Team 5: Engagement & Service
Minutes for Meeting of February 20, 2004

Present: Begun, White, Krueger, Pick, Calvin, Burgiss

This meeting was centered around planning for the writing process.

Our first (lengthy and informative)discussion concerned our team's views about what the campus should be doing with regard to routinely collecting information/data about engagement and service, followed by questions concerning what kinds of uses/analysis processes we believe the campus should practice related to engagement and service data. The highlights and key points:

• Documentation systems--the campus needs to explore means of improving the systematic collection of information/data related to engagement and service at UWM. Some of the issues that need to be addressed include the actual mechanics of systematic data input and management (i.e., developing a campus-wide computer system for standardized elements of annual reviews on staff and faculty; departments and centers having systems for monthly activity reports that are tied to leave statements; modifying current T-forms to include checked area for grants, contracts, gifts, awards, etc. that have a community engagement component); refinement of instruments to capture the variety of activities while offering some consistency in reporting, including in the instruments a set of definitions of key terms; motivating departments and centers to routinely and systematically collect the data; useful time lines (i.e., annual may not provide current enough information for important uses of the information AND doing it routinely means no last minute, rushed reports leading to questionable data quality).
  
  
• Need to address institution's reward systems related to engagement & service--this includes addressing variability across divisions, departments, and divisions versus departments, as well as between faculty and academic staff systems of merit, promotion, tenure/indefinite status, etc. This relates to the issue of advancing the campus priority for "scholarship of engagement" (including incentive plans).
  
  
• Campus needs to develop procedures for routine analysis of the information (beyond the NCA process)--Analysis should address 2 types of questions: (1) How engaged are we/how are we engaged and (2) What are the impacts of our engagement (community benefit, community attitudes toward UWM, benefits for the campus, recruitment of faculty, staff and students). The campus needs to have greater discussion and proof of a commitment to engagement & service; analysis needs to quantify the "benefits" and translate outcomes back to the community; analysis should address means of promoting engagement & service; engagement & service analysis should provide needed advertising, publicity, PR, "bragging" about UWM, and a means of educating the community (and alumni and funders) about our research results and our engagement/service products, but also much more than that; analysis should address means of promoting engagement and service and overcoming barriers to it (e.g., difficulties around the interface between community partners and graduate school business office procedures, timelines, practices, policies, etc.)
  
  
• Campus needs to push for routine systematic evaluation component being built into engagement activities, provide quality assurance and community satisfaction evidence, and evidence of impact of engagement & service; we should try to quantify benefits accrued due to engagement and service activities; each activity should have evaluation built in as a requirement, and evaluation information should be built into each Dean's performance evaluations and reports about what their schools are doing in this arena. We need to be sure that our connections and engagement result in "betterment" and that satisfaction exits.
  
  
• Campus should develop a "topical" list of engagement and service activities, so that an individual seeking information about what is going on in an area (e.g., aging, domestic violence, diversity training, etc.) can look up who is doing what, who might help, what not to duplicate, etc. This would parallel the campus "experts list" but be specific to engagement activities and community-university partnerships.

We also discussed, at a more global level, the question of "Why should the University be concerned/interested in engagement & service?" It is related to our mission, we tell people we do it so we should be able to demonstrate that we do it, making it clear that this is more than rhetoric, belief that when Universities are engaged everyone benefits (the campus and the community), it makes our students better "products" and citizens of the world, it can generate income. The parallel question asked was "Why does the campus care about scholarship and publications" and the answer was "image" but image among a select group of academics and scholars. The parallel answer as to why university should care about engagement and service has to do with image, also, but among everyone.

The remaining period of discussion was focused on the specific uses to which we will be putting the Deans and Department Chairs/Center Directors suvey data. We went through each instrument, item by item, to determine what we will be reviewing for our reports (because of the lack of correspondance to our original data requests). The consensus was as follows:

Deans Survey:
Q1. We will review the descriptions around strategic planning for any references to E & S, the answers to 1c that address external constituencies, and the responses to 1d and 1e that are/might be about E&S

Q2. The specific E&S content in areas of support, planning/budget decision examples

Q3. The specific E&S content in areas of support, examples of impact on hiring/promotion/merit criteria

Q4. skimmed to determine whether or not there is a mention of service learning

Q5. Reviewed for info related to diverse constituencies (entire item for section 5A, not just our evidence of engagement point)

Department Chairs Survey:
Q4. Section F on service to the community/society

Q6. engagement & service in merit/promotion

Q7. item #3

Q8. Section on measures of faculty engagement & service (workshop, national/local committees/task force, consultant, community board memberships, community presentations, performances). We will also skim the section on "professional service" to be certain that service to professions is not confused with service to professional community; we will review service awards that might relate to E&S, too

Q10. We may look for information on community research sites

Q14. We need to review all of these for E&S content

Q15. We need to review all of these for E & S content

Q16. We need to review for those affecting engagement

Q17. ALL

Q 18. ALL

Q 19. ALL

Next meeting: March 18 at 1 pm.