democratic engagement white paper. Boston: New England Resource Center for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  36. Saltmarsh, J., Giles, D., Ward, E., & Buglione, S. (2009b). An analysis of faculty reward policies for engaged scholarship at Carnegie classified community engaged institutions. In L. Sandmann, C. Thornton, & A. Jaeger (Eds.), Institutionlizing community engagement in higher education: The first wave of Carnegie classified institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (New Directions for Higher Education, 147, 25–35).Google Scholar
  37. Saltmarsh, J., Giles, D. E., O’Meara, K., Sandmann, L., Ward, E., & Buglione, S. (2009c). Community engagement and the institutional culture of higher education: An Investigation of faculty reward policies at engaged campuses. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Sandmann, L. (2008). Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher education: A strategic review, 1996–2006. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 91–104.Google Scholar
  39. Sandmann, L., Saltmarsh, J., & O’Meara, K. (2008). An integrated model for advancing the scholarship of engagement: Creating academic homes for the engaged scholar. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 47–63.Google Scholar
  40. Schön, D. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 9, 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Skocpol, T., & Fiorina, M. P. (1999). Civic engagement in American democracy (pp. 163–211). Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  42. Ward, E. (2010). Women’s ways of engagement: And exploration of gender, the scholarship of engagement and institutional reward policy and practice. Boston: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  43. Ward, E., Piskadlo, K., Buglione, S., Giles, D., & Saltmarsh, J. (2011, November 16). Leading community-engaged change on American campuses: Lessons from chief academic officers. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Charlotte, NC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elaine Ward
    • 1
    Email author
  • Suzanne Buglione
    • 2
    • 3
  • Dwight E. Giles Jr.
    • 4
  • John Saltmarsh
    • 5
  1. 1.Higher Education Policy Research Unit (HEPRU)Dublin Institute of TechnologyDublinIreland
  2. 2.University of MassachusettsBostonUSA
  3. 3.Division—Teaching and LearningBristol Community CollegeFall RiverUSA
  4. 4.Department of Leadership in EducationUniversity of MassachusettsBostonUSA
  5. 5.New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE)University of MassachusettsBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations