91探花

In October 2025, Provost Serio charged 91探花academic units to review and update their promotion and tenure guidelines “ensuring policies are current, equitable, and reflective of the diverse ways our talented faculty contribute to the university鈥檚 mission. The goal of this review is to affirm that the full range of faculty activities may be considered in tenure and promotion鈥攏ot to expand the existing requirements, but to ensure clarity and inclusivity in their application.鈥� The provost鈥檚 memo covers 10 areas of scholarship, including community engaged scholarship (CES).

We are pleased to note that 91探花has made significant strides in updating tenure, promotion and merit review (TPMR) processes, from voted upon adjustments to Faculty Code that recognize community engagement as a form of scholarship to UW鈥檚 .听

Additionally, some of the UW’s units have already revised their promotion and tenure guidelines to address community-engaged scholarship (CES):听

• Department of Dance, College of Arts and Sciences, 91探花Seattle
  • Contact: Christina Sunardi, csunardi@uw.edu
• Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Built Environments, 91探花Seattle
  • Contact: Catherine De Almeida, cdealmei@uw.edu
• School of Educational Studies, 91探花Bothell
  • Contact: Sarita Shukla, shuklas@uw.edu
• School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, 91探花Tacoma
  • Contact: Cynthia Howson, chowson@uw.edu
• School of Public Health, 91探花Seattle
  • Contact: Stephanie Farquhar, farqs@uw.edu

Community-engaged scholarship (CES) is increasingly recognized as both a legitimate scholarly pathway and central to higher education鈥檚 public mission. UW鈥檚 Summer 2025 鈥淩esearch Makes America鈥� campaign illustrates this commitment by highlighting funded community-engaged research and its impact on communities nationwide. Yet, TPMR structures at many research universities鈥攊ncluding 91探花to varying degrees鈥攍ag behind these aspirations, creating misalignment between institutional mission and faculty evaluation practices.

This misalignment is reflected in faculty and staff perceptions of institutional support for CES. In 2024, faculty and staff leads for the tri-campus Initiative to build capacity for community engagement conducted a UW-wide survey to evaluate the development of and support for community-engaged work. The survey revealed that, overall, faculty and staff do not feel supported by current P&T criteria. Out of 100 responses from faculty and staff (86 and 14, respectively), more than half (56%) of faculty/staff said they do not feel supported (1) or feel somewhat supported (2), and only 24% of faculty/staff felt very supported (4) by their units. For more information, see the

CES advances both institutional goals and societal impact. However, as UCLA鈥檚 ) report observes, 鈥渦niversity cultures and structures for evaluation have not changed鈥� creating impediments and disincentives for community-engaged scholarly work鈥� (p. 8). Blanchard and Furco (2021) similarly note that legacy evaluation systems at R1 institutions often relegate CES to 鈥渟ervice鈥� rather than 鈥渞esearch and scholarship,鈥� undervaluing it relative to traditional outputs. This disconnect suppresses faculty engagement, disproportionately affects women and faculty of color (Staub & Maharramli, 2021), and hinders the recruitment and retention of scholars committed to public impact (Ozer et al., 2023).

Integrating CES into TPMR is thus an urgent priority, aligning evaluation practices with public mission and addressing inequities in how diverse scholarly contributions are recognized.

UCLA鈥檚 2021 report, ), provides one of the most comprehensive institutional roadmaps for integrating CES into TPMR. The report identifies three primary models for incorporating engaged scholarship into review:

1. Opt-in Supplemental Review, where faculty undergo standard review with the option to submit a CES-focused supplemental review evaluated by qualified peers;
2. Continuum of Scholarship model, which normalizes engaged scholarship across research and teaching while allowing faculty to locate their work along a flexible continuum; and
3. Decentralized Criteria within an Institutional Framework, in which the institution affirms CES as scholarship while schools and departments define discipline-specific criteria and standards.

Based on peer institution analysis, the UCLA report recommends a hybrid approach: adopting the continuum of scholarship campus-wide while enabling schools and divisions to establish discipline-aligned decentralized evaluation criteria. Opt-in supplemental review is not recommended due to the additional burden it places on community-engaged scholars to produce 鈥渆xtra鈥� materials on top of a traditional dossier. The report also proposes supportive infrastructure鈥攊ncluding a campus policy statement recognizing CES, training for reviewers, templates for faculty, and a CES tracking platform through their instance鈥攖o ensure consistent yet flexible evaluation practices.

Academic products represent peer-reviewed or otherwise scholarly contributions that advance disciplinary knowledge. These are the most widely recognized forms of scholarship and typically undergo competitive, editorial, and/or peer-review processes. These can also include emerging models of peer review by practitioners or community experts for CES.听

Examples include:听

• Peer-reviewed, competitively selected, or invited articles听
• Book texts, book chapters, and monographs听
• Conference presentations, abstracts, and proceedings听
• Grants, competitive contracts, and gifts听
• Honors and awards听
• Indigenous scholarly activities (e.g., curation or creation of artistic or cultural exhibits; significant oral dissemination; policy development; CES under the ownership of Indigenous nations)听
• Non-peer-reviewed or non-traditional peer-reviewed articles听
• Exhibitions or displays that are peer-reviewed, competitively selected, invited, or curated听

Applied products demonstrate the use of disciplinary or scholarly expertise to address public needs, influence policy, shape practice, and/or improve conditions in community or civic contexts. These outputs frequently bridge academic knowledge with real-world implementation and may be produced independently or in collaboration with partners.听听

Examples include:听

• Copyrights, patents, and inventions听
• Reports (governmental, technical, specialized, etc.)听
• Policies (writing, advocacy, or expert testimony in courts or legislative settings听
• Designs听
• Consultancy, training, and technical assistance听
• Leadership or membership on boards of professional or community organizations related to one鈥檚 scholarly or teaching areas听
• Guides and handbooks听
• Educational materials, curricula, and instructional activities听
• Professional licensure听

Community products are created for and with community partners. These outputs support civic needs, cultural expression, public dialogue, policy influence, and social transformation. They embody the relational nature of CES and often serve as primary evidence of scholarly impact, especially when disseminated beyond first-hand encounters.听

Examples include:听

• Creating and sustaining partnerships with communities听
• Community-attained grants or funding; community awards听
• Community presentations, seminars, and workshops听
• Community events, displays, or exhibitions; facilitation of community-based or public artistic projects听
• Community reports听
• Websites听
• Newsletters听
• Public forums, workshops, and seminars (e.g., TED-style talks, media interviews)听
• Public-focused writing (white papers, op-eds, etc.)听
• Participatory, community-based, or community-engaged production and dissemination of knowledge, social justice work, or activism听
• Creative works such as exhibitions, performances, cultural interventions in civic / popular forums (including electronic media), films, and/or documentaries听

The below is a curated list of key literature听related to community-engaged scholarship and how it might be supported in tenure, promotion and merit review. This list will continue to evolve; if there is a reference you think should be added, please let us know!听

• Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA). 2024. . Washington, DC: Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture.听
• Blanchard, Lynn W., and Andrew Furco. 2021.听 Faculty Engaged Scholarship: Setting Standards and Building Conceptual Clarity. East Lansing, MI: Academy of Community Engaged Scholarship. 听
• Boyer, Ernest L. 1990. . Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.听听
• Boyer, Ernest L. 1996. 鈥�.鈥� Journal of Public Service and Outreach 1(1): 11-20.听
• Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2020. . Washington, DC: Carnegie Foundation and American Council on Education.听听
• Dewey, John. 1916. . New York: Macmillan.听
• Doberneck, Diane M, Chris R. Glass, and John Schweitzer. 2010. 鈥�.鈥� Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 14(4), 5鈥�35.听听
• Doberneck, Diane M. 2016. 鈥淎re we there yet?: Outreach and engagement in the consortium for institutional cooperation promotion and tenure policies.鈥� Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 9(1), 8鈥�18. 听
• Doberneck, Diane M., and Christine Carmichael. 2020. 鈥淯nfurling your community-engaged work into multiple scholarly products.鈥� Journal of Community Engagement and Higher Education, 12(3). 听
• Ellison, Julie, and Timothy K. Eatman. 2008. . Syracuse, NY: Imagining America.听
• Freire, Paulo. 1970. . New York: Herder and Herder.听
• Jurkowski, Janine M., Farrah Jacquez, and Sara Lyon Neyer. 2025. 鈥�.鈥� Journal of Participatory Research Methods 6(5).听
• Lewin, Kurt. 1946. 鈥淎ction Research and Minority Problems.鈥� Journal of Social Issues 2(4): 34-46. 听
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.听听
• O鈥橫eara, KerryAnn, Timothy K. Eatman, and Scott Petersen. 2015. 鈥�.鈥� Metropolitan Universities 26(2): 44-65.听
• Pearl, Andrew, Elaine Ward, Emily Janke, Michael Rios, and Timothy K. Eatman. 2025. 鈥淩ewarding Faculty Publicly-Engaged Scholarship in Promotion and Tenure Policies at Carnegie Classified Community Engagement Institutions: A Descriptive Analysis.鈥� Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 6(5). 听
• Purdue University. 2021. . West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Office of Engagement.听
• Staub, Shalom and Bemmy Maharramli. 2021. . Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Community Engagement.
• University of Iowa, Office of Community Engagement. 2025. Recognizing and Rewarding Community Engagement. Presentation at the Big Ten Community Engagement Leaders Meeting, May 29, 2025.听
• University of Minnesota 鈥� Twin Cities. 2018. . Minneapolis: Office of Public Engagement.听
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 2016. . Chapel Hill: NC: Office of the Provost.听
• Welch, Marshall. 2016. . Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.听

Resources mentioned in the above toolkit are also listed here for your reference:

The movement to integrate CES into TPMR is rooted in a long intellectual lineage and set of foundational theories and frameworks that link scholarship to public good, collectively redefine what counts as scholarship, and how it should be evaluated. Drawing from key authors over the last century, the following list of themes demonstrates this trajectory and emphasizes its evolution.听

1. Boyer鈥檚 鈥淪cholarship Reconsidered鈥� (1990) and 鈥淪cholarship of Engagement鈥� (1996): Ernest Boyer (1990) expanded the domains of scholarship into four typologies鈥攄iscovery, integration, application, and teaching. Written for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, “Scholarship Reconsidered鈥� critiques the narrow 鈥減ublish or perish鈥� model and calls for a broader and more inclusive definition of scholarship in academia. Scholarship of Application is described primarily in terms of professional practice and service to society.听
   In 鈥淪cholarship of Engagement,鈥� a follow-up essay, Boyer expands on the 鈥淎pplication鈥� category and reframes it as 鈥淓ngagement.鈥� He explicitly calls for a renewed focus on connecting the rich resources of the university 鈥渢o our most pressing social, civic, and moral problems鈥� in partnership with communities (p. 15). It moves beyond 鈥渁pplication鈥� to emphasize mutual benefit and reciprocity between universities and communities. He also argues that Scholarship of Engagement ought to not be a separate category, but as a mode of doing scholarship that can occur in the four typologies he outlined in 鈥淪cholarship Reconsidered.鈥�
   Both articles offer a foundational framework for academic units and institutions of higher learning, as well as the Carnegie Classification and many campus- and unit-level CES and TPMR policies.听
2. : The 2020 Carnegie framework defines community engagement as 鈥渢he collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities…for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity鈥� (on the website). Achieving and maintaining this classification has motivated institutions to embed CES in their evaluation systems.听
3. Experiential and Action Traditions: John Dewey (1916) and Kurt Lewin (1946) conceptualized education and research as iterative, participatory, and problem-centered processes. While Dewey emphasized pragmatism and democratic engagement, recognizing the interconnectedness between experience, knowing, and acting, Lewin expanded broad understandings of action research. This tradition emphasizes the scholarly value of practical, collaborative work with communities.听
4. Critical and Participatory Approaches: Paulo Freire (1970) and later participatory action research theorists emphasize co-creation, reciprocity, and the democratization of knowledge. Freire grappled with issues of social empowerment and critical pedagogy, which ultimately influenced bell hooks鈥� work on critical pedagogy and engagement that aims to achieve systemic change and social transformation. Critical and participatory engagement frameworks position CES as transformative, rooted in reciprocity, equity, and shared authority, and challenge who holds and creates 鈥渓egitimate鈥� knowledge. CES in this frame challenges academic hierarchies and centers equity, diversity, and inclusion.听
5. Theory of Reward Systems in Academia: O鈥橫eara et al. (2015) argue that reward systems signal what is valued. The absence of explicit recognition for CES in TPMR guidelines functions is a disincentive. It recognizes that institutional policies and cultures shape faculty behavior for career and advancement and need to keep pace with changes in knowledge production and dissemination through explicit recognition for engaged scholarship.听

These varying and evolving perspectives converge on the need for policies, criteria, and training that recognize the merits of CES as equal to those of traditional scholarship. CES meets scholarly standards of rigor and impact while producing public benefits and should be evaluated as such.听

These are general resources created by teams at the 91探花, many of whom are affiliated with the 91探花Tri-Campus Community Engagement Project.

• 91探花Definition, Principles and Practices of Community Engagement
• 91探花Carnegie Re-Assessment Process
• 91探花Community Engagement Knowledge Hub

UW-related (CES)

• Class C resolution and Class A legislation to support community engagement
• Faculty & Staff Professional Development Project

UW-related (Teaching)

• Student Community Engagement

The below examples are frequently cited as best practices. The table below summarizes key features from each (for example, Minnesota鈥檚 voluntary CES review committee).

• Cal State, Fullerton听
  • 听
• University of California听
  • 听
  • 听
• UC Berkeley听
  • 听
• UCLA听
  • 听
• UC Santa Cruz听
  • )听
  • 听
  • 听
• Duke University听
  • 听
  • 听
• University of Maryland听
  • 听
• University of Minnesota听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
• University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill听
  • 听
• University of North Carolina, Greensboro听
  • 听
  • 听
• Portland State University听
  • 听
  • 听
• Purdue University听
  • 听
  • 听
  • 听
• Rutgers University听
  • 听

Many professional and academic societies provide guidance and resources for CES.

• American Anthropological Association
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Council on Education
• American Council of Learned Societies
• American Historical Association
• American Philosophical Association
• American Political Science Association
• American Society of Landscape Architects
• American Sociological Association
• Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
• Modern Language Association
• National Academies
• Social Science Research Council

Many community engagement networks, associations, and entities provide resources as well.