Service-Learning Scholarship and the Faculty Review, Promotion and Tenure Process
Opportunities for scholarship are essential for the success of faculty in the review, promotion and tenure process. Below are resources that may assist in leveraging SL research for the RPT process.
Faculty Development Advanced Toolkit
This resource on the Campus Compact website focuses on creating faculty reward and evaluation systems that take faculty community based work into account. The website contains examples of task force reports, policies and forms from campuses that have sought to embrace Boyer's expanded definition of scholarship.
East/West Clearinghouses for the Scholarship of Engagement
The East/West Clearinghouses for the Scholarship of Engagement sponsor the National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement, which provides external peer review and evaluation of faculty's scholarship of engagement. The Clearinghouses also provide consultation, training, and technical assistance to campuses that are seeking to develop or strengthen systems in support of the scholarship of engagement.
Community-Campus Partnerships for Health Mentor Network
CCPH's Mentor Network provides consultation, training and technical assistance to campuses that are seeking to develop or strengthen their support of community-based scholarship (e.g., service-learning, community-based participatory research).
Articles & Publications
Boyer, Ernest, "Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate," The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: New York, 1990.
In this report by the Carnegie Foundation, Ernest Boyer argues for a broader understanding of scholarship that takes into account the scope of faculty activity more fully than does the traditional categories of teaching and research.
Boyer, Ernest, The Scholarship of Engagement, Journal of Public Outreach, Spring 1996, 1:1, 11-20.
Ernest Boyer suggests that American education has moved away from its traditional commitment to public service and argues for a new commitment to service that he calls the scholarship of engagement.
Chang, Yu-bi, Evaluation of Outreach for Promotion and Tenure Considerations: Views from University Faculty, Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 2000, 48:3, 5-13.
Yu-bi Chang examined the evaluation of university outreach from the perspectives of faculty members, particularly those who had engaged in outreach activities. It utilized a survey to determine criteria for judging the quality of outreach; types of performance indicators for evaluating teaching, research, and service elements of outreach; and who should evaluate outreach. The article concludes that, in the opinion of faculty, an adequate evaluation mechanism should include both criteria specific to outreach and more traditional standards for scholarship and rigor.
Coppola, Brian, Learning to Play a Rigged Game, National Teaching and Learning Forum online newsletter.
Brian Coppola, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor - A Pew Scholar who won tenure on the strength of his teaching, explains how faculty don't win by bucking the rules, only by reframing their understanding of their possibilities.
Diamond, Robert M., and Bronwyn E. Adam, ed., The Disciplines Speak: Rewarding the Scholarly, Professional, and Creative Work of Faculty, Washington, D.C.: AAHE, 1995.
This monograph contains a number of statements from professional associations in disciplines representing the humanities and social sciences, the natural sciences, the arts, and professional programs. These statements describe the work of faculty in the different disciplines, re-examining the traditional relationships between research, teaching, and service.
Driscoll, Amy and Lynton, Ernest, Making Outreach Visible: A Guide to Documenting Professional Service and Outreach, 1999.
This guide addresses the "how to" issues and needs of faculty and administration in the context of institutional change.
Eyler, Janet, and Dwight E. Giles, Jr., Where's the Learning in Service-Learning?, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
Includes sections on identifying the learning outcomes of service; personal and interpersonal development; understanding and applying knowledge; engagement, curiosity, and reflective practice; critical thinking; perspective transformation; citizenship; characteristics of effective SL programs; and strengthening the role of service in the college curriculum.
Gelmon, Sherril and Agre-Kippenhan, Susan, Promotion, Tenure, and the Engaged Scholar: Keeping the Scholarship of Engagement in the Review Process, AAHE Bulletin, January 2002.
This article presents the perspectives of two faculty members at Portland State University who have navigated the promotion and tenure process, and their reflections on the scholarship of engagement.
Glassick, Charles E., Mary Taylor Huber, and Gene I. Maeroff, Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
This text offers a new paradigm for evaluating scholarship of engagement, a scholarship that better integrates the full range of scholarly activity, research, teaching and service. It includes discussion of changes in thinking about scholarship and ideas about developing criteria for evaluating a full range of scholarship and for documenting scholarly efforts. It also includes, as appendices, the Questionnaire for the National Survey on the Reexamination of Faculty Roles and Rewards and the results of that survey.
Maurana, Cheryl; Wolff, Marie; Beck, Barbra; and Simpson, Debra, Working with our communities: moving from service to scholarship in the health professions, San Francisco, CA: Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, 2000.
This commissioned paper describes a model for community scholarship in the health professions that builds upon the work of Boyer and Glassick. The paper includes suggestions for developing a community scholarship portfolio, as well as a wealth of print and online resources.
Sandman, Lorilee R., Pennie G. Foster-Fishman, James Lloyd, Warren Rauhe, and Cheryl Rosaen, Managing Critical Tensions: How to Strengthen the Scholarship Component of Outreach, Change, January/February 2000, 32:1, 44-52.
This article examines ways that faculty can balance the community demands for scholarship of engagement and their institution's expectations regarding teaching and research with their own scholarly interests. It also explores the different perspectives among community, institution, and scholar, which create tensions in the implementation and design of outreach scholarship programs.