Review of Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives, Edited by James A. Banks. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004

Participants at a recent Wingspread conference on the future of engagement in higher education concluded that while the movement has created some change, it has also plateaued and requires a more comprehensive effort to ensure lasting commitment and institutional capacity. A greater number of academics need to define their territory more widely and accept that they share much of it with other knowledge-professionals; engagement with those beyond the ivory tower may greatly enrich their own thinking. A new epistemology leads to a new scholarship and challenges higher education leaders to envision and enact institutional change that shifts engagement to the core of the university. The need for a new model for advancing the scholarship of engagement has emerged from an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of existing models.

Cold War science and the infusion of federal funding that fueled the military, industrial, and university complex fundamentally shaped higher education in the United States. Coincident with the rise of the civic engagement movement was a period of significant advances in the cognitive sciences and in developmental psychology that reinforced experiential learning theory and practice. The civic engagement movement was often on the defensive, reasserting the democratic purposes of higher education, countering the reductionist trends sweeping across the landscape of higher education, and attempting to counteract neoliberalism's effects on the university. As one data point contributing to an understanding of emerging faculty work during the development of the civic engagement movement, the HERI faculty survey allows us to gain perspective on a new generation of faculty. For next-generation engagement scholars, public engagement raises the relationship of knowledge to power, privilege, politics, and self-interest.

This study examines how community-engaged scholarship (CES) was defined and described in promotion and tenure policies at a university. Examining 67 policies across university, unit and department levels, findings show meaningful variability with regards to whether and how CES was defined or described. Analysis categorizes the types of descriptions used as outputs, outcomes, and/or processes related to or enacting CES. We address the importance of not just naming, but fully describing the core values of CES. We discuss the importance of process as a definitional characteristics, and relationships and epistemology in particular; and, the importance of continuing to explicate the interconnectivity and distinctions between CES and diversity, equity, inclusion, and epistemic justice.

Choosing how to recognize community-engaged scholarship in promotion and tenure policies so that it is assessed accurately and fairly remains a relatively new and ongoing challenge for institutions of higher education. This case study examines how one U.S. research university integrated recognition of community-engaged scholarship across all levels of policy, including university, unit, and department. The terms used within and across policies reveal that while some terms were perpetuated across policies, many more terms proliferated across policies. Using organizational change and signaling theories, as well as the Democratic Civic Engagement Framework, analysis raises questions and insights regarding the use of both specificity and ambiguity when choosing and defining terms, and the use of terms across faculty roles of teaching, research/creative activity, and service to signal and address legitimacy of community-engaged scholarship within a larger context of institutional values.

Co-published with For directors of campus centers that have received the Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement, this book offers research and models to further advance their work. For directors starting out, or preparing for application for the Carnegie Classification, it provides guidance on setting up and structuring centers as well as practical insights into the process of application and the criteria they will need to meet.Building on the findings of the research undertaken by the author and John Saltmarsh on the infrastructure of campus centers for engagement that have received the Carnegie Classification for Community, this book responds to the expressed needs of the participating center directors for models and practices they could share and use with faculty, and mid-level and upper-level administrators to more fully embed engagement into institutional culture and practice.This book is organized around the purpose (the "why"), platforms (the "how"), and programs (the "what") that drive and frame community engagement in higher education, offering practitioners valuable information on trends of current practice based on Carnegie Classification criteria. It will also serve the needs of graduate students aspiring to become the future professoriate as engaged scholars, or considering preparation for new administrative positions being created at centers.

Next-generation engagement scholars and their scholarship are part of a broad, rich, and complex history of American higher education. This chapter provides a concise overview of the last 30 years as seen through the lens of the civic mission of higher education. In particular, it features the emergence of a civic engagement movement that has reinvigorated and advanced the democratic purposes of higher education. As contributors to this movement, the authors have been part of its history and offer their perspective as a way of understanding the past in order to empower those who now shape—and those who will shape—the future of civic engagement and the future of higher education. Discontent drives movements, and the early 1980s were troubled times for American higher education. The US economy was weak, and a projected demographic decline in college students led some experts to predict that as many as one third of colleges and universities might face merger or closure.

Higher education today faces deep and wrenching struggles to retain social relevancy and public legitimacy in its efforts to sustain its academic and civic purpose. Shrinking public expenditures, unsustainable tuition prices, an efficiency-based consumer model, the demise of tenure and remaking of the professoriate, shifts to online delivery systems, and a declining focus on the outcomes of teaching and learning have marked the changing face of higher education in the twenty-first century. Likewise, today's undergraduate population represents widespread demographic shifts with increasing numbers of underserved students, challenging institutions of higher education to address diversity and inclusion in the substance of the organizational culture. Indicators of emergent next-generation democratic practices include five dimensions. First, there is a cadre of scholar-practitioners who span the boundaries between the academy and the community, often positioned as "community connectors," connected to the institutional structures of local colleges and universities while equally aligned with the problem-solving taking place in local and global communities.

The context for thinking about community-engaged scholarship and institutional change has been influenced by greater awareness of demographic shifts and their implications, as an increasing number of graduate students and early career faculty are more racially and ethnically diverse and have developed scholarly identities as engaged scholars pursuing emerging forms of scholarship, in particular interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary scholarship, digital scholarship, and community-engaged scholarship. Networks are a significant source of social capital and power. Community engagement faculty often form an enclave within an institution, but there are other enclaves as well, and institutional transformation requires making allies across subgroups and interests and finding ways to make compromises that do not assume a zero-sum game between more traditional and engaged scholarship and scholars.

Mary Walshok (1995) publication, "Knowledge Without Boundaries: What America's Research Universities Can Do for the Economy, the Workplace, and the Community," pointed out that economic and social well-being of the U.S. was increasingly dependent on the new knowledge being generated and organized by the nation's research universities, but also by others outside the academy. Walshok argued that universities could effectively organize and disseminate the knowledge originated from various sources, and that there is a need for a flexible view of knowledge and the recognition of multiple sources of expertise—a notion to which commonly referred as engagement today. Monetizing services through tuition increases, high fee-paying international students, and commercialization is not the answer to decreasing public funding. The modern American university needs to remodel its organizational and financing mechanisms and find new ways of curriculum development. Above all, a shift in faculty culture is needed as knowledge resides in multiple places and that universities must be a "hub" for knowledge.

In 2020, 359 campuses, representing a wide range of institutional diversity in American higher education, have achieved the elective community engagement classification from the Carnegie Foundation. To receive the classification, campuses must provide extensive documentation (through an application) indicating a commitment to institutionalizing community engagement. When they do so, the Carnegie Foundation recognizes community engagement as part of the institutional identity of the campus. Unlike the basic Carnegie classification, which all campuses receive, the community engagement classification was designed to augment the basic classification in a way that encouraged campus innovation and change. What the authors offer, based on the experience of reviewing hundreds of applications for the classification, is that the Carnegie Foundation was not only encouraging campus change, but that the design of the classification suggests a theory of how institutionalization of community engagement happens. The authors have found that when working with campuses that are preparing applications, understanding the theory of change implied by the classification has been helpful in focusing attention on the importance of community engagement being located in the core academic cultures, policies, structures and practices of the campus.

Reciprocal partnerships between institutions of higher education (IHEs) and communities provide opportunities for IHEs to fulfill their core mission while at the same time benefiting communities. One model of institutional accountability for this type of partnership is the Elective Carnegie Community Engagement (CE) Classification. As a process is underway to internationalize the US-based classification, this chapter engages with a central guiding question: How can we best adapt the CE classification's institutionalizing framework for CE designed in the context of the United States - in a way that upholds the integrity of engagement practices, adheres to effective strategies for organizational change, and is sensitive to national, cultural, economic, political, social, and historical contexts? In addressing this question, the internationalization strategy is focused on careful adaptation of the application framework so that it can be applied in specific national higher education contexts. The adaptation seeks to incorporate nationally and culturally relevant CE approaches that are reflected in organizational strategies at the institutional level, consistent with the internal logic of the CE classification: valuing expertise of others, working against colonial knowledge regimes, and mindfully building toward increased epistemic justice. This strategy can be a model for internationalization of other processes for IHEs.

In 2020, 359 campuses, representing a wide range of institutional diversity in American higher education, have achieved the elective community engagement classification from the Carnegie Foundation. To receive the classification, campuses must provide extensive documentation (through an application) indicating a commitment to institutionalizing community engagement. When they do so, the Carnegie Foundation recognizes community engagement as part of the institutional identity of the campus. Unlike the basic Carnegie classification, which all campuses receive, the community engagement classification was designed to augment the basic classification in a way that encouraged campus innovation and change. What the authors offer, based on the experience of reviewing hundreds of applications for the classification, is that the Carnegie Foundation was not only encouraging campus change, but that the design of the classification suggests a theory of how institutionalization of community engagement happens. The authors have found that when working with campuses that are preparing applications, understanding the theory of change implied by the classification has been helpful in focusing attention on the importance of community engagement being located in the core academic cultures, policies, structures and practices of the campus.