Carnegie Foundation for Community Engagement

Information Workshop14th September, 2015

Dublin, Ireland

Carnegie CE Ireland Project

This partnership project is co-funded and jointly led by the Community Knowledge Initiative at NUI Galway, the Talloires Network, and the University of Massachusetts Boston. It is supported by the Carnegie Foundation.

AgendaMorning

• Opening and Welcome – Bernie Quillinan, Campus Engage Chair

• Introductions –Lorraine McIlrath

• History of the Carnegie Elective Classification for Community Engagement – John Saltmarsh

• Background to the Irish Pilot – Lorraine McIlrath

• Vignettes: Why use the Classification? – Elaine Ward

1 pm: Lunch

Afternoon

• The Classification Framework and Indicators of Engagement – Elaine Ward and John Saltmarsh

• Irish Pilot Classification Application Process and Institutional Commitment – Elaine Ward, John Saltmarsh, and Lorraine McIlrath

• Next Steps – Elaine Ward, Lorraine McIlrath

Closing – Muiris O’Connor, Higher Education Authority (HEA)

Elective Community Engagement Classification

Carnegie Foundation

Background

• The classification is elective – campuses choose to participate

• The classification is administered on a 5-year cycle, and campuses that are classified retain the classification for 10 years.

• It is a US classification. Starting in 2010, the Foundation began receiving requests from a number of campuses from outside the US to participate in the classification. Increasingly, there have been conversations about creating an international classification or classifications.

An international Classification?

“…in addition to improving the rankings, we should develop an international civic engagement classification system. In the United States, the Carnegie Community Engagement Classification has been highly successful, setting a high standard for engagement and determining which institutions meet it. An international classification along similar lines would do more than reward excellence. It would provide new legitimacy, recognition and visibility. It would promote and support sensible differentiation among academic functions. And it would strengthen accountability, helping institutions to demonstrate that they are addressing the important needs of their communities.”

World University Rankings blog: should global league tables consider community engagement?, Anthony Monaco and Cheryl de la Rey, September 5 2015

Background

• 2005 Pilot of Documentation Framework (14 campuses)

• 2006, 2008: Classification for Curricular Engagement, Outreach and Partnerships, or both

• 2010: Classification only for both areas

• 2015: shifts to 5-year cycle; Classification and Re-Classification – Campus retain the classification for a ten-year period (361 campuses)

Background

Create an elective classification that will depend on voluntary participation by institutions:

“we open the possibility for a special-purpose classification involving only those institutions with special commitments in the area of community engagement.”

McCormick and Zhao, Rethinking and Reframing the Carnegie Classification, Change, 2005.

Background

Framework is designed to:

1) Respect the diversity of institutions and their approach to community engagement

2) Engage institutions in a process of inquiry, reflection, and self-assessment; and

3) Honor institution’s achievements while promoting ongoing development of their programs

4) Provide a national understanding of community engagement

Driscoll, Carnegie’s Community Engagement Classification: Intensions and Insights, Change, 2008

Background

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has historically been committed to the improvement of undergraduate education in the US.

The Carnegie Classification (Basic Classification) was created in the early 1970s to distinguish mission differentiation, degree level and specialization.

The Elective Classification differs from the “Basic Classification” in that the basic classification reports characteristics of the institution as it is. The elective classification is intended to assist in a process of institutional change to improve the educational effectiveness of the campus.

A Model of Institutional Change

(1) alters the culture of the institution by changing select underlying assumptions and institutional behaviors, processes, and products;

(2) is deep and pervasive, affecting the whole institution;

(3) is intentional; and

(4) occurs over time.

Eckel, P., Hill, B., and Green, M., 1998. On Change: En Route to Transformation, An Occasional Paper Series of the ACE Project on Leadership and Institutional Transformation, American Council for Education.

Where Might Transformation Occur?

Connecting institutions to their communities

…institutions form intentional linkages with their communities…these connections can contribute to the reshaping of institutional practices and purposes…, they may cause researchers to rethink the types of grants they seek, the ways they disseminate their findings, and the range and types of audiences for their findings. …Faculty may incorporate service and outreach in their classes and curricula, and students may participate in co-curricular activities (such as internships or service learning) that place them in the community where they can apply their learning to solving real-world problems.

Community Engagement

Central definition

Community engagement describes the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity.

The purpose of community engagement is the partnership of college and university knowledge and resources with those of the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship, research, and creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address critical societal issues; and contribute to the public good.

Community Engagement

Hunt ReportAt its simplest, engagement means taking on civic responsibilities and cooperating with the needs of the community that sustains higher education – including business, the wider education system, and the community and voluntary sector. Engaging with society also means understanding the value of the autonomy that higher education has, and contributing to wider public discourse on areas of particular expertise.

CarnegieCommunity engagement describes the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity.

The purpose of community engagement is the partnership of college and university knowledge and resources with those of the public and private sectors to enrich scholarship, research, and creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address critical societal issues; and contribute to the public good.

Partnerships and Reciprocity

Engagement “requires going beyond the expert model that often gets in the way of constructive university-community collaboration…calls on faculty to move beyond ‘outreach,’…asks scholars to go beyond ‘service,’ with its overtones of noblesse oblige. What it emphasizes is genuine collaboration: that the learning and teaching be multidirectional and the expertise shared. It represents a basic re-conceptualization of…community-based work.”

O’Meara and Rice, Faculty Priorities Reconsidered (2005).

Reciprocity

As a core principle – there is a flow of knowledge, information, and benefits in both directions between the University and community partners.

Reciprocity is what defines and distinguishes engagement: reciprocity = engagement

The value of reciprocity…is to enrich scholarship, research, and creative activity; enhance curriculum, teaching and learning; prepare educated, engaged citizens; strengthen democratic values and civic responsibility; address critical societal issues; and contribute to the public good.

Elective Carnegie Community Engagement Classification

A benchmarking tool:

• mainly descriptive

• self-reported data/information

• institutions evaluate various aspects of their processes in relationship to standards of best practice (Documentation Framework)

• not a ranking tool – no hierarchy or levels of classification

MeasuresInputs Outputs Outcomes Impacts

All the resources put into the project to enable the delivery of outputs

All the activities undertaken and products and services delivered

The changes, benefits, learning or other effects that result from the outputs

The effect of a project at a higher or broader level, in the longer term, after a range of outcomes have been achieved

Engagement as a “core value” for the university of the 21st century

Engagement implies strenuous, thoughtful, argumentative interaction with the non-university world in at least four spheres:

1. setting universities’ aims, purposes, and priorities;

2. relating teaching and learning to the wider world;

3. the back-and-forth dialogue between researchers and practitioners;

4. and taking on wider responsibilities as neighbours and citizens.

Association of Commonwealth Universities, 2001

Pathways to the Community Engagement

Improved Teaching and Learning

Pedagogical Pathway

The New Production of Knowledge

Epistemological Pathway

Connecting to the Community

Partnership Pathway

The Civic Mission of Higher EducationMission Pathway

Community Engagement

21

2015 Classification

22

2015 First-Time Classification

Background to the Carnegie CE Ireland Project

Lorraine McIlrathNUI Galway

Meeting May 2013Organic Conversation

• Tufts University

• NERCHE U Mass Boston

• CKI NUI Galway

• Talloires Network

• Development of a Proposal;

• Presentation to Campus Engage Steering Committee;

• Securing of Permission and Funding; Expertise and Pioneering Opportunity;

• Cape Town meeting December 2014 – calls to influence global rankings.

National Irish Alignment

• Campus Engage – Pilot Programmes and National Charter (2007 to date)

• National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030 (January 2011)

• Towards a Performance Evaluation framework:Profiling Irish higher education (December 2013) - European Commission Projects – E3M & U Multi-rank; REAP Univeristy of Bradford; Russell Group – Higher Education Community Engagement Model (HECEM); NCCPE – EDGE Tool (self assessment); among others.

• Carnegie Classification

Towards a Performance Evaluation framework:Profiling Irish higher education (December 2013)

“In the US, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching has, since 2006, recognised American higher education institutions’ commitment to wider society through an elective classification for ‘community engagement’ which is based on institutions’ voluntary submission of data and documentation. . defining ‘community engagement’ as ‘the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity’, the Carnegie Foundation’s elective classification ‘affirms that a university or college has institutionalized engagement with community in its identity, culture, and commitments” (p 26-27)

National Survey of Civic Engagement by Campus Engage

(2011)

A mutually beneficial knowledge-based collaboration between the higher education institution, its staff and students, with the wider community, through community-campus partnerships and including the activities of Service Learning/Community based Learning, Community engaged research, Volunteering, Community/Economic regeneration, Capacity-building and Access/Widening participation.

• Three thematic areas:

1. Institutional Culture and Identity

2. Civic Engagement Activities

3. Community-Campus Partnerships

Process & Guideline

• Online questionnaire with one response returned for each participating institution

• “a working group be established to complete the survey as this should make the task a bit easier and generate more information than if it were completed by one person. This working group should be representative of the range of people involved in/responsible for, civic engagement activities in your institution”

• Scaled responses-type questions and questions requiring evidence of a more qualitative nature

• Baseline - it provides a stimulus and direction for more in-depth future research

Institution Composition

Institution Number

Institute of Technology 9

University 7

Teacher Training College 4

Other 4

Participating Institutions

Athlone Institute of Technology Dublin City University Dublin Institute of Technology Dundalk Institute of Technology Froebel College of Education Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology Institute of Technology, Sligo Institute of Technology, Tallaght Institute of Technology, Tralee Letterkenny Institute of Technology Mater Dei Institute National College of Ireland NUI , Galway NUI, Maynooth

Shannon College of Hotel Management St. Angela’s College, Sligo St. Patrick’s College, Drumcondra St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth (Pontifical University) St. Patrick’s College, Thurles University College Cork University College Dublin University of Dublin, Trinity College University of Limerick Waterford Institute of Technology

Some findings

Some findings• 75% - acknowledgement; • 60% - no promotion policies; • Mix of manifestations (R, T & L);• Implementation barriers:Including, human, fiscal & time ;• Three report on dedicated centres;• Complex data gathering process.

Some Reflections• Plenty of practice & sometimes covert;• Diverse partners (schools to NGO’s);• ‘labour of love’ & saturation factor; • Need for ‘joining of the dots’;• Central repository within each HEI;• Equal status (R, T & L)• Measurement.

One recommendationDevelop tools to support strategic planning, implementation, evaluation and measurement of impact, drawing on tools developed elsewhere. At a national level, these tools would enable understanding and growth, support individual HEIs to realise civic engagement and enable the development of appropriate nationalbenchmarks and policies.

What is the Value of the Classification?

Institutional Motivation

• Institutional self-assessment and self-study: A way to bring the disparate parts of the campus together in a way that advances a unified agenda. At the same time it allows for the identification of promising practices that can be shared across the institution.

• Legitimacy: Seeking a new level of legitimacy and public recognition and visibility for your work.

• Accountability: A way to demonstrate that the institution is fulfilling its mission to serve the public good.

• Catalyst for Change: A tool for fostering institutional alignment for community-based teaching, learning and scholarship.

• Institutional Identity : The classification is a way to clarify institutional identity and mission that distinguishes the institution from peers.

Institutional Motivation

From the Director of the Center for Community engagement at a classified campus:

• …this is one of the highest forms of recognition possible in our field.

• … If you are at all interested in a process of self-assessment and quality improvement, applying for this Carnegie Classification is a fine way to achieve that goal.

• …This opportunity allowed us to lift up elements of our institutional mission and distinctiveness that are not necessarily represented in the national data on colleges and universities, and it also helped us prepare for both re-accreditation and our current strategic planning process.

Weber State UniversityOgden, Utah

4-Year

Public

Student Population: 23,001

High Undergraduate

Primarily non-residential

Basic: Masters M: Master’s University, medium programs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=082s8bRT_gg

Duqesne UniversityPittsburg, PA, USA

4-Year

Private not-for-profit

Student population: 10,294

Faith-Based

Majority undergraduate, highly residential

Basic: RU/H: Research University, high research activity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJUN909yiyQ

Community Engagement Classification

Documentation Framework

Documentation Framework(can be downloaded at http://nerche.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=341&Itemid=618

)

Community Engagement Classification Application

•Foundational Indicators• Institutional Identity and Culture• Institutional Commitment

•Curricular Engagement

•Outreach and Partnerships

Foundational Indicators

Institutional identity and culture Mission/vision Recognition Assessment/data Marketing materials Leadership priority

Institutional commitment Infrastructure Budget/fundraising Tracking/documentation Assessment/data Strategic plan Professional development Community voice Recruitment/promotion Student leadership

•

Foundational Indicators

• Does the institution indicate that community engagement is a priority in its mission statement (or vision)?

• Is community engagement defined and planned for in the strategic plans of the institution?

• Does the institution provide professional development support for faculty and/or staff who engage with community?

• Does the institution have search/recruitment policies that encourage the hiring of faculty with expertise and commitment to community engagement?

• Are there institutional level policies for promotion (and tenure at tenure-granting campuses) that specifically reward faculty scholarly work that uses community-engaged approaches and methods?

Curricular Engagement

Curricular Engagement describes teaching, learning, and scholarship which engage faculty, students, and community in mutually beneficial and respectful collaboration. Their interactions address community identified needs, deepen students’ civic and academic learning, enhance the well-being of the community, and enrich the scholarship of the institution.

Outreach and Partnerships

Outreach and Partnership describe two different but related approaches to community engagement. The first focuses on the application and provision of institutional resources for community use benefiting both campus and community. The latter focuses on collaborative interactions with community and related scholarship for the mutually beneficial exchange, exploration, discovery, and application of knowledge, information, and resources (e.g.. research, economic development, capacity building, etc.) and related scholarship.

Partnership Grid

AREAS OF CHALLENGES

46

Common Challenges

“There are also areas where more work must be done. During the selection process, we noted that even among the most effective applications, there are areas of practice in need of continued development. As a way of improving your institutional practices and to position your campus for successful re-classification in the future, we encourage you to attend to the areas of (1) assessment, (2) reciprocal partnerships, (3) faculty rewards, and (4) integration and alignment with other institutional initiatives…”

47

Assessment

The assessment practices required by the Community Engagement Classification must meet a broad range of purposes: assessing community perceptions of institutional engagement; tracking and recording of institution-wide engagement data; assessment of the impact of community engagement on students, faculty, community, and institution; identification and assessment of student learning outcomes in curricular engagement; and ongoing feedback mechanisms for partnerships.

48

Reciprocal Partnership

Partnerships require a high level of understanding of and intentional practices specifically directed to reciprocity and mutuality. Campuses have begun to attend to processes of initiating and nurturing collaborative, two-way partnerships, and are developing strategies for systematic communication. Maintaining authentically collaborative, mutually beneficial partnerships takes ongoing commitment, and we urge institutions to continue their attention to this critical aspect of community engagement.

49

Faculty Rewards

With regard to faculty rewards for roles in community engagement, it is difficult to create a campus culture of community engagement when there are not clearly articulated incentives for faculty to prioritize this work. We would like to see more examples of campuses that provide evidence of clear policies for recognizing community engagement in teaching and learning, and in research and creative activity, along with criteria that validate appropriate methodologies and scholarly artifacts. We urge Community Engagement institutions to initiate study, dialogue, and reflection to promote and reward the scholarship of engagement more fully.

50

Integration and Alignment with other Institutional Initiatives

Community engagement offers often-untapped possibilities for alignment with other campus priorities and initiatives to achieve greater impact—for example, first-year programs that include community engagement; learning communities in which community engagement is integrated into the design; or diversity initiatives that explicitly link active and collaborative community-based teaching and learning with the academic success of underrepresented students.

Carnegie CE Ireland Project

52

Carnegie CE Ireland ProjectNext Steps and Timeline

53

Resources

http://nerche.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=341&Itemid=618

http://cki.nuigalway.ie/event/759/carnegie-classification-pilot/

54

Contact

Lorraine McIlrath

Lorraine.mcilrath@nuigalway.ie

John Saltmarsh

john.saltmarsh@umb.edu

Elaine Ward

warde@merrimack.edu