The Carnegie Elective Classifications: A methodological guide for community engagement research

Institutions of higher education throughout the world have reached con- sensus in terms of their core business, defined through: (1) teaching and learning, (2) research and (3) community engagement. Of these three areas of focus, community engagement has posed serious challenges in terms of clear cut methodologies and measurability. While the ‘why’ question of com- munity engagement may be understood, the ‘how to do it’ questions need attention. This has also raised anxiety amongst staff, who are expected to perform and get rewards for community engagement. It is against this back- ground that this article argues for Participatory Action Research (PAR) as an enabling platform for community engagement in higher education. The argument and assumption is that PAR provides a two-way engagement process that locks in both the researchers and communities they will be reaching, in seeking to solve community problems. PAR moves higher edu- cation from linear-oriented research to web-oriented systematic cycles of inquiry that involve planning, asking questions, taking action, observing, evaluating and critically reflecting, prior to planning the next cycles. Com- munity problems that could be addressed through PAR include those aris- ing from environmental damage (including climate change), HIV and AIDS, lack of service delivery, politics and many more.

Although discourse related to the salience of community engagement in higher education has proliferated, little has focussed on the process of institutionalisation of community engagement, in South Africa. This paper presents findings from a national study, which focussed on how community engagement can be institutionalised within higher education institutions locally. A qualitative research approach was used to guide the study and in-depth interviews were conducted with members of executive management, members from the directorate and office of community engagement and academics from six universities nationally. Data revealed that there were eight key factors deserving of consideration, in order to institutionalise community engagement within teaching and research and through student involvement, transforming institutional infrastructure and through community partnerships.

Researchers endorse the integration of community engagement (CE) into higher education as a way to improve the relevance of education, address community needs, and forge universitycommunity partnerships (Zlotkowski, 1996). CE can help create stronger ties between universities and their communities and provide students with experiential learning and an opportunity to practice new skills. Successful integration of CE in the curriculum can assist universities in achieving their mission. The question is how to communicate these benefits to the faculty of a university and how the university can support CE in an organized way. This paper reports on factors contributing to successful implementation of community engagement in higher education. A case study of one university is presented and comparisons with universities, which have successfully implemented CE into their campus culture, are also made. Key principles identified include mentoring, awareness-raising, and supportive university infrastructure.

As we write this response essay, the finishing touches are being put on a report to the US Department of Education entitled, "The Crucible Moment: College Learning and Democracy's Future," developed by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and key stakeholders to describe the current state of community engagement in higher education. That report, like this volume, is a call for renewed focus and energy to be placed on the seemingly stalled state of community engagement, civic engagement, and service-learning at institutions of higher learning. Many of the essays in The Engaged Campus call into question the sustainability and impact of our collective work to promote and put into practice the civic mission of higher education. As Butin argues well in the introduction to this book, the lack of ideological and theoretical frameworks—especially when we are working with institutions whose pièce de résistance includes defining disciplinary theories and epistemologies—is a barrier to our progress. Indeed, for this very reason many of the authors of this volume founded certificates, majors, and minors, in part to attain academic legitimacy for the important work of community engagement in their respective institutions. If the service-learning and community engagement movement has been stalled, we believe that the way forward is to break open these frameworks: curricular versus co-curricular; professor versus community partner; disciplinary versus experiential knowledge; classroom versus community learning; academics versus politics.

The field of community engagement in higher education has expanded significantly in the last three decades. Its varied disciplinary perspectives, diverse stakeholders, and wide-ranging cultural contexts have positively contributed to student learning outcomes and community impact. With this expansion comes methodological challenges for doctoral scholars of community engagement, who often lack guidance around conducting community-engaged research that may question traditional epistemologies and ontologies. In this systematic literature review, we analyzed 36 dissertations published between 2018 and 2022 to identify the trends, gaps, and challenges in doctoral research on community engagement. Challenges identified included rethinking research designs, expanding subjects and participants, promoting cross-cultural and global studies, and revisiting epistemological and ontological stances. Recommendations include an open-access dissertation repository, formalized support for graduate students, recognition of “trendbreaking” scholars, and wider embrace of the global network of researchers of community engagement.

Given the emphasis on community engagement in higher education, academic departments need to become more involved in the community. This paper discusses a number of outreach activities undertaken by the chemistry department at Rhodes University, South Africa. The activities range from service learning to community engagement with teachers and school students in partnership with other interested parties. Teachers who attended workshops reported that their subject knowledge and confidence had increased and they were subsequently doing more practical work in lessons. Practical chemistry demonstrations and workshops afforded opportunities for school students to observe or perform chemical experiments and interact with university students. Undergraduate students directly benefitted from involvement in community engagement through the development and implementation of credit-bearing service learning.

Recent reforms in the Carnegie Foundation classification system and regional accreditation standards have fueled momentum for community engagement in higher education. This study employs a knowledge-flow conceptual framework to identify barriers and facilitators that influence the adoption of an engagement agenda at land-grant and urban research universities. With data drawn from six cases, broad themes related to institutional setting, history, epistemologies, leadership, structures, and boundary-spanning roles of faculty and staff emerged as key levers or inhibitors of community engagement at research universities. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

This concluding chapter for the book had an important and also a difficult task to undertake. As the book presents a panorama of the framework of Community Engagement (CE) in higher education, the emerging insights and lessons are varied, multifaceted and have a ‘glocal’ (global + local) appeal. Therefore, this chapter attempts to bring together the crux or the ‘soul’ of the book, comprising of all the CE experiences from around the world. Doing so, the chapter touches upon some fine nuances of CE, such as its conceptualization, underlying values and principles, elemental features, positioning, operationalization, associated challenges and opportunities for their addressal and finally, most importantly, the issues surrounding its institutionalization. These lessons are supported by examples emerging from the respective chapters in the book. Finally, the chapter closes with some reflections from an editor's perspective, as they reflect on the future of the practice of CE in higher education and its role in bringing back value and relevance in higher education, while enabling it to fulfil its social responsibilities.

African Americans and Community Engagement in Higher Education

This volume argues for reexamination of the field of community engagement, suggests that the most effective way forward requires rethinking the structures of traditional higher education, and points t

<p>Community engagement in higher education is about how universities address societal needs in partnership with their external communities. More precisely, the TEFCE project team proposes the following definitions of ‘engagement’, ‘community’ and ‘societal needs’. </p>

Book Review: Service-Learning in Theory and Practice: The Future of Community Engagement in Higher Education.

Reframing Community Engagement in Higher Education

Conclusion: Principles and Practices for Meaningful Community Engagement in Higher Education

Reviewed by: Civic Engagement in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices Jennifer Gilbride-Brown Civic Engagement in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices. Barbara Jacoby and Associates. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishing, 2009, 265 pages, $40.00 (hardcover) Ambiguity abounds when conceptualizing the term, “civic engagement.” Higher education finds itself in a moment where parameters and definitions are needed in order to move its civic initiatives forward. Institutions are asking the question, “What do we mean by civic engagement?” The latest book from Barbara Jacoby and Associates, Civic Engagement in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices, offers a response and provides insight into what educating students for civic engagement might entail. Jacoby (2009) argues: If civic engagement is to gain real traction in today’s higher education, it must be clearly defined, and civic learning outcomes must be established. Opportunities to learn about and practice civic engagement must be embedded throughout the curriculum and the co-curriculum. This book shows how all this can be done, and is being done, at higher education institutions around the country. (p. 2) Drawing from expertise around the country, the contributing authors in this book offer a wide range of perspectives and examples while drawing from the rich base of research upon which civic engagement work can and must rest. The intended audience is broad and ranges from entry and midlevel professionals on the forefront of civic engagement initiatives to assistant/associate deans/directors who supervise them. This book has clear implications for policymakers, foundations, and associations. Fundamentally, this is a book for anyone who is charged with enacting the civic mission of higher education and is an important resource for determining what might be accomplished. This edited book is divided into two sections. The first section provides a structure for conceptualizing civic engagement grounded in its historical context and includes an exploration of the dimensions of civic learning. The second section investigates a wide range of civic engagement initiatives, both curricular and co-curricular, happening across the country in diverse institutional contexts. The book flows like a conversation among the authors with many of the contributors referring to the important conceptual and historical mapping offered in the opening chapters. In the introductory chapter, Barbara Jacoby takes on the challenge at hand, getting one’s mind around what is civic engagement and what do we mean by “educating students for civic engagement.” In many ways, the work of civic engagement has pushed ahead with fragmented and loose understandings of what it is in the first place. She cites a review of research done by Lester and Salle (2006) that listed thirty-three recent studies on service-learning of which only three included any definition of civic engagement. Drawing heavily from the work of CIRCLE (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement) and the Coalition for Civic Engagement and Leadership at the University of Maryland-College Park (2005), Jacoby [End Page 567] defines civic engagement as: acting upon a sense of responsibility to one’s communities. This includes a wide range of activities, including developing civic sensitivity, participating in building civic society, and benefiting the common good . . . Through civic engagement, individuals-as citizens of their communities, their nations, and the world-are empowered as agents of positive social change for a more democratic world. (p. 9) She concludes with a thorough overview of leadership in this area that can easily double as a quick reference guide to the many higher education associations and initiatives working to drive civic engagement today. This opening chapter lays important groundwork and captures the current state of affairs in civic engagement across the country. The first section also contains a chapter reviewing civic engagement research over the last 10 years written by Mark Hugo Lopez and Abby Kiesa, both of whom provide leadership on research through CIRCLE. Caryn McTighe Musil of AAC&U completes this opening section by offering a creative and useful conceptualization of what we mean by “educating students for personal and social responsibility.” The second section builds from these definitions and frameworks by examining current practices that shed light on strategies and pitfalls of integrating civic engagement across an institution. Other movements in higher education such as...