8

Next Steps for Action

To provide a framework for participants’ visions of the future of engaged scholarship and to help identify systems needed for institutional change, Tim Eatman, planning committee member and dean of the Honors Living-Learning Community and professor of urban education at Rutgers University–Newark, presented a conceptual map illustrating the key elements of publicly engaged scholarship, a term that includes engaged research.

Specifically, publicly engaged scholarship

• urges a “continuum of scholarship” paradigm, ranging from traditional to publicly engaged, which recognizes and respects all kinds of work and implies interdisciplinarity;
• requires “prophetic imagining,” or visionary foresight;
• hinges on clear and adaptable definitions, which lead to equitable and well-articulated evaluation criteria;
• manifests in trusting relationships and public-good impact;
• depends on democratic practice and full participation;
• embraces creative cultural organizing;
• rejects the exclusivity and sufficiency of the “ivory tower” mindset; and
• may lead to nontraditional career paths and scholarly products.

Participants were then given time for individual reflection on two guiding questions before discussing their ideas:

1. What will engaged research look like when organizations are shifted, infrastructure is built, and networks have been coordinated?
2. What actions could be taken right now to achieve that vision?

DISCUSSION

Participants shared ideas about key elements that would be in place in a hypothetical future in which capacity for engaged research is established, valued, supported, and normalized at scale. To guide the discussion, Eatman encouraged participants to harness their capacity for “prophetic imagination.” “I think that’s really our challenge,” he said. “I think it’s a failure of imagination.” Likening prophetic imagination to the boundless curiosity of a child taking their first steps, he said, “If I want a different future, I’ve got to think about taking breaking points and making them making points. Turning breaking points into making points [is] the work of imagining.” Visions included a future in which civic engagement is consistently valued and modeled in education, funding systems support engaged scholarship, and institutional structures fully incorporate epistemic justice.

Modeling Civic Engagement in Education

A participant remarked that, in his vision of the future, engaged educators will knowingly serve as models for their students, empowering the next generation of researchers to carry engagement practices into various sectors—thereby changing organizational cultures. In addition to teaching students how to be responsible communicators, which can build trust and understanding with communities, educator modeling can also teach students to question how research priorities are decided, he said.

A participant who works with seniors in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education concurred, noting that the main modeling he has observed illustrates only the traditional path of working in a lab and going on to earn a Ph.D.—most students are unaware of community engagement opportunities because they do not see them modeled, he said. Furthermore, he noted the imbalance in credit allocation between STEM courses, which are generally 3–4 credits, and courses focusing on community engagement or science communication, which might only consist of a 1-credit requirement over 4 years. This imbalance sends a message about the value of community engagement in the academic curriculum, he stated, highlighting his vision of curriculum reform to better integrate STEM with community engagement.

Another participant expanded on the theme of increased integration of civic engagement and engaged research in undergraduate education. She shared her experience at a college where long-term commitments to community co-created projects were institutionalized across multiple courses and disciplines—an approach that educates future citizens and researchers to collaborate effectively in communities. Eatman followed up by pointing to the Reggio Emilia Approach¹ as an example of instilling collaborative values in children through the education process.

Redesigned Funding Models

Noting the current need to “almost retrofit our funding processes so that they support community-led organizations,” a participant from a funding organization shared that her vision of the future involves new funding processes specifically designed to support community-led research. To further this vision, the competition component of funding could be eliminated by directly allocating funds to communities and allowing them to innovate, she suggested.

Another participant suggested that linking scholarly outputs to U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)² could help scientists—including many workshop participants—align their academic work with broader global priorities. When included in funding proposals, such links to the larger global context of SDGs can enhance researchers’ chances of receiving funding, he said.

Redesigned Institutional Structures and Epistemic Justice

Several participants proposed visions of the future that involved redesigning institutional structures.

• One participant proposed a vision in which academic institutions fully integrate interdisciplinarity, which would include community involvement. She noted that while interdisciplinarity is often discussed, it is rarely fully implemented in practice.
• Another participant suggested that institutions could redesign current guidelines, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, to integrate engaged research. Incorporation into institution-wide policies could lead to a future in which entire universities, rather than isolated departments or scholars, prioritize community engagement in their work.

• Michael Rios, vice provost of public scholarship and professor of human ecology at the University of California, Davis, said his vision of the future called for reimagining the knowledge enterprise, shifting the system from epistemic harm to inclusion and justice: “We are tinkering around a framework that’s developed over time. And in a sense, that has to fundamentally change.” Achieving this vision would require shifting away from the traditional framework of research, teaching, and service to a more holistic approach that values all types of impacts equally, he said.
• Lina Dostilio, vice chancellor of engagement and community affairs and associate professor in the School of Education at the University of Pittsburgh, brought a chancellor’s perspective to Rios’s proposed framework, envisioning two structural features that would make future engaged research dramatically different than it is today: (a) providing community-based knowledge producers with “full identity status privilege in knowledge production,” transcending their current appointments as fellows or visiting researchers; and (b) creating a flexible system that can be highly responsive to urgent local issues, similar to the quick pivot in priorities seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

NEXT STEPS FOR INCREASING COORDINATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING

Participants chose to participate in one of the four breakout groups that reflected the main topics of interest: building the scholarship of engaged research and equipping individuals and partners; organizational and culture change; artifacts, metrics, and incentives; and funding for research and sustainability. Each group was asked to consider the following prompts:

• What immediate actions would you prioritize? (Round robin)
• What actions if adopted do you think would be the most impactful?
• What actors should take that action?
• What can you do in your role about this?
• What would you prioritize for coordination, and who should be a part of that?

Planning committee members facilitated these discussions and reported the ideas from their breakout groups to the full workshop, which are summarized below. More detailed artifacts from these discussions are available on the project website.

Building Scholarship and Equipping Individuals and Partners

Elsa Falkenburger, director of the Community Engagement Resource Center at the Urban Institute, reported on ideas to prepare community partners and researchers for engaged work and to facilitate collaboration and inclusivity in partnerships. Several actionable steps were identified:

• Assume the topic at hand is already being discussed at the community level and invest in existing conversations and efforts.
• Focus on community action instead of representation—ensure work is led from the community.
• Take active responsibility for policy implementation steps included in reports.
• Recognize and integrate experiences of colleagues and community members, blurring the line between community and professional expertise.
• Ensure fair compensation for community members at all phases of work, similar to that received by professional sources of expertise.
• Develop courses based on existing community expertise and history, allowing community members to teach and ground students in local context.
• Value and incorporate students’ skills, identities, and experiences as strengths in collaborative, participatory research with the community.

Organizational and Culture Change

Emily Ozer, planning committee member and clinical and community psychologist and professor of public health at the University of California, Berkeley, and Mahmud Farooque, associate director of the consortium for science, policy and outcomes at Arizona State University, reported on the key action steps to address issues of organizational and institutional culture change that arose from their breakout groups.

• Encourage co-learning in diverse meta-networks of participants, including university presidents, funders, faculty, and community members, and explore ways to sustain this collaborative space.
• Learn from existing metrics, measures, and organizational structures to streamline efforts instead of “reinventing the wheel.”
• Prioritize clear, consistent language and concise mission statements, modeled after Promotion & Tenure – Innovation &

• Entrepreneurship (see Chapter 5) or similar initiatives, to enhance communication.
• Propose a standing committee on science communication at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and seek funding for a consensus study on community-engaged research. Such a committee could
  • establish scholarly standards for community-engaged research, recognizing the need for diverse perspectives and avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach;
  • engage opt-in participants from the current workshop to form a steering committee for the new committee;
  • develop shared principles, goals, agreements, objectives, and timelines for the coalition;
  • leverage existing connections to invite others to join the coalition;
  • provide support and advocacy outside the coalition by offering consultation, advice, and referrals;
  • act as ambassadors and advocates;
  • ensure equitable access for the next generation; and
  • communicate valuation of all forms of knowledge and learning.

Artifacts, Metrics, and Incentives

Elyse Aurbach, director for public engagement and research impacts at the University of Michigan, described priorities and action steps related to artifacts, metrics, and incentives from that breakout group.

• Push for funding specifically dedicated to assessment, especially during post-award periods when impact may take time to manifest.
• Equip and compensate community partners as co-equal designers of the assessment process.
• Identify and utilize promising assessment models from various disciplines.
• Facilitate field-wide sense-making and create on-ramps that familiarize newcomers with established assessment practices.
• Develop a menu of core metrics or common data elements to support assessment across institutional and funding levels.
• Address challenges related to updating, sustaining, and determining the best host for supporting ongoing assessment work.

Funding for Research and Sustainability

Susan Renoe, associate vice chancellor at University of Missouri, reported on the next steps related to addressing challenges related to funding for sustainability that emerged from that breakout group.

• Create supportive professional development environments within institutions to enable training for principal investigators on such topics as sustainability, coalition building, community partnership building, leadership skills, and fundraising.
• Involve community experts in the development and evaluation of requests for proposals, to ensure diverse perspectives and innovative approaches.
• Share data and metrics with funders to support investment in research initiatives.
• Embed support mechanisms within funding structures or encourage researchers to include such supports in their teams.