The Carnegie Classification for

Institutions Engaged with Community: Challenges,

Benefits, and Understandings from the Documentation

Process

Amy Driscoll, Associate Senior Scholar Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching

SHEEOChicago, IL

August, 2006

Elective Classification for Community Engagement

An elective classification is one that relies on voluntary participation by institutions, and does not include the full universe of institutions.

 The term, community engagement, is

proposed because it offers the widest coverage, the broadest conception of interactions with community, and promotes inclusiveness in the classification.

Definition

Community Engagement describes the collaboration between higher education institutions 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.

Definition (continued) Community Engagement may achieve the

following:• Enhanced teaching and learning of

relevant curriculum• Expanded research and scholarship• Preparation of engaged citizens• Response to societal issues • Contributions to the public good• Strengthened civic responsibility

Intentions Of Classification Of Community Engagement

Affirmation and documentation of the diversity of campuses and their approaches to community engagement

Indicators that recognize the “good work” that has been done while encouraging ongoing development toward the ideals of community engagement

Encouragement of inquiry and learning in the process of documentation

Intentions (continued)

Instrumentation and documentation that provide useful information for institutions

Documentation that describes the scope of institutional engagement

A framework that builds on current work of other organizations for a shared base of measurement or documentation

A documentation process that is practical and makes use of existing data

Foundational Indicators

Institutional Identity and Culture

Institutional Commitment

Indicator: Institutional Identity and Culture

Documentation Examples: • missions (institutional, departmental)• marketing materials (brochures, etc.)• website• community perceptions• celebrations, recognitions, events

Indicator: Institutional Commitment

Documentation Examples: • executive leadership• strategic plan• budgetary allocations

(internal/external)• infrastructure (Centers, Offices, etc.)• community voice in planning• faculty development • assessment/recording mechanisms

Indicator: Institutional Commitment (continued)

Documentation Examples: promotion and tenure policies• transcript notations of student engagement• student “voice” or leadership role • search/recruitment priorities

Categories Of Community Engagement

Curricular Engagement

Outreach and Partnerships

Examples Of Curricular Engagement

Service learning or Community-basedlearning

Internships Community Leadership programs Community-based capstones Faculty scholarship related to curricular

engagement

Examples Of Outreach and Partnerships

Professional Development Centers Program Evaluations & Community Based

Action Research Collaborative Libraries, Museums Extension courses Co-curricular service Partnerships

Benefits of the New Classification

Public recognition and visibility Accountability Catalyst for change Institutional Identity Self-assessment and self-study

Federal and State policy, funding

Nonprofit organizations, funding

Educational Associations, programs

Community conditions/context

Institutional rankings

Accreditation standards

(Brukardt, 2005)

External Pulls towards Engagement

Mission (differentiation)

Campus leadership

Deep, active, relevant learning

Expanding view of scholarship

Public accountability

Accreditation standards

Internal Push towards Engagement

Focuses institution-wide attention

Assures public of institutional quality

Supports institutional improvement

Creates critical data sets

Facilitates decisions, planning

Spurs institutional, strategic change

(Brukardt, 2005)

Accreditation Process and/or Carnegie Pilot Project

Faculty Work “In and With” the Community: IUPUI Model

Research

Community

Teaching

DistanceEducation

Service Learning

ResearchSite

Participatory Action

Research

Professional Community

Service

Service

Engagement

Enhance Capacity for Civic Engagement

Advocacy and support in all aspects of institutional work

Internal resources and infrastructure External funding for civic engagement Documented quality and impact

Visit http://www.iport.iupui.edu

Performance Measures for CE: IUPUI

Enhance Civic Activities, Partnerships, and Patient Client Services

Academic community-based learning in variety of settings

Community-based research, scholarship and creative activity

Professional service “in and with” Participation in community service

Performance Measures for CE: IUPUI

Intensify Commitment and Accountability to Indianapolis, Central Indiana, and Indiana

Community participation in development, implementation, evaluation of CE

Campus participation in …. Regular forums on the campus community

agenda Contributions to the climate for diversity

Performance Measures for CE: IUPUI

Carnegie Project: IUPUI

Refined our thinking/doing How to gather information Who’s responsible

National recognition New colleagues/projects

Campus strengths/weaknesses Action steps for Council on CE

Feedback loop to Deans