ESC 1ESC red banner

Dr. Rajesh Tandon is an internationally acclaimed leader and practitioner of participatory research and development. In 1982 he founded the Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), a voluntary organization providing support to grassroots initiatives in South Asia. He has been its chief functionary since then. Under his leadership, PRIA has developed numerous methodologies of participatory learning and training, participatory bottom-up micro planning, and participatory monitoring and evaluation. His Ph.D. is from Case Western Reserve University; he has additional degrees in engineering and management. Tandon’s specialty is social and organizational change. His contributions revolve around issues of participatory research, advocating for people-centered development, policy reform, and networking in India, South Asia, and beyond. He has advocated for a self-reliant, autonomous, and competent voluntary sector in India and abroad. Another area of his work is building alliances and partnerships among diverse sectors in societal development. Tandon has served on numerous government task forces and committees and the boards of many civil society organizations. He is the founder and has been chair of the board of directors of CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation; of the Global Alliance on Community-Engaged Research network; and of the external advisory committee of the Office of Community Based Research at the University of Victoria, Canada. In Paris in 2009, he chaired the session on University–Community Engagement for Societal Change and Development: Possibilities ESC Dr Rageshand Challenges at the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education. He is currently chair of the board of directors of the Montreal International Forum. He was awarded an honorary doctor of laws degree by the University of Victoria in 2008.

(Dr. Fitzgerald) Welcome to everybody on behalf of the thirty members of the Engagement Scholarship Consortium, especially our two newest members, Virginia Tech University and Tarleton State University.

It is fitting at our first meeting outside the United States to draw attention to the strong international efforts to build connections between institutions of higher education and the diverse communities that comprise society. These efforts are increasingly focused on efforts to solve complex problems, advance social justice, and enhance the welfare of all humanity.

ESC DR. FitzgeraldThere are now at least twenty-two organizations that focus on various aspects of this work, and an increasing number of journals available for the dissemination of the knowledge gained about the processes that contribute to the success of partnerships and the sustainable outcomes from effective evidence-based practices. This international effort is well illustrated by the efforts of the Global University Network Innovation (GUNI) meeting in Barcelona in May 2013. Three hundred and fifty individuals from 70 countries assembled to discuss the diversity of approaches to engagement in higher education and its contribution to social change.

The editors of the volume produced in conjunction with the conference included two that are a link to our conference today. Budd Hall at the University of Victoria is frequently recognized as the founder of community-based participatory research. He is a passionate champion of social justice, and he’s also a poet. You will find one of his poems in the program. The second editor here today is Rajesh Tandon, equally committed to social justice, equity, and community-based research.

You will shortly hear more about Rajesh and then he will give us an inspirational start to our conference. In your packets your will find a flyer that provides information about the volume that was produced in February 2014 by that group of folks who met in May 2013; 350 individuals from 70 countries gathered in Barcelona to discuss issues related to knowledge, who’s knowledge, how to blend knowledges of community with knowledges of universities in ways that we can co-create solutions to many of the world’s most vexing problems.

I hope you will establish friendships here that will expand your network of colleagues committed to community-engaged scholarship. Welcome, and have a good conference.

Screen Shot 2015-11-09 at 11.16.40 AM(Dr. Young) Good morning. On behalf of the University of Alberta, it is my great privilege to welcome you to the 2014 ESC Conference and to our University of Alberta community. Our province, city, and university are relatively young, all tracing our roots back 110 years. Although our original early European trading settlement goes back 220 years in Edmonton and, of course, our aboriginal people have used this Saskatchewan River Valley for millennia. I understand our poet laureate gave you some background of that last evening. Our Faculty of Extension celebrated 100 years several years ago, and has been one of our main instruments for community engagement at our university, playing an instrumental role in the success of our university over the past 110 years. Chancellors around the world have many different levels of responsibilities. As chancellor of the University of Alberta, I have several key responsibilities. First, I am the titular and honorific head of the university and I confer over convocation. Secondly, I serve on the board of governors as a governor of the university. And third, and perhaps my most important role, is as chair of the University Senate, comprised of 62 members of our community, 31 of whom come from the broad community across Alberta and 31 because of their university position. Our senators are there to represent the community interest and to encourage community engagement, so I think it is very fitting that I was asked to provide some opening remarks to you this morning and also introduce our guest speaker. (Regarding) community engagement, our Senate has recently engaged a task force on connecting communities. Our goal with this task force is to exchange ideas that will strengthen the university and community relationships across our city and province. We’ve been very grateful to Dean Katy Campbell and the Faculty of Extension for their partnership and helping us conduct this task force, which is important to our Senate’s undertakings. We’ve had great support and a great partnership and appreciate the wonderful relationship and the research capabilities they have brought to our Senate. As chancellor, one of my roles, in addition to presiding over convocation ceremonies, is to represent the public interest in the university. As a proud alumnus of the university, it is a privilege I take with great enthusiasm. It is in this spirit, and with public interest top of mind, I welcome you here to Edmonton today. The scholarship of engagement is extremely important to communities we serve. Your work is vital to the future of secondary education here in Canada, indeed, around the world. So, I wish you much success with your conference.

And, it now gives me great pleasure to introduce our distinguished keynote speaker, Dr. Rajesh Tandon. This is the first time that this annual conference ESC been held outside the United States, hosted by a member of the newly formed international region. So, it is very appropriate that our keynote speaker should be Dr. Tandon, who is based in India but whose name and accomplishments are known throughout the world. He is perhaps best known as the president of the Society for Participatory Research in Asia, a voluntary organization he founded in 1982 that supports grassroots initiatives in South Asia. He is also the founder and has been the chairperson of the board of directors of CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. He is a chairperson of the Global Alliance on Community-Engaged Research network, and he was also inducted into the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame in 2010. He is currently the chair of the board of directors of Montreal International Forum, which is also referred to as the Forum for Democratic Global Governance. He received an honorary doctorate from the University of Victoria in British Columbia to go with his earned doctorate from Case Western Reserve University. He is also co-holder of the UNESCO chair in community-based research in higher education, which he holds with Dr. Budd Hall of the University of Victoria, who wasn’t able to attend in person. This morning we are very fortunate to be able to host the other half of that long-term friendship and collaboration, Dr. Rajesh Tandon. He is here to speak to us on a topic “Community-University Engagement and the Challenge of Change.” Please join me in welcoming Dr. Tandon.


Namaskar, good morning. It is about bedtime (audience laughs), and that is why I have prepared a 75-slide PowerPoint, so that you can go to sleep along with me. Thank you very much for inviting me to be with you on this very important occasion. I have been an admirer of the work that many fellow North Americans have been doing. As Hiram (Fitzgerald) has mentioned over the course of the last three years, we have worked very closely together to produce that wonderful unique report that Dr. Fitzgerald brought to your attention. I do have a have a PowerPoint presentation and I will take you through at least six slides of that, but let me start by sharing with you, very briefly, the history of my journey to North America, because I seem to be found more in North America these days according to some comments made last night over at the reception by fellow Americans and Canadians.

I came to Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland to do a Ph.D. in organizational science in the School of Management. Having done electronic engineering as my first degree and management education as my second degree, I began a career as an assistant professor, a lecturer of management. And—my, that was 1974—I arrive in Cleveland, (realizing) my dream of visiting America, the land of gold and honey. The drive from the airport to the university residence shattered that dream in half an hour. While I was in the U.S, a political emergency was declared in India. Along with some other fellow Indian students on the East Coast, we decided to go back and find out what was going on back home. The only legitimate way to go home in those days was to pretend that you would do field work for your dissertation. And I managed to find a reasonably flexible committee which allowed me to go and do field work on rural development. By a series of strange coincidences, I ended up in the Southern Rajasthan area, which was inhabited by indigenous peoples; we called them tribals. And (I) spent about a year basically figuring out how I could make myself comfortable in those rural surroundings. It was in the course of that experience that I discovered several things, which my formal, one of the best formal educations I could have had in India, did not allow me to understand. Firstly, I discovered that illiteracy did not equate itself with ignorance. Illiterate farmers and women in those villages were extremely knowledgeable about a large number of things, including what has now come to be called holistic health. In those days we used to call it voodoo science, because, you know, you would drink some water, you would pluck some leaves, and you would chew them, and all that; now they’re packaged. In the mornings some of them would go out and, you know, stretch in various strange ways. Nowadays it is called yoga. And despite the fact that I had electronics engineering as my background, I did not appreciate all this mumbo-jumbo that was going on in the village. It took me awhile to figure out that there is a body of knowledge outside the universe in which I was schooled and trained. It also took me awhile to figure out that the research methodology which I knew so well—and I knew SPSS package at that time and the use of computers at that time—that research methodology was reasonably alienating to people, because whenever I would approach (someone) with a questionnaire they would run away or negotiate their age with me. We would start with a man with about five kids saying, “I’m a man of 20 years old,” and I would say “Come on” and he would say “OK, 25.” By the time we were finished he will be about 43 years old!

That was the methodology of finding out information; we use to call them data. So, I discovered that there was a body of knowledge residing in those people, and I also discovered that there was a way of narrating and sharing that knowledge which I was not very familiar with. So, I had this rather difficult task of producing a Ph.D. thesis based on this rather messy and tension-filled experience, after which I learned that all of you that have got a Ph.D. have had messy and tension-filled experiences; but those days I felt lonely. So, when I returned to Cleveland to write my thesis, the chair of my research committee and my doctoral committee rejected all the so called data I had and said I must repeat my thesis in an American community in and around Cleveland. That was terrifying. First of all, that would have meant that I had failed in doing what I did, wasted about 15 months of my life and some other people’s money, and so I was rather shattered. At that time, I found a fan not far from Cleveland in Toronto in the International Council for Adult Education, Dr. Budd Hall.

I dialed a number that was given to me, and he said, “Oh yes, I have been thinking about participatory research.” So, I said this is what I was doing. On the phone we agreed that there was, potentially, a logic to what my messy experience was. And he agreed to send me a copy of his first write-up on this, which appeared in Emergence in 1975–76. I needed a reference in order to justify what I was saying. As you all know, unless you have a reference you can’t be making sense. So my friendship with Dr. Budd Hall goes back to 1978. I stand here before you today remembering that friendship, but most importantly, being a part of one leg of a UNESCO chair rooted in the world of practice and very happy to be sharing the other leg of a UNESCO chair rooted in the world of academe. I believe that our model of the UNESCO chair—one leg rooted in Indian South Asian practitioner organization and another rooted in a university in North America is a classic example of how engaged scholarship can be pursued in the 21st century. I do want to share with you my thoughts and experiences this morning, but also do so in a spirit of humility, because I am quite aware of the vast body of expertise, practical knowledge, and critical rigor that exists in this auditorium today. I am quite aware of the work that several of you have been doing and I cherish my deep friendship with many of you in this hall and look forward to strengthening new friendships in the coming period. The poem to which both the chancellor and Hiram refer to written by Budd Hall talks about turning of the world.

Let me bring to your attention what is some of this turning of the world that we are referring to. In my view, humanity is at a crossroad. And that crossroad is perplexing in some ways, because we have enormous prosperity in the world today. The levels of prosperity, of comfort, of ease, of travel from India, Portugal in less than twenty-four hours is unparalleled in human history. But we also live in a world where a good 30 percent of our people are living on less than $1.25 a day. This contradiction is shameful, is painful, and it is unsustainable. We live in a world of plenty. We have produced food grains of a level that never were produced. We have processed food grain of a level that never was produced, but we also have malnutrition among our children, not just in sub-Saharan Africa or India or South Asia, but also in Eastern Europe, in Central Asia, in parts of the Arab world.

Why is there a scarcity in the face of plenty? Rapid economic growth. Asia has become the economic fulcrum of the last decade. But 10 percent annual GDP growth rate is a complete myth, with high level of degradation, pollution (of our) air, water, and soil, as well as destruction of ecosystems. The debate in U.N. General Assembly on the 23rd of September this year was just a symptom of the malaise we are facing in pursuit of economic growth. We have enormous military power in our hands today, but a small bunch of people can terrorize the whole world as we are witnessing in what is going on on the borders of Syria and Iraq these days. Surprisingly, or not so surprisingly, the guns and bullets they are using are actually manufactured in countries like ours. And, we are living in a period of history where many more societies have democratically elected governments than ever before. The aspiration for that democracy is growing (faster than) ever before, but formal institutions of democracy elected political representatives, parliaments, and judiciaries are losing faith in the eyes of our young people. Witness the demonstrations on the streets of Hong Kong these days. That upsurge of youth demanding a way of engaging with society different from formally elected representative democracy is not limited to Hong Kong; it has happened in Myanmar, in Cambodia, and many other parts of the world, not just in Asia. So the question for us really is that will humanity at this crossroad move ahead in a ways that, as Hiram said, would contribute to equitable, just, and free societies, which are providing access to the same levels of happiness and comfort to all its citizens. Today the population of the world is seven billion; by the end of this century it may well be 10 billion, but is it conceivable that we will move later in the century towards peace and justice or not? And it is at this crossroad that I feel higher education, and higher education institutions, have an enormous responsibility. What can higher education institutions, therefore, do in this context? What is their sense of responsibility that we need to stand up to, live up to? In order to position this, let us also look at the 21st century. We are living in world of growing knowledge economy. The discourse on knowledge economy is universal today. All countries have set up knowledge commissions in order to become competitive; they are investing in hardware and software knowledge. Within knowledge economy there are knowledge elites; several of them reside in the Silicon Valley with their counterparts in Bangalore, India and then there are knowledge workers, of course, those who are doing data entry jobs in BPOs or KPOs around the world. We also had an enormous competition knowledge production 20-25 years ago; 30 years ago universities and higher education research institutions were the sole sites of knowledge production. Now business has been setting up think tanks around the world. Media has become a major player in producing knowledge. If you are in today’s world of television, bite-size netizens are the sources of knowledge, however so superficial it may look like. And of course, civil society, particularly through its movement around the question of justice, inclusion of women, indigenous people, and rights to a sustainable and safe ecological environment, has also been contributing to knowledge. So we are living in world of competitive knowledge production. The information society, here more than anywhere else you will know, has the power of knowledge represented through the Yahoos, the Googles, the Twitters, and the Facebooks, the SMS, the mobile. There are 900 million mobile connections in India. It’s a separate matter that less than 500 million have access to toilets. There are countries like Russia and Brazil where on average 1.5 mobile connections per citizen exist today. It is estimated that by the end of 2014 there will be 7.2 billion mobile connects, a little more than the population of the world.

Therefore, this is a different era. This is an era where libraries in the form of resource books have an increasingly challenging environment to face. And finally, it is also an era where knowledge has become a commodity. The intellectual right has been aggressively pursued by WTO and others, and it is no longer a public good. Knowledge has become a private good, it can be traded as a commodity; it can be used as money, and many universities and higher education institutions around the world are being challenged by their governments and policy makers to partner with industry in order to mobilize resources from their knowledge products. So in this context, where we are living in a world of knowledge economy with all its manifestations of competition, regulation, commodification—what do citizens of the world expect from higher education and higher education institutions? Many of you have been party and partners in the promotion of higher education around the world, in your own institution but also through your network and alliances as this consortium represents. There has been, in many parts of the world greater massification of higher education; more and more people want to go to post-secondary educational institutions. Many more governments around the world are now investing in post-secondary education than was the case a decade ago. As massification of higher education happens, as larger and larger young people enter post-secondary educational institutions, as increasing larger middle career professionals return to post-secondary educational institutions for retooling, for learning new skills and competencies, there is a substantial shift in the expectations from higher institutions today.

The first in my view is a shift towards preparing a kind of citizens who are aware of the world they are a part of and behave in manners which are ethical. It is recognized that post-secondary educational institutions bring students, transforms them into learned products of some sort. But the question is how aware they are of the world they are a part of. Even if you are a civil engineer, do you know what is happening around the world? Increasingly, the question of ethical citizenship (is important), not just (in) expectations of ethical behavior from leaders of companies or governments or institutions of higher education, but ethical citizenship in the global context. Are higher educational institutions also preparing global ethical citizens of tomorrow? The second expectation is are they mobilizing knowledge for driving social change. The GUNI book that Hiram showed you, copies of the flyer available in your folder, is all about mobilizing knowledge to drive social change. Higher educational institutions, despite competition in knowledge economy, have to be at the cutting edge of producing knowledge, which is driving social change not only in our own communities and societies, but globally. There is an expectation that post-secondary education is not just a private good, irrespective of what economists may claim or theorize. Higher education is a public good, higher educational institutions are public institutions. Scholars in higher education institutions, like all of you found here, are public intellectuals. You have a role to stand up and speak on issues that confront our society. And higher education institutions can become spaces. They can reclaim spaces for public discourse. Remember the campuses we were all a part of when we were going to our education institutions? Whatever happened to those campuses? Whatever happened to that public space? There is a growing expectation that higher education institutions can convene dialogs across various divides in our society: divides across institutions, divides across communities, divides across politics, ethnicity, religion, gender. Can higher education institution convene dialogs across divides in order to engage with each other and engage with different perspectives and knowledges? Higher education institutions can do so, they’re expected to do so; they were doing so in many parts of the world earlier; we need to reclaim that role once again. In some unique ways, higher education institutions are the only institutions in our society which provide connectivity locality and globality. Locality in the context, in here Edmonton, in the river valley of Edmonton and around, but also the global connection that this river valley represents, that arena of Edmonton represents, that the citizens of Edmonton represent today. This connection higher education institutions can make more organically. Whenever media makes take connection, it leaves out a lot in that connection. Most newspaper reports or television news items do not produce that connectivity in the same way that higher education institutions can do. And therefore, they can create circles of community engagement, locality and globality—coterminous —not something which is separate. Higher education institutions can also, in my view, move beyond knowledge economies to create knowledge society. In fact, higher education institutions can be at the cutting edge proclaiming that knowledge is a public good, knowledge commons is public commons. And it should be available for the benefit of addressing those challenges for all humanity so that we move forward from those crossroads which I referred to a few minutes ago. By building knowledge societies I mean higher education institutions can value diversity of knowledge. They can bring together—Hiram used a wonderful phrase, a blending of community indigenous knowledge with the knowledge of academic rigor produced in universities. They can appreciate plurality of knowledge forms beyond the written word: the storytelling idea workshops here and a number of presentations focusing on narratives of storytelling as forms of expressions of knowledge. It is wonderful to see such presentations being made in an academically rigorous conference like this one because we are willing to include them as forms of expressions of knowledge.

I discovered among those tribal farmers in Southern Rajasthan 40 years ago that they had the capacity to critically think for themselves. That critical thinking was not something you acquired only when you received a Ph.D. or master’s degree. How do we respect that criticality, that critical thinking function? And many of them would start by saying, We don’t know, you are highly educated, you are the learned one, you tell us what we can do. And we many times get seduces. We start telling them what to do. I think we need to stand up to say: Yes, we have got some formal education, but you have knowledge from your experience, your experiential knowledge, practical knowledge, knowledge going through your generations. You also contribute to analyses of this problem and its solutions, because I alone cannot do so. I think we are therefore expecting higher education institutions to work towards integration of a knowledge society which is somewhat distinctive from the current race towards knowledge economy. It will be an attempt to include various forms of knowledge, various expressions of knowledge, and treat them all with respect. As one of our indigenous elders last night said, “It’s all about respect.”

Knowledge-driven social change, this conference is Engaged Scholarship Consortium. Engagement also happens in the communities, with the communities. At the moment the equation is somewhat unbalanced. The outreach from universities and higher education to the communities is far greater around the world than the other way around. Communities around the world are not making the same degree and the same frequency of demands on higher education institution as they should be doing either. And part of the reason they are not doing is because individual engaged scholars all of you here and many you know around the world, they are committed towards engagement but our institutions sometimes are not. Our institutions sometimes are designed, created, administered, and presented in a manner to the larger public in a manner that makes it difficult for communities to make demands on our institutions for engagement. In my view, therefore, engaged scholarship is the stepping stone towards engaged institutions of higher education, and engagement is essentially the core of excellence. If we are engaged, we are excellent. So how can we change to engage? A wonderful theme for this conference: Changing to engage. What does that mean? Institution-wide engagement. Not just in departments and faculties of extension, adult lifelong learning, community outreach, social work, nursing, indigenous education, ecology, gender studies, mental health. Yes, all these disciples are important. But civil engineering, nuclear physics, literature, biotechnology, nanotechnology, institution wide—all disciplines must be encouraged and supported to engage, institution deep. The core function of higher institutions is teaching and research. Can we integrate engagement with these core functions? Can we make the teaching engaged in such ways that the quality of learning for our students improves through engagement, that engagement gives them (students) credits, grades, but also sensitivity, deep appreciation, and profound knowledge. Likewise, engagement in the core function of research, what Hiram called blending, knowledge available inside academe with the knowledge available in community, and doing it, of course, with respect as our elder reminded us last night. Therefore, integrate engagement in the mission and mainstream it in the core functions of teaching and research. Institution-long engagement actually implies commitments over decades. I know we like measurement, I know we need to show results, but please results of engagements cannot be shown in 18-month-long frames.

We are talking about changing the culture of our institutions, not only the culture of higher education institutions, but the culture of community organizations, because they need to come forward an engage with higher education, as well. This shift in culture in not going to happen in 18-month or three-year time frames. I know we need to show results, we need to show progress, we need to have metrics, important as they are, but the commitment has to be over decades. It cannot be that a new president, or chancellor, or vice chancellor comes in and says, I will now design a new strategic plan for the next five years, and by the way we have dropped engagement now. Partnerships of trust, mutual benefit, partnerships outside higher education institutions must recognize that community organizations are small, weak, fragile do not have the same level of resources as higher institutions may have. But they have social capital, they have networks, they have practitioner knowledge, they have experiential knowledge, and at times they may have faith, a faith for change, which skeptical as we are as academics, we may not want to acknowledge, because how can we believe in anything unless it is empirically proven.

Finally, it co-creates capacity and structures for engagement. Our studies have begun to show institutional structures are critical to incentivize engagement. This means the structures within higher education institutions on the boundaries of higher education institutions with engagement with communities, but also building capacities not just of those inside, but also those outside. I believe in situ joint capacity enhancement with community leaders and organizations and students and scholars would go a long way in strengthening this possibility that institutionalization of engagement could happen both inside higher education as well as outside, just as institutionalization inside will not yield the results we are looking for. Finally, the book that Hiram showed you, the GUNI book at the conference last May, came up with a phrase: be “knowledgiastic.” You can’t find it in an Oxford dictionary, but so what, none of us are doing what we were trained to do anyway. We are all creating the road as we walk. And therefore what does being knowledgiastic mean? Co-create transformative knowledge which drives social change which provides means for addressing some of the problems of our times, but which also brings various other actors together. I believe higher education institutions have the possibility, and in fact perhaps are the only set of institutions available in our societies today with the capacity to bring together divergent, conflictful actors in our societies, to arrive at a consensus that will drive a desirable future for all humanity in the 21st century. And I look forward to being with you in the next two days to explore how you are doing it in your own ways in your part of the world. Thank you very much for your patience.

Screen Shot 2015-11-09 at 11.19.39 AM

First Place — Integrating High-Impact Scholarship into a Large General Education Class

Dr. Careen Yarnal and Hsin-Yu Chen

The Pennsylvania State University

Engaged scholarship is defined at Penn State as out-of-classroom academic experiences that complement classroom learning. Research has found that experiences like internships, study abroad, service learning, and undergraduate research are high-impact practices, providing students with opportunities to reflect on life choices and experiences, to improve time management skills, and to apply in-class learning to real world contexts and settings. However, issues of scalability, cost, enrollment limitations, time commitment, and implementation frame these practices. To provide an alternative engaged scholarship model, while at the same time addressing some shortcomings associated with providing high-impact experiences, we embedded a three-phase time diary into a large undergraduate general education class. The three phases of the diary consisted of 1) intensive data collection about personal time used in various activities for seven consecutive 24-hour periods, conducted at the beginning of the semester; 2) rigorous data entry and analysis in an Excel file specifically designed to calculate statistics on daily and weekly time use, conducted mid-semester; and 3) extensive self-reflection about time use and college life in the form of an 8–10 page paper, conducted at the end of the semester. Providing multiple applied learning and engagement experiences for the mix of majors, genders, ages, and academic classifications and spacing three phases over the semester, the project also provided students with opportunities to:

• Examine what their data collection and analysis demonstrated about daily and weekly time use.

• Reappraise personal goals in college life.

• Engage in greater self-reflection on life choices and time management.

• Deepen understanding of class concepts and apply this knowledge to daily life.

• Use time more meaningfully.

Qualitative analysis of the self-reflection papers (n=111) revealed that self-reflection urged students to cognitively review personal goals, values, attitudes, behaviors, and time use. Results demonstrated that the diary project made learning more meaningful for students because they applied what they learned in the classroom to out-of-classroom contexts and settings. The diary project also helped students deepen learning, bring values and beliefs into awareness, and facilitate better understanding of self and others. In addition, it led to an appreciation of how class concepts helped them understand the importance of choices, priorities, and decision-making during free time. Indeed, some students were inspired to positively engage in meaningful activities, such as volunteering and civic engagement. This study’s results suggest that integrating innovative engaged scholarship models like the time diary into a general education curriculum not only provides engaged scholarship opportunities to more students, but also holds cost-effective, large-scale potential to harness out-of-class engagement opportunities that contribute to students’ academic, personal, and social development.

Second Place—The Impact of Homelessness and Incarceration on the Health of WomenScreen Shot 2015-11-13 at 3.12.07 PM

By Louanne Keenan and Rabia Ahmed

University of Alberta

This study used participatory action and mixed methodology to explore the health-seeking experiences, perceptions of risk, and the medical, mental health, and housing needs of females during incarceration. Four focus groups were conducted during the incarceration period in groups of four to six inmates.

Additionally, 300 health surveys were completed by female inmates. Focus group and survey questions focused on the following themes: 1) access to medical and mental health care; 2) medical and mental health needs; 3) housing needs; and 4) perceptions of risk to one’s health and safety during the transition from corrections to the community. Women described how they enter incarceration in poor health and how incarceration was viewed as a time to improve overall health through accessing health services. However, maintaining health as they transition back into the community was dependent on housing status. If women were released into unsafe or unstable housing, they described increased risk for returning to poor health and recidivism into crime. Female inmates described a number of healthcare challenges, knowledge deficits, lack of housing resources, and barriers to moving forward in life. These findings support the development of gender-sensitive health and housing programs for preventing or reducing drug and alcohol use, recidivism, and poor health among this vulnerable population.

Third Place—Does Service-Learning Make Graduates (Feel) More Employable?

By Paul H. Matthews and Jeffrey H. Dorfman, University of Georgia

Two hundred and thirty-nine graduates who took service-learning coursework at the University of Georgia were surveyed three years post-graduation to assess how they believed service learning had influenced their employment across a range of factors, including salary, job field, and promotions. Consistent with earlier studies, the largest perceived benefit of having taken service-learning courses was in terms of helping students determine their field of interest. Graduates’ open-ended comments also suggested more global benefits from these courses, which may have had indirect impacts on their job skills, competitiveness, and performance.

third place

Honorable Mention with Distinction—Illustrating the Impacts: Global Community Engaged Design. By Rebekah Radtke and Travis Hicks (University of North Carolina-Greensboro).honorable mention

Subthemes—What impact are we having? How do we measure impacts or outcomes of community university engagement?

Abstract—How can we validate the learning outcomes of global community engaged experiences beyond the intuitive? This presentation shares a framework that illustrates how to effectively measure the impact of engaging in community-based projects abroad.

Question—Community engaged experiences provide students with the ability to experience the global context of design outside of the classroom. These opportunities enrich the learning landscape by providing students interactions with a variety of viewpoints from varying cultural contexts. But how can we validate the learning outcomes beyond the intuitive? This presentation seeks to share a framework that illustrates how to effectively measure the impact of studying abroad by engaging in community-based projects. Based on a study abroad program to Brazil, the author will discuss the measures and results of a study conducted in the summer of 2013.

Framework—A study abroad program to Brazil prompted research with nine students from interior design and architecture that participated in a community-engaged design build project with a local village outside of Sao Paulo. The research was comprised of multiple levels of engagement; methodologies required students to complete a survey about global citizenship and academic development prior to departure, immediately upon arrival home, and ten weeks after their return. The study required students to complete exploratory sketching, responsive writing, and an independent research project to chart learning based on standards for global understanding and collaboration. This data was analyzed to assess how well students met learning objectives for the course and how they were impacted both personally and professionally by the global experience.

Conclusions—Systematic assessment of the data collected reveals how community engagement can enrich the learning experience and provide evidence for student learning outcomes. Data showed students exhibited understanding of working with multiple stakeholders and a whole systems approach to sustainability by participating in community engaged design processes abroad. Students showed evidence of awareness to varying socio-economic conditions within other cultures through active engagement with community members. Ideas will be shared to assist educators in making student travel demonstrate the impact of community engaged design within a world context.

Honorable Mention with Distinctionhonorable mention

Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service—Building an Intercultural Competent Community: First Year Assessment

By Maria G. Fabregas Janeiro and Jorge H. Atiles, Oklahoma State University

Oklahoma State University is aware of the challenge of preparing Cooperative Extension educators to work with people from different cultures. To face this challenge it has proposed a project “Build an Intercultural Competent Community (ICC).” the goal of which is to develop a community, which works effectively in multicultural environments. During the first year of the project, two assessments were conducted, 1) needs assessment of intercultural competence training by Extension personnel, and 2) assessment of intercultural competence using the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). The needs assessment survey was designed by the researchers and used Qualtrics platform to collect the data. 685 Extension personnel were asked to complete the assessment; 132 (19.28%) answered the survey. The evaluation showed that OCES personnel are interested in attending intercultural training and developing their own intercultural competence.

Extension personnel are having problems reaching multicultural audiences and are concerned about offending people from other cultures due to the language barriers and unfamiliarity with cultural manners. The second evaluation, the IDI, was sent to the same 685 individuals; 55 (8.03%) answered the instrument. The group studied showed a perceived orientation of 119.68, corresponding to the acceptance stage of the Intercultural Development Continuum (Hammer, 2012). Group Perceived Orientation “reflects where the group places itself along the continuum” (Hammer, 2015, p. 5). On the other hand, the group developmental orientation of 90.91, corresponding to the minimization stage of the continuum, “indicates the Group Primary Orientation toward cultural differences and commonalities” (Hammer, 2015, p. 5). The group believed, at the time of the assessment that “recognizes and appreciated patterns of cultural differences and commonalities in one’s own and other cultures” (Hammer 2015, p. 4). However, their Developmental Orientation shows that the group “highlights cultural commonality and universal values that may also mask deeper recognition and appreciation of cultural differences” (Hammer, 2015, p. 4)

These assessments are helping to design intercultural competency trainings according to the Extension educators’ levels of intercultural competence and specific needs. According to the data, trainings should discuss topics related to cultural superiority or inferiority (right from wrong), and continue focusing on cultural differences and commonalities and the ways that those differences could be accepted and respected. Training included a variety of modalities such as face-to–face workshops, lectures, online via Adobe Connect or Desire to Learn (D2L) platforms.


Hammer, M.R. (2012). The intercultural development inventory: A new frontier in assessment and development of intercultural competence. In M. Vande Berg, R.M. Paige, & K.H. Lou (Eds.), Student learning abroad (pp. 115–136). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Hammer, M.R. (2015). Intercultural development inventory v. 3 (IDI). Group profile report. See https://idiinventory.com/wp-content/themes/evolution/pdfs/ACME_Corporation_-_Group_Profile.pdf.


Honorable Mention with Distinction—Characteristics of Effective Practice by Faculty in Service-Learning Courses. By Paul H. Matthews (University of Georgia) and Andrew J. Pearl (University of North Georgia).

Abstract—Academic service learning (SL) is a high-impact educational practice with demonstrated student benefits ranging from increased understanding of course content to enhanced civic outcomes. However, not all SL courses are equally effective at bringing about positive outcomes for participants. Undergraduate and graduate students (n=546) from 42 unique SL courses participated in one university’s end-of-course survey across multiple semesters. Regression analyses of their responses investigated the influence of course elements, particularly those under the control of the instructor, on composite student outcome variables.

Recipients of the 2014 Engagement Scholarship/W.K. Kellogg Foundation Engagement Award and Finalists for the 2014 C. Peter Magrath University/Community Engagement Awardrecipients of the 2014...

Recipients were announced at the ESC Conference at the University of Alberta, Canada, on October 8, 2014.

WINNER: The Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy. Title: Working Together to Transform Lives through Pharmacist Collaborative Care and Outreach in the Community” was produced through the Pharmacist Collaborative Care and Outreach in the Community (PCOC). The winning project was the work of Dr. Leticia Moczygemba, assistant professor in the School of Pharmacy, and Dr. Sallie Mayer, assistant professor, VCU School of Pharmacy. The VCU School of Pharmacy’s PCOC is composed of initiatives that include seven academic-community partnerships with independent senior living facilities and underserved clinics, five large-scale community outreach programs, and programs to train the next generation of health professionals. PCOC initiatives focus on underserved populations, including the uninsured, older adults, homeless individuals, and those living in rural areas. The scope includes providing students with high-quality learning experiences, advancing research and clinical practice, preparing students for careers that advance health, and creating university-community partnerships to improve healthcare access. Fourteen faculty members, 500 students, and 35 residents have provided more than 20,000 patient care encounters in the Greater Richmond area. PCOC initiatives are integrated with service learning courses, advanced pharmacy practice experiences, electives, and inter-professional education experiences.

FINALIST—Purdue University. Purdue Kenya Program (PKP) is the work of Ellen Schellhase, clinical associate professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice, and Monica Miller, clinical associate professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice. In 2003, the Purdue University College of Pharmacy (PUCOP) joined the Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare (AMPATH) consortium in Eldoret, Kenya, and established the Purdue Kenya Program with a mission of building a sustainable access to high quality care for nearly 3.5 million people in the AMPATH catchment area while fostering development of globally engaged students. This partnership includes Kenyan patients and pharmacists as well as AMPATH and Purdue University faculty and staff. PKP has created a sustainable clinical pharmacy infrastructure to provide patient care programs, coupled with funded research programs that investigate understudied characteristics of patients in sub-Saharan Africa. PKP has also established a unique experiential training program that builds pharmacy leaders from the United States and Kenya. This is the only clinical pharmacy training program in sub-Saharan Africa with more than 200 trainees, including PUCOP students, University of Nairobi pharmacy interns, and PUCOP Global Health residents. These trainees provide more than 80 clinical interventions daily while working on the inpatient wards. PKP has received approximately $50 million in product donations, grants, and program support. It has contributed 18 peer-reviewed publications and 110 poster and invited platform presentations demonstrating how clinical pharmacy services can be effectively established and sustained in a resource-constrained setting.

FINALIST—University of New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Lakes Lay Monitoring Program (NH LLMP) is the work of Jeff Schloss of the Natural Resources Program in the UNH Cooperative Extension and Patricia Tarpey, executive director of Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Association.

The NH LLMP, a volunteer water-quality monitoring program, has been used as a model to create and improve similar programs in 35 states and 12 countries. To date, the program has trained more than 1,250 volunteers, worked on assessing 118 lakes, and monitored more than 1,670 lake and tributary sites. The program grew out of an expressed community need for understanding environmental changes noticed by lake users. By engaging volunteers to identify questions and concerns about their lakes and training them to be active participants in data collection and analysis, large quantities of reliable data can be gathered in a cost-effective way for multiple research initiatives. The findings can then be used to make sound local, state and regional management decisions. For more than 35 years, UNH Cooperative Extension, faculty, and students from UNH’s Center for Freshwater Biology have worked with lake associations and communities to collect data on NH’s lake quality. Receiving timely data on a large spatial scale allows researchers to better understand how climate and human activity on the landscape affect our water resources.

FINALIST—Oregon State University. Working Together to Transform Lives through Pharmacist Collaborative Care and Outreach in the Community (PCOC) is the work of Connie Green, president, Tillamook Bay Community College, and Paul Navarra, vice principal of Madras High School in Madras, Oregon.

In the Oregon Open Campus (OOC) initiative, Oregon State University serves as a convener of community partners who address educational needs unique to individual Oregon communities. Under the OOC banner, OSU partners with K–12 schools, community colleges, businesses, and governmental interests to provide and coordinate educational opportunities—both credit and non-credit—that specifically meet the needs identified in individual communities. When refined and proven to be successful, these innovations are made available to other communities. Oregon State, with a statewide mandate as Oregon’s land-grant university and the Carnegie Foundation’s top designation for research institutions and Community Engagement classification, is a logical choice to address these issues. In 2009–2010, after conversations with community leaders looking for greater access to the university, Oregon State launched three Oregon Open Campus pilot sites. OOC served more than 1,200 learners in each of the first two years, and 2,499 learners in FY 2012. The OOC goals match and support Oregon Legislative goals: college and career readiness, increased off-campus degree completion, and improved local economic development and business vitality. After an initial “proof of concept” investment by the university, increased investments by community and campus partners helped expand OOC to six sites, reaching nine rural counties in 2013.

EXEMPLARY PROJECT—Montana State University. Title: “Towne’s Harvest Garden: Locally, Sustainably, and Educationally Grown Community Engagement.”

Towne’s Harvest Garden (THG), MSU’s farm and community supported agriculture (CSA) program, is a dynamic outdoor classroom, a living laboratory for research, and a primary venue for community engagement. THG was initiated by a student organization in 2007 in partnership with the Gallatin Valley Food Bank (GVFB), and has been sustained by curricular integration and institutional support. THG’s mission is to be a source of locally, sustainably, and educationally grown food for the campus and members of the surrounding community. Students in the Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Systems degree program spend their first summer at MSU participating in a hands-on THG practicum course designed to teach all aspects of small-scale food production. THG also provides service-learning opportunities for MSU students from other disciplines such as architecture and engineering. THG students distribute the food they have grown through a CSA (where members pay an upfront fee for a weekly share of the harvest); at a weekly campus farm stand; and through the Community Food Truck (CFT), a mobile farm stand created in partnership with the GVFB. THG activities have attracted external funds, formed the basis of countless conference presentations, and been featured in numerous peer-reviewed and outreach publications.

EXEMPLARY PROJECT—North Carolina State University. Title: “Community Engagement Through the Helps Education Fund (HEF).”

The mission of the HEF is to support educators (including parents) and improve learning outcomes for K–12 students locally, nationally, and internationally. To achieve this, HEF facilitates collaborative partnerships between education researchers and school-based professionals to develop and evaluate educational strategies and materials, and then provides free research-supported materials and services to educators and parents. HEF also offers support to underperforming schools. All HEF programs are developed and disseminated with three main principles: (1) authentic collaboration between researchers and practitioners; (2) evidence of effectiveness; and (3) access to HEF programs and services for free or at minimal cost. The HEF and its community partners have created eight complementary programs, which are being used by more than 20,000 educators in more than 40 countries around the globe. In the past few years HEF has also offered more than $200,000 in donated materials and services, in addition to thousands of hours of direct intervention support for struggling learners. University students and faculty, as well as many community partners, have also authored more than 30 scholarly publications, more than 80 presentations, and numerous grants based on their collaborative work and research-supported programs.

EXEMPLARY PROJECT—University of Missouri. Title: “MU Adult Day Connection.”

In 1986, Boone County citizens saw the need for adult day health care services in Columbia, MO. The University of Missouri (MU) School of Health Professions (SHP) saw the benefits of creating a service that provided research potential for MU faculty and service-learning for students. Twenty-five years ago SHP established the MU Adult Day Connection (ADC) through a university-community partnership. Since ADC began, more than 600 participants and families have benefited from the more than 37,000 days of health care provided by staff and students. Caregivers, through the annual evaluation, report less stress when their family members attend the center. The partnership provides faculty a great location to test research, and the program reflects best practices developed or endorsed by faculty. Every year more than 100 students from MU and other health professions volunteer at the center. Many students begin college wanting to work with children, but after spending time at the center they also discover the value of working with seniors and individuals with disabilities. This is a life and career changing time for them, and MU has an obligation to ensure that competent health practitioners are available to care for increased numbers of elders and individuals with disabilities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.