How to Do Engaged Scholarship Well: An Annotated Reading List

A Select, Annotated Reading List on Engaged Scholarship

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA (2011). Principles of community engagement, second edition. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/communityengagement/pce_execsummary.html
  • This “primer” provides public health professionals, health care providers, researchers, and community-based leaders and organizations with both a science base and practical guidance for engaging partners in projects that may affect them. The principles of engagement can be used by people in a range of roles, from the program funder who needs to know how to support community engagement to the researcher or community leader who needs hands-on, practical information on how to mobilize the members of a community to partner in research initiatives. In addition, it provides tools for those who are leading efforts to improve population health through community engagement.
• Ahmed, S. M &. Palermo, A. S. (2010). Community engagement in research: Frameworks for education and peer review. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1380-1387.
  • This paper describes the National Institutes of Health Director’s Council of Public Representatives’ (DCPR) community engagement framework, which was designed to educate researchers to create and sustain authentic community - academic partnerships that will increase accountability and equality between the partners. The framework includes values, strategies to operationalize each value, and potential outcomes of their use in community engaged research, as well as a peer review criteria for evaluating research that engages communities.
• Andrews, J.O., Cox, M.J., Newman, S.D., & Meadows, O. (2011). Development and evaluation of a toolkit to assess partnership readiness for community-based participatory research. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 5(2), 183-188. 
  • The CPBR Partnership Readiness Toolkit was created in response to “academic-community partners’ interest in exploring new ways to improve partnership outcomes” (Andrews et al, 188). This paper outlines the contents of this 75-page toolkit, describes how to use it and where to access it for free online. The author also discusses the evaluation and limitations of this toolkit, concluding with a section on the toolkit’s purpose.
• Ansley, F. & Gaventa, J. (1997). Researching for democracy and democratizing research. Change, 29(1), 46-54.
  • Noting that the current, conventional approach to research does little to strengthen scholars' participation in civic life, this article advocates and describes models of research that promote more democratic inquiry methods, more reciprocal relationships between researchers and their subjects, and new collaborations between research institutions and communities. Examples of programs and initiatives are offered.
• Atalay, S. (2012). Community-based archeology: Research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
  • The past two decades have brought important changes to the ways archaeologists engage with indigenous, descendant, local communities and the public at large. This book outlines the principles of CBPR and demonstrates how CBPR can be effectively applied to archeology. It provides theoretical discussions as well as practical examples of CBPR in archeology.
• Avenier, M.J., & Cajaiba, A. P. (2012). The dialogical model: Developing academic knowledge for and from practice. European Management Review, 9(4), 199-212
  • In this paper, two management professors propose a new model for conducting engaged scholarship—the dialogical model. This model comprises five activities: specifying a research question, elaborating local knowledge, developing conceptual knowledge, communicating knowledge, and activating knowledge. The dialogical model provides guidance on how to maintain academic value and practical relevance in tension throughout the research process, and on how to justify validity in pragmatic constructivism. The authors explain how the dialogical model was developed in the pragmatic constructivist epistemological paradigm, and suggest how the model can be mobilized in other epistemological frameworks.
• Avila-Lynn, C., Rice K., & Akin, S. (2012). Designing community-based courses: A guide for instructors to develop community partnerships and create public scholarship courses. Cal Corps Public Service Center, University of California Berkeley. 3-45. 
  • This handbook is a guide for faculty, lecturers, graduate students, and staff to create, implement, or strengthen engaged scholarship courses. The handbook contains six sections: Engaged Public Scholarship, Building Campus-Community Partnerships, Developing Engaged Scholarship Courses, Supporting Student Engagement with the Community, Deepening the Learning with Reflection, Developing Evaluation and Assessment for Engaged Scholarship.
• Aziz, A., Shams, M., & Khan, K.S. (2011). Participatory action research as the approach for women’s empowerment. Action Research, 9(3), 303-323.
  • Women’s empowerment is key to the health and rights of women worldwide, and achieving women’s empowerment requires approaches that “promote participation and incite action”(Aziz, 303). This paper describes Aga Khan University’s (AKU) participation in Women’s Empowerment in Muslim Contexts (WEMC), a five-component study that used a participatory action research approach. The AKU-WEMC “adapted the participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tools to explore women’s perceptions and reflections on their existent situation and aspired needs with respect to empowerment, community’s overall health, mental health, reproductive health, daily work load, access to resources, participation in decision-making and violence against women” (Aziz, 103). A five-step model of participatory action research for women’s empowerment is presented as a tool for community-based work and social change.
• Bartels, K.P.R. (2012). The actionable researcher: Cultivating a process-oriented methodology for studying administrative practice. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 34(3), 433-455.
  • This article is a first attempt to conceptualize a process-oriented methodology for studying administrative practice. This methodology draws on approaches such as action research and policy mediation. But, first and foremost, the methodology calls for an actionable researcher who is responsive to the inherent resistances and affordances of the process of coproducing knowledge with policy actors, enabling the researcher to act in response to the needs of problematic situations at hand.
• Bastida, E.M. et al (2010). Ethics and community-based participatory research: Perspectives from the field. Health Promotion Practice,11(1), 16-20.
  • The increase in health disparities signifies the importance of employing an ethical approach to CBPR. This article provides background on various ethical issues in health promotion and education practices/projects, and then uses a CBPR project located in the Lower Rio Grande Valley as a case example to discuss “ethical issues such as the importance of increased community involvement in research, ensuring that communities benefit from the research, sharing leadership roles, and sensitive issues regarding data collection and sharing”. The researchers from this project worked with community members to develop a code of ethics to guide the intervention, which was comprised of six principles: respect, fiduciary transparency, fairness, informed consent: always voluntary; reciprocity; and equal voice and disclosure. The article discusses these principles and in conclusion advises practitioners to employ them in order to build develop trusting relationships, that can help reduce the potential for less-than-optimal outcomes and more likely develop into “meaningful and sustainable partnerships”.
• Beckman, M., Penney, N., & Cockburn, B. (2011). Maximizing the impact of community-based research. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(2), 83-103. 
  • Community-based research (CBR) is an increasingly familiar approach to addressing social challenges. Nonetheless, the role it plays in attaining community impact is unclear and largely unstudied. Here the authors discuss an emerging framework aimed toward fostering community impact through university and community civic engagement. They describe how, through application of this framework to initiatives intended to reduce obesity, CBR might be focused for greater effect (Beckman, Penney & Cockburn, 2011, p. 83).
• Belkora, J., Stupar, L., & O’Donnell, S. (2011). Using the Critical Incident Technique in community-based participatory research: A case study. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 5(4), 442-451. 
  • This paper analyzes the effectiveness of a qualitative research method, the Critical Incident Technique (CIT), used in a CBPR project in Mendocino and Humboldt counties of California. Did the CIT method facilitate or impede the engagement of the community in the research process? The authors describe how the CIT method was used in a CBPR research project involving an academic researcher and two community-based cancer support centers, reporting that the CIT method effectively facilitated community engagement in the research process.
• BeLue, R., Carmack, C., Myers, K. R., Weinreb-Welch, L., & Lengerich, E. J. (2012). Systems thinking tools as applied to community-based participatory research: A case study. Health Education and Behavior, 39(6), 745-751. 
  • The authors propose that CBPR can benefit from a systems science framework to represent the complex and dynamic characteristics of a community and identify intervention points and potential “tipping points”. Systems thinking tools can assist all CBPR stakeholders in visualizing how community factors are interrelated, and by potentially identifying the most salient intervention points.
• Bringle, R. & Hatcher, J. (2002). Campus-community partnerships for health: The terms of engagement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 503-516.
  • This article focuses on campus-community partnerships thats can leverage both campus and community resources to address critical issues in local communities. Campus-community partnerships are described as a series of interpersonal relationships between (a) campus administrators, faculty, staff, and students and (b) community leaders, agency personnel, and members of communities. The phases of relationships (i.e., initiation, development, maintenance, dissolution) and the dynamics of relationships (i.e., exchanges, equity, distribution of power) are explored to provide service-learning instructors and campus personnel with a clearer understanding of how to develop healthy campus-community partnerships.
• Brown, R.E., Casey, K.M., Springer, N.C., Doberneck, D.M., Thornton, D. W., & Georgis, G. (2008). Tools of engagement, web-based curriculum modules for undergraduate students and faculty. Michigan State University, 
  • The Tools of Engagement web-based, curriculum modules are designed to: 1) Introduce undergraduate students to the concept of university-community engagement, 2) Develop their community-based research and engagement skills, and 3) Assist with training the next generation of engaged scholars.
  • The Tools of Engagement are intentionally non-discipline specific, allowing for adaptation and customized utilization across the curriculum. The five modules focus on the university's commitment to engage with community, understanding the concepts of power and privilege in the context of engagement, effectively working in groups, building successful partnerships, developing negotiation techniques, etc. MSU welcomes colleagues from other institutions to utilize Tools of Engagement and collaborate in a joint research. 
• Brown, et al. (2006) The Transformative Engagement Process: Foundations and supports for university-community partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,11,(1), 9-21.
  • This article describes Michigan State University’s “transformative engagement process,” an interactive process in which all partners – academic and community - apply critical thinking skills to complex community problems. Based on Mezirow’s transformational learning (1991) it is iterative in nature and informed by a university-wide model of engagement built on the land-grant tradition and by grounded principles from the literature and developing engagement practice. To be successful, partners must have appropriate and multiple ways – face to face and electronic - of making and sustaining connections to each other and to information that will help them move through transformations. The structures are designed to meet the needs of those engaged in partnerships while promoting evidence-based best practices in community agencies.
• Brush, B.L., Baiardi, J., & Lapides, S. (2011). Moving toward synergy: Lessons learned in developing and sustaining community - academic partnerships. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action. 5(1), 27- 34.
  • Although community–academic partnerships are becoming a more common approach to addressing community health problems and engaging vulnerable populations in research, these partnerships continue to face particular challenges that impact their effectiveness, efficiency, and long-term sustainability. This article presents a modification of a “synergy-promoting model” (Lasker et al, 2001) for building and evaluating community–academic partnerships, which was used to establish a partnership between the University of Michigan and University of Detroit Mercy schools of nursing and the Family Care Network. The study outlines the theoretical framework of this model, and continues with a detailed account of applying the theory to practice by analyzing the interaction of three characteristics (trust, collaboration, and engagement) that can produce partnership synergy. Various lessons were learned, such as the importance of developing trust between stakeholders, conducting continual evaluation of the partnership, and giving attention to existence of power differentials among the partners. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the importance of using a theoretical framework to not only establish community-academic partnerships, but as a guide to sustaining an environment that encourages open communication and collaboration to devise strategies that can help build trust and address power differentials.
• Butcher, J., Leathley, C., & Johnston, K. (2011). An awareness and action framework for transformative community engagement. Australasian Journal of University-Community Engagement, 6(2), 18-36.
  • This paper presents a new awareness-action framework for universities to use to assess, and improve, their engagement with disadvantaged communities. The authors present the research from which the framework was developed, and explain how universities can use the framework to engage with disadvantaged communities in an inclusive and equitable manner.
• CARE: Community alliance for research and engagement. Beyond Scientific Publication: Strategies for Disseminating Research Findings. Yale Center for Clinical Investigation. 1-19. 
  • The dissemination of research findings to participating individuals and institutions upon project completion is an important principle of community-based research. This document offers information on developing a dissemination plan, general writing guidelines, and strategies for dissemination (i.e. media coverage, press release, research summary document, flyers, brochures, policy briefs, letter of thanks). Also included in this resource are sample dissemination documents.
• Casale, M.A.J., Flicker, S., & Nixon, S.A. (2011). Fieldwork challenges: Lessons learned from a north-south public health research partnership. Health Promotion Practice, 12(5), 734-735. 
  • This paper describes the lessons learned from an international research partnership between two northern universities, one southern university, and a southern faith-based organization. The research project evaluated a school-based HIV prevention intervention with South African adolescents, and through this process seven fieldwork-related challenges were revealed. Lessons learned from these challenges—along with how they prepared for each one, what happened on the ground, and possible unintended consequences—are described in detail.
• Castaneda, S. F., Holscher, J., Mumman, M. K., Salgado, H., Keir, K. B., Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Talavera, G. A. (2012). Dimensions of community and organizational readiness for change. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 6(2), 219-226. 
  • Community and organizational readiness can influence whether health interventions are implemented, so CBPR partnerships may consider using readiness assessments as a tool for tailoring interventions to specific communities. This article presents a critical review of 13 community and organizational readiness assessment models. The review concludes that readiness is multidimensional, but finds four essential components of readiness that are critical to assess.
• Chang, C., Salvatore, A. L., Lee, P. T., Liu, S. S., Tom, A. T., Morales, A., Baker, R.,… Minkler, M. (2013). Adapting to context in community-cased participatory research: “Participatory starting points” in a Chinese immigrant workers community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3-4), 480-491. 
  • Using data from a CPBR case study, the San Francisco Chinatown Restaurant Worker Health and Safety Project, and drawing on literature on immigrant political incorporation, the authors examine the links between the contexts of the Chinese immigrant worker community, adaptations made by the research collaborative, and study outcomes. It concludes by sharing lessons learned on how to adapt CBPR principles and processes in response to community context and partners’ needs.
• Clark, M. J. (2012). Cross-cultural research: Challenge and competence. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 18(Supplement 2), 28-37.
  • Increasing globalization, population diversity, and health disparities among non-dominant cultures necessitate cross-cultural research. This article presents approaches to dealing with the challenges of cross-cultural research, which an emphasis on how a CBPR approach can be used to conduct culturally competent research.
• Clifford, D., & Petrescu, C. (2012) The keys to university-community engagement sustainability. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 23(1), 77-91. 
  • This paper explains three dimensions that universities must attend to in order to create beneficial and sustainable engagement with the community: internal (characteristics of the university), external (characteristics of the community), and personal (characteristics of the faculty). The authors argue that sustainable types of engagement are those that positively address each of these dimensions, and lead to valued capacity building for the community. They discuss the experience of Eastern Michigan University’s Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Communities to illustrate the challenges and strategies for building successful university-community relationships.
• Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, Community engagement framework for peer review guidance. 
  • This resource provides a table containing criteria suggested for reviewers who wish to assess community engagement research proposals effectively, and evaluate research applications involving community engagement. The framework is designed for both principal investigators (from academic institutions) and co-investigators (from academic institutions or communities)
• Cooper, T.L. (2009). Challenges of civic engagement research. Original Toolkit essay.
  • A brief practical essay addressing six critical areas for faculty consideration in undertaking community engaged research: institutional context; establishing legitimacy; community credibility; funding; methodological difficulties; collaboration.
• Cromley, E., Kleinman, L.C., Ramos, M.A., Arniella, G. , Viswanathan, M.G., & Hrowitz, C.R. (2011). A community-engaged approach to select geographic areas for interventions to reduce health disparities. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 5(3), 299-305. 
  • How should researchers select the geographic locations of interventions to reduce health disparities? This paper presents the lessons learned from community-engaged selection process, in which a community-academic partnership of over 20 organizations worked to generate a 5-stage process to select an area for diabetes prevention and control programs. In conclusion, the authors suggest that using a participatory approach can be an effective way to define geographic areas for research and intervention.
• Downey, L.H., Castellanos, D. C., Yadrick, K., Avis-Williams, A., Graham-Kresge, S., & Bogle, M. (2011). Perceptions of community-based participatory research in the Delta Nutrition Intervention Research Initiative: An Academic Perspective. Heath Promotion Practice, 12(5), 744-752. 
  • The Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition Intervention Research Initiative (Delta NIRI) is an academic–community partnership between seven academic institutions and three communities in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana. This paper explores research conducted on the experience of academics in a federally funded CBPR sustainable nutrition intervention. Focus groups were conducted to gather the academic perspective on their experience devising research plans, implementing programs, and evaluating outcomes. The study found that the majority of faculty and staff members were interested in this project because it was an “egalitarian and potentially more successful type of research” (Downey, 744). This paper provides a detailed account of the engaged scholars’ perspective, citing perceived barriers and successful strategies.
• Estacio, E. V. (2012). ‘Playing with fire and getting burned’: The case of the Naïve action researcher. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 22(5), 439-451.
  • This article is a case-based reflection on the dilemmas surrounding community-based research and how it can impact upon the experiences of both the community and the researchers facilitating the project. Reflections are contextualized within discussions from various academic orientations within the psychological and social science literature.
• Examining Community-Institutional Partnerships for Prevention Research Group. (2006). Developing and sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: A skill-building curriculum.
  • With interest in community-based participatory research (CBPR) growing, there is a commensurate need and demand for educational resources to build the knowledge and skills needed to develop and sustain effective CBPR partnerships. This evidence-based curriculum is intended as a tool for community-institutional partnerships using or planning to use a CBPR approach to improving health, but it is relevant for all CBPR efforts. It can be used by partnerships just forming as well as mature ones. Chapters include: getting grounded, starting a partnership, developing a partnership, trust and communication, securing and distributing funding, disseminating results, and sustainability.
• Fear, F., Bawden, R. Rosaen, C., and Foster-Fishman, P. (2002). A model of engaged learning: Frames of reference and scholarly underpinnings. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 7(3), 55-68.
  • This article seeks to make explicit the essential features of an engagement model based on the separate engagement experiences of four colleagues--a sociologist, rural developer, teacher educator, and community psychologist. Shares and discusses what engagement means to them, then shares interpretations of the conceptual, philosophical, and normative underpinnings of their work.
• Fitzgerald, H., Burack, C. & Seifer, S. (2011). Handbook of engaged scholarship, Volume 1: Institutional change; Volume 2: Community-campus partnerships. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
  • In these two volumes contributors capture the rich diversity of institutions and partnerships that characterize the contemporary landscape and future of engaged scholarship. Volume 1 addresses such issues as the application of engaged scholarship across types of colleges and universities and the current state of the movement. Volume 2 contains essays on such topics as current typologies, measuring effectiveness and accreditation, community–campus partnership development, national organizational models, and the future landscape.
• Foster, J. W., Chiang, F., Burgos, R. I., Cáceres, R. E., Tejada, C. M., Almonte, A. T., Noboa, F.,…Heath, A. (2012). Community-based participatory research and the challenges of qualitative analysis enacted by lay, nurse, and academic researchers. Research in Nursing & Health, 35(5), 550-559. 
  • This article addresses the challenges with conducting qualitative analysis during CBPR projects, often caused by the wide range of academic preparation within the research team. The authors describe the process of conducting qualitative analysis of data on community perceptions of public maternity care in the Dominican Republic in a cross-cultural, CBPR study. The data analysis was conducted through experiential and conversational learning, which resulted in study findings that incorporated the thinking and speaking of all research team members—both community and academic.
• Gust, S. & Jordan, C. (2006) The community impact statement: A prenuptial agreement for community-campus partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 11(2), 155-169.
  • Like a prenuptial agreement when there are resources to share, these authors advocate that those seeking to establish community-campus partnerships develop an agreement before the work the partnership begins. The strength and success of the partnership is dependent on the process by which the relationship and its assets are clearly defined. Guidelines are presented for such a community impact statement.
• Gust, S. & Jordan, C. (2006). The community impact statement: A tool for creating healthy partnerships.Minneapolis.
  • This set of guiding questions is intended to help community and university partners discuss critical issues as they develop and sustain partnerships for community-based participatory research. In order to create partnerships that share knowledge and reap mutual benefits, partners are invited to consider questions in four areas: Preparing the Ground; Making the Connections/Building the Relationships; Doing the Work; and The Harvest: Evaluation/Dissemination/Policy Implications/Completion. The process grew out of the lessons learned by community members, University of Minnesota faculty, and representatives of other public and private organizations involved in the Phillips Neighborhood Healthy Housing Collaborative. [A companion piece to Gust, S. & Jordan, C. (2006), immediately below.]
• Hammatt, Z.H., Nishitani, J., Heslin, K.C., Perry, M.T., Szetela, C., Jones, L….Norris, K.C. (2011). Partnering to harmonize IRBs for community-engaged research to reduce health disparities. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 22(4), 8-15.