Mississippi State University White Paper on Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship

Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship at Mississippi State University A White Paper from the MSU Engaged Scholarship White Paper Workgroup Written by Marina Denny, Chair

December 2018

“[O]UR OUTSTANDING UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES REMAIN… ONE OF THE GREATEST HOPES FOR INTELLECTUAL AND CIVIC PROGRESS. [T]HE ACADEMY MUST BECOME A MORE VIGOROUS PARTNER IN THE SEARCH FOR ANSWERS TO OUR MOST PRESSING SOCIAL, CIVIC, ECONOMIC, AND MORAL PROBLEMS, AND MUST REAFFIRM ITS HISTORIC COMMITMENT TO… THE SCHOLARSHIP OF ENGAGEMENT.” Ernest L. Boyer, 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP ............................................................................. 3 TO THE INSTITUTION............................................................................................................................................................ 3 TO THE FACULTY AND STAFF ............................................................................................................................................... 3 TO THE STUDENTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 TO THE COMMUNITY ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 WHAT ARE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP? .................................................................................. 4 MSU MODEL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 9 TIMELINE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP AT MSU ................................................................. 12 WAYS OF INCORPORATING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP ........................................................ 16 COMMUNITY-ENGAGED TEACHING AND LEARNING ............................................................................................................. 17 PROMOTION AND TENURE .................................................................................................................................................... 19 AWARDS AND OTHER RECOGNITION .................................................................................................................................... 20 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 21 TO ADMINISTRATORS ............................................................................................................................................................ 22 TO FACULTY ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 MSU COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... 30 MSU COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31

1|P a g e

INTRODUCTION The passage of the Morrill Act of 1862 paved the way for the creation of Mississippi State University (MSU), among other land-grant institutions across this country, and mandated advocacy for the public good through the unification of rigorous research, classical learning, and practical knowledge. Today, MSU is recognized as a top research-intensive university engaged on a global scale. As such, the concepts of Community Engagement (CE) and Engaged Scholarship (ES) are not new.

“Engagement is more than extension, conventional outreach, and public service” (Brunner, 2016, p.4).

Engagement transforms the traditional, didactic approach by which the university goes into a community to teach and share expertise into a dynamic, reciprocal relationship through which the university and community are partnered in the development, execution, and sharing of knowledge and ideas. It is a collaboration between higher education and community based on reciprocity and mutual exchange of knowledge.

The official charge to the Engaged Scholarship White Paper Work Group by Dr. Judy Bonner, Provost and Executive Vice President, to develop this document is included in the appendix. This white paper is not intended to replace any of the rigorous research, teaching, and service efforts of faculty, staff, and administrators, nor is it meant to minimize or dismiss the importance of traditional scholarship and knowledge for the sake of knowledge, sought and protected within the hallowed halls of the institution. What it hopes to accomplish is to provide a platform from which MSU personnel already heavily engaged in (or planning to engage in) CE and ES can find acknowledgement of their work and from which administrators can begin to discuss ways to formalize and legitimize that recognition. MSU’s current administration has made CE a priority and wishes all personnel to consider ways in which they can strengthen their existing CE efforts or consider new opportunities.

The objectives of this white paper are to: •

Introduce CE and ES as integral components of the academy;

•

Provide definitions, models, and methodologies across other institutions;

•

Describe examples of CE and ES taking place at MSU;

•

Offer recommendations for recognizing and fostering a culture of CE and ES through MSU policies and procedures, including promotion and tenure; and

•

Suggest next steps for action and progress.

Finally, while there are many terms and acronyms used to denote Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship, the references (e.g. CES, Community-Engaged Scholarship, etc.) throughout this document are intended to be synonymous with MSU’s use of CE and ES.

2|P a g e

BENEFITS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP A land-grant university such as Mississippi State is already heavily involved and engaged with the Public engagement represents the community locally, regionally, nationally, and even convergence of public interest and internationally. The majority of this engagement, institutional self-interest. Benefits clearly however, is generated from the Extension arm of the accrue to the communities that partner institution and is often person-dependent rather than with their local colleges and universities, an integral part of the fabric of the institution but benefits also accrue to the (American Association of State Colleges and institution, the students, and the faculty Universities, 2002). As such, the bulk of the literature (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011, p.27). on community-university engagement focuses on the benefits to the community (Fitzgerald, Allen, & Roberts, 2010). However, CE and ES not only exemplifies the university’s mission, it enhances opportunities for faculty, staff, and students to embrace the scholarship of integration. “Communitybased research and teaching… enrich students’ educational experience, deepen the authenticity of faculty research, create sustainable research opportunities through partnerships, fuel innovations in trans-disciplinary research, and strengthen institutional stewardship” (Fitzgerald, Van Egeren, Bargerstock, & Zientek, 2017).

TO THE INSTITUTION



Structured, well-executed, and recorded CE and ES offers evidence that the university is fulfilling its land-grant mission to the public good (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011).



A positive public image of the university may encourage more contracts, more donor investments, and more legislative support (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008).



A reputation for public engagement becomes a competitive advantage for student recruitment (Rodin, 2007).

TO THE FACULTY AND STAFF



Teaching is enriched by having access to up-to-date content and real-world examples for use in the classroom.



Research is enhanced with new ideas and access to new or previously unavailable research sites and data.



There are heightened opportunities for interdisciplinary and cross-institutional research.



There is access to a greater diversity of extramural funding possibilities (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011).

TO THE STUDENTS



Undergraduate students engaged in service-learning and community-based research experience deeper learning and greater understanding of their respective subject matter (Eyler & Giles, 1999).

3|P a g e



They develop better leadership and critical thinking skills, demonstrate increased civic responsibility, earn better grades, and show a greater interest in graduate school than their counterparts (Antonio, Astin, & Cress, 2000).



They have improved career readiness and a stronger resume (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011).

TO THE COMMUNITY



Community partners have access to unbiased faculty expertise (Fogelman, 2002) and greater human, financial, and physical resources (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011).



There is increased credibility for collaboratively produced work (Leiderman, Furco, Zapf, & Goss, 2003).



There is opportunity to act as co-creators of knowledge alongside higher education professional partners to build civic capacity (Barker et al. 2018).



There is a greater understanding of issues the community may be facing (Barker et al. 2018).



There are opportunities to contribute to and/or influence the university’s direction and programs (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011).

WHAT ARE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP? Community engagement, as defined by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, is 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 CE 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. It is important to note here that there are four distinct dimensions of CE (Figure 1) that may occur with or without scholarship (Swearer Center, n.d.).

“As democratizers of knowledge and education, research-intensive universities with land-grant heritage and values collaborate with their partners to play critical roles in empowering individuals and the communities in which they live and work. Similarly, we are engaged with and empowered by ideas, energy, and the support of our partners outside the university. Connecting these engagements is at the heart of the partner relationships and the work of engaged scholarship” (Simon, 2010, p.2-3). Dr. Lorilee Sandmann, Professor Emerita from the University of Georgia, Engaged Leadership and Learning Services, explains that there are several methods and models of community engagement in the contexts of teaching, research, and service (2018).

4|P a g e

Engaged Teaching and Learning

Engaged Research

Community-based learning

Community-based research

Service learning

Public issue research

Global learning

Translational research

Civic learning

Interdisciplinary research

Figure 1. The Dimensions of Community Engagement

Mission Dimension The Civic Mission of Higher Education

Pedagogical Dimension Improved Teaching and Learning

Community Engagement

Partnership Dimension Connecting to the Community

Epistemological Dimension The New Production of Knowledge

5|P a g e

Boyer (1996) proposed a new paradigm of scholarship that assigns four “essential, interlocking functions” (p. 16) to the professoriate: the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of sharing knowledge, and the application of knowledge (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Boyer’s New Paradigm of Scholarship

Scholarship of discovery Universities are responsible for pushing the boundaries of human knowledge through research.

Scholarship of integration

Application of knowledge To become reflective practitioners and move from theory to practice and back to theory, we not only make knowledge useful but avoid irrelevance as an institution.

Scholarship of sharing knowledge

There is a need to place these discoveries in a broader, more interdisciplinary context, inviting the energies of different disciplines to converge.

Communicating knowledge and learning to peers and students through publications, and teaching keeps the flame of scholarship burning.

6|P a g e

Dr. Sandmann identified several benefits of engaged scholarship (ES). ES addresses and solves public issues while creating civically engaged students and faculty. If done well, it can enhance the public value of higher education, improve revenue generation, enhance the integration of research and learning, and support a more diverse campus climate. Dr. Sandmann’s interpretation of scholarship is one of a continuum (Figure 3), as originally documented by Gibbons, et al. (1994).

Figure 3. Continuum of Scholarship Traditional Academic Knowledge Generation Pure, disciplinary, homogeneous, expert-led, supply-driven, hierarchical, peer-reviewed, and almost exclusively university-based

Engaged Knowledge Generation Applied, problem-centered, transdisciplinary, heterogeneous, hybrid, demand-driven, entrepreneurial, network-embedded

This paradigm of scholarship led to the creation of a diversity of institutional definitions and descriptions for CE and ES. The definitions below offer a snapshot of how CE and ES are perceived at MSU and align with the Carnegie Foundation, through which MSU holds its Community Engagement Classification. The full list of MSU’s community engagement definitions are in the Appendix. The key takeaway here is that despite the minor nuances in these descriptions, the underlying purpose of all of them is to promote community engagement and engaged scholarship equally among teaching/learning, research, and service, without hierarchy or importance of one over the others.

Community Engagement describes collaboration between MSU and partnering communities for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity while fulfilling MSU’s mission of scholarly teaching, research, and service.

Community-Engaged Teaching/Learning denotes academically-based community engaged courses that may integrate a range of teaching and learning strategies, including, but not limited to: service-learning, co-op, externship, internship, practicum, clinical, capstone, research project, public service, practice-based learning, experiential education, and experiential learning.

Community-Engaged Research refers to a research partnership between MSU and communities that is mutually beneficial and includes some degree of shared decision-making and leadership between communities and MSU. Community-Engaged Service defines collaboration between members of MSU and a community or communitybased group that results in beneficial services. Community service may, or may not, be related to an academic program and can be performed by students, faculty, and staff. Community service includes co-curricular service and civic engagement.

Scholarship of Engagement or Engaged Scholarship is scholarship resulting from the collaborative and mutually beneficial partnership between university member(s) (i.e. faculty, staff, and/or student) and external non-higher education partner(s). Engaged scholarship is typically created and communicated through any of the following 7|P a g e

activities: discovery of new knowledge, development of new knowledge, dissemination of new knowledge, change in learning, change in behavior, and/or change in conditions (Franz, 2009).

There is no one universally accepted model of CE and ES, and MSU has recently developed its own model. One of the underpinnings for MSU’s model is Nancy Franz’s (2009) Engaged Scholarship Model (Figure 4), which draws from the areas of education, program development, and evaluation to provide a holistic approach to engaged scholarship. The grouping of concentric circles illustrates the interrelationship and equality among each component of the model, with the inner circle serving as the foundation for the others. The other elements all “have equal importance, allowing academics and communities to initiate work together at any point in the circle to conduct engaged scholarship” (Franz, 2009, p.34).

Figure 4. Nancy Franz Engaged Scholarship Model

Although all circles in the Franz model are equal, the two-way partnership between academics and community partners that benefits both the community and the scholar’s discipline, serves as the foundation and definition of engaged scholarship. Each of the six entry or leverage points allow the scholars-community partnerships to create 8|P a g e

and communicate scholarship. Discovering, developing, and disseminating knowledge and changing learning, behaviors, and conditions offer scholars a range of equally valuable approaches to partner with communities while benefiting the academic discipline and community partners. The expanded perspective of scholarly activities and communications allows engaged scholars to better contextualize their scholarly work, and although the peerreviewed journal article remains the most easily recognized signal for productivity in higher education, engaged scholarly productivity includes practice and process communications across any of the six points of the engaged scholarship circle.

The teaching, outreach, and research missions of higher education support one another in best addressing complex issues and provide an institutional view to the six leverage points: teaching (disseminating knowledge and changing learning), outreach (changing behaviors and conditions), and research (creating and developing knowledge). Engaged scholars typically work in all three missions within teams of other scholars and partners.

The outer ring illustrates internal and external factors and assumptions about engaged scholarship that either inhibit or advance engaged scholarship across universities. Internal factors affecting engaged scholarship include faculty reward and promotion and tenure systems, lack of interest in collaboration, institutional silos, organizational history, funding, organizational leadership, peer mentoring, and organizational infrastructure.

External factors affecting engaged scholarship include community commitment, communication, collaboration, flexibility, trust, mutually beneficial relationships, available resources, political environment, and unique context of community. Assumptions about engaged scholarship include perceived value of the work, defining best practices, and appropriate rewards. Engaged scholarship includes clear goals, adequate preparation, significant results, effective presentation, and reflective critique.

MSU MODEL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community engagement has always been and will remain at the core of MSU’s mission and vison to improve the lives of Mississippians by providing a quality education regardless of the learner’s social class. Since the university’s inception in 1878, this mission has grown to include research in the public interest through the Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES) and dissemination of that research to the populace through MSU Extension.

Our current model of community engagement emphasizes collaboration between MSU and partnering communities for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity while fulfilling MSU’s mission of scholarly teaching, research, and service. It is from this collaboration that scholarship – including, but is not limited to, grants, research, scholarly publications, presentations, curricula, and art and artistic performances – is produced. Engaged scholarship is typically created and communicated through the discovery of, development of, or dissemination of new knowledge and/or the change in learning, behavior, or conditions.

9|P a g e

Reference: Modified by the authors from Linking Scholarships and Communities: Report of the Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions

10 | P a g e

Additionally, the MSU Community Engagement Partnership Grid provides a broad spectrum of opportunities for involvement and engagement for CE practitioners to find their “sweet spot” relative to their role and passions at MSU. MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY E NGAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP GRID

11 | P a g e

TIMELINE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP AT MSU: PAST EFFORTS AND CURRENT AWARENESS, KNOWLEDGE, & PRACTICE

The process of introducing, defining, and integrating CE and ES at MSU has been many years in the making. The first documented efforts came from the Scholarship of Extension Committee (2011 – 2012), which focused on describing scholarship as it relates to the Extension function of faculty in the Division of Agriculture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine (DAFVM). As the discussion ensued, the following key conclusions were drawn: 

Faculty members display excellence, regardless of their appointment as clinical, Extension, research, and/or teaching faculty.



Extension is a scholarly activity that consists of various aspects of teaching, research/creative activities, and service. Extension focuses on creating, communicating, applying, and preserving knowledge for the benefit of a specific clientele. Extension activity is broader than what is usually termed service because Extension entails all aspects of scholarly public service in addition to planned, mission-based education and outreach. Extension includes technical assistance and a variety of formal and informal educational efforts. Central to these efforts is the ability to assess current and future clientele needs accurately and develop effective programs to address those needs. Evaluation of Extension activities should principally be based upon quality and impact rather than quantity of activity.



Extension scholarship may be demonstrated through efforts in teaching, research/creative activities, and/or service (e.g., applied research as part of a demonstration effort for clientele, needs assessment, development of Extension publications or curricula, etc.). Scholarship also may be demonstrated through Extension efforts (e.g., poster sessions, presentations, articles, book chapters, etc. about the effectiveness or results of Extension efforts).

The Office of Student Leadership & Community Engagement (SLCE) (2010) aspires to educate, enlighten, and empower tomorrow’s leaders – everyday citizens who transform the social, educational, and economic fabric of communities across our state and nation and around the globe. All programs use the Social Change Model of Leadership Development and community engagement through a lens of social justice to foster an accessible and inclusive community of students, staff, faculty, and community members committed to personal, intellectual, and leadership development, community engagement, and social change. The leadership programs within the SLCE are the Montgomery Leadership Program, the Day One Leadership Program, and leaderSTATE STEM. 

The Montgomery Leadership Program (MLP) is a three semester, 6-credit hour social-change model of leadership development program that annually enrolls cohorts of 40 upperclassmen. MLP uses community-engaged learning, team-based learning, mentoring, and capstone projects to foster engagement with the multidisciplinary contexts of social issues, the students’ own ethical and leadership development, and the human condition. MLP students direct and staff leaderSTATE STEM and serve as peer mentors and project managers for the Day One Leadership Program.

12 | P a g e



The Day One Leadership Program is a 2-credit hour lecture-laboratory social-change model of leadership development and student success class that uses community-engaged learning, mentoring, and teambased learning. Annually, Day One enrolls 200 first-semester freshman, 40 upperclassmen peer mentors, and 40 faculty/staff mentors



leaderSTATE STEM is a partnership between SLCE, the Department of Geosciences, and the U.S. Army Cadet Command consisting of a 5 day summer residential leadership and STEM education program for 360 high school Junior ROTC cadets from Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana and a STEM follow-on program with Jackson Public Schools.

The Maroon Volunteer Center (MVC) was founded after Hurricane Katrina by the Center for Student Activities and was relocated into The Office of Student Leadership and Community Engagement (SLCE) in 2010. The MVC serves as a clearinghouse to match volunteers with about 120 community partners and hundreds of service opportunities on and off campus. The MVC also directs facilities, programs, and activities that allows the MSU community to utilize its talents, skills, and resources in collaboration with our surrounding communities to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. Currently the MVC recruits over 6,500 student, faculty, and staff to volunteer in the community each academic year. Signature MVC projects include:               

Maroon Edition Habitat for Humanity (est. 2010) 9/11 National Day of Service and Remembrance (est. 2011) Make a Difference Day (est. 2011) National Volunteer Week (est. 2011) The Certified MSU Track and Field Meet Official Program (est. 2011) Maroon Volunteer Center AmeriCorps VISTA Project (est. 2012) Community Work Study Service Coordinator Program (est. 2012) Service DAWGS Day (est. 2009, rev. 2012) Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service (est. 2012) Personal Readiness and Emergency Preparation (est. 2012) Bulldog Mentors Program (est. 2014) The President’s Interfaith Community Service Campus Challenge (est. 2013) The MSU Food Security Network (est. 2013) America’s Sunday Suppers (est. 2015) The MSU Big Event (est. 2012, rev. 2015)

The MVC also assists with facilitation of the following Community-Engaged Learning Courses with Cdesignation: 

HI 3343-C – Mississippi Delta History and Experiential Learning (est. 2012) – In this lecture-laboratory community-engaged course, students earn three hours of history credit while engaging with the multidisciplinary contexts, the ethical implications, and the human conditions of the uniquely American Mississippi Delta.

13 | P a g e



S0 4153-C – Mentoring At-Risk Youth (est. 2016) - The MVC partners with the Department of Sociology and Armstrong Middle School to train and place junior and senior level students in one-on-one mentoring relationships with at-risk juveniles in the community.

Reporting to the Provost and Executive Vice President, the MSU Community Engagement Committee (CEC) was established in 2011 and coordinates the advancement of community engagement, service-learning, and outreach activities on-campus, within the region, and beyond. Elected members serve a three-year term. This committee meets regularly to address issues of strategic planning and partnerships, education, and recognition and awards pertaining to community engagement. Examples of the CEC’s efforts to date include:     

Faculty Senate Roundtable – “Strengthening Community Engagement” (2017) Carnegie Community Engagement Classification Update – Faculty Role and Recognition (est. 2017) MSU Community Engagement Survey (2018) MSTV Engaged (est. 2018) MSU CE and ES Awards and Recognition Program (est. 2018)

The Center for Community-Engaged Learning (CCEL), established in 2013, aspires to bring learning to life by engaging students, faculty, staff, and community collaborators in mutually beneficial partnerships linking curricular learning objectives to community engagement. CCEL supports the mission of community partners and the university; encourages the production of engaged scholarship; and fosters the ethical development of participants and the civic capacity of communities. CCEL assists faculty wanting to reinforce, make relevant, and extend classroom learning into communities by engaging learners with the multidisciplinary, social, and civic contexts of the subject of study. This is accomplished by supporting new partnerships between faculty, staff, and community collaborators; encouraging the adoption of and advancing the practice of community-engaged learning; removing barriers and solving problems for faculty and community partners wanting to adopt community-engaged learning; highlighting the work of those practicing community-engaged learning; and securing resources for community-engaged learning practitioners.

In 2018, CCEL launched the Community-Engaged Learning (CEL) Fellows program. CEL Fellows is a 3 week-long development seminar that provides an opportunity for selected faculty and staff members to integrate community-engaged learning into their teaching, research and public service work, while becoming recognized campus leaders in community-engaged learning pedagogy and community engagement. The program aims to integrate the philosophy, pedagogy, and process of community-engaged learning into the MSU academic environment. The fellowship includes a $1,000 faculty development award after completion of the seminar.

In the spring of 2017, the Faculty Senate Roundtable on the topic of “Strengthening Community Engagement” was convened. Sequential small-group and summation sessions addressed four overlapping topics: 1) universitylevel incentivizes and rewards for faculty participating in CE; 2) departmental-level opportunities to prepare students for engaged citizenship; 3) educating MSU stakeholders on the depth and breadth of CE, and 4) the strengths and limitations of CE for MSU faculty. University-level responses suggested that MSU should engage in a President and/or Provost led effort communicating the significance of CE; create programs to recognize exemplary CE personnel and projects; create systems to compensate faculty for CE; develop systems to inform, fund, and advance CE; and refine the “service” segment of faculty evaluations beyond a catch-all. Department14 | P a g e

level responses suggested departments should improve attitudes, understanding, and culture related to CE; support student development by using CE; advance curricular and co-curricular participation in CE; be more engaged in K-12 educational partnerships; create sequential programs for students to participate in CE from recruitment through graduation; and use CE for career preparation.

In 2018, the MSU Community Engagement Survey assessing the awareness, knowledge, and actions of CE and ES was developed by the MSU Community Engagement Committee and electronically administered to faculty and staff at both Starkville and Meridian campuses of Mississippi State University (MSU), as well as Extension and Agriculture Experiment Station personnel throughout the state, through the Class Climate online survey software.

Results from that survey revealed that: 

35% of respondents “know something about community engagement in higher education,” but 6% of respondents “know nothing about community engagement in higher education.”



Over half of the respondents (51.8%) participate in community engagement programs and activities at MSU while 21% do not know if they participate in these activities.



Over half (54%) of respondents directly collaborate as part of their formal job responsibilities and 57% of respondents directly collaborate as part of their responsibilities not formally associated with their position.



Of the faculty and staff participating in community engagement, almost 54% are involved in community engagement in teaching and learning, 36.6% are involved in community engagement in research and scholarship, and 73.6% are involved in community engagement in service.



57% of respondents indicated community engagement is used to improve student success at MSU and beyond; 50% indicated community engagement is used to identify and promote select research that capitalizes on existing strengths; and 45% indicated community engagement is used to enrich the academic and cultural experiences of the faculty, staff, and students through global engagement.

The Mississippi State University Excellence in Community Engagement Awards program recognizes outstanding accomplishments in community engagement in the categories of Community-Engaged Service, CommunityEngaged Teaching and Learning, Community-Engaged Research, and Scholarship of Engagement. The most outstanding examples of a community engagement projects or programs in each of the four areas receive a $5,000 grant to further community engagement within Mississippi State’s threefold mission of learning, research, and service. For information about the MSU CE and ES Awards and Recognition Program and the results of the 2018 awards, go to page 20 of this document.

15 | P a g e

WAYS OF INCORPORATING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ENGAGED SCHOLARSHIP The Faculty Senate Roundtable that convened in 2017 offered several recommendations to improve the understanding of CE. They identified that the perceived strengths of CE included enhancing the reputation of MSU by providing relatable benefits to our external stakeholders and attracting external funding; improving student learning and development; engaging faculty in their strengths and passions; and increasing networks, partnerships, and availability of MSU resources to communities. They also determined that the perceived limitations of CE included a lack of recognition in P&T with an increased risk to junior faculty; lack of understanding by faculty regarding CE framework, benefits, and opportunities for collaboration; increased risk to P&T at all levels due to the fact that CE partnerships/results tend to develop slower than other types of primary-investigator-led scholarship (due to the need for trust-building and learning phases); implementation of CE has additional bureaucratic and legal barriers that may result in a faculty member’s reputational risk; and CE is often perceived by faculty to be complicated and expensive to implement (high cost- low benefit relationship).

As such, it suggested that MSU do the following:       

organize a CE educational campaign, provide explicit examples of CE excellence, create a system to recognize and value CE as scholarship and support promotion and tenure (P&T), recognize that CE is more complicated and develops more slowly than other forms of scholarship, engage alumni in CE, engage stakeholders in the entire range of CE activities, and think more strategically in building long-term “win-win” partnerships with communities that exist beyond the short-term or grant-funded interactions.

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Institute for Community and Economic Engagement presents the community-engaged approach to scholarship as a continuum (Figure 5). In this model, the authors posit that a “continuum approach to scholarship expands who is a knowledge maker and what is a knowledge artifact” (Janke, Medlin, & Holland, 2014, p.5). As such, it is inclusive of a diversity of knowledge; it assigns equal value to various inquiries; it promotes inclusivity and implies choice; and it holds all academic scholarly and creative work, however varied, to a set of common principles by which they are evaluated.

16 | P a g e

Figure 5. Primary and Secondary Artifacts of Scholarship

Many will understand that some (or all) of what they do in their job at MSU falls under the definition of Community Engagement and/or Engaged Scholarship. Regardless of responsibilities or appointment (staff, faculty or administration), however, the following are examples and suggestions of ways to incorporate CE and ES at the various levels of the organization – individual, unit, department/school, college, university-wide – by focusing on practices as well as potential policy changes.

COMMUNITY-ENGAGED TEACHING AND LEARNING

Pedagogical ideologies and practices have been evolving in higher education for decades, along with a reexamination of effective teaching and the role of community engagement (Sturm, Eatman, Saltmarsh, & Bush, 2012). What has been suggested is that knowledge resides in places beyond the classroom and a new, diverse

17 | P a g e

generation of academics are seeking opportunities for engagement while pursuing the goal of tenure (Hoy & Johnson, 2013). Service-learning, one example of community-engaged learning, is a disruptive practice in that it requires both the Community-based learning often relies on educator and the learner to embrace fieldwork and cooperative experience. Students unknowns and emphasize student learning in courses that require community-based rather than mastery or knowledge transfer learning apply their skills and give something (Crabill & Butin, 2014). “To be comfortable back to the community so that they learn what with the practice of service-learning and it means to be a citizen. Similarly, serviceother community-based teaching methods is learning courses also require students to apply to be comfortable with a heuristic approach their skills to a community problem; however, to teaching, one that guides students to the path, one that gives students tools for their there is an additional component – reflection. journey but does not necessarily accompany Students develop a deeper understanding of them on every step of that journey” their career field and of civics through service(Alexander, 2014, p.99). learning opportunities because they are asked

to think about what they are learning, how they Provided in Table 1 is a modification of the are learning, [and] what they are doing to help Bonner Student Developmental Model (Hoy their communities. Service-learning makes & Johnson, 2013) to help faculty inform the learning a reciprocal relationship for students, process of assessing their current teaching methodologies and re-framing their efforts faculty, and community partners (Brunner, to more effectively incorporate community 2016, p.4). engagement. Additionally, this model provides a framework by which faculty can better articulate the value and impact of their existing service-learning work with students.

This model can also be used by administrators to identify and be more intentional about how community engagement is, or can be, integrated into various institutional practices targeting undergraduate students. For more details about the original Bonner Student Developmental Model: http://www.bonner.org/bonner-program-model/.

Finally, recent research points out that faculty using service-learning in their teaching efforts “appear to be internally motivated and for the most part unlikely to stop using service-learning if they are not rewarded for doing so” (Abes, Jackson, & Jones, 2002, p.15). However, those most likely to be dissuaded from using servicelearning are untenured faculty at research universities (Blissman, 2013). This alone should give administrators pause and motivation to determine new and innovative ways to make CE and ES more widely and formally accepted in promotion and tenure policies and procedures.

18 | P a g e

Table 1. Modified Bonner Student Developmental Model Level

Skills and actions

Institutional practices

Expectation:

Interest/ethic for service and community

Orientation

Time management, active listening, communication, goal setting, reflection

First-year experience; servicelearning

Balance budgeting, teamwork, conflict resolution, planning

Learning communities; diversity; core curriculum; writing intensive experiences

Delegation, event planning, peer management, fund raising, project management

Undergraduate research; writing intensive experiences; diversity and global learning; deliberative democracy

Public education, public speaking, marketing, networking, research, and evaluation

Capstones

Previous service experiences Exploration: Intentional immersions into service Experience: Commitment to place, issue, and partner/community Example: Leadership roles for partner/community and program Excellence: Integrated application of experience and learning

PROMOTION AND TENURE

The guidelines for engaged scholarship, as established by Glassick, Huber, and Maerhoff (1997) and the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1999) include well-defined goals, significant results, and reflection. How these guidelines are interpreted and valued by faculty and administrators can affect the promotion and tenure process (Franz, 2009).

It is no secret that at most North American universities, including land-grants, the very idea of CE and ES is challenged by existing cultural norms, institutional values, and administrative policies and procedures. Yet if done correctly, engaged scholarship is no less rigorous than traditional scholarship. In fact, it incorporates faculty engagement with communities to help universities serve those communities while meeting their institutional mission and vision (Sandmann, 2006). As such, it requires that it be an integral part of all three legs of the academy – teaching, research, and service (Saltmarsh, Giles, Ward, & Buglione, 2009). However, institutional culture change takes time, and so most faculty are unwilling to risk their promotion and tenure prospects by committing any part of their time and effort to engaged scholarship.

It can be argued, though, that faculty efforts in engaged scholarship should be valued and rewarded equal to that of traditional scholarship. “[E]merging scholars need to learn‌ how to value community partnerships, how to see 19 | P a g e

scholarship within a community project, [and] how to be open to interdisciplinary work…” (Brunner, 2016, p.13).

This requires support, mentoring, encouragement, and recognition, both formal and informal.

Another challenge to addressing the notion that community engagement endeavors cannot be scholarly is finding a way to articulate its value and ability to shape knowledge (Brunner, 2016). Boyer (1996) and Foster (2010) recommend an approach that integrates or overlaps teaching, service, and research, rather than viewing them as disjointed and independent of each other. Ideally, this intersectionality may reduce workload and increase productivity while contributing to institutional goals (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011).

As an example, if a faculty member were to work with a community partner with a class and then develop scholarship from this partnership and work, he/she would be engaging in intersectional scholarship. The faculty member would thus be serving the community, teaching students skills, and also publishing scholarship (Brunner, 2016, p.15).

Faculty value community engaged scholarship. “A faculty member can have a research portfolio that balances publications directed at academic audiences with other professional or creative activities” (Barreno, Elliott, Madueke, & Sarny, 2013, p.64). Examples of scholarship include refereed publications, un-reviewed materials*, films, videos, computer software, websites, podcasts, invited addresses to professional associations or groups, building university-community partnerships, distance or blended learning, and course development.

Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship is not a better or worse approach than traditional scholarship; rather is it merely a different approach with easily identifiable markers of success. As CE and ES become more central to the research agenda at MSU, it should be recognized like any other work carried out as part of

the faculty’s academic responsibilities.

*Un-reviewed material: These are publications, papers and other materials that have not been peer-reviewed prior to publication. For example, articles in association newsletters or journals; publications for clients; papers presented at scholarly or professional meetings; occasional papers; educational pamphlets; technical reports; program manuals; briefs to governments or other bodies; reviews of scholarly articles, and research grant applications (Barreno, Elliott, Madieke, & Sarny, 2013).

AWARDS AND OTHER RECOGNITION

The Mississippi State University Excellence in Community Engagement Awards annually recognizes outstanding accomplishments in community engagement in the categories of Community-Engaged Service, Community20 | P a g e

Engaged Teaching and Learning, Community-Engaged Research, and Scholarship of Engagement. The most outstanding examples of a community engagement project or program in each of these four areas receives a $5,000 grant to further community engagement within Mississippi State’s threefold mission of learning, research, and service. Selected from more than 30 nominations from a variety of academic disciplines, the award winners from 2018 include: •

“Water Borehole Drilling in Simwatachela, Zambia” for community-engaged service. Submitted by junior civil engineering major Jennifer Hoang of Pass Christian, who serves as manager of MSU’s chapter of Engineers Without Borders. This project is in partnership with the Simwatachela Sustainable Agricultural and Arts Program.

•

“Sweet Potato Innovation Challenge” for community-engaged teaching and learning. Submitted by Stephen Meyers, assistant extension/research professor and sweet potato extension specialist, the project is in partnership with the Mississippi Sweet Potato Council.

•

“Bringing Tai Chi to Mississippi’s Aging Population for Healthy Body and Positive Emotion” for communityengaged research. Submitted by Zhujun Pan, assistant professor of kinesiology, who partnered with Trinity Place Retirement Community of Columbus.

•

“Getting to Know Magnolia Bayou through Science, Arts, and Culture” for scholarship of engagement.

Submitted by Kelsey Johnson, assistant director of the College of Architecture, Art and Design’s Gulf Coast Community Design Studio and in partnership with the Bay St. Louis Creative Arts Center and Hancock County Boys and Girls Club.

For information about the 2018 Excellence in Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship award winners, visit: https://www.msstate.edu/newsroom/article/2018/11/msu-announces-community-engagement-awardhonorees/.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This white paper is not intended to be a panacea for the issue of recognizing and integrating CE and ES into the culture and institutional policies and procedures of MSU. With this in mind, it is recommended that readers use the information presented here to inform locally-derived solutions and approaches for respective colleges, departments/schools, and units, as appropriate. This will likely take place in two phases. The first phase is broad agreement on the definition and principles of Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship. The second phase is the development of infrastructure for a fully engaged university. “A fully engaged university enacts institutional alignment with policies and practices that demonstrably support the integration of community engagement scholarship with the core functions of the academy: research, teaching, and service” (Fitzgerald et al., 2017, p.46).

21 | P a g e

RECOMMENDATION TO ADMINISTRATORS

1. Identify champions that are already engaged in CE and ES, are interested in CE and ES, and are invested in how CE and ES can be counted in the promotion and tenure process, along with other institutional policies and practices.

2. Review the language of existing policies and strategic plans for evidence of statements addressing CE and ES. If none exist, or if they are ambiguous, consider adopting more specific language that aligns with the institution’s definition and model of CE and ES. 3. Keep CE and ES in the forefront of communications with faculty, staff, and administrators. Engage colleagues in critical discourse to increase awareness and understanding.

It is often said that we measure what we value, and we value what we measure.

Universities regularly measure and report enrollment data, graduation rates, and research dollars, yet for the most, nothing they routinely measure sheds light on the extent and impact of their involvement with the broader community. If colleges and universities truly value public engagement, then this must change: they must measure and report not only the quantity of the work but also its quality (Beere, Votruba, & Wells, 2011, p.155).

4. Develop a model and suitable criteria for peer review of CE and ES, within the context of your college, department/school, or unit. This may include integrating community-based review.

5. Learn from the example of others. Reach out to colleagues at other universities for which CE and ES are fully integrated and a natural part of the organizational culture and norms. Listen to their stories of transition and heed their advice.

6. Develop Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to be used by promotion and tenure committees. This evaluation criteria should be equally applicable to the three expressions of faculty work – teaching, service, and research – in order to promote scholarship across and among all three areas. A summary of primary evaluation criteria for the scholarship of CE and ES developed by Glassick, Taylor, and Maeroff (1997) is provided in Table 2. Additionally, Table 3 offers a basic rubric for assessing scholarship.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO FACULTY

For any faculty seeking to engage in CE and ES, regardless of appointment, tenure eligibility or status, the following are recommendations from others who pursued their passions in CE and ES and succeeded.

1. Who you know matters. Take the time to network with other faculty with similar interests. Additionally, take advantage of resources by professional and academic associations involved with CE and ES.

22 | P a g e

2. Mentors make a difference. A good mentor is someone who can relate to your experiences and in whom you can trust and confide. Don’t limit yourself to someone in your own department or even the same institution if a better role model and advocate is elsewhere.

3. If you teach students, get them involved. Help your students understand how theory can be applied to real-world situations by requiring them to use their knowledge and skills to work effectively with all members of their community. These efforts can lead to meaningful research which can be published and shared with academic and non-academic audiences alike. Collecting tangible documents and producing reports can help demonstrate the impact of CE and ES to promotion and tenure committees.

4. Be proactive when selecting outside reviewers. Building your network of mentors and collaborators should also include finding individuals who conduct and understand engaged scholarship and would be willing to advocate on your behalf with well-written letters for your promotion and tenure packet.

5. Be patient. Without a paradigm shift in the university’s culture and procedural norms, formal acknowledgement and recognition of CE and ES will be difficult and will take time. “Creating a fostering environment for engaged scholarship will not happen overnight” (Brunner, 2016, p.20-21). However, through ongoing education of and communication with faculty and administrators about the merits of CE and ES with regard to students, teaching, research, and the local community, there will eventually be an increase in understanding, trust, and recognition.

23 | P a g e

Table 2. General Evaluation Criteria for the Scholarship of Community Engagement and Engaged Scholarship (Glassick, Taylor, & Maeroff, 1997)

Criteria

Reflective Questions

Clear Goals

Does the scholar state the basic purpose of his or her work clearly?

Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable?

Does the scholar identify important questions in the field?

Adequate Preparation

Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the field?

Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to his or her work?

Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the project forward?

Appropriate Methods

Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals?

Does the scholar apply effectively the methods selected?

Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances?

Significant Results

Does the scholar achieve the goals?

Does the scholar’s work add consequentially to the field?

Does the scholar’s work open additional areas for further exploration?

Effective Presentation

Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organization to present his or her work?

Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating the work to its intended audiences?

Does the scholar present his or her message with clarity and integrity?

Reflective Critique

Does the scholar critically evaluate his or her own work?

Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to his or her critique?

Does the scholar use evaluation to improve the quality of future work?

24 | P a g e

Table 3. Characteristics of Community Engaged Scholarship and Rubric for Assessing Scholarship Note: This rubric is intended to be a guide for faculty implementing CE and ES and those assessing the scholarship of those actions. The “Key Performance Indicator” column may have to be adapted based on the project, community, and/or institutional contexts. The “Weight” column is blank to allow for customization and prioritization of the characteristics.

Weight

Key Performance Indicator

Lowest

Highest

Problem identification by the community

Conducting research on issues identified by the researcher

Stakeholder partnership drives research

Clear and important academic and community change goals – relevant research question(s)

Unidentifiable or unclear outcomes

Clear and measurable outcomes

Community involvement in research process

Engaging with community stakeholders as subjects

Includes all stakeholders and elicits under-represented perspectives

Clear and measurable community outcomes/transformation

Ambiguous and vague community outcomes

Clear and measurable outcomes

Significant results (e.g. builds community and institutional capacity)

Does not build capacity within the institution or community

Builds significant institutional and community capacity

Effective dissemination to academic and community audiences

No dissemination of impact or lessons learned

Collaborative scholarship and dissemination through a variety of community and peer-reviewed channels

Reflective critique: lessons learned to improve scholarship and community engagement

Does not include selfreflective, peer, community, and stakeholder critique/evaluation

Clear evidence of practice for both community and academic stakeholders

Leadership and personal contribution

Inflexible in adapting/anticipating changing contexts

Demonstrates ability to adapt to changing contexts

Consistently ethical behavior: socially responsible conduct of research, teaching, and service

Does not demonstrate social responsibility

Evidence of academic focus on equalizing power imbalances between stakeholders

Total

(Adapted from Barreno, L.; Elliott, P.W.; Madueka, I.; & Sarny, D. 2013, September. Community engaged scholarship and faculty assessment: A review of Canadian practices.)

25 | P a g e

REFERENCES Abes, E.S.; Jackson, G.; & Jones, S. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use of servicelearning. Michigan Journal of Community Service-Learning, 9(1), 5-17.

Alexander, J. (2014). Disrupting a disruption or live everything. In S.L. Crabill & D. Butin (Eds.), Community engagement 2.0? Dialogues on the future of the civic in the disrupted university. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

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, D.C. Antonio, A.L.; Astin, H.S.; & Cress, C.M. (2000). Community service and higher education: A look at the nation’s faculty. Review of Higher Education, 23, 373-398.

Barker, Derek. W. M., Angela D. Allen, Alexandra Robinson, Foday Sulimani, Zach VanderVeen, and Dana M. Walker. 2011. "Research On Civic Capacity: An Analysis Of Kettering Literature And Related Scholarship". Kettering Foundation.

Barreno, L.; Elliott, P.W.; Madueka, I.; & Sarny, D. (2013, September). Community engaged scholarship and faculty assessment: A review of Canadian practices. Research report prepared for the Faculty Assessment Workgroup, Rewarding community engaged scholarship: Transforming university policies and practices. University of Regina.

Beere, C.A.; Votruba, J.C.; & Wells, G.W. (2011). Becoming an engaged campus: A practical guide for institutionalizing public engagement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blissman, B. (2013). Wisdom from the garden: Exploring faculty transformation. In Hoy, A. & Johnson, M. (Eds.), Deepening community engagement in higher education: Forging new pathways. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Boyer, E.L. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), 11-20.

Brunner, B.R. (Ed.). (2016). Creating citizens: Liberal arts, civic engagement, and the land-grant tradition.

Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2013). Classification description: Community engagement elective classification. From http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php?key=1213.

Connecticut Campus Compact Engaged Scholarship Advisory Committee. (2012). Framework for community engaged scholarship. Fairfield, CT: Connecticut Campus Compact.

Eyler, J. & Giles, D.E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

26

Fitzgerald, H.E., Allen, A., & Roberts, P. (2010). Campus-community partnerships: Perspectives on engaged research. In H.E. Fitzgerald, C. Burack, & S. Siefer (Eds.), Handbook on engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions. Community-campus partnerships (Vol 2, pp.5-28). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Fitzgerald, H.E., Van Egeren, L.A., Bargerstock, B.A., & Zientek, R. (2017). Community engagement scholarship, research universities, and the scholarship of integration. In J. Sachs & L. Clark (Eds.), Learning through community engagement: Vision and practice in higher education. Singapore: Springer Science + Business Media.

Fogelman, E. (2002). Civic engagement at the University of Minnesota. Journal of Public Affairs, 6 (Supplemental Issue 1: Civic Engagement and Higher Education), 103-118.

Foster, K.M. (2010). Taking a stand: Community-engaged scholarship on the tenure track. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 3, 20-30.

Franz, N. (2009). A holistic model of engaged scholarship: Telling the story across higher education’s missions. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 13(4), 31-50.

Glassick, C.E.; Huber, M.T.; & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hoy, A. & Johnson, M. (2013). Deep, pervasive, and integrated: Developmental frameworks for students, partnerships, faculty engagement, and centers. In Hoy, A. & Johnson, M. (Eds.), Deepening community engagement in higher education: Forging new pathways. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Janke, E.M.; Medlin, K.B.; & Holland, B.A. (2014). Honoring the mosaic of talents and stewarding the standards of high quality community-engaged scholarship. Excellence in Community Engagement & Community-Engaged Scholarship. Vol. 2. University of North Carolina at Greensboro: Institute for Community and Economic Engagement.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (1999). Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. Washington, D.C.: National Association of State and Land-Grant Colleges.

Leiderman, S.; Furco, A.; Zapf, J.; & Goss, M. (2003). Building partnership with college campuses: Community perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Council of Independent Colleges.

Rodin, J. (2007). The university & urban revival: Out of the ivory tower and into the streets. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Sandmann, L.R. (2006). Scholarship as architecture: Framing and enhancing community engagement.

Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 20, 80-84.

Saltmarsh, J.; Giles, D.E., Jr.; Ward, E.; & Buglione, S.M. (2009). Rewarding community-engaged scholarship. New Directions for Higher Education, 147, 25-35.

27

Simon, L.K. (2010). Engaged scholarship in land-grant and research universities. In Fitzgerald, H.E., Burak, C., & Seifer, S. (Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions: Vol. I: Institutional change. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Sturm, S.; Eatman, T.; Saltmarsh, J.; & Bush, A. (2011). Full participation: Building the architecture for diversity and public engagement in higher education [White paper]. New York: Center for Institutional and Social Change, Columbia University Law School.

Van Egeren, L.A., McNall, M., Cloutier, K., Bargerstock, B.A., & Doberneck, D.M. (2014). A framework for policies and practices for institutional engagement. Paper presented at the Engagement Scholarship Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, November 2014.

Weerts, D.J. & Sandmann, L.R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities. Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 73-106.

28

APPENDIX

29

MSU COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DEFINITIONS

Communities consist of groups of people affiliated by geographic proximity, special interests, or situational similarities at the local, regional/state, national, or global levels.

Community Partner includes any community-based individuals and organizations external to MSU. Partnership is an association between communities and MSU to undertake a shared, mutually beneficial action or endeavor.

Extension provides MSU’s research-based information, educational programs, and technology transfer focused on issues and needs of the people of Mississippi, enabling them to make informed decisions about their economic, social, and cultural well-being.

Civic Engagement is a type of community service that fosters citizenship through engagement in issues of public interest and/or participation in governance activities.

Co-curricular Service is a type of community service performed by students that is not formally linked to an academic curriculum, but fosters student learning.

Service-learning is a teaching and learning strategy that uses reflection to link community service with academic course objectives to enrich the educational experience of students, teach civic responsibility, and meet the needs of a community.

Scholarship is “creative intellectual work that is validated by peers and communicated� (Weiser & Houglum, 1998) to the larger world. Scholarship includes, but is not limited to, obtaining grants, conducting research, writing scholarly publications, delivering presentation, creating curricula, creating art, and producing artistic performance.

Mutuality refers to an interdependence or shared interest, purpose, or benefit between two or more collaborators.

Reciprocity refers to a mutually beneficial exchange between MSU and its community partners.

30

MSU Engaged Scholarship White Paper Workgroup Dallas Breen Stennis Institute of Government Patty Ann Bogue Department of Management and Information Systems Kenya Cistrunk Department of Sociology Marina Denny School of Human Sciences Meggan Franks Office of Student Leadership and Community Engagement Jacob Gines School of Architecture Brandi Karisch Department of Animal and Dairy Science Pamela Redwine MSU Extension Michael Richardson MSU Alumni Association Becky Smith Deparment of Agricultural Economics

Special thanks to Cade Smith, Michelle Garraway, Xi Chen, and the members of the Community Engagement Committee for their contributions to this white paper.

31