Building a 2-Way Street: Leading the Engaged University of the 21st Century

1. Building a 2-Way Street: Leading the Engaged University of the 21st Century David J. Weerts Project Director, Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education (WISCAPE) University of Wisconsin-Madison

2. What do we mean by “engagement?” “The publicly engaged institution is fully committed to direct, two-way interaction with communities and other external constituencies through the development, exchange, and application of knowledge, information, and expertise for mutual benefit.” --American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) Task Force on Public Engagement.

3. Why a two-way street? • Public perception that higher education institutions are “arrogant, out-of-touch, and unresponsive to the needs of society” --Kellogg Commission on the Future of State Colleges and Universities (1996). “It used to be that all the legislators downtown knew the faculty from the university. Now nobody really knows any of the faculty members. The university used to play a serious role in helping shape state policy, but that is no longer the case.” --State legislator, Midwest

4. Why a two-way street? “To the average person in a poor community, university researchers are seen as “windshield sociologists” who quickly drive by the neighborhood, collect their data, and get out of town. In the end, university engagement in these areas is mostly viewed as a colonizing effort, doing what they need to do to advance their own agendas, not the community agenda that they are supposed to serve.” --Land grant university faculty member involved with community-based research

5. Why a two-way street? • Responding to increased pressure from legislators, trustees, donors for institutional accountability. (Newman, 2003) • Emerging national movements to “reengage” with society in the 21st Century (Kellogg Forum, CIC, Scholarship of Engagement, etc.)

6. Questions and topics for this session… • What are the organizational factors that shape or characterize a land grant institution’s commitment to outreach and engagement? Understand differences in history, culture, leadership, and organizational factors that shape institutional commitment to engagement • In what ways and to what extent do these organizational factors inform community partners’ perceptions about institutional commitment to outreach and engagement? Listen to the “missing voice” of community partners • What are the implications of these findings for leading the engaged institution of the 21st Century?

7. New study underway… • Multi-case study 3 land grant universities (UW, UGA, UIUC) • Documents review and interviews with campus provosts, outreach executives, faculty and staff directing outreach initiatives • Interviews with community partners from 6 engagement initiatives (2 initiatives per campus)

8. What we know… Some barriers to engagement… • Universities as “organized anarchies” (Cohen & March, 1974) • Constraints on faculty; lack of rewards and consensus on ideas of service (Ewell 1998, Corrigan 2002, Knox 2001) • Clash of cultures—academic and community partners: “Fundamental misunderstandings.” (Wiewebel & Leiber 1998)

9. Evidence of commitment… Holland (1997) matrix of institutional commitment to service. Commitment can be evaluated by analyzing… Student involvement Faculty involvement Community involvement Campus publications What we know… • Mission • Promotion • Tenure • Hiring practices • Organizational structure

10. Some findings… Land Grant History, Culture, and Mission Land grants have an historic mandate to be “universities of the people.” Extension model (one-way expert model) still dominates rhetoric and practice in most areas of these institutions.

11. Some findings… • “The original articulation of the land grant mission is to bring the knowledge of the university to the state. Now we extend this idea nationally and internationally, literally reaching out to anyone with our products of scholarly and creative work.” –Provost

12. Engagement at Land Grant Universities • Engagement is emerging as a priority for some campus CEOs. • Outreach officers, academic staff are primary leaders of engagement • Faculty involvement varies- “Pockets of Leadership”

13. Engagement at Land Grant Universities “Working with the community really benefits my teaching. It is the perfect lab for my students to learn.” – Faculty member in landscape architecture Can be clash of values… “I’m glad that traditional faculty aren’t involved that much [with outreach and engagement activities.] They [faculty] are too busy trying to chase Harvard instead of recognizing our charter to serve the people of our state.” –Outreach faculty member

14. “The Missing Voice” What do our community partners have to say about institutional commitment to engagement?

15. Emerging Themes • Institutional respect for partners and relationship building is key (changing the academic culture) “Mary” just hung around and was committed to finding out how she fit in with our efforts. She didn’t come in knowing it, instead, she listened carefully, took the time to get to know us and our needs, understanding our trials and tribulations.” --Community partner ““The trick is for the university not to hold themselves above the the community, instead to be very attentive to the partners and school district… Lots of people have never been to campus. The university may as well be Mars. We need to demystify what the university is all about.” –Community partner

16. Emerging Themes Community seeks to see leadership from the highest ranks “There is a sense among us that commitment to this project runs deep. The Chancellor’s Office has highlighted this initiative in his special events throughout the year, and the university can use this initiative to its credit.” --Community partner “Institutionally, the focus is on research and instruction. There is a view that if public service happens it’s a nice bonus. But then there are clusters here that are clear exceptions… It took the deans level leadership to change the culture—the feeling that they [faculty] were doing service work despite their real duties of research.” --Community partner

17. Applying Kellogg’s 7 Tenets of Engagement… • Respect for Partners—perceived as most important to community. (responsiveness, neutrality embedded) • Accessibility—connected to individual faculty or staff member, still hard to “break in.” • Integration—community can sense whether institutional culture supports engagement • Coordination– institution viewed as “organized anarchy”

18. Linking practice to community perspectives on engagement • Leadership—formal and informal • Faculty and staff involvement—rewards, structures, and policies important; but culture is key • Organizational structure—accessibility and legitimacy of partnerships

19. Math, Science, and Technology Education Program(MSTE) University of Illinois-Champaign/Urbana • Mission: To develop innovative, standards-based, technology-intensive mathematics and science instruction at the K-16 levels (lesson database, workshops, modules) • Established by tenured faculty, program executed by outreach staff and graduate students • Funded by Partnership IL, US Dept. of Ed, NSF, ISBE • K-12 and vo-tech faculty involved in creating curriculum, participate on advisory board. • www.mste.uiuc.edu 100,000 hits per month

20. Math, Science, and Technology Education Program(MSTE) University of Illinois-Champaign/Urbana “The partnership with MSTE works because they [MSTE staff] care about being successful for the kids vs. protecting their own curriculum. In the end, it’s a willingness of both partners to adapt.” --High school administrator “They [MSTE staff] are good people who got into education for the right reasons. They are passionate and believe that their work will improve education. --High school teacher

21. Leading the Engaged Institution of the 21st Century… • Develop and train leaders to work with community partners– facilitate joint problem solving, solutions, etc. “Service Academy” • Increase visibility of institutional leaders in the community (resource development) • Rewards and incentives– transforming the disciplines

22. Leading the Engaged Institution of the 21st Century… • Organizational structure– broadening governance and power structure to include community partners. • Develop stable funding streams to support engagement.

23. Thanks to the Kellogg Forum on Higher Education for the Public Good, University of Michigan.

24. Questions and discussion… Thanks for your attention!