Integrating Learning, Discovery, and Engagement through the ......NC STATE UNIVERSITY Integrating Learning, Discovery, and Engagement through the Scholarship of Engagement Report of

NC STATE UNIVERSITY

Integrating Learning, Discovery, and Engagement through the Scholarship of Engagement

Report of theScholarship of Engagement Task ForceNorth Carolina State University

C o n t e n t s

executive summary ................................................................................ 3

Background ............................................................................................... 7

task Force Charge ................................................................................12

Members of the scholarship of engagement task Force ..............13

Activities of the task Force........................................................................14

Definition and Framework ................................................................15

Recommendations ...............................................................................18

Charge 1 ..........................................................................................................18

Charge 2 ..........................................................................................................22

Charge 3 ..........................................................................................................24

References ................................................................................................26

Appendices ..............................................................................................28

A. n.C. state University Values and Realms of Faculty Responsibility...............................................................28

B. exemplars of the scholarship of engagement .......................28

Appendix B.1. Proposal for Center for Forensic science ..........28

Appendix B.2. Program Report on Field Crops and Forestry .29

Appendix B.3. the nonwovens Institute .......................................31

C. scholarship of engagement Institutional outcomes, Performance Indicators, and Location for Assessment ...............................................................32

D. Glassick standards for evaluation of Faculty scholarship ..36

e. north Carolina Progress Board’s Quality of Life Indicators 36

F. template for Completing the extension and engagement section of the RPt........................................39

Appendix F.1. RPt template ..............................................................39

Appendix F.2. evaluating extension and engagement scholarship: How Does Your Work Measure Up? .................40

G. expenditures for n.C. state University’s three Primary Missions—1960 to 2008 ...............................................40

Integrating Learning, Discovery, and Engagement through the Scholarship of Engagement

Report of the Scholarship of Engagement Task Force North Carolina State University

Submitted toOffice of the Provost and Executive Vice ChancellorandOffice of the Vice Chancellor for Extension, Engagement, and Economic DevelopmentandFaculty Senate Office

June 2010

Also available on the Task Force Web site: http://www.ncsu.edu/extension/

2

Photograph credits

Cover. CALS Communication Services

Page 3. Executive Summary: Forensics training responds to law enforcement needs. An Industrial Extension Service agent conducts hazardous materials training. Roger Winstead, Creative ServicesExtension’s Successful Family program reaches out to families. CALS Communication Services

Page 7. Background: Emerging Issues Forum. Institute for Emerging Issues

Page 12. Task Force Charge: SET Task Force co-Chair Joan Pennell (far right) and others. Associate Vice Chan-cellor Patricia Sobrero, Office of Extension, Engagement, and Economic Development

Page 15. Definition and Framework: Students volunteer at a senior citizens center. Roger Winstead, Creative Services

Page 18. Recommendations: A civil engineering class works on drawings for the Hillsborough Street renova-tion in Raleigh. Roger Winstead, Creative Services

1,000 copies of this public document were printed at a cost of $3,562, or $3.56 per copy.

3

he vice chancellor of Extension, Engagement, and Economic Development established the Task Force on the Scholarship of Engagement during 2009. This Task Force, with representation from dif-ferent disciplines, colleges, and areas of the university, was asked to develop recommendations to encourage,

recognize, and sustain the scholarship of engagement at N.C. State University. Collaboration began with defining the scholarship of engagement and linking the purpose to N.C. State’s practices and culture. Recommendations around three priorities seek to strengthen the integration of learning, discovery and engagement; inform future decisions about scholarly work; and reward faculty who model the “scholarship of engagement.”

DefinitionThe scholarship of engagement is the collaborative generation, refinement, conservation, and exchange of mutually beneficial and societally relevant knowledge that is communicated to and validated by peers in academe and the community.

PurposeThe scholarship of engagement aims to develop ethical and practical solutions to social, health, economic, and environ-mental issues. This scholarship may involve higher educa-tion institutions and communities on and off campus in partnerships that hold common goals and share expertise and resources. This scholarship serves to integrate learning, discovery, and engagement.

Broadening Concept of ScholarshipThe scholarship of engagement challenges narrow definitions of academic scholarship that solely emphasize the prod-ucts of discipline-based research rather than the process.

SummaryExecutive

The scholarship of engagement recognizes that engaging in scholarship creates an intellectual environment that stimulates knowledge discovery, integration across disci-plines, application to significant problems, and teaching that encourages public service. In 1996, Boyer proposed that the scholarship of engagement describes the mission of institu-tions of higher education. In other words, universities are to engage public groups in (1) specifying areas for study, action, and teaching and (2) assessing together the impact of col-laborative work.

Relevance to N.C. State UniversityThe scholarship of engagement has particular relevance to North Carolina State University as a research-extensive university in the land-grant tradition. The university’s mis-sion is to better the lives of the people of North Carolina. In 2006, N.C. State was one of the first universities to be recognized nationally and attain the Carnegie Commission for the Advancement of Teaching Community-Engagement

The scholarship of

engagement is the

collaborative generation,

refinement, conservation,

and exchange of mutually

beneficial and societally

relevant knowledge that

is communicated to and

validated by peers in academe

and the community.

T

4

Classification. This historic mission was recently reaf-firmed by the 2008 UNC Tomorrow Initiative emphasizing public service and by N.C. State’s response to the initiative. The scholarship of engagement has become all the more paramount in the current global recession as international, national, state, and local bodies seek to stimulate the economy and sustain communities.

Impetus from Funding TrendsThe UNC Tomorrow Initiative emphases are supported by recent funding trends in governmental, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations to include community engagement in requests for proposals connected to research. In addition, in 2006, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching initiated an elective classification of Community Engagement. In North Carolina, ten universities have been awarded this classification. These trends encourage the application of theory to real-world challenges that require collaborative work that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries within interdisciplinary teams. These teams enhance problem-solving while translating research knowl-edge to scientists across disciplines, and ultimately to the community.

CounterargumentA common objection to the scholarship of engagement is that it undermines the distinction between basic and ap-plied research. This distinction has been used to assert the independence of the researcher from government and cor-porate control, a worthwhile goal. The distinction, however, is hard to maintain when research is addressing complex problems that require both “science” and “technology,” and is guided by considerations of both scientific rigor and societal value.

Necessary Institutional SupportsTo effectively and comprehensively implement the schol-arship of engagement, faculty, staff, and students require departmental and wider institutional supports. These include faculty, staff, and student supportive expectations, reward systems, professional development, and mentoring; institutional indicators highlighting progress; and institu-tional profiling of accomplishments in the scholarship of engagement.

RecommendationsThe recommendations on the scholarship of engagement are organized according to the three charges of the Task Force and are offered to encourage and sustain the scholarship of engagement as an integrative model of learning, discovery, and engagement at N.C. State University.

Charge 1Develop recommendations regarding evidence of the schol-arship of engagement that can be included in documenta-tion developed for faculty annual performance reviews and for decisions about faculty reappointments, promotions, and conferral of tenure.

Recommendation 1.a. Develop Statements of Mutual Ex-pectations in the six realms of faculty responsibility that are relevant to the UNC Tomorrow Initiative, N.C. State University’s response to this initiative, and N.C. State University’s priorities. All faculty—tenured, tenure-track, special (non-tenure-track)—should join with leaders in their departments, colleges, and other administrative units in developing Statements of Mutual Expectations that encompass their realms of faculty responsibilities and that relate to the goals and objectives of the people of North Carolina. In developing these statements, faculty should consider substantive areas identified by the UNC Tomorrow Initiative, N.C. State University’s response to this initiative, and the priorities of N.C. State Univer-sity. The UNC Tomorrow Initiative areas are (1) global readiness; (2) citizens and their future: access to higher education; (3) children and their future: improving public education; (4) our communities and economic transfor-mation; (5) public health; (6) environment; and (7) uni-versity outreach and engagement. N.C. State University’s priorities are leadership, energy and the environment, health and well-being, economic development, and educa-tional innovation.

Recommendation 1.b. Connect the faculty’s Statements of Mutual Expectations to the departmental rules for reap-pointment, promotion, and tenure. Given that faculty are reviewed according to their Statements of Mutual Expectations and their department’s rules for reappoint-ment, promotion, and tenure (RPT), faculty require clear connections between the two. This means that both the statements and departmental rules need to support fac-ulty in undertaking the scholarship of engagement.

Recommendation 1.c. Use the evaluation criteria for the scholarship of engagement as guides for evaluating the quality of scholarship in any discipline. The National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement devel-oped and applies evaluation criteria for the scholarship of engagement. They are appropriate for evaluating faculty, staff, and student accomplishments in any of the six realms of faculty responsibility recognized and encour-aged at N.C. State University

Recommendation 1.d. Use the scholarship of engage-ment criteria in preparing documentation on faculty, staff, and student programs or activities and review-

Integrating Learning, Discovery, and Engagemant through the Scholarship of Engagement

5

ing performance. The National Review Board standards should be used in preparing the documents and making evidence-based evaluations of the quality of scholarship by faculty, staff, and students at N.C. State University.

Recommendation 1.e. Create guidance for documenting extension and engagement program accomplishments in the RPT dossiers. Providing access to this national review assistance, or developing appropriate N.C. State guidance for faculty, staff, and students, is desirable. This could include coaching, faculty role models, and use of successful program models.

Recommendation 1.f. Promote faculty, staff, and student professional development in the scholarship of engage-ment. In order for faculty, staff, and students to develop, refine, or extend their capacity for the scholarship of engagement, they require opportunities for professional development. These opportunities need to relate to the changing conditions of the community, the region, the nation, and the world in which each faculty, staff, and student seeks to make a contribution.

Recommendation 1.g. Support faculty, staff, and student mentoring programs in the scholarship of engage-ment. To prepare for and implement the scholarship of engagement, a comprehensive faculty, staff, and student mentoring system on our campus needs to encompass community-engaged education and research. Mentoring is required on how to identify and partner with govern-ment, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations to address local issues; advance opportunities for students, faculty, and staff; and document outcomes.

Charge 2Develop recommendations regarding institutional perfor-mance indicators that can be used to record and evaluate accomplishments in the scholarship of engagement across the various colleges, departments, and other units within N.C. State University.

Recommendation 2.a. Adopt performance outcomes for measuring and reporting institutional performance on engagement and the scholarship of engagement. The Task Force recommends that N.C. State adopt six outcomes to assess institutional performance on en-gagement and the scholarship of engagement. These outcomes should be used when reporting on univer-sity accomplishments and stakeholder impacts. These performance outcomes present evidence of the follow-ing: (1) institutional commitment to engagement; (2) institutional resource commitments to engagement; (3) involvement of students, learners, faculty, and educators

in engagement and outreach; (4) university engagement with its communities and partners; (5) evaluation of engagement program outcomes and impact; and (6) the scholarship of engagement.

Recommendation 2.b. Evaluate the progress of the univer-sity, colleges, departments, and other units in achiev-ing the performance outcomes on engagement and the scholarship of engagement. In assessing progress on the six performance outcomes, a checklist of questions is sug-gested for use. The questions can serve as guides in evalu-ating the performance of public universities and their various colleges, departments, and other specialized units in meeting their obligations to the society that provides important financial and moral support. For example, this question relates to the first and sixth performance indicators: Do the criteria for recruiting and hiring senior leaders at N.C .State University and each of its colleges and departments include experience and commitment to societal engagement activities?

Charge 3Review and develop recommendations regarding the lan-guage currently being used to track engagement and the language that should be used in the future to track engage-ment within N.C. State University’s institutional research offices and budget offices.

Recommendation 3.a. Recognize the importance of both economic and noneconomic societal engagement im-pacts of university outreach, extension, and engagement programs and activities. Evaluation of N.C. State Uni-versity’s outreach, extension, and engagement programs should measure both economic and social impacts. These impacts are interrelated and beneficial to the people of North Carolina. For example, development of human capital (such as an educated and healthy work force) increases economic productivity. A useful enumeration of these impacts has been developed by N.C. State Univer-sity’s Task Force on Benchmarking Economic Develop-ment Impacts (BEDI). The BEDI Task Force recommends utilizing logic models as an intellectual framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating programs. Logic models serve to clarify the underlying rationale of how a program will achieve its intended outcomes.

Recommendation 3.b. Specify general categories of societal engagement programs and activities to track and evalu-ate extension, engagement, and economic development. To track and evaluate extension, engagement, and eco-nomic development, the university requires a commonly shared system for categorizing its work. Such a system has been developed by the BEDI Task Force, and its eight

Executive Summary

6

general categories can be used to inventory, analyze, and assess the university’s societal engagement programs and activities. These categories are as follows:

• Curricularengagementinclassesandprograms,

• Co-curricularserviceactivities,

• Knowledgecreationanddiffusion,

• Technologytransferandcommercialization,

• Publiceventsandunderstanding,

• Technicalandexpertassistanceandtraining,

• Clinical/diagnosticandtestingservices,and

• University/industrycooperativeprograms.

Recommendation 3.c. Publicize achievements in extension, engagement, and economic development. To increase the visibility of the scholarship of engagement, the Public Affairs and University Development offices of N.C. State should be encouraged to give increased emphasis to highlighting the extension, engagement, and economic development achievements of N.C. State faculty, staff, and students. Attention should especially be given to accomplishments in each of the seven areas identified by the UNC Tomorrow Initiative and in the five priorities of N.C. State University. Scholarship that integrates learn-ing, discovery, and engagement should be publicized.

Recommendation 3.d. Inform new faculty, staff, and students in all colleges about the university’s mission of extension, engagement, and economic development and opportunities for their own engaged scholarship inte-grating learning, discovery, and engagement.

(1) Include information in new faculty orientation sessions and other appropriate venues about the range of engaged teaching and scholarship in all colleges at N.C. State.

(2) Encourage new faculty and staff to discuss their interests with department heads and mentors and include these activities in their Statements of Mutual Expectations as appropriate.

(3) Provide early career faculty and staff with examples of ways to document their extension and engagement activities for annual reviews and reappointment, as well as promotion and tenure reviews.

These rewards will be more likely if the faculty member’s professional aspirations as outlined in their individual faculty Statement of Mutual Expectations are developed

in accord with the significant areas outlined in the UNC Tomorrow Initiative and the priorities of N.C. State Uni-versity.

Recommendation 3.e. Support existing campus units to coordinate faculty, staff, and student opportunities for extension, engagement, and economic development. The campus has multiple entities that engage with the com-munity, including various departments, extension servic-es, centers and institutes, and other units. The university receives requests from community groups; and faculty, staff, and student members seek to connect with commu-nity groups. To enhance these opportunities, additional allocation of resources is required to support the efforts of existing campus groups in responding to requests from the community and from faculty, staff, and students, and better coordination is needed among these groups.

Recommendation 3.f. Recognize faculty, staff, and student achievement and certify courses in the scholarship of engagement. Increased communication should occur among senior administrators of the university, colleges, and departments with regard to recognizing faculty, staff, and student achievements in the scholarship of engage-ment in all academic and research units within N.C. State University. The university should consider instituting a system of certifying courses as meeting the criteria for excellence in engagement. This would assist students in selecting courses and could be recognized on their uni-versity transcripts.

Recommendation 3.g. Increase transparency regarding budget allocations and accounting procedures to sup-port achievement of the university’s three missions of learning/teaching, discovery/research, and engagement/extension. N.C. State University should commit itself to greater transparency about its budget allocations, ac-counting procedures, and both internal priorities and ex-ternal factors that influence funding from legislative and external sources—not only for extension and engagement activities but also expenditures for teaching and research.


7

orth Carolina State University has a rich history of societally engaged programming across our state. The university is recognized as a leading land-grant institution devoted to each of the integrated mission areas of discovery, learning, and engagement. Our faculty and staff are attentive to

the needs and aspirations of the people of our state and region; they work with local leaders and partner with public and private entities to address high priority issues for which research-based knowledge can help increase the prosperity and quality of life of our people.

Background

National BackgroundMany of N.C. State University’s structures, policies, and procedures for promotion, tenure, and annual performance reviews are designed to encourage and support the mission areas of extension, engagement, and economic development. As a result, N.C. State has emerged as a national model of an engaged university in the twenty-first century. During the late 1980s to the mid-2000s, significant national emphasis was placed on strengthening the research enterprise throughout higher education. Concurrently, numerous national grassroots studies and reports focused on the value of integrating research and teaching programs with programs that accomplish authentic and collaborative engagement with the public, local communities, government entities, nonprofits, and business and industry. The scholarship of engagement model differs from the research model of making a discovery and report-ing findings. Authentic engagement occurs when faculty, staff, and students use an integrated learning, discovery, and engagement model and work with local stakeholders

The Institute of Emerging

Issues is one of the many

structures that make

N.C. State an engaged

university.

to collaboratively address a technical or societal issue. By applying research-based strategies, faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders learn together what works most effectively, then evaluate outcomes and track societal impacts of the actions taken. Discovery of new knowledge results from collaborative learning about actions that effectively address the problems and issues identified. Scholarship results when these findings are reported, evaluated by peers, and then published and disseminated widely to inform future theory, practice, and public policy.

Engagement of Higher EducationA national study conducted by Dillman and associates (1995) asked what the public expects of higher education and documented the extent of societal engagement that various universities could demonstrate. Dillman et al. found that a large percentage of adults from diverse backgrounds valued lifelong education and training. These adults also wanted land-grant colleges and universities to provide multiple ser-vices, training, and education, including off-campus instruc-

N

8

tion. Their findings indicated a clear call for higher educa-tion to improve and increase engagement with the people ineachstate.TheseresultscaughttheattentionoftheW.K.KelloggFoundation(KelloggCommission,1999). From1996to2001,TheW.K.KelloggFoundation—inpartnership with the National Association of State Univer-sities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), now known as the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU)—formed a Presidential Commission that studied the future of state universities and land-grant colleges. A seriesofsubsequentreportsbytheKelloggCommissionchallenged universities to go beyond traditional expert-driven processes of extension, outreach, and public service. TheKelloggCommissionenvisionedreciprocalpartner-ships defined by mutual respect and mutual learning among collaborating partners. A seven-part test was devel-oped so that universities could assess how well they were using their resources, knowledge, and expertise to work on issues and problems most important to local communities, businesses, nonprofits, and governmental entities. This test considered responsiveness, respect for partners, academic neutrality, accessibility, integration, coordination, and re-sourcepartnerships:http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=187 The Commission urged each university to integrate engagement as a central part of its mission and include interdisciplinary scholarship and learning opportunities. Universities were to consider incentives for faculty, staff, and students to become engaged scholars, and they were encouraged to provide secure, stable funding for engagement programs and endeavors.

N.C. State Engagement LeadershipNorth Carolina State University was a leader in implement-ingchangesrecommendedbytheKelloggCommissionReport. Initially, we conducted our own Commission of the Future of North Carolina. Several changes occurred in re-sponse to this commission. Over the last eight years, sympo-siums, forums, and leadership initiatives have continued to position N.C. State as an engaged university. Initially, a vice chancellor position for Extension and Engagement was created to report directly to the chancellor of the university, and to serve as a member of the Executive Officers. Later, the Office of Extension, Engagement, and Economic Development (EEED) was created to empower multidisciplinary partnerships within the university and to work effectively on priority public issues in communities. In addition, a strong economic development program was initi-ated to bring business and industry intellectual resources to the university in high priority industry clusters. The Office of EEED established policy, operating, and recognition teams to enable effectiveness and collaboration;

to inform continuous learning across university depart-ments, units, and centers; and to enable more effective engagement with people and organizations across the state. These structures enabled collaboration, ongoing dialogue, policy recommendations, and implementation of engage-ment strategies. Several of these structures pre-date the Of-fice of EEED. This demonstrates N.C. State’s historical value of engagement to benefit North Carolinians.

1. The University Standing Committee on Extension, En-gagement, and Economic Development (USCOEED) was established in 2001 as the University Standing Committee on Extension and Engagement. In 2006, the committee added Economic Development to its name. Originally, this team functioned throughout the 1960s and 1980s as the University Standing Committee on Extension. The standing committee recommends policies and procedures to strengthen engagement across the university and the state. The provost appoints members.

2. The Academy of Outstanding Faculty Engaged in Exten-sion and Engagement (AOFEE) was created in 1975 and gained new viability after the establishment of the Office of EEED. The functions of the Academy follow:

• TheAcademyshallbeactiveinthepromotionandrec- ognition of excellence in extension and outreach at North Carolina State University and elsewhere.

• TheAcademyshallbeactiveinstimulatinganddevel- oping faculty and staff to address critical social problems and opportunities that require creative interdisciplinary solutions or collaborations.

• TheAcademyshallmaintainliaisonwithappropriate administrative and field offices as well as appointed committees across the campus and the state.

3. The Extension Operations Council (EOC) established in 2001 included key leaders in each university department and unit who would be responsible for implementing (a) new policies and procedures and (b) engagement strate-gies and programs.

4. The Executive Administrative Team (EAT) established in July 2001 creates collaboration across each of the exten-sion units. These include Cooperative Extension, the Economic Development Partnership Program, Industrial Extension,theMcKimmonContinuingEducationPro-gram, the Shelton Leadership Program, the Small Busi-ness and Technical Development Center Program, and the Urban Extension Program.

Other changes began to emerge because of the new EEED structure that enabled N.C. State to be honored in 2006 as an engaged university by the Carnegie Commission


9

for the Advancement of Teaching. The following are a few examples of valued engagement programs that have been successful. Several of these programs were active before the current EEED structure was implemented.

• TheCenterforUrbanAffairsandCommunityServices(CUACS) was established in 1966. In collaboration with the Department of Public Instruction, CUACS developed ClassScape, an online formative assessment tool for teach-ers. ClassScape offers a year-long system for monitoring student performance on academic indicators set forth by the North Carolina Standard Course of Study and Grade Level Competencies. By using ClassScape, administrators and educators can make more informed decisions about teaching practices and student learning.

• Anannual“AwardsforEngagementExcellence”programwas initiated in 1974 and continues to honor excellence.

• Theseriesof“EmergingIssuesForums”thatbeganin1985 has recently evolved into a policy focused “Think and Do Tank” that tackles some of the biggest issues in North Carolina’s future. The “Institute for Emerging Issues” (IEI), as it is now called, brings together lead-ers from business, industry, and nonprofits; state, local and national governments; and various kinds of higher education institutions to explore possibilities. Through research, ideas, debate, and action, the IEI prepares lead-ers to address North Carolina’s future challenges and opportunities.

• TheScienceHousewascreatedin1991toencouragegreater math, science, engineering, and technology inter-est among teachers and students across the state.

• TheEntrepreneurshipInitiativeestablishedin1993provides university-wide entrepreneurship programming, such as the Engineering Entrepreneurship Program (EEP) andtheEntrepreneurshipForum:http://www.ncsu.edu/ei/index.php

• AK-12enhancementprogram,MiddleEducatorsGlobalActivities (MEGA), was initiated in 1995 to encourage interdisciplinary outreach and engagement with schools. The purpose was to (a) establish a networked commu-nity of teachers who use technology as a tool for shared decision-making and (b) enhance the curriculum through collaboration.

• ConnectinginNorthCarolina(CINC)wasestablishedin1995 and continues to introduce new N.C. State faculty and administrators to the program partnerships we have across the state. The five-day tour showcases various col-lege partnership programs throughout the state, while meeting the people, alumnae, and students in communi-

ties across the state. This was suspended for the 2009–2010 fiscal year due to budget restrictions.

• TheCenterforStudentLeadership,Ethics,andPublicService (CSLEPS) was established in 1998 to provide unique learning experiences that embody the value of leadership, service, responsible citizenship, and ethics.

• TheGeneralH.HughSheltonInitiativeforLeadershipDevelopment Center, established in 2001, seeks to assist individuals across their lifespan with opportunities to de-velop and enhance leadership skills and practices empha-sizing the importance of honesty, integrity, social respon-sibility,diversity,andcompassionasaleader:http://www.ncsu.edu/extension/sheltonleadership/about/center.php

• TheEnvironmentalStewardship–SustainableCommunityPartnerships program established in 2002 works with lo-cal government, agencies, and ecotourism research.

• Since2003,anannualUniversitySymposiumfocusingon engagement issues continues to address priorities for strengthening and improving extension, engagement, and economic development.

• TheGatewaysCountiesInitiativewasdesignedin2002to fulfill the vision of the engaged university. It was conceived as a means to encourage faculty in colleges other than the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College of Natural Resources to use the county Extension centers as bases for increased faculty and staff engagement with communities statewide. This initia-tive seeks to encourage communities throughout North Carolina to look to the resources of N.C. State Univer-sity to assist them in resolving complex issues across disciplines.

• TheInstituteforNonprofitResearch,EducationandEn-gagement has its roots in an initiative begun by the Col-legeofHumanitiesandSocialSciencesin2002tofosterinnovative ideas and effective practices in nonprofit orga-nizations. The Institute was formally established in 2003 with a $1 million matching gift from the A. J. Fletcher Foundation. In 2004, the Institute created an undergradu-ate minor in nonprofit studies and began a minigrant program to support research by N.C. State faculty and students helpful to nonprofits. In 2008, it was approved as The Institute for Nonprofit Research, Education, and Engagement. In 2010, it added The Philanthropy Journal to its programs. The Journal offers news and resources to nonprofit practitioners through online publications, Web conferences, and workshops. The Institute is a multidis-ciplinary center devoted to strengthening the capacity of nonprofit organizations and nonprofit leadership through research, education, and engagement.

Background

10

• TheundergraduateHonorsProgramextensioncompo-nent established in 2003 provides students an opportunity to work with external businesses, prepare for graduate education, and experience an extension and engagement community experience as an independent or group re-search project.

• AnUrbanExtensionProgramwasinitiatedin2004byCooperative Extension and the Office of EEED to create more engaged partnerships with the state’s urban areas, to prepare communities for urban development, and to ad-dress uniquely urban issues using collaborative learning models.

• ANationalFoodSystemsLeadershipInstituteforCom-munity and Economic Development was established in 2004.

• TheBiomanufacturingTrainingandEducationCenter(BTEC) was built in 2007. Through partnerships with community colleges, government, industry, nonprofits, and the N.C. Biotech Center, distance education and on-site programs train prospective employees for the state’s biomanufacturing industry.

• BenchmarkingEconomicDevelopmentImpacts(BEDI)is part of EEED’s assessment and accountability strategy. The BEDI Task Force identified key outreach and engage-ment activities and developed logic models to determine outcomes and impacts (2007 – 2010).

• TheEconomicDevelopmentPartnershipProgram(EDP)was established in 2006.

• TheCenterforFamilyandCommunityEngagement,established in 2008, involves students, faculty, and staff in engaged scholarship. The overall mission is to build partnerships advancing the leadership and well-being of familiesandtheircommunities:http://www.cfface.org

• TheN.C.StateService-LearningCurricularDevelopmentProject established in 2008 was developed to strengthen service-learning for students after being a long-standing program connected to EEED. The office no longer exists, but some collaborative efforts of the center are being ad-dressed through a national grant.

• TheEEEDSeedGrantProgramestablishedin1998stimulates faculty and EPA professionals to address the needs of North Carolina’s residents, to encourage external and multidisciplinary partnerships, to involve students in applying knowledge to societal problems, and to leverage additional funds for extension and engagement endeav-ors:http://www.ncsu.edu/extension/about/eeedgrants.php

• TheFacultyCenterforTeachingandLearningbecamethe Office of Faculty Development in 2008 as part of the

Office of the Provost. Its goal is to provide N.C. State fac-ulty with access to a range of development opportunities that will enable continuous fulfillment of excellence in all realms of faculty responsibility to support the university’s mission (Appendix A. N.C. State University Values and Realms of Faculty Responsibility).

N.C. State’s dedication to demonstrating excellence as an engaged institution became evident with an examination of the review, promotion, and tenure system. In 1999, the provost and chair of the faculty joined together in establish-ing a Faculty Select Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee with charges to “hold hearings with faculty in all ten colleges” and “develop recommendations for reform of the RPT guidelines and processes” in all colleges. Additional objectives were to provide for involvement of faculty at all stages of RPT decision-making, ensure reasonable unifor-mity in these processes among colleges, and focus attention on the twin goals of excellence and fairness. The end result of these deliberations was development of a“StatementofValuesHeldDearbyN.C.StateUniversity,”and the following decisions: (1) N.C. State University will recognize the “Six Realms of Faculty Responsibility” listed below; (2) every individual faculty member should develop with his or her department leader a “Statement of Mutual Expectations” (REG 05.20.27) with regard to one or more of these “Six Realms;” and (3) RPT decisions should be based on written criteria and written statements of evaluation. These are the six associated realms of faculty responsibility:

1. Teaching and mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students;

2. Discovery of knowledge through discipline-guided inquiry;

3. Creative artistry and literature;

4. Technological and managerial innovation;

5. Extension and engagement with constituencies outside the university; and

6. Service in professional societies and service and engagement within the university itself.

These realms frame retention, promotion, and tenure criteria and clearly support recognition of the scholarship of engagement, teaching, and research (Appendix A. N.C. State University Values and Realms of Faculty Responsibility). In 2006, N.C. State was one of the first universities nationally to attain a Community-Engagement Classifica-tion from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. A team of university leaders and volunteers conducted a self-study and submitted the application for this new Carnegie classification. As a result of our success, we


11

worked with other North Carolina higher education cam-puses. During 2008 and 2009, eight additional campuses were awarded the Community-Engagement Classification: http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php?key=1213 The Benchmarking Economic Development Impacts (BEDI) task force was created in 2007. This task force ad-dressed faculty, staff, and student concerns about how to measure the impact of a program that includes dynamic col-laborative partnerships with business, governmental entities, nonprofits, and university faculty and staff. The final report from the BEDI Task Force developed the following tools and ideas to assist in measuring the economic impacts of univer-sity extension and engagement programs:

• Amorecomprehensiveinventoryofengagementactivi-ties,

• Engagementcategoriesthatbetterdescribetherangeofengagement influence in our work,

• Commondefinitionstodiscusstheissuesofmeasuringengagement and its impacts,

• Amethodofdiscussingtherelationshipourengagementresources and activities are intended to result in outcomes and impacts,

• Acasestudythatprovestherelevanceofthetoolsdevel-oped,

• Asetofoptionsformeasuringmonetizedimpacts,and

• Animplementationplan.

About the time that the BEDI Task Force was estab-lished, President Erskine Bowles of the University of North Carolina (UNC) System, in partnership with the chair-man of the UNC Board of Governors, announced the UNC Tomorrow Initiative. The purpose was to determine how the UNC system could “respond more directly and proactively to the twenty-first century challenges” facing our state “now and in the future through the efficient and effective fulfillment of its three-pronged mission of teach-ing, research and scholarship, and public service” (UNC General Administration, 2007). Thousands of people across the state participated in listening forums, faculty forums involving all university campuses, a blog, and an online survey. A final report of the results and findings was pub-lishedinDecember2007:http://www.ncsu.edu/unctomor-row/ The recommendations to “apply, translate, and com-municate research and scholarship to broader audiences... and to address significant regional and statewide issues. …” in the areas of global readiness, public education, economic transformation, health, and the environment reinforce the

commitment of extension and engagement that is central to the mission of N.C. State University. In N.C. State’s response, we proposed major new initiatives in extension, engagement, and economic development. See N.C. State’s UNCTomorrowWebsite:http://www.ncsu.edu/unctomor-row/docs/UNCTResponse.pdf In 2008, a forum was conducted to address continu-ing faculty and staff issues related to earning scholarship recognition for engagement programs across the state. The EEED Operations Council met on September 10, 2008, and discussed current standards and criteria for engaged schol-arship and expressed major frustrations in documenting the scholarship of engagement in their units, departments, and colleges. The ideas and recommendations from this forum were discussed with the University Standing Com-mittee on EEED. Ideas that emerged from both of these forums led to development of the Scholarship of Engagement Task Force (SET). N.C. State’s structure, policies, procedures, and programs are clearly focused on engagement and support engagement across each college and unit. We found, how-ever, that faculty, staff, and students, continued to ask for additional assistance in providing evidence of their efforts so that their scholarship of engagement was recognized and rewarded. Concurrently, N.C. State established a committee to plan the national 2010 Outreach Scholarship Conference to be held in Raleigh, October 3-6, 2010. The executive committee for this national conference includes N.C. State’s vice chan-cellor. Dialogues in the committee meetings are address-ing the need for clearer engagement scholarship standards, development of a potential National Academy for Scholarly Engagement, and evaluation of engagement programs to document outcomes and economic impacts. Dialogue with the Outreach Scholarship Board provided additional support for the vice chancellor of EEED to ap-point the 2008 – 2009 BEDI II and Scholarship of Engage-ment Task Forces. Both task forces address aspects that will provide evidence of scholarly engagement, and outcomes and impacts valued by our partners. Some faculty and staff were invited to serve on both task forces to assure collabora-tive learning and joint discussion of recommendations.

Background

12

he vice chancellor for EEED established the Scholarship of Engagement Task Force and provided the charge at the initial meeting on January 8, 2009. Membership included faculty and staff from each college and unit, and co-chairs representing different disciplines. Members reviewed the literature sup-

porting the scholarship of engagement, reviewed past national grassroots studies, and created a collaborative learn-ing environment. A Web site was established so that literature of value could be posted and shared with members.

Task Force Charge

Overall, the task force was charged to address three areas and develop a report that included recommendations and appropriate products or processes faculty and staff may need to show evidence of the scholarship of engagement. The three areas are as follows:1. Develop recommendations regarding evidence of the

scholarship of engagement that can be included in docu-mentation developed for faculty annual performance reviews and for decisions about reappointment, promo-tion, and conferral of tenure. a. Develop online and coaching guidance for documenting and preparing evidence of the scholarship of engagement. b. Plan and implement appropriate dialogue with depart - ment heads and others regarding the acceptable evidence for the scholarship of engagement during annual performance reviews and for decisions about promotion, tenure, or both.

2. Develop recommendations regarding institutional perfor-mance indicators that can be used to record and evaluate

The SET Task Force

was asked to develop

recommendations for

the evidence, indicators,

and language used

to track engagement

accomplishments.

accomplishments in the scholarship of engagement across the various colleges, departments, and other units within N.C. State University.a. Develop recommended “strategies and products” to enable acceptance of scholarly engagement documentation across colleges, departments, and units. These may include ongoing faculty development opportunities, a toolkit with examples, peer coaching, and online resources (Appendix B. Exemplars of the Scholarship of Engagement).b. Develop institutional performance indicators that will validate university-wide engagement scholarship (Appendix C. Scholarship of Engagement Institutional Outcomes, Performance Indicators, and Location for Assessment).c. Develop recommendations for implementing the strategies, products, and indicators at N.C. State.

3. Review and develop recommendations regarding the language currently being used to track engagement and the language that should be used in the future to track

T

13

engagement within N.C .State University’s institutional research offices and budget offices.

a. Review the current language being used within N.C. State University and the UNC General Administra- tion institutional research offices and budget offices, and recommend changes that will enable accurate tracking of engagement programs (academic, research, and noncredit), extramural funding supporting the engagement mission area, and scholarly achievements of faculty and their partners to achieve societal outcomes and impact.

b. Make appropriate recommendations to strengthen the visibility of engaged scholarship and engagement programs, and differentiate them from other work, includ- ingservice,professionaldevelopment,and/ordepart- mental, college, and university committee participation.

ChairpersonsEllis Cowling, Emeritus Professor, University Distinguished

Professor at-Large, Colleges of Natural Resources and Agri-culture and Life Sciences

Joan Pennell, Professor of Social Work and Director, Center for Family and Community Engagement, College of Hu-manities and Social Sciences

MembersGeorgia Bizios, Professor, Department of Architecture, Col-

lege of DesignDavid Boulay, Deputy Director, Industrial Extension Service,

College of EngineeringTim Clapp, Director, Textiles Extension Education for Eco-

nomic Development, College of TextilesDonald Cobb, District Extension Director, Cooperative Ex-

tension Service, College of Agriculture and Life SciencesDeborah Crandall, District Extension Director, Cooperative

Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Life SciencesMichael Davidson, Professor, Associate Dean, and Direc-

tor of Veterinary Medical Services, College of Veterinary Medicine

Carolyn Dunn, Professor and Associate State Program Lead-er, Department of 4-H Youth Development and Family & Consumer Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Lisa Guion, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, and Assistant Dean for Diversity, Outreach and Engagement, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

JosephHummer,Professor, Department of Civil, Construc-tion and Environmental Engineering, College of Engi-neering

Margery F. Overton, Chair of the Faculty and Faculty Senate, and Professor, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering

Donna Petherbridge, Associate Vice Provost for Instructional Support Services, Distance Education and Learning Tech-nology Applications

TerriHelmlingerRatcliff,Assistant Vice Chancellor, Ex-tension, Engagement, and Economic Development and Executive Director, Industrial Extension Service, College of Engineering

AnnHelenRoss,Associate Professor, Department of Sociol-ogy and Anthropology, College of Humanities and Social Sciences

Sharon Schulze, Director, The Science House, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences

Mike Seibert, Assistant State Director, Small Business Tech-nology Development Center, Extension, Engagement, and Economic Development

Mary Tschirhart, Professor of Public Administration and Director, Institute for Nonprofits, College of Humanities and Social Sciences

Alice Warren, Assistant Vice Chancellor, McKimmon Center for Extension and Continuing Education

David Washington, Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, College of Management

Walt Wolfram, William C. Friday Distinguished University Professor, Department of English, College of Humanities and Social Sciences

AdvisorsBetsy E. Brown, Vice Provost for Faculty AffairsPatricia (Pat) M. Sobrero, Associate Vice Chancellor, Exten-

sion, Engagement, and Economic Development and Profes-sor, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Administrative SupportSusan Bennett, Executive Assistant, Office of Extension,

Engagement, and Economic Development

Task Force

Members of

of Engagementthe Scholarship

Task Force Charge, Members, and Activities

14

The members, co-chairs, and advisors to the Scholarship of Engagement Task Force were selected by Vice Chancellor Jim Zuiches and Associate Vice Chancellor Pat Sobrero to provide a broad cross-section of faculty competence and interest in the scholarship of engagement in all ten colleges and several other extension and engagement units across our campus. Representatives of these “other units” includ-ed leaders in Cooperative Extension, Industrial Extension, the Small Business Technology Development Center, the Center for Excellence in Curricular Development, the McKimmonCenterforExtensionandContinuingEduca-tion, and the N.C. State Faculty Senate. The work of the task force began in earnest on February 2, 2009, when Drs. Zuiches and Sobrero met with most of the faculty members and other unit leaders on this task force and explained their hopes and aspirations for success in meeting the three specific charges described fully in the Executive Summary. The task force held formal meetings for two hours on every other Thursday from early February through late June. Full participation by all members at all meetings was hampered by other commitments. Thus, typical meetings were attended by as few as 8 and as many as 14 of the 24 members of the task force. We communicated via email with the total task force membership to gain input on criti-cal issues and decisions. Early discussions concentrated on efforts to develop (1) a consensus definition of the term “scholarship of engagement” appropriate to the various colleges and other extension and engagement units across our campus and (2) criteria used in other universities to measure extension and engagement activities. We included the MOCA study (Measuring Out-of-Classroom Activities) and the Delaware study of faculty teaching activities, because the UNC Gen-eral Administration was considering it for use across all 17 universities in the system. The task force discovered, how-ever, that criteria used in this instrument were insufficient to measure the engagement mission area at N.C. State and were not congruent with the Carnegie Foundation criteria for engaged universities. Later discussions in task force meetings focused on the wide variety of policies, procedures, and traditions used in developing documentation for “annual assessments of fac-ulty accomplishments,” institutional criteria documenting engagement, and decisions about reappointment, promo-

tion, and conferral of tenure for “tenure-track faculty,” already tenured faculty,” and “contract (special) faculty.”

The Task Force and Its Relationship to the BEDI II Task Force on Benchmarking Economic Develop-ment ImpactsThe work of our SET Task Force was well informed by the earlier work and Final Report of the Task Force on Bench-marking Economic Development Impacts (BEDI Task Force, 2009). The work of SET was also very closely connected to the ongoing work of the BEDI-II Task Force, which broad-ened the perspectives of the first BEDI report. This report includes a series of nonmonetary impacts that benefit the people of North Carolina through N.C. State’s working relationships and collaborative ties with societal needs and aspirations in public health, energy and environment, natural resources, and societal empowerment. Meetings of the SET Task Force were scheduled so that SET Task Force members who wished to do so could move directly from meetings of the SET Task Force and join the second hour of the BEDI-II Task Force meetings. As agreed during the June 22, 2009, formal meeting of the SET Task Force, a July 14 initial draft report of the SET Task Force was assembled from minutes and informal records maintained by the two co-chairs—Professors Joan Pennell and Ellis Cowling. This initial draft report was submitted for substantive correction and suggestions for im-provement by all Task Force members. It was also presented for initial reactions and further suggestions for improve-ment during an informal briefing session for Vice Chancel-lor Jim Zuiches, Associate Vice Chancellor Pat Sobrero, and Vice Provost Betsy Brown on July 10, 2009, and in a more formal briefing together with the BEDI-II Task Force to the Executive Advisory Team for the Office of EEED, before formal submission to the Office of the Provost and Execu-tive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs; the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Extension, Engagement, and Economic Development; and the Faculty Senate. The second complete draft of the SET report (August 1, 2009) included most suggestions for improvement from the SET Task Force members and additional suggestions from two other briefing sessions. As a result of these further re-views and consultations, Co-Chairs Ellis Cowling and Joan Pennell decided to appoint two continuing subcommittees to explore further the topics of faculty annual reports and institutional indicators. A final meeting of the task force was held on March 10, 2010. Wording of the major rec-ommendations was reviewed and clarified for printing of the report. The findings and recommendations of the two subcommittees and the final review by the task force are included in this final report.

Task Force

Activities of

of Engagementthe Scholarship


15

s discussed at the outset of this report, the scholarship of engagement has particular relevance to N.C. State University as a research-extensive university in the land-grant tradition. Its mis-sion is to better the lives of North Carolina’s people. This historic mission was recently re-affirmed by the

2008 UNC Tomorrow Initiative. The initiative emphasizes that university engagement has become all the more paramount in the current global recession as international, national, state, and local bodies seek to stimulate the economy and sustain communities.

In this section of our report, we do the following:

1. Propose a rigorous definition of the scholarship of en-gagement;

2. Sketch some significant developments in conceptualizing the scholarship of engagement and impetuses for institu-tionalizing it in academic settings;

3. Consider some important counterarguments to the schol-arship of engagement; and

4. Illustrate this approach to generating, applying, and shar-ing knowledge through examples of community-based, multidisciplinary work from our university.

DefinitionThe scholarship of engagement is the collaborative genera-tion, refinement, conservation, and exchange of mutually beneficial and societally relevant knowledge that is com-municated to and validated by peers in academe and the community.

Engaged scholars

use democratic

strategies when

working with

communities.

PurposeThe scholarship of engagement aims to develop ethical and practical solutions to social, health, economic, and other environmental issues. This scholarship may involve higher education institutions and communities on and off campus in partnerships that hold common goals and share expertise and resources. This serves to integrate learning, discovery, and engagement.

ExampleN.C. State University has a rich history of the scholarship of engagement, and this approach to generating knowledge is evident in current and proposed faculty initiatives. These initiatives include community-based, interdisciplinary, and international work. An interdisciplinary example is the proposed Center for Forensic Science, which responds to the needs of North Carolina’s law enforcement and judicial agencies. Forensic science is a multidisciplinary science that includes forensic anthropology, archaeology, botany, chemistry, and entomology, and assists in medicolegal

A

Definition and Framework

16

death and other criminal investigations. University exper-tise is required on the recovery of human skeletal or de-composed remains related to single case or mass fatalities, insights on time-since-death and the postmortem interval, and crime-related identification, collection, and analysis of trace evidence. More detail on this center as well as addi-tional examples are provided in Appendix B. Exemplars of the Scholarship of Engagement.

FrameworkThe scholarship of engagement has emerged out of a move-ment to reorient universities to participate in communi-tiesinadvancingthecommongood(Glassick,Huber,&Maeroff,1997;Kecskes,2006;KelloggCommission,1999).See Appendix D., Glassick’s Standards for Evaluation of Faculty Scholarship. The term “scholarship of engagement” is relatively new, but its roots are deep: These roots include democratic values, societal goals, indigenous knowledge, reflective action, and scientific methods. Stemming from these five roots is the formulation of the scholarship of engagement by the late Ernest Boyer, who served as the president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Hechallengednarrowdefinitionsofacademicscholarshipthat solely emphasized the products of discipline-based research without identifying how the process of engaging in scholarship in itself creates an intellectual environment that stimulates knowledge discovery, integration, applica-tion,andteaching(Boyer,1990).Hecalledattentiontothemajor contributions of varied forms of scholarship that discover or generate knowledge; integrate methods and synthesize insights from different disciplines; responsibly apply knowledge to significant problems and through this interaction further refine understanding; or share, extend, and transform knowledge through engaging with students and other groups. In 1996, Boyer proposed that the scholarship of engage-ment describes the mission of institutions of higher educa-tion. In other words, universities should engage public groups in (1) specifying areas for study, action, and teach-ing and (2) assessing together the impact of collaborative work (Barker, 2004). This integration of discovery, learn-ing, and engagement is the ideal framework for the scholar-ship of engagement.

Democratic ValuesPublic universities, and especially universities in the land-grant tradition, are based on enduring democratic values of preparing people to make reasoned, ethical decisions over

their lives. These values encourage a collaborative approach to producing knowledge that is informed by diverse perspec-tives and leads to wise choices in the affairs of individuals, families, communities, nations, and the global society.

Societal GoalsEngagement with various constituencies helps to de-fine societal goals, directs the focus and approach of the scholarship, and encourages using the results in a manner congruent with democratic values and supportive of the public good.

Indigenous KnowledgeEvery culture has its indigenous or home-grown knowl-edge. This knowledge offers insights on how to nurture growth and leadership within the local context. Such knowledge warrants preserving, and serves as a guide to conservation attuned to people’s history and attachments to place.

Reflective ActionCritical reflection on engagement fosters a rethinking of how to solve individual and public concerns. This enlarges understanding and multiplies available solutions.

Scientific MethodsThe scholarship of engagement upholds a broad concep-tion of science as incorporating methods from different scientific communities. The scholarship of engagement re-spects the criteria for rigor developed for each of the broad streams of thought and encourages interdisciplinary and integrated discovery, learning, and engagement approaches necessary for addressing societal concerns.

Funding ImpetusRecent agency and foundation funding trends increas-ingly require research and community engagement to be addressed in requests for grant proposals. This trend seeks the application of theory to real-world challenges, which require collaborative work that transcends traditional dis-ciplinary boundaries within interdisciplinary teams. These teams enhance problem-solving while translating research knowledge to scientists across disciplines and ultimately to the community.

CounterargumentsThe scholarship of engagements has its critics, and their counterarguments warrant serious consideration. A com-mon objection is that the scholarship of engagement under-mines the distinction between basic and applied research.


17

This distinction was made after World War II by Vannevar Bush (1945), who served as the director of the wartime of-fice on scientific research and development (Stokes, 1997). Hisaimwastoextendpublicfundingforbasicresearchinto peacetime while greatly reducing government’s control over what was studied. This distinction has been used to assert the independence of the researcher from government and corporate influence, a worthwhile goal. The difficulty is that the distinction is hard to maintain when research is addressing complex problems that require both “science” and “technology,” and is guided by considerations of both scientific rigor and societal value. Moreover, the demar-cation between science and technology is increasingly challenged by developments in areas such as information technology. Other objections concern the process of teaching and learning. Prime examples are iterated by Stanley Fish (2003), who criticized the scholarship of engagement for deskilling students by focusing on nonacademic compe-tencies, making faculty responsible not only for students’ performance but also for the future impact of students’ performance, and more generally confusing democratic values with academic ones. Fish’s points remind us that an overemphasis on experiential learning without the neces-sary critical reflection on these experiences shortchanges students’ development of intellectual skills. From the per-spective of engaged scholars, however, learning how to put democratic values into practice and create a better world for everyone is a significant academic accomplishment.

FacilitatorsTo effectively and comprehensively implement the schol-arship of engagement, faculty, staff, and students require departmental and wider institutional supports (Saltmarsh &Gelmon,2006).Faculty,staff,andstudentsneedinstitu-tional goals and expectations that encourage the scholarship of engagement, a review process that acknowledges and rewards this form of scholarship, and professional develop-ment and mentoring that supports this approach to scholar-ship. The institution needs to develop and apply institutional indicators that highlight its progress and profile its accom-plishments in the scholarship of engagement. The following section specifies a series of recommendations to sustain the scholarship of engagement at N.C. State University.

Definition and Framework

18

hese recommendations on the scholarship of engagement are organized according to the three charges of the SET Task Force on the evidence, institutional performance indicators, and language for tracking the scholarship of engagement. These recommendations require working on a number of fronts

simultaneously and, as such, warrant a unified effort to make a beneficial impact. See Appendix C. Scholarship of Engagement Institutional Outcomes, Performance Indicators, and Location for Assessment.

Recommendations

Charge 1Develop recommendations regarding evidence of the schol-arship of engagement that can be included in documenta-tion developed for faculty annual performance reviews and for decisions about faculty reappointments, promotions, and conferral of tenure. The SET Task Force supports the aspiration to “become an exemplary land-grant university.” Achievement of this important goal will require greatly increasing faculty, staff, and student commitment to serving the needs and quality-of-life aspirations of the people of North Carolina, the region, the nation, and the world. It will also require greatly increased engagement with all sorts of for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, as well as federal, state, and local governmen-tal organizations within and beyond our state. It will further require greatly increased cooperation and collaboration with other institutions—not only with other universities within the UNC system but also with other publicly-supported and private universities and community colleges that share com-mon interests in improving quality of life. The Task Force applauds the recent development of the

The scholarship of

engagement integrates

learning, discovery, and

engagement.

UNC Tomorrow Initiative, and the earlier recommenda-tions of the North Carolina Progress Board as sources of knowledge and insight about societal needs and quality-of-life aspirations of North Carolina’s people. Accordingly, the Scholarship of Engagement Task Force offers the following recommendations with regard to our first charge. The UNC Tomorrow Initiative reinforces a previous North Carolina program that tracked progress toward public issues areas. See Appendix E. Progress Board’s Quality of Life Indicators.

Recommendation 1.a. Develop Statements of Mutual Expectations in the six realms of faculty responsibility that are relevant to the UNC Tomorrow Initiative, N.C. State University’s response to this initiative, and N.C. State University’s priorities. All faculty—tenured, tenure track, special (non-tenure-track) — should join with leaders in their departments, colleges, and other administrative units in developing Statements of Mutual Expectations or plans of work that encompass their realms of faculty responsibilities (Appendix A. N.C. State University Value and Realms of Faculty Responsibility) and

T

19

that relate to the betterment of the people of North Carolina and beyond. In developing these statements, faculty should consider substantive areas identified by the UNC Tomorrow Initiative, N.C. State University’s response to this initiative, and the priorities of N.C. State University. The UNC Tomor-row emphasis areas are (1) global readiness; (2) citizens and their future: access to higher education; (3) children and their future: improving public education; (4) our communities and economic transformation; (5) public health; (6) environment; and (7) university outreach and engagement. See the UNC TomorrowWebsite:http://www.northcarolina.edu/nctomor-row/reports/commission/Final_Report.pdf).Theresponseof N.C. State University to this initiative can be found here: http://www.ncsu.edu/unctomorrow/ According to this response, the N.C. State University priorities are leadership, energy and the environment, public health and well-being, economic development, and educa-tional innovation. An additional area from the strategic plan of the Office of Research and Graduate Studies is safety and security:http://www.ncsu.edu/research/gateway/sra/index.php The content and process of developing Statements of Mu-tual Expectations (SMEs) by individual faculty members and their department or other unit leader is described in N.C. StateUniversityRegulation05.20.27(seehttp://www.ncsu.edu/Reg05.20.27).Thetaskforcecallsattentionespeciallytothe following features of this N.C. State University regula-tion as it pertains to the scholarship of engagement:

The Statement of Mutual Expectations (SME) is a written description of the appropriate mix of the individual fac-ulty member’s realms of responsibility and the mutually-agreed-upon expectations from both the faculty member and the department during the faculty member’s appoint-ment. Every faculty member is to maintain this document throughout their course of service to the university (REG 05.20.27). The SME is to be reviewed periodically and changes instituted as necessary, especially when significant changes occur in expectations associated with the faculty member’s appointment or in the professional life of the faculty mem-ber, including description of constituencies inside and out-side the university to be served and areas of competence to be covered. Together with the annual faculty activity report, the SME should provide the principal basis for both annual and comprehensive evaluation of the performance of the faculty member in the light of the university academic tenure policy and written reappointment, promotion and tenure (RPT) rules of the department(s) and college(s) in which the faculty member is appointed.

Recommendation 1.b.Connect the faculty’s Statements of Mutual Expectations to the departmental rules for reappointment, promotion, and tenure.

Given that faculty are reviewed according to their State-ment of Mutual Expectations and their department’s rules for reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT), faculty require clear connections between the two (REG 05.20.27). This means that both statements and RPT rules need to sup-port faculty in undertaking the scholarship of engagement. Departments may consider various strategies that exemplify specific expectations for the scholarship of engagement—such as helping faculty interpret the RPT rules and their ap-plication to each faculty member’s work or reviewing other departments’ RPT rules. To ensure that all evaluators are aware of the review criteria, the SET Task Force agrees with the recommendation in the 2009 report of the University Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee that fac-ulty members’ departmental RPT rules should be included in individual faculty dossiers.

Recommendation 1.c. Use the evaluation criteria for the scholarship of engage-ment as guides for evaluating the quality of scholarship in any discipline. The National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engage-ment (2002) developed and applies evaluation criteria for the scholarship of engagement. See the listing below. These are basedonGlassick,Huber,andMaeroff’s(1997)standardsforevaluating scholarship in all disciplines. They are appropri-ate for evaluating faculty, staff, and student accomplishments in any of the six realms of faculty responsibility recognized and encouraged at N.C. State University. Thus, these stan-dards provide a valuable intellectual framework for the kinds of evidence that faculty, staff, and students, should present for evaluation of their work. See Appendix D., Glas-sick’s Standards for Evaluation of Faculty Scholarship. The evaluation criteria developed by the National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement are as follows:

Goals/Questions• Doesthescholarstatethebasicpurposeoftheworkand

its value for public good? • Istherean“academicfit”withthescholar’sroleandthe

departmental and university mission?• Doesthescholardefineobjectivesthatarerealisticand

achievable? • Doesthescholaridentifyintellectualandsignificantques-

tions in the discipline and in the community?

Context of Theory, Literature, and Best Practices• Doesthescholarshowanunderstandingofrelevantexist-

ing scholarship?• Doesthescholarbringthenecessaryskillstothecol-

laboration?

Recommendations

20

• Doesthescholarmakesignificantcontributionstothework?

• Istheworkintellectuallycompelling?

Methods• Doesthescholarusemethodsappropriatetothegoals,

questions, and context of the work? • Doesthescholardescribearationaleforselectionof

methods in relation to context and issue?• Doesthescholarapplyeffectivelythemethodsselected?• Doesthescholarmodifyproceduresinresponseto

changing circumstances?

Results• Dothescholarandthecommunityachievethegoals?• Doesthescholar’sworkaddconsequentiallytothedisci-

pline and to the community? • Doesthescholar’sworkopenadditionalareasforfurther

exploration and collaboration? • Doesthescholar’sworkachieveimpactorchange?Are

those outcomes evaluated and by whom? • Doesthescholar’sworkmakeacontributionconsistent

with the purpose and target of the work over a period of time?

Communication and Dissemination• Doesthescholaruseasuitablestyleandeffectiveorgani-

zation to present the work? • Doesthescholarcommunicateanddisseminatetoappro-

priate academic and public audiences consistent with the institution’s mission?

• Doesthescholaruseappropriateforumsforcommunicat-ing work to the intended audience?

• Doesthescholarpresentinformationwithclarityandintegrity?

Reflective Critique• Doesthescholarcriticallyevaluatethework?• Whatarethesourcesofevidenceinformingthecritique?• Doesthescholarbringanappropriatebreadthofevidence

to the critique? • Inwhatwayhasthecommunityperspectiveinformedthe

critique and resulted in discovery? • Doesthescholaruseevaluationtolearnfromthework

and to direct future work? • Isthescholarinvolvedinlocal,state,andnationaldia-

logues related to the work?

Recommendation 1.d. Use the scholarship of engagement criteria in preparing documentation on faculty, staff, and student programs or activities and reviewing performance.The National Review Board standards should be used in preparing the documents and making evidence-based evalu-ations of the quality of scholarship by faculty, staff, and stu-dents at N.C. State University. See Policies, Regulations, and Rules, Section 6, Procedures for Appointment, Reappoint-ment,Promotion,andConferralofTenure:http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/employment/faculty/POL05.20.1.php The N.C. State RPT procedures advise that the following persons and groups at N.C. State University should apply these criteria in connection with their different roles and responsibilities when developing the documentation needed for annual performance appraisals and dossiers for RPT decisions:

1. Department heads and departmental voting faculty in reviewing and periodically updating the departmental guidelines for Annual Activity Reports and for decisions about reappointments, promotions, and conferral of tenure. The purpose here would be to be to ensure that the criteria for evaluating of the scholarship of engagement are clearly outlined in these guideline documents.

2. Individual faculty and department heads in developing Statements of Mutual Expectations and annual activ-ity reports (FAR) for individual faculty as well as during the preparation of dossiers for reappointment, promo-tion, and tenure decisions. See Appendix F., Template for completing the Extension and Engagement Section of the RPT, to review a template that could be adopted to docu-ment the scholarship of engagement.

3. Departmental voting faculty and department heads or other supervising administrators (or both) in (a) making periodic adjustments in departmental or other unit rules for RPT decisions and (b) in written evaluative assess-ments of faculty performance.

4. College RPT committees and deans in making their periodic adjustments in college and departmental guide-lines for decisions about reappointment, promotion and tenure, and written evaluative assessments and recom-mendations regarding faculty performance during for RPT evaluations.

5. Deans of colleges in preparing their written evaluative assessments and recommendations to the Office of the Provost.

6. Authors of external letters of evaluation for RPT candi-dates.


21

Recommendation 1.e.Create guidance for documenting extension and engage-ment program accomplishments in the RPT dossiers.The National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement works with faculty across the United States to assist them in (a) preparing dossiers, reports, portfolios, or performance materials; and (b) focusing on their integration of learning, discovery, and engagement around community issues: http://scholarshipofengagement.org/members/index.html. Provid-ing access to this national review assistance, or developing appropriate N.C. State guidance for faculty, staff, and students, is desirable. This could include coaching, faculty role models, and use of positive program models of success.

Recommendation 1.f.Promote faculty, staff, and students professional develop-ment in the scholarship of engagement.For faculty, staff, and students to develop, refine, or extend their capacity for the scholarship of engagement, they will need appropriate opportunities for professional develop-ment. Every beginning, mid-career, and senior member of the faculty at N.C. State University should be engaged in a continuing process of self-development, self-improvement, and self-fulfillment. This process should be conditioned not only by continuing growth in the intellectual life and leader-ship capabilities of each faculty, staff, and student member, but also by general and specific opportunities and chang-ing circumstances within the discipline, the department, the college, and the university. Furthermore, faculty, staff, and student development needs to respond to the changing conditions of the community, the region, the nation, and the world in which each member of the university community seeks to make a contribution. The Task Force also agrees with the recommendation in the 2009 report of the University Reappointment, Promo-tion, and Tenure Committee that individual faculty plans for professional development should be included in dossiers used for reappointment, promotion, and tenure decisions at N.C. State University (REG 05.20.16). Thus, all faculty members should be informed of the following three major sources of insight about opportunities for faculty professional development at N.C. State University:

1. The recently completed (January 2008) report of the Working Group on Faculty Development entitled Faculty Development at N.C. State: An Institutional Commitment. This report includes a series of 25 specific recommenda-tions organized according to the following five major areas of inquiry within the report:

• ThescopeoffacultydevelopmentatN.C.State.

• Meetingthegoalsoffacultydevelopment.

• Recognizingtheinstitutionalcontext.

• Meetingtheneedsofadiversefaculty.

• OrganizingfacultydevelopmentatN.C.State.

2. N.C. State’s longstanding policy of “Scholarly Reassign-ment For Faculty” (REG 05.20.24) has been used by many faculty over many years to gain additional competence. This occurs by spending a semester or even an entire aca-demic year in another institution of higher education or a federal, state, or local government agency, or a for-profit or not-for-profit private sector organization—often pro-vided with full pay from N.C. State for a single semester or half-pay for an entire academic year.

3. N.C. State’s long-standing tradition of “Plans for Profes-sional Development” (REG 05.20.16), which is described as follows in the Policies, Regulations, and Rules of N.C. State University:

Each faculty member should develop, in consulta-tion with the department head, a Plan for Professional Development (PPD) that includes the professional goals and aspirations of the individual faculty member and the relationship of these goals to plans for continuing development of the department and college of ap-pointment and, where appropriate, to the goals of the university as a whole. For new faculty, this plan should be developed during the first year of the appointment. After implementation, progress in meeting professional goals should be included in faculty annual activity reports and considered during evaluations of faculty performance. The plan should be reviewed, updated, and changed periodically in light of new developments in the life of the faculty member, the profession, and the department and college in which the faculty member serves(Battaille&Brown,2006). The Plan for Professional Development for each in-dividual faculty member should include a brief descrip-tion of the following (REG 05.20.16):

1.1. Goals—an outline of the self-improvement and leadership-development goals the faculty member seeks to attain

1.2. Relevancy—the relevancy of these self-improvement and leadership-development goals to the mission and plans for enhancement of the performance of the department(s), college(s), or other unit(s) in which the faculty member serves

1.3. Mechanisms—the mechanisms of self-improvement and leadership-development the faculty member expects to pursue

Recommendations

22

1.4. Timetable—approximate dates by which progress toward the self-improvement and leadership- development goals can be expected

1.5. Resources—description of the financial, space, equipment, office, clerical, technical, or other resources (such as mentors, teaching evaluation teams) to facilitate each of the agreed-upon realms of faculty responsibility identified in the Statement of Mutual Expectations and to accomplish the career development goals of the faculty member, and describe plans for seeking the required resources (REG 05.20.27)

1.6. Changes—description of significant changes in the disciplinary focus, degree of specialization or

diversification, and the mechanisms of coop-eration and collaboration with others within the department(s) and college(s) in which the faculty member is appointed and expects to interact in the future—both within N.C. State University and elsewhere in this country and abroad.

Faculty may wish to include the written summaries resulting from recent annual performance appraisals, the current Statement Of Mutual Expectations, and the current plan for professional development in the dossier developed at the time of reappointment, promotion, and tenure decisions (REG 05.20.27). In preparing and using these documents, the SET Task Force emphasizes the importance of three special principles:

1. The need for adequate flexibility and intellectual freedom for the faculty member to pursue promising leads and special opportunities for creative scholarship in all of his or her realms of responsibility and expected performance (Appendix A. N.C. State University Values and Realms of Faculty Responsibility).

2. The need for both tactical and strategic thinking plus both regular and spontaneous communications with colleagues, mentors, department heads, deans, and senior academic administrators about the goals and aspirations of the faculty member, the department, the college, and the university. These rituals of regular and spontaneous consultation and discourse should permeate the life of every faculty member and his or her students, staff, and administrative colleagues within the University, as well as his or her professional contacts outside the institution.

3. The desirability of a close and well-recognized linkage between each individual faculty member’s short-term and long-term career aspirations as defined in the Statement of Mutual Expectations and plan for professional develop-ment, on the one hand, and the “compact” developed by

that faculty member’s department(s) and college(s) and negotiated with the administrative leaders of the univer-sity, on the other hand (REG 05.20.27).

In essence, we believe the compact between each depart-ment, college, and the university should reflect the collec-tively negotiated, mutually-agreed-upon expectations and career aspirations of individual faculty members within each department, college, and other functional units at N.C. State University. Thus the institution’s goals, destiny, and societal impact should be determined by creatively melding faculty goals and aspirations with those of their constituent depart-ments and colleges, and the senior leadership of the univer-sity. This will require a continuous process of both collegial “bottom-up” and “top-down” thinking, communication, and negotiation among faculty, department, college, and university leaders.

Recommendation 1.g. Support faculty, staff, and student mentoring programs in the scholarship of engagement.To prepare for and implement the scholarship of engage-ment, a comprehensive faculty, staff, and student mentoring system on our campus needs to encompass community-engaged education and research. Mentoring is required on how to identify and work with government, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations in advancing opportunities for stu-dents and faculty. A very significant advantage of mentoring programs is their relatively low cost of implementation compared to the very high personal, financial, and organizational-disruption costs of recruiting new faculty after an already appointed fac-ulty member has tried and failed to qualify for a tenure-track appointment, or to be reappointed under the terms of a time-limited contract appointment or special faculty appointment at N.C. State. A comprehensive faculty mentoring system on our campus needs to encompass community-engaged educa-tion and research to support the scholarship of engagement.

Charge 2Develop recommendations regarding institutional perfor-mance indicators that can be used to record and evaluate accomplishments in the scholarship of engagement across the various colleges, departments, and other units within N.C. State University.

Recommendation 2.a. Adopt performance outcomes for measuring and reporting institutional performance on engagement and the scholar-ship of engagement. The Task Force recommends that N.C. State adopt six out-comes to assess institutional performance on engagement


23

and the scholarship of engagement. These outcomes should be used when reporting on university accomplishments and stakeholder impacts:

Outcome 1. Evidence of institutional commitment to en-gagement

Outcome 2. Evidence of institutional resource commitments to engagement

Outcome 3. Evidence that students, learners, faculty, and educators are involved in engagement and outreach

Outcome 4. Evidence that institutions are engaged with their communities and partners

Outcome 5. Evidence of evaluating engagement program outcomes

Outcome 6. Evidence of the scholarship of engagement

See Appendix C. Scholarship of Engagement Institu-tional Outcomes, Performance Indicators, and Location for Assessment.

Recommendation 2.b. Evaluate the progress of the university, colleges, depart-ments, and other units in achieving the performance out-comes on engagement and the scholarship of engagement. In assessing progress on the performance outcomes, the following checklist of questions is suggested for use. These questions can serve as guides in evaluating the performance of public universities and their various colleges, depart-ments, and other specialized units in meeting their obliga-tions to the society that provides an important part of their financial and moral support. These questions are based on several sources: the “Seven-Part Test of Engagement” in the KelloggCommission’s(1999)Returning to our Roots, the Carnegie Commission for the Advancement of Teaching’s Documentation Framework for Elective Classification as an Engaged University (2006), and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities’ (2001) Stepping Forward as Stewards of Place. Each question below is linked to the associated performance outcomes. See Appendix C. Scholar-ship of Engagement Institutional Outcomes, Performance Indicators, and Location for Assessment.

1. Is “societal engagement” integrated into the mission state-ment of N.C .State University and each of its units? (This question links to expected outcome 1.)

2. Do university leaders at all levels articulate the impor-tance of the institution’s societal engagement functions? Do leaders offer frequent and visible praise for notable achievements in service to society? (This question links to expected outcome 1.)

3. Do the criteria for recruiting and hiring senior leaders at N.C. State University and its units include experience with and commitment to societal engagement activities? (This question links to expected outcomes 1 and 6.)

4. Do N.C. State University and its units have appropriate external advisory committees and panels to provide valu-able consultative and evaluative input for societal engage-ment? (This question links to expected outcomes 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.)

5. HaveN.C.StateUniversityanditsunitsidentifiedthoseexternal constituencies with whom the university aspires to develop or sustain already-existing mutually beneficial working relationships? (This question links to expected outcomes 3, 4, and 6.)

6. Is information about the special features of our state and region (such as demographics, economics, technological and industrial-development trends, cultural and recre-ational life-style considerations) included in the develop-ment of strategic plans for N.C. State University and its units? (This question links to expected outcomes 1 and 4.)

7. Do the reward systems of N.C. State University (includ-ing its hiring, reappointment, promotion, and tenure decision-making processes and traditions) identify “en-gagement with constituencies outside the university” as a realm of faculty responsibility equivalent in importance to research and teaching and in a way that encourages integration of extension and engagement activities with teaching and research responsibilities? (This question links to expected outcomes 1, 3, and 5.)

8. Do N.C. State University and each of its units have a process in place to critically examine their infrastructures and policies to ensure efficient, timely, and harmonious working relationships with external constituencies? (This question links to expected outcomes 4, 5, and 6.)

9. Do N.C. State University and its units have well-defined budgets for their societal engagement functions and re-sponsibilities? (This question links to expected outcomes 1 and 2.)

10. Do budgetary and financial allocation practices and tra-ditions at N.C. State University and its units include both revenue streams and cost-reimbursement systems that encourage significant cross-disciplinary achievements in extension, engagement, service learning, and other forms of outreach and community development services? (This question links to expected outcomes 1 and 2.)

11. Are the societal engagement activities of N.C. State Uni-versity and its colleges and departments well integrated with both tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty

Recommendations

24

involved in classroom instruction and aligned basic and applied research programs? Or are these activities conducted primarily in specialized units or mainly by non-tenure-track faculty? (This question links to expected outcomes 3, 4, and 5.)

12. Are the societal engagement activities at N.C. State University well integrated into the fabric, culture, and key processes of the university—including personnel hiring practices; reappointment, promotion and tenure decisions; resource acquisition and allocation processes; salary and reward systems; student graduation require-ments; and curriculum review and approval processes? (This question links to expected outcomes 1, 2, and 3.)

13. Do evaluations of senior leaders at N.C. State University and its units include perspectives of external organiza-tions and agencies with which our university and its various academic units have developed durable and significant working partnerships? (This question links to expected outcomes 1, 3, and 4.)

14. Are the societal engagement functions of N.C. State Uni-versity well integrated with those of other public institu-tions in the UNC system, other private universities, and with the community colleges of the state and region? (This question links to expected outcomes 3 and 4.)

15. What are the significant impacts of N.C. State Univer-sity and its units on the quality of life in the community in which our university has its roots and from which it draws its students? (This question links to expected outcomes 5 and 6.)

Although the SET Task Force has made some progress in discussions about the responses to evaluation of the ques-tions and outcomes expected, the discussions have centered primarily on perceptions about performance at the univer-sity institutional level. The task force did not focus on the performance of individual colleges and departments in large part because our collective experience was not adequate for an even-handed evaluation. We recommend that this check-list of questions be used as a guide for developing college and departmental-based evaluations.

Charge 3Review and develop recommendations regarding the lan-guage currently being used to track engagement and the language that should be used in the future to track engage-ment within N.C. State University’s institutional research offices and budget offices.

Recommendation 3.a.Recognize the importance of both economic and noneco-nomic societal engagement impacts of university outreach,

extension, and engagement programs and activities. To assess N.C. State University’s outreach, extension, and engagement programs, evaluations should measure both economic and social impacts. These impacts are interrelated and beneficial to the people of North Carolina. For example, development of human capital (such as an educated and healthy work force) increases economic productivity. A useful enumeration of these impacts was developed by N.C. State University’s BEDI Task Force. The BEDI Task Force is responsible for formulating ways to measure the economic, environmental, and social impacts of exten-sion, engagement, and economic development by N.C. State University. The impacts identified by the BEDI Task Force are as follows:

Monetized Economic Impacts—New products and services, more jobs, greater efficiency in production, increased prosperity, and more equitably shared distribution of income and wealth among the people of our state and region

Improved Infrastructure, Facilities, and Built Envi-ronment—Examples include improved road, rail, and aircraft-based transportation systems, improved airport and seaport facilities, improved telephone and internet communication capabilities, improved factory and resi-dential building designs

Enhanced Natural Resources—Improved air and water quality, increased production of crop and forestland and both inland and coastal fisheries, protection of estuaries from natural and man-made environmental risks

Human and Social Empowerment—Community growth; improved public health; improved public policy; im-proved quality of leadership in business, government, and public service organizations

Quality of Life—Cultural enrichment, increased recreational opportunities, improved community self-image, greater harmony among diverse peoples, improved opportunities for education and other means of self-fulfillment

The BEDI Task Force further proposed that logic models be utilized to measure social, environmental, and economic impacts. A logic model serves to clarify the underlying rationale of how a program is intended to achieveitsintendedoutcomes(Renger&Titcomb,2002).The diagram of a logic model is a visual representation of the interconnections among the elements of a program and identifies the areas for measurement. There are differ-ent approaches to developing logic models, and the model should be shaped to the goals of a particular program. A commonly used resource on logic models was developed by theW.K.KelloggFoundation(2005).BasedontheKellogg


25

Foundation’s approach, the BEDI Task Force specified the following components of a logic model:

Inputs and Resources include the human, financial, orga-nizational, and community resources the institution has available to direct toward doing the work.

Activities are the research, educational, and engagement processes, tools, events, technology, and actions that are an intentional part of a program’s implementation.

Outputs are the direct products of program activities and include many different types, levels, and targets of ser-vices delivered by the program—such as students with knowledge, skills, and bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees; publications; and policy analyses and recom-mendations.

Outcomes are the specific changes in a program partici-pant’s behavior, knowledge, skills, status, and level of functioning. Short-term outcomes usually are attainable within one to three years, while long-term outcomes often are attainable within four to six years. The logical progression from short-term to long-term outcomes often is reflected in societal impacts within about seven to ten years.

Impacts are the fundamental intended or unintended changes that occur in organizations, communities, or economic and social systems as a result of research, edu-cation, and societal engagement activities within seven to ten years or even longer time frames.

Recommendation 3.b. Specify general categories of societal engagement programs and activities to track and evaluate extension, engagement, and economic development. To track and evaluate extension, engagement, and economic development, the university requires a commonly shared system for categorizing and tracking its work. A commonly-shared system should be employed by N.C .State University’s institutional research offices and budget offices and each of its colleges, departments, and other academic and research units. Such a system has been developed by the BEDI Task Force; and its eight general categories can be used to inventory, ana-lyze, and assess the university’s societal engagement programs and activities. These categories are as follows:• Curricularengagementinclassesandprograms

• Co-curricularserviceactivities

• Knowledgecreationanddiffusion

• Technologytransferandcommercialization

• Publiceventsandunderstanding

• Technicalandexpertassistanceandtraining

• Clinicalanddiagnosticservicesandtestingservices

• Universityandindustrycooperativeprograms

(See “Reports” at this site: http://www.ncsu.edu/exten-sion/publications) To track accomplishments in these categories, the university should develop a system of gathering data from faculty annual activity reports as related to the six realms of faculty responsibilities.

Recommendation 3.c.Publicize achievements in extension, engagement, and eco-nomic development. To increase the visibility of the scholarship of engagement, the Office of Public Affairs and University Development Office of N.C. State should be encouraged to give increased emphasis to highlighting the extension, engagement, and economic development achievements of N.C. State faculty and staff. Attention should especially be given to accom-plishments in each of the seven emphasis areas identified by the UNC Tomorrow Initiative and in the priorities of N.C. State University, and to the integration of learning, discov-ery, and engagement scholarship.

Recommendation 3.d.Orient new faculty in all colleges to the university’s mission of extension, engagement, and economic development. New faculty should receive a more effective orientation so that they will know in advance that (a) significant achieve-ments in the scholarship of engagement will be rewarded by both salary increments and during consideration for reap-pointment, promotion, and tenure decisions; and (b) these rewards will be even more likely if the professional aspira-tions of the faculty member as outlined in his or her individ-ual faculty Statement Of Mutual Expectations are developed in accord with the significant emphasis areas outlined in the UNC Tomorrow Initiative and the priorities of N.C. State University (REG 05.20.27).

Recommendation 3.e.Support existing campus units in coordinating faculty, staff, and student opportunities for extension, engagement, and economic development.Increased communication should occur among senior administration of the university, colleges, and departments regarding appropriate recognition of faculty, staff, and student achievements in the scholarship of engagement in all academic and research units within N.C. State University.

Recommendations

26

Recommendation 3.f.Recognize faculty, staff, and student achievements and certify courses in the scholarship of engagement (courses in-tegrating service learning, internships, externships, interna-tional experiences, and community-based civic engagement into the curriculum).Increased communication should occur among senior administration of the university, colleges, and departments with regard to appropriate recognition of faculty, staff, and student achievements in curricula that integrates the schol-arship of engagement in academic and research units within N.C. State University. The university should consider insti-tuting a system of certifying courses as meeting the criteria for excellence in the scholarship of engagement. This would assist students in selecting courses and could be recognized on their university transcripts.

Recommendation 3.g. Increase transparency regarding budget allocations and ac-counting procedures to support achievement of the universi-ty’s three missions of learning/teaching, discovery/research, and engagement/extension.To gain an improved understanding about budget alloca-tion and accounting procedures with regard to extension

and engagement activities within N.C. State University, we askedAssociateViceChancellorSteveKeto,theuniversity’sprincipal budget officer, to provide a tabular account of expenditures for the three primary functions of our univer-sity—teaching, research, and extension and engagement—during the past several decades. In response to our request, ViceChancellorKetoprovidedthetableshowninAppendixG. Expenditures of N.C. State University’s Three Primary Missions—1960 to 2008. After considerable discussion by members of the SET Task Force, we sought further clarification about the termi-nology used to describe expenditures in each of these three general categories during the years since 1960 from both ViceChancellorKetoandAssociateViceChancellorMat-thew Ronning in Research Administration at N.C. State. The footnotes in Table G provide further information about the terminology used but little understanding about the factors that led to changes in budget allocations during the 48 years between 1960 and 2008. Thus, our SET Task Force recom-mends that N.C. State should commit itself to greater trans-parency about its budget allocations, accounting procedures, and both internal priorities and external factors that influ-ence funding—not only for extension and engagement activi-ties but also for expenditures for teaching and research from both legislative and external sources of support.

ReferencesAmerican 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, DC: Author. Retrieved from American Asso-ciation of State Colleges and Universities, July 8, 2009. Web site:http://www.aascu.org/pdf/stewardsofplace_02.pdf

Barker, D. (2004). The scholarship of engagement: The taxono-my of five emerging practices. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 9: 123-137.

Battaille,G.M.&Brown,B.E.(2006).Faculty career paths: Multiple routes to academic success and satisfaction. West-port, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: The priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

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

Braxton,J.M.,Luckey,W.,&Helland,P.(2002).Institution-alizing a broader view of scholarship through Boyer’s four domains. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Byrne, J. V. (2006, January). Public higher education reform five years after the Kellogg Commission on the future of state and land-grant universities. Washington, DC: Association of Land-Grant and Public Universities (APLU). Retrieved from APLU,March23,2010.Website:http://www.aplu.org/Net-Community/Document.Doc?id=180

Bush, V. (1945). Science—The endless frontier: A report to the President on a program for postwar scientific research. Wash-ington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Campus Compact. (1999-2006). Engaged scholarship and review, promotion, and tenure (RPT). Boston, MA: Campus Compact. Retrieved from Campus Compact National Of-fice, February 16, 2009. Web site: http://www.compact.org/initiatives/civic-engagement-at-research-universities/trucen-section-b/

Clearinghouse&NationalReviewBoardfortheScholarshipofEngagement. (2002, March). Evaluation criteria for the schol-arship of engagement. Athens, GA: Author. Retrieved from theClearinghouse,March23,2010.Website:http://www.scholarshipofengagement.org/evaluation/evaluation_crite-ria.html


27

Continuing Education, Cooperative Extension and Public Service (CECEPS) Committee on Benchmarking Engage-ment. (2005, November). Benchmarking of outreach/engage-ment survey.Athens,GA:Clearinghouse&NationalReviewBoard for the Scholarship of Engagement. Retrieved from theClearinghouse,February16,2009.Website:http://schoe.coe.uga.edu/benchmarking/Benchmarkingsurveyfinal4.pdf

Dillman,D.A.,Christenson,J.A.,Salant,P.&Warner,P.D.(1995, November). What the public wants from higher educa-tion: Work force implications from a 1995 national survey. San Francisco, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse. Retrieved from the ERIC Clearinghouse,February4,2009.Website:http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED388193&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED388193

Fish, S. (2003, May 16). Aim low. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(36): C5.

Glassick,C.E.,Huber,M.T.,&Maeroff,G.I.(1997).Scholar-ship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kecskes,K.(Ed.).(2006).Engaging departments: Moving faculty culture from private to public, individual to collective focus for the common good. Bolton, MA: Anker.

KelloggCommission.(1999,February).Returning to our roots: The engaged institution. Washington, DC: National Associa-tion of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Re-trieved from the Civic Practices Network, Brandeis Univer-sity.Website:http://www.cpn.org/topics/youth/highered/pdfs/Land_Grant_Engaged_Institution.pdf

Helmlinger-Ratcliff,T.&theBEDITaskForce.(2008).Impact! Benchmarking economic development impacts task force final report. Raleigh: N.C. State University. Retrieved from N.C. State,March23,2010.Website:http://www.ncsu.edu/exten-sion/events/documents/IES_Benchmark_FINAL.pdf

Helmlinger-Ratcliff,T.&theBEDITaskForce.(2010).Impact! What counts is what’s counted final report: Benchmarking Economic Development Task Force II. Raleigh: N.C. State University. Retrieved form N.C. State, March 23, 2010. Web site:http://www.ncsu.edu/extension/events/documents/Impact_2_fulldraft_1.pdf

Office of Extension, Engagement, and Economic Development, N.C. State University. (2006). Mission of North Carolina State University Extension, Engagement, and Economic Develop-ment (Electronic datafile). Raleigh: N.C. State University. Website:http://www.ncsu.edu/extension/mission

National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement. (2002, March). Evaluation criteria for the scholarship of engagement. Retrieved from the Scholarship of Engagement Clearinghouse.Website:http://www.scholarshipofengage-ment.org/evaluation/evaluation_criteria.html

North Carolina State University. (2008, May.) UNC Tomor-row: N.C. State Response. Raleigh: N.C. State University. RetrievedfromN.C.State,March23,2010.Website:http://www.ncsu.edu/unctomorrow/

Oblinger, J. L. (2008, May 1). UNC Tomorrow: N.C. State Re-sponse. Raleigh: N.C. State University. Retrieved form N.C. State,March23,2010.Website:http://www.ncsu.edu/uncto-morrow/docs/UNCTResponse.pdf

Renger,R.,&Titcomb,A.(2002).Athree-stepapproachtoteaching logic models. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 493-503.

Saltmarsh,J.,&Gelmon,S.(2006).Characteristicsofanen-gageddepartment:Designandassessment.InK.Kecskes(Ed.), Engaging departments: Moving faculty culture from private to public, individual to collective focus for the com-mon good (pp. 27-44). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Sandmann,L.,Thornton,C.,&Jaeger,A.(2009,Fall).Institu-tionalizing community engagement in higher education: The first wave of Carnegie classified institutions. New Directions forHigherEducation,No.147.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Sandmann, L. (2010). Faculty development report (in review). Raleigh: N.C. State University.

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and tech-nological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institu-tion Press.

University of North Carolina. (2007, Feb.) UNC Tomorrow Commission Final Report.ChapelHill,NC:UniversityofNorth Carolina. Retrieved from University of North Caro-linaWebsite,March23,2010:http://www.northcarolina.edu/nctomorrow/UNCT_Final_Report.pdf

W.K.KelloggFoundation.(2005).Evaluation handbook/Logic model development guide CD. Battle Creek, MI.

Zuiches,J.J.,&theN.C.StateCarnegieCommunityEngage-mentTaskForce.(2008,Jan./Feb.).AttainingCarnegie’scommunity-engagement classification. Change, 40(1), 42-45. Retrieved from the Carnegie Foundation Web site, April 6, 2010: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/sites/default/files/elibrary/zuiches.pdf

References

28

Appendix A.

N.C. State University Values and Realms of Faculty Responsibility

Values north Carolina state University Holds Dear and six Associated Realms of Faculty Responsibility (Proposed originally in 2000, Revised in 2003, and formally adopted by N.C. State in 2006)

Above all, N.C. State University values excellence and distinc-tion in creative scholarship that facilitates the increase and diffusion of knowledge, wisdom, and the moral dimensions of intelligence. Creative scholarship in all of the following six realms of faculty responsibility is valued and rewarded by N.C. State University. Scholarly contributions in an appropriate mix of one or more of these six realms must be–both in fact and in faculty perceptions–the principal criteria for decisions about faculty reappointment, promotion, and tenure.

1. Teaching and Mentoring of Undergraduate and Graduate Students. Transmission of knowledge to students and the development of wisdom are the raison d’êtreofuniversities.Knowledge,insights, and understanding are transmitted through disciplin-ary, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary learning. In all cases, the goal is to develop individuals who will live meaning-ful lives by playing very effective and socially constructive roles in various human institutions.

2. Discovery of Knowledge through Discipline-Guided Inquiry. Such inquiry involves inductive and deductive reasoning; quali-tative and quantitative methodologies; hypotheses and proposi-tions; measurements; accumulation of evidence; and communi-cation/publicationoffindings,concepts,andconclusions.Basicresearch is inquiry aimed at understanding the world around us. Applied research is inquiry aimed at enhancing the arts of teaching and learning, management of nature and human in-stitutions, and developing practices and technologies useful to society. Progress is achieved by scientists, engineers, humanists, and educators working alone and in multidisciplinary teams.

3. Creative Artistry and Literature. Creative artistry involves the creation, interpretation, and evaluation of cultural artifacts that generate new insights and interpretations with the potential to inspire and advance the quality of life in society. Creative artistry can be expressed through literary, performing, fine, and applied arts.

4. Technological and Managerial Innovation. Technological innovation provides the means by which knowl-edge and imagination in the sciences, humanities, and creative arts can be harnessed to drive the economic and social systems of

Appendices

the state, nation, and world. The goal is to provide new products, processes, and services needed by society at reasonable cost.

5. Extension and Engagement with Constituencies Out-side the University. Engagement with people and organizational constituencies outside the university are the principal means by which N.C. State University and other land-grant universities fulfill their unique mission. Accomplishments in extension and engage-ment represent an ongoing two-way interchange of knowledge, information, understanding, and services between the univer-sity and the larger society.

6. Service in Professional Societies and Service and En-gagement within the University Itself. Complex research-extensive universities and discipline-focused scientific and professional societies simply do not work ef-fectively, efficiently, or for long, without the dedicated and continuing investment of university faculty time and creative energy in the programs and governance of these organizations. Thus, service to and within all parts of the university and its affiliated organizations, including professional scientific and literary associations is valued, appreciated, and rewarded by N.C. State University.

Appendix B.

Exemplars of the Scholarship of Engagement

Appendix B.1. Proposal for n.C. state University Center for Forensic sciencePrepared by Associate Professor Ann Ross, Ph.D., Sociology and Anthropology, College of Humanities and Social Sciences

The Need Law enforcement and judicial agencies across North Carolina require substantial assistance in research, engagement, edu-cation, and training in forensic science. Forensic science is a multidisciplinary science that includes forensic anthropology, archaeology, botany, chemistry, and entomology, and assists in medicolegal death and other criminal investigations. Forensic anthropologists are often called upon by law enforcement agen-cies to aid in the recovery of human skeletal or decomposed re-mains. Forensic anthropologists are called to consult on a range of cases, some involving the remains of a single case or mass fatalities due to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, or man-made incidents, such as airplane crashes or acts of genocide. Law enforcement agencies are also increasingly calling upon entomologists and botanists to provide insight concerning time-since-death and the postmortem interval. Also, practi-cally all crimes involve identification, collection and analysis of


29

trace evidence, which requires expertise of forensic chemists, fiber scientists, and biochemists, among others. N.C. State faculty with expertise in all of the above areas will form the basis of a new Center for Forensic Science. Therefore, the new center will facilitate multidisciplinary and inter-college collaborations among researchers and educators and state agencies to address many forensic concerns that directly benefit citizens of North Carolina and the nation.

Serving the Need The Center has its roots in the N.C. Program for Forensic Sci-ence, established in 2005. The mission of the Center is fourfold: extension, education, technical service, and research. Its techni-cal contributions encompass many discipline-based areas of ex-pertise across several N.C. State University colleges, including forensic anthropological examinations of the human skeleton of unidentified human remains; preservation, documentation, and analysis of entomological, soils, botanical, and geologi-cal crime scene evidence; forensic archaeological search and recovery; remote sensing of crime scenes; and chemical analysis of textiles. The success of the Forensic Science Program in these activities has promoted additional interest from federal, state, and local law enforcement as well as N.C. State faculty and students, and other academic institutions. Given the program’s success, the next logical stride is to develop and expand into a Center for Forensic Sciences. Impacts of the Center for Forensic Science include the following:• Conductingdeathinvestigationtrainingworkshopsforlaw

enforcement agencies;• Assistinglawenforcementagencieswithmedicolegaldeath

investigations;• Conductingspecializedresearchtoimproveanddevelop

forensic standards;• Establishinganaccreditedforensicscienceundergraduate

major, specific minors and a graduate certificate; and• Establishingadonor-mediatedhumandecayfacilityatone

of the N.C. Agricultural Research Stations located in the piedmont with a satellite facility located in the coastal plain.

Impact beyond North Carolina The N.C. Agricultural Research Stations provide a unique opportunity for the state of North Carolina and N.C. State University to become leaders in forensic sciences for the Mid-Atlantic with broader application from the Gulf States, and the South and the Northern Atlantic. In addition, the Center will host a Forensic Science Educational Conference for middle and high school teachers to help foster a stronger interest in science among our youth, statewide and nationally.

Appendix B.2. Program Report on Field Crops and ForestryProvided by District Extension Directors Donald Cobb, Ph.D., and Deborah Crandall Ph.D., Cooperative Extension Service, and Professor Lisa Guion, Ph.D., Agricultural and Extension Education, College of Agriculture and Life SciencesThe following is a condensed and slightly revised excerpt from a Cooperative Extension agent title promotion application. The educational program highlighted involves field crops and forestry. Permission to use this example has been received from the author.

Overview Franklin County has a large agricultural economy based on several different commodities, including soybeans, wheat, corn, and forestry. With 574 farms in Franklin County and cash farm receipts of more than $55.4 million in 2006, these commodities comprise a large and integral part of the county’s agricultural sector. Soybeans account for the largest portion of field crop acreage in the county, with 18,700 acres planted and a total production of 429,000 bushels. Wheat follows, with 4,500 acres planted and a total production of 225,000 bushels. Corn rounds out the top three, with 1,550 acres planted and a total produc-tion of 198,000 bushels. In addition, forestry and the sale of forest products, primarily pulpwood and saw timber, account for an additional $13.3 million of income to the county.

Educational Needs To identify the needs relative to field crops and forestry, visits were made with various stakeholder groups to discuss the needs of producers. An advisory committee was formed to guide the direction of programming efforts relative to these commodi-ties. The committee met two to three times during the year and also served as an advocacy group for Cooperative Extension in addition to promoting agriculture within the county. After identifying educational needs related to field crops and forestry, the advisory committee developed several goals to be addressed by Cooperative Extension. The goals provide educational opportunities that would help Franklin County farmers increase profitability and sustainability, information to help manage the skyrocketing cost of production with rising fuel and fertilizer prices, information on the latest varieties to assist with maximizing return on investment, information that would assist growers in improving current pest-management strategies, information to the general public that would raise awareness of agricultural issues facing the county, information to assist forest landowners to learn about forestry best manage-ment practices to better protect water quality, and information that would educate forest landowners on resource management and available cost-share programs to improve profitability.

Appendices

30

Goals and Objectives After identifying goals to address educational needs, an overall program objective was selected from statewide Cooperative Extension objectives to guide programming efforts: “Field crop growers will implement recommended and potential produc-tion practices and systems, investigate innovative agricultural opportunities, develop business and human resource plans, and explore marketing options to ensure continued farm productiv-ity and profits and quality of life.” Havingselectedanoverallprogrammingobjectivealongwith goals to address educational needs, educational methods or activities were selected to address the goals. Two “Saving the Family Farm” conferences were held to assist participants in learning strategies that would help them ensure the sustain-ability of their family farm. Soybean, corn, and small grain production meetings were held to provide strategies to improve current farm operation practices and increase profitability. News articles and weekly radio programs were used to dissemi-nate information on topics important to producers. Numerous one-on-one visits were made with producers to analyze soil sample reports; help educate producers on proper soil sampling techniques; and develop individual strategies that would lead to reduced input costs, better crop fertility, and improved soil conditions. To address the goal of educating producers on new and im-proved varieties, two soybean variety demonstration plots were planted to compare varieties and planting populations. A field day was held prior to harvest to give producers an opportunity to view varieties. Following harvest, variety and population yield data were sent to each producer with an explanation of the demonstration results. The goals for the forestry sector of the program were ad-dressed with one-on-one interventions with forest landown-ers. A tour of forestry plots was conducted to view pesticide applications, precommercial thinning, and controlled burning practices, and to highlight opportunities and strategies for water quality management, cost-share programs, and forestry best-management practices. With regard to improving pest-management strategies, farm visits, one-on-one consultations, and pesticide training meetings were used to provide producers with information to help them improve strategies related to pesticide application, pesticide safety, calibrating spray equipment to apply pesticides more effectively while reducing costs, and decreasing pest pres-sure through crop rotation. To provide information to assist the public in learning more about agricultural issues facing the county, presentations were made at the annual Report to the People that included county commissioners, advisory leadership system members, news media representatives, and the general public. Updates on the current agricultural trends and challenges faced by the agricul-tural community were provided to the news media throughout the year.

Program Evaluation Program evaluation is a key component in determining if goals and objectives are reached. Several impact indicators were used to ascertain the effectiveness of the overall program. From the field crops standpoint, increased income resulting from producers planting new and improved crop varieties, fertility management, and pest management strategies was obtained. Data were gathered using personal, one-on-one observations of producers as well as data obtained at educational meetings. For forestry, increases in income resulting from landowners enroll-ing in forest-management cost-share programs was determined by obtaining data from the Natural Resource Conservation Ser-vice. Data from landowners who reforested or placed forestland under recommended forest resource management programs and who adopted forestry best management practices were col-lected from the North Carolina Forest Service.

Program Implementation Through the effective implementation of improved field selec-tion, fertility management, variety selection, and pest man-agement strategies, outcomes and impacts of the educational program revealed that field crop producers have been able to increase income while producing quality commodities. Using formulas provided in the Cooperative Extension reporting system, it was determined that the value of the program to the target audience was in excess of $1.5 million and the societal benefit of the program was approximately $2.03 million. These dollar values represent the outcomes of field crop and forestry producers implementing improved production strategies that enabled them to remain competitive in the global market while providing a safe and readily available food supply. Additional outcomes and impacts include the following:• Producersimplementedpracticesrelatedtobetterfield

selection through soil sampling and better crop rotation schedules. A total of 63 producers and 1,267 acres were in-volved, with an average of 20 acres per producer. There was an increased net income of $243,621 for an average of $3,867 per producer.

• Producersusednewandimprovedvarietiesbettersuitedfor the county’s growing conditions. A total of 147 produc-ers and 15,068 acres were involved, with an average of 102 acres per producer. There was an increased net income of $484,806 for an average of $3,298 per producer.

• Producersincorporatedimprovedpestmanagementstrate-gies to reduce weed, insect, and disease pressure. A total of 86 producers and 2,257 acres were involved, with an average of 26 acres per producer. There was an increased net income of $83,850 for an average of $975 per producer.

• Producersadoptedimprovedplantnutritionmanagementpractices. A total of 19 producers and 534 acres were in-volved, with an average of 28 acres per producer. There was an increased net income of $73,000 for an average of $3,842 per producer.


31

• Thenumberoffarmsusingsoilsamplingasameansoffertility management increased from 269 in 2007 to 294 in 2008, and the number of samples submitted increased by 291. It is estimated that soil sampling increases net profit by an average of $30.26 per acre for field crop producers.

• Forty-sevenNorthCarolinaagriculturecost-shareprogramcontracts were written. This resulted in an increased net income of $231,979 for an average of $4,957 per contract.

• ElevenEnvironmentalQualityIncentivesProgramcontractswere written. The results were an increased net income of $379,184 for an average of $34,563 per contract.

• OneWildlifeHabitatIncentivesProgramcontractwaswrit-ten, resulting in an increased net income of $14,700.

Collaborations with Community Partnerships Collaborations with various agencies and organizations re-sulted in the successful implementation of educational methods into the overall programming efforts of the field crops and forestry program. The North Carolina Forest Service, County Soil and Water Service, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, sheriff’s office, health department, and others provided assistance in programming efforts. Private industries, such as Novozymes North America, South States, Inc., and local radio and newspaper businesses, provided financial and resource assistance. Other Cooperative Extension agents along with Cooperative Extension specialists at N.C. State University also provided assistance. Local field crops producers and forestry landowners were instrumental in providing field plots for dem-onstrations and tour sites.

Appendix B.3. the nonwovens InstituteCollege of Textiles and College of EngineeringPrepared by Professor Behnam Pourdeyhimi, Ph.D., execu-tive director of The Nonwovens Institute, associate dean for Industry Research & Extension, professor for College of Textiles and College of Engineering, and William A. Klopman Distinguished Professor

Overview The Nonwovens Institute (NWI) was launched in 2007 as the world’s first accredited academic program for the interdisci-plinary study of engineered fabrics. Based at the Centennial Campus of N.S. State University in Raleigh, the NWI is an in-novative global partnership between industry, government and academe. Operating on an “Open Innovation” platform, NWI engages experts from industry and higher education in build-ing next-generation fiber based applications while also provid-ing training and guidance to the field’s future leaders. The NWI traces its history to 1991, when the Nonwovens Cooperative Research Center (NCRC) was established as a state-industry-university cooperative research center with matching grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the state of North Carolina, and several industry partners. In 1998, upon the conclusion of NSF grant funding, the NCRC continued to enhance its technology and research capabilities

while growing its membership to become North America’s larg-est state-industry-university cooperative research center with more than 65 member companies. The NCRC now serves as the NWI’s core research and discovery arm.

Research—Nonwovens Cooperative Research Center The NCRC, organized under the Nonwovens Institute, serves the nonwovens industry through both fundamental research and an active program of technology transfer. NCRC focuses on knowledge gaps and enabling technologies that support stra-tegic research and development efforts by member companies to forge next-generation fiber-based materials and products. The outcomes of this value-added research pipeline are revolu-tionary and often life-enhancing products for both industrial and consumer marketplaces. NCRC support has, for example, helped spur the creation of technology-rich filtration systems for purifying air, blood and water. Member companies such as 3M,ProctorandGamble,KimberlyClark,Exxon,Freudenberg,Johnson and Johnson, Pall Corp., Millipore and others in simi-lar businesses are directly impacted by the research outcome of the NCRC and by its educational programs. NCRC currently supports 38 graduate student research programs and these students are sought after by NWI’s member companies.

Education—Creating Future Leaders Interdisciplinary research and education form the basis of the Nonwoven Institute’s mission. The NWI forges a full spectrum of mindpower gathered from N.C. State Univer-sity’s colleges of Textiles, Engineering and Natural Resources, as well as expertise drawn from the university’s colleges of management, physical and mathematical sciences, and life sciences. The NWI supports the work of master’s and PhD-level students pursuing advanced studies in fiber and polymer science, chemical and bimolecular engineering, wood and paper science, textile engineering, color chemistry and other disciplines. Their research endeavors range from surface engineering and new-material development to modeling and simulation of advanced fiber systems.

Professional Education and Training The Institute also provides support to those already working in the nonwovens or affiliated industries through its profes-sional development and training programs. The NWI has created an extensive menu of high-quality short courses–both in-classroom and virtually—designed specifically for the needs of industry professionals. These courses offer in-depth learn-ing experiences across such areas as materials, polymers, fibers, processing, manufacturing and product development. Train-ing also addresses market analysis and other business-related content. The NWI instructional staff also provides training that is custom-tailored around the unique needs of a single company; these programs may be offered on-site at company facilities. From 2004 - 2009, industry participants spent $327, 991 in training services at NWI. In 2005 NWI created a Gradu-ate Certificate in Nonwovens for industry professionals seeking to increase their knowledge in nonwovens. Since the program

Appendices

32

was started 32 graduate certificates have been awarded; and 41 students are currently enrolled.

Outreach The Nonwovens Institute serves as a convenient central resource and support center for the nonwovens and affiliated industries. The NWI’s outreach and partnership development objectives are accomplished through a vigorous program of information dissemination; the ongoing cultivation of dialogue and networking opportunities for industry professionals; the establishment of linkages between industry leaders and their university-based counterparts and collaborators; company-focused technical training services offered on-site; and intern-ships offering students real-world exposure to the industry and its fast-changing technologies. While the NWI works with prominent corporate names that are among the world’s industry legends, its services and expertise also support promising entrepreneurial ventures and the expansion of small, privately-held firms. NWI collaborates with companies at all stages of growth. The Institute is com-mitted to enhancing the competitive posture of the nonwovens industry, which holds lucrative economic development poten-

tial for communities in North Carolina and beyond. The NWI plays a key role in development and transfor-mation of the latest innovations into marketable fiber based products. The Institute helps nonwovens companies meet product development objectives through access to NWI’s state-of-the-art pilot and testing facilities at N.C. State’s Centennial Campus. NWI’s support for product development extends from concept to full commercialization.

Funding Over the last five years, NWI has brought in $4.5 million in NCRC membership dues, $4.7 million in sponsored programs for research and product development, and $4.4 million through its service centers (pilot and testing facilities).

Nonwovens in North Carolina Since 2003, twenty nonwovens companies from the USA and five foreign countries have invested $582.9 million in new facilities in North Carolina, which has created 1,447 new jobs for the state.

Appendix C.

Scholarship of Engagement Institutional Outcomes, Performance Indicators, and Location for Assessment

Outcome Performance Indicator Location for Measurement/Assessment

Outcome 1: evidence of institutional commitment to engagement This outcome is supported when answering questions 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13.See pages 23 and 24.

• Mission, vision, administrative structure, reappointment, promotion and tenure or performance evaluation system, and demonstrated commitment to community-based engage-ment.

• Proportion of units (schools/colleges, departments, centers, and institutes that include engagement in their mission, structure, or strategic plan is reported.

• Language used for administration, reporting, finances, and programs allows tracking of engagement programs, resources, and outcomes.

• Leadership in central administration is responsible for ad-vancing engagement scholarship.

• Proportion of schools/colleges where an individual (or individuals) is(are) responsible for advancing engagement programs is reported.

• Evidence is included of the integration of community en-gagement in courses, research, and informal programs.

• Student and stakeholder involvement on decision-making committees and boards is documented.

• Evidence is included of the value of engagement scholarship when considering promotion, tenure, awards, and scholar-ship status.

• Percentage and number of awards and recognition for engagement scholarship are reported.

Review/audit existing documents for evi-dence of commitment to engagement in the following locations:

• University Strategic Plan

• University organizational structure

• Course descriptions in course catalog

• Final project and program research reports

• Annual reports for each informal educa-tional university unit

• Annual reports from each college and academic unit

• University reappointment, promotion and tenure guidelines and departmental RPt guidelines

• Awards and scholarships provided univer-sity-wide

• Institutional publicity focused on en-gagement to address public issues (press releases and other forms of publicity)


33

Outcome 2: Evidence of institutional resource commitments to en-gagement This outcome is supported when answering questions 4, 9, 10, 12.

• Percentage and amount of faculty and staff time dedicated to engagement programs

• Percentage and amount of extramural funding dedicated to engagement programs

• Percentage and number of administrative faculty/staff dedi-cated to engagement programs

• Percentage of indirect funds supporting institutional en-gagement mission area

• Proportion of total institutional funds directed to engage-ment programs

• Proportion of all full-time faculty and staff with significant engagement assignments

• Amount and proportion of awards and seed grants that support and recognize engagement programs and curricular innovations

• Proportion of faculty/academic staff engaged in collabora-tive research programs that are community-based

• Proportion of faculty/academic staff that teach credit courses that contain a community-based or service learning component

• Proportion of faculty who include outreach and engage-ment programs in tenure and promotion portfolios

• Proportion of faculty and academic staff who teach clinical, field-based or professional educational programs

• Amount of external funding resulting from engagement and outreach programs

Review/audit existing documents for evi-dence of institutional resource commitment to engagement in the following locations:

• Faculty and staff FTEs, by college or unit

• Grant and contract dollars (SPARCS)

• Faculty development funding devoted to engagement scholarship, by college or unit

• Administrative FTEs by college or unit

• Indirect cost distribution report

Outcome 3: Evidence that students, learners, faculty, and educators, are involved in engage-ment & outreach This outcome is supported when answering questions 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14.

• Proportion of students enrolled in credit courses that con-tain a community- based or service learning component

• Percentage of students completing service learning or other engagement programs compared to total (curricular engagement)

• Proportion of students who participate in study abroad program

• Proportion of students who participate in student/faculty/staff organized volunteer or civic engagement programs

• Proportion of students who participate in clinical, field-based internships or professional training programs

• Percentage of students/learners demonstrating enhanced learning as the result of engagement

• Percentage of students/learners demonstrating enhanced skills as the result of engagement

• Percentage of students/learners demonstrating practice change as the result of engagement

• Percentage of informal learners involved in service learning or other engagement compared to total

• Percentage of faculty/educators who infuse engagement into the course curriculum

• Proportion of faculty/academic staff involved in activities that promote social, economic, physical and environmental well-being of communities

• Proportion of faculty/academic staff involved in activities that promote civic engagement

• Proportion of faculty/academic staff involved with technol-ogy transfer

Review/audit existing documents for evidence of learner involvement in engage-ment programs and activities.

• Final extramural project and program reports


• Annual reports for each non-formal educa-tional university unit

• Annual report of student extra-curricular engagement


Appendices

34

Outcome 4: Evidence that institutions are engaged with their communities and partners

This outcome is supported when answering ques-tions 4, 5, 8, 11, 14.

• Number of MOUs and articulation agreements compared to total

• Location and identity of partners by program, college, and unit (nonprofits, business, industry, ad hoc community groups, K-20 institutions, and government)

• Dollar value of partners funding or contributing in-kind resources each year

• Number of institutional public forums fostering public dialogue from multiple stakeholders concerning a priority issue

• Number of new, 5-year, 10-year, and longer term partner-ships (shows deeper engagement)

• Number of community-based, regional, or state issues being addressed by n.C. state unit, center, department, or college

• Documented outcomes and impact resulting from community-based engagement, benefitting n.C. people, and valued by partners and other stakeholders

• Economic development dollar value and jobs value result-ing from community-based engagement

• Monetary environmental benefits resulting from engage-ment efforts

• Family and community well-being monetized through figures such as community growth, housing, parks and arts participation, and lower health care costs

• Number of faculty performing sabbaticals related to en-gagement

• Number of faculty receiving travel funds for professional development/training related to engagement.

• Growth in community-based leadership empowerment to address complex issues, improve public policy, and support community viability

• Proportion of faculty/staff/administrators who serve on ex-ternal advisory groups, community groups, business boards and panels

• Proportion of faculty/staff/administrators who are engaged with national, state, and local government officials

.• Description of systematic efforts made to assess commu-nity needs (locally, nationally, and internationally)

• Documentation of established mechanisms for the public to access university resources, and to contact the institution with requests for assistance

• Assessment of community partners’ satisfaction with access program benefits and quality

Review/audit existing documents for evi-dence that nCsU is engaged with commu-nities and partners.

• Office of Legal Affairs for MOU’s and formal partnership agreements



• Annual reports for each nonformal educa-tional university unit

• Faculty Activity Reports (if can be anony-mous)



35

Outcome 5: Evidence of evaluating engagement program outcomes This outcome is supported when answering questions 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15.

• Assessment and evaluation methods measure outcomes and impact.

• Outcomes and impacts are reported resulting from com-munity-based engagement that benefits n.C. people and is valued by partners and other stakeholders

• Published evaluation reports resulting from engagement programs and projects are documented.

• There are annual reporting requirements and performance standards for documenting the effectiveness of university-community partnerships.

• Assessment plans and tools are developed in collaboration with external partners.

• The outcomes and impacts of engagement programs are evaluated (including technical assistance, clinical diagnos-tics, and testing services).

• University has a method for assessing the economic impact of its various community engagement initiatives.

Review and audit existing documents for evidence that n.C. state is engaged with communities and partners:




• Faculty activity reports (if can be anony-mous)

• Refereed publications and presentations (including library searches)

Outcome 6: Evidence of the scholarship of engagement This outcome is supported when answering questions 3, 4, 5, 8, 15.

• Faculty document the theoretical framework of an engage-ment program or project.

• Engagement is a clearly identified component of the criteria for promotion, reappointment, and tenure.

• Evidence of the value of engagement scholarship is con-sidered during reviews for promotion, tenure, awards, and scholarship status.

• Engagement is a clearly identified component of annual faculty performance reviews.

• Faculty provide evidence of community-based reports and presentations.

• Faculty provide evidence of valued community-based out-comes and impact.

Review and audit existing documents for evidence of the scholarship of engagement programs and projects:

• Refereed publications and presentations (including library searches)



• Faculty activity reports (if the review can be anonymous)

Compiled by Lisa Guion, Pat sobrero, Mary tschirhart, and Jim Zuiches using the following reports and studies, n.C. studies, and input from faculty and staff:

Campus Compact—Civic Engagement: http://www.compact.org/initiatives/civic-engagement-initiatives/

Indicators of Engagement Project: http://www.compact.org/indicators/

Carnegie Community Engagement Classification: http://www.compact.org/indicators-of-engagement-project-categories-page/ and http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/sub.asp?key=1213&subkey=2215

CeCePs Report, Benchmarking of Outreach/Engagement: http://schoe.coe.uga.edu/benchmarking/Benchmarkingsurveyfinal4.pdf

CeCePs Final Report, Defining and Benchmarking Engagement: http://outreach.uconn.edu/info/CECEPS-CIC.doc

Committee on Institutional Cooperation, Committee on Engagement: http://schoe.coe.uga.edu/benchmarking/FINAL.doc and http://schoe.coe.uga.edu/benchmarking/cic.pdf

W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Returning to Our Roots: http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=305&srcid=751

Bargerstock, B. A., and H. E. Fitzgerald, Michigan State University Outreach and Engagement Measurement Instrument: http://outreach.msu.edu/docu-ments/OEMI_BBHEF_FAU_072607.pdf

Gibson, Cynthia, Research Universities and Engaged Scholarship: A Leadership Agenda for Renewing the Civic Mission of Higher Education: http://www.compact.org/resources/future-of-campus-engagement/research-universities-and-engaged-scholarship-a-leadership-agenda-for-renewing-the-civic-mission-of-higher-education/4250

The Scholarship of Engagement Web site, Benchmarking Engaged Institutions: http://schoe.coe.uga.edu/benchmarking/bei.html


Appendices

36

Appendix D.

Glassick Standards for Evaluation of Faculty Scholarship in All Disciplines

The 2003 N. C. State University Reappointment, Promo-tion, and Tenure Committee recommends that serious consideration be given by all departments, colleges, and the university as a whole to the following “General Standards of Expected Performance” developed in the form of eighteen checklistquestionsbyGlassick,Huber,andMaeroff(1997)in Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. These general standards were designed to apply to creative scholarship necessary for excellence in each of the three traditional missions of research-extensive universi-ties: teaching, research, and service. We find them also very suitable for evaluating faculty performance in each of the six realms of faculty responsibility defined on the RPT Web site oftheOfficeoftheProvost(seeAppendixAandhttp://www.ncsu.edu/policies/employment/epa/REG715.00.18.php):

Clear Goals•Doesthescholarstatethebasicpurposesofhisorherwork

clearly?•Doesthescholardefineobjectivesthatarerealisticand

achievable?•Doesthescholaridentifyimportantquestionsinthefield?

Adequate Preparation•Doesthescholarshowanunderstandingofexistingschol-

arship in the field?•Doesthescholarbringthenecessaryskillstohisorher

work?•Doesthescholarbringtogethertheresourcesnecessaryto

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 Rules•Doesthescholarachievethegoals?•Doesthescholar’sworkaddconsequentiallytothefield?•Doesthescholar’sworkopenadditionalareasforfurther

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 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?

Appendix E.

North Carolina Progress Board’s Quality of Life Indicators

national and Regional Rankings for 51 of 84 Quality of Life Indicators Identified by the north Carolina Progress Board in 2005

The North Carolina Progress Board was created by the NC General Assembly in 1995. The 1997 report of the Progress Board, entitled Measuring Our Progress: Targets for the Year 2010, was a good start even though it dealt with only four (see bold items below) of the General Assembly’s original eight “cat-egories” of concern by North Carolina citizens:

1.Healthychildrenandfamilies,

2. Safe and vibrant communities,

3. Quality education for all,

4.Highperformanceworkforce,

5. A sustainable environment,

6. A prosperous economy,

7. Twenty-first century infrastructure, and

8.Activecitizenship/accountablegovernment.

FormerGovernorJimHuntandformerPresidentoftheUniversity of North Carolina William Friday provided initial leadership for the N.C. Progress Board. The NC Department of Commerce provided logistical support for the meetings of the board and its staff. After publication of the 1997 report, Gover-norHuntandPresidentFridayrecommendedthatthebudgetand continuing activities of the NC Progress Board should be transferred to the campus of N.C. State University. The subsequent 2000, 2001, and 2005 reports of the N.C. Progress Board dealt thoroughly with all eight of the General Assembly’s original “categories” of concern. They also defined specific goals, targets, and measures of progress for the future of our state. These subsequent reports are as follows:

North Carolina 20/20: A Report about the Future of North Carolina,publishedin2000:http://www.ncprogress.org/pub_nc_2020.htm,


37

The Eight “Imperatives” for the Year 2020: A Summary of Find-ings, Facts, Visions, Goals, and Targets,” published in 2001: http://www.ncprogress.org/PDF/eight%20imperative%20booklet%20(complete).pdf

North Carolina 20/20 Update Report (includes N.C. Progress Scorecards),publishedin2005:http://www.ncprogress.org/PDF/2020Report_2005.pdf

The 2005 North Carolina 20/20 Update Report with “N.C. Progress Scorecards” is especially noteworthy because the scorecards include detailed descriptions and analyses for 51 of the 84 societal target goals defined by the Progress Board in North Carolina 20/20: A Report About the Future of North Carolina. Each of these descriptions and analyses include key progress indicators:

•Definition of the measures used in assessing progress toward each societal goal;

•The national ranking of North Carolina compared to the other 49 states in the nation (1 best, 50 worst);

•The regional ranking of North Carolina compared to the other 9 states in the southern region (1 best, 10 worst);

•Description of the current trend of progress (declining, im-proving, or mixed);

•A chart showing historical trends in performance of North Carolina’s performance compared to the nation as a whole; and

•Narrative descriptions of “highlights,” “relevance,” and “relat-ed links” that further explain the ranking of North Carolina or reasons why this particular societal goal is important to the people of our state.

Some of our state’s national and regional rankings are pleasingly high. By contrast, however, altogether too many of our state’s national and regional rankings revealed serious shortcomings and needs for improvements in the quality of life for our people (Table E.1).

Table E.1. North Carolina National and Regional Rankings for 51 of 84 Societal Goals

Societal GoalNational Ranking

(1=Best, 50=Worst)Regional Ranking

(1=Best, 10=Worst)

HIGH RANKINGS

Workplace safety 3 1

Child health care 4 1

Child care 4 1

Math and science proficiency of school children 4 1

economic climate 5 2

Agricultural vitality 7 4

Manufacturing vitality 8 2

state government stewardship 11 4

Access to primary health care 12 2

Reading/writing proficiency of school children 16 2

state government efficiency 16 5

energy efficiency 18 2

short-term growth 18 4

Access to higher education 18 6

LOW RANKINGS

Clean air 45 10

secondary schools 45 6

Clean lakes and streams 44 9

Child poverty 44 8

transportation efficiency 44 9

Appendices

38

College preparedness 43 6

Private technology access 42 6

Family income 40 6

Basic educational attainment 40 5

Property crime 39 7

natural gas access 39 6

Public technology access 39 7

Community service 39 8

Longevity 37 3

Weight 37 6

safe drinking water 36 9

Home ownership 36 10

Personal income 36 5

Pollution control 36 6

Advanced educational attainment 35 4

Voter participation 35 5

smoking 34 4

Health insurance 34 7

employment 32 6

Violent crime 31 7

elementary schools 30 6

Highway quality 30 3

Power access 30 9

Local government performance 30 3

Housing availability 28 7

Competitive wages 28 5

Long-term economic growth 24 2

Home affordability 23 5

teacher recruitment 23 3

Local government stewardship 23 3

Government efficiency 20 6

University resources 20 2

Societal GoalNational Ranking

(1=Best, 50=Worst)Regional Ranking

(1=Best, 10=Worst)

Table E.1. North Carolina National and Regional Rankings for 51 of 84 Societal Goals (continued)

LOW RANKINGS


39

Many connections and interdependencies of progress among these various societal target areas are discussed in the 2001 and the two 2005 reports of the Progress Board. These are the most important general conclusions and recommendations for the future of N.C. State and other UNC system universities from the N.C. Progress Board scorecards and 2005 Update analyses:

1. Many of these quality of life and societal target areas for the people of North Carolina are within the special competence areas of the faculty, staff, and graduate and undergradu-ate students at N.C. State, other UNC universities, and the community colleges. Thus, many of these target areas (but most especially those with national rankings of 45 through 20) are worthy of close attention, scrutiny, and consideration as motivations and goals for “Innovation in Action” by all of us at N.C. State, other UNC universities, and the community colleges—faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, staff, department heads, deans of all colleges, vice-chancel-lors, provosts, and chancellors.

2. Progress in essentially all of these areas of societal need in North Carolina will involve ripple effects within many other societal target areas. Thus, progress toward any of these in-terrelated and interdependent societal targets will require ef-fective partnerships and collaboration among expert persons in many scientific, technological, engineering, and social sci-ence disciplines within N.C. State, other UNC universities, and the community colleges; in small and large business and commercial enterprises; in local, regional, state, and federal government agencies; and in many nongovernmental and international organizations.

3. Progress will also require that many different experts at N.C. State, other UNC universities, and the community colleges join together with those in other collaborating institutions and organizations as well as both private sector, governmen-tal, and nonprofit organizations to do the following: a. Listen carefully to the needs and aspirations of the people; b. Reason together with colleagues in our own and related fields of special competence; and c. Go back again and again to listen and plan together with the people how to help improve the quality of life in our state, region, nation, and the world.

4. Maximum benefit for the people of North Carolina is most likely to result from (a) careful selection of a limited number of specific UNC Tomorrow goals and aspirations in which each UNC university has the most inherent comparative advantage and (b) the modesty necessary to join with other institutions with competence that provides complementary and cooperative rather than competitive advantages.

Appendix F.

Template for Completing the Extension and Engagement Section of the RPT

Appendix F.1. RPt templateThe Extension and Engagement Section of the RPT could in-clude some or all of the ten following subsections:

1. Issue, Need, or Focus. What was the focus of your engage-ment efforts? What issue(s) or need(s) did your extension and/orengagementworkaddress?

2. Communities Engaged.Howdidyouengagethecommu-nity in this process of determining the issue(s), need(s) or focus area(s)? What community(ies) was(were) engaged and servedbyyourextensionand/orengagementefforts?De-scribe unique and relevant demographic, cultural or other characteristics of the community.

3. Goals and Objectives.Listthegoalsand/orobjectivesofthis engagement work.

4. Methods and Actions. What did you do to achieve the goals and/orobjectives?Howdidyouengagecommunitiesinimplementingandcarryingoutthoseactions?Howdidyouensure that your methods were culturally relevant and ap-propriate?

5. Program Integration. Ifteachingand/orresearchwereapart of this engagement project, please describe how the engagement activity complemented or contributed to your teachingand/orresearch.Forexample,describehowstu-dentswereinvolved,howcourse/curriculawereenhanced,and/oranyresearchthatrelatedtotheengagementwork.

6. Products/Deliverables. Describe any products that were de-veloped or created as part of this extension and engagement work (such as brochures, Web sites, DVDs or CDs, computer software, blogs, pamphlets, etc.).

7. Results. Describe the outcomes and impacts the extension and/orengagementworkachieved.a. Outcomes achieved. Outcomes are the changes in participants’knowledge,attitudes,skills,behaviorsand/or practices that result from your extension or engagement efforts.http://www.ncsu.edu/extension/events/documents/ IES_Benchmark_FINAL.pdfb. Impacts achieved. Impacts are the intended and unin- tendedsocietal,environmental,economic,and/orpolicy changes that result from your extension or engagement efforts.http://www.ncsu.edu/extension/events/documents/ Impact_2_fulldraft_1.pdf

8. Communication and Dissemination. Howwasinforma-tionontheprocess,outcomesand/orimpactssharedandwith whom? Information in this section includes all forms

Appendices

40

of communication and dissemination, but refereed pub-lications and presentations resulting from extension and engagement work should be listed in the Scholarship Section of the RPT and cross-referenced here.

9. Recognition and Awards. Did you receive any local, state, national,and/orinternationalrecognitionorawardsforyour engagement or extension work? If so, list those here.

10. Collaborators and Partners. Engagement and extension work occurs through, and is dependent upon, collabora-tions and partnerships. Acknowledge your partners and collaborators.

Appendix F.2. evaluating extension and engagement scholarship: How Does Your Work Measure Up?The National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement developed criteria to assess and evaluate engaged scholarship: http://www.scholarshipofengagement.org/ Also, the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy Excellence in Extension Task Force developed a set of criteria to guideextensionscholarsandinstitutions:http://excellenceinex-tension.tamu.edu/

Developed by Professor Lisa Guion, Ed.D., Professor of Agricul-tural and Extension Education, and Assistant Dean for Diver-sity, Outreach and Engagement, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, N.C. State University

Appendix G.

Expenditures for N.C. State University’s Three Primary Missions—1960 to 2008

These data indicate that during the past 48 years, expendi-tures for the teaching mission (currently called “Instruction” by the State Budget Office) at N.C. State increased nearly

nine-fold from 1960 through 2008 and since 1990 has com-manded 43 – 48 percent of our budget for all three missions. The research budget (currently called Organized Research) also increased about five-fold and has commanded a relatively steady 32 and 37 percent of our budget for the three primary missions during the 48 years since 1960. By contrast, expen-ditures for extension, engagement, and associated economic development (currently called Community Service) have increased only about 2.5-fold; and since 1990 this mission has commanded only about 19 or 20 percent of total expenditures in support of all three primary functions.

1 The language used in classifying expenditures for the three primary missions of N.C. State as presented in this table were developed in conformity with the definitions and traditions of the following organizations:• BudgetOfficeoftheStateofNorthCarolina,

• NationalAssociationofCollegeandUniversityBudget Officers (NACUBO), and

• NationalCenterforEducationalStatistics(NCES)withinthe federal Department of Education.

2 The term “organized research” should be recognized to identify research that is supported by funds provided specifi-cally for research project purposes by state legislative appro-priations and grants from state and federal agencies, private foundations, and industry sources. Small additional amounts of research funds are also obtained from general university sources that can be used at the discretion of department heads, deans of colleges, or other unit leaders.3 The term “community service” has been recommended recently by the National Association of College and Univer-sity Budget Officers as a more appropriate descriptor than the more traditional terms “outreach,” “extension,” or “public service.”


Table G.1. Expenditures for N.C. State University’s Three Primary Missions—1960 to 2008

MissionMillions of 2007 – 2008 Equivalent Dollars

1960 1980 1990 2000 2008

teaching

(Instruction1)

$36

30%

$118

39%

$215

44%

$240

43%

$321

48%

Research

(Organized Research1,2)

$41

34%

$112

37%

$177

37%

$201

36%

$214

32%

extension and engagement

(Community Service1,3)

$43

36%

$72

24%

$91

19%

$111

20%

$125

19%

total expended for all Missions $120 $302 $483 $552 $660

1M—6/10—BS/KEL E10 52853

Documents

Integrating Learning, Discovery, and Engagement through the ......NC STATE UNIVERSITY Integrating Learning, Discovery, and Engagement through the Scholarship of Engagement Report of