Evaluation Criteria for Assessing Engaged Scholarship in RPT Processes

August 2, 2012
  • Casey, K. M. (2011) Engaged scholarship and promotion and tenure at Michigan State University: What do we know? PowerPoint presentation at The Research University Civic Engagement Network (TRUCEN) annual meeting.
    • A summary of work undertaken at Michigan State by Church, R.L., Zimmerman, D.L., Doberneck, D.M. et al to define and distinguish engaged scholarship and integrate it with tenure and promotion processes and forms.  The types and extent of engaged scholarship reported by MSU faculty between 2001 and 2006 are reported.
  • Clearinghouse and National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement, Evaluation criteria for the scholarship of engagement, http://schoe.coe.uga.edu/evaluation/evaluation_criteria.html
    • The National Review Board conceives of engaged scholarship as academically relevant work that simultaneously meets campus mission and goals as well as community needs. It should incorporate communities’ issues which can be within or integrative across teaching, research and service. The Review Board’s criteria are designed to be used by institutions to assess and evaluate engaged scholarship, especially in tenure and review processes. They have been adapted from Scholarship Assessed: A Special Report on Faculty Evaluation, (Glassick, Huber & Maeroff, 1997) to more closely reflect a unique fit with engaged scholarship. Specific evaluative criteria are offered related to goals and objectives; context, literature, and best practices; methods; results; communication and dissemination; reflective critique of the scholar.
  • Jordan, C. et al (2009).  CES4Health.info: Community-engaged scholarship for health, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. http://www.ces4health.info/index.aspx
    • CES4Health.info is a free, online mechanism for peer-reviewing, publishing and disseminating products of health-related community-engaged scholarship that are in forms other than journal articles.  For example, videos, manuals, curricula and products developed through service-learning, community-based participatory research and other community engaged work.On this website you will find high quality tools and resources that can be directly downloaded or obtained from the author, typically free-of-charge. Search for high-quality tools and resources; submit products for review; apply to be a peer reviewer; contribute to the field of community-engaged scholarship and the health of communities. All products posted on CES4Health.info have been reviewed and recommended by expert academic and community reviewers.
  • Mikkelsen M, Gelmon SB, Seifer SD, Kauper-Brown J (2005). Community-engaged scholarship for health collaborative: Review, tenure and promotion analysis protocol. Seattle, WA: Community-Campus Partnerships for Health,  http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/healthcollab.html
    • This protocol was used by the Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative to assess school and university review, promotion and tenure guidelines against criteria established by the Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions. For information on the Collaborative go to:  http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/kellogg3.html
  • Michigan State University, Reappointment, promotion, and tenure review form. http://ncsue.msu.edu/publications/reappointment.aspx
    • In 2001, MSU’s Office of University Outreach and Engagement (UOE) undertook a major revision of the Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Review Form to embed outreach and engagement as well as extension, urban, and international work into the form. A form was produced that reflects MSU’s definition of outreach and engagement as scholarly activity that cuts across teaching, research, and service. The form suggests types of evidence candidates can report on, and chairs and deans review, within the teaching and research sections, as well as a revised community-based service section.
  • North Carolina State University (2006). Policies: reappointment, promotion, and tenure, and statements of mutual expectations.
    • One of the strategies of the University of North Carolina Tomorrow initiative, with respect to outreach, societal engagement, and both economic and community development, is that campuses set high standards in their faculty reappointment, promotion, and tenure policies that encourage and reward public service by faculty. North Carolina State University addressed these issues in its recent revisions of policies for reappointment, promotion and tenure:  http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/employment/epa/REG05.20.27.phpThe policies focus on definition of six realms of faculty responsibility, development of statement of mutual expectations, and the importance of creative scholarship in all six realms.

  • update-img-new

    Get updates on what's new in the Campus Compact Network