Scholarship
This focus on action-based research is particularly important as we think about equipping faculty, staff, students, and others to not only plan and carry out outreach and engagement work in their communities but also to embrace this work as scholarship. The term "scholarship of engagement" was coined in 1996 in an article by Ernest Boyer, former president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Boyer’s piece was a call to action for the academy to “become a more vigorous partner in the search for answers to our most pressing social, civic, economic, and moral problems” (1996, p. 18). Boyer’s new model of scholarship responds to academic cultures that ignore or undervalue those partnerships:
Almost every college catalog in this country still lists teaching, research, and service as the priorities of the professoriate. And yet... at tenure and promotion time, the harsh truth is that service is hardly mentioned. Even more disturbing, faculty who do spend time on so-called applied projects frequently jeopardize their careers. (p 22)
Though Boyer describes the academy two decades ago, his concerns that the university seems unconnected and at times uninterested in the community remains more than relevant now. In the wake of increasing budget cuts to higher ed, growing controversy about tenure, and sometimes vitriol pointed at educators that some see as overpaid and overly protected, finding ways to encourage and reward faculty for being visible, effectual agents of change in our communities seems as critical today as it was in 1996.
One of the major hurdles the Carnegie Foundation faced when establishing guidelines for the Community Engagement Classification was deciding what counted as documentation and scholarship. “Our intention was to design a framework that respected the diversity of engagement approaches and the differences between institutions of higher education,” according to the Carnegie Foundation’s homepage for the Community Engagement Classification.
One of the major hurdles the Carnegie Foundation faced when establishing guidelines for the Community Engagement Classification was deciding what counted as documentation and scholarship. “Our intention was to design a framework that respected the diversity of engagement approaches and the differences between institutions of higher education,” according to the Carnegie Foundation’s homepage for the Community Engagement Classification.
In line with the work of the Carnegie Foundation, we offer this field guide as just one example of the many ways to do and document work in communities. Just as our own camps differ based on geographic locations, populations served, and academic interests and expertise, we see multiplicity in approaches to community engagement – and the scholarship, in all its forms – as a great strength of our field. Community engagement and engaged scholarship is responsive, impacted by context, and ever evolving.
For us, the intersections of gender and technology – particularly as related to adolescence – is the context for our work. Just as other scholars in our field have done (Blair & Takayashi, 1999; Mazarella, 2005 and 2010; Haas, Tulley, & Blair, 2002; Almjeld, Gallagher, & Garza, 2012) we believe “continuing discussions are necessary” when it comes to ways girls use and are taught to use technologies related to learning, identity construction, and pleasure. and this work “stems in part from feminist critiques of technology in which technology is too often seen as an inherently male enterprise” (Haas, Tulley, & Blair, 2002, p. 232).
For us, the intersections of gender and technology – particularly as related to adolescence – is the context for our work. Just as other scholars in our field have done (Blair & Takayashi, 1999; Mazarella, 2005 and 2010; Haas, Tulley, & Blair, 2002; Almjeld, Gallagher, & Garza, 2012) we believe “continuing discussions are necessary” when it comes to ways girls use and are taught to use technologies related to learning, identity construction, and pleasure. and this work “stems in part from feminist critiques of technology in which technology is too often seen as an inherently male enterprise” (Haas, Tulley, & Blair, 2002, p. 232).