Why Engagement?
By Leslie Hossfeld
I’ve been trying to write an article on ‘engagement’ for the past six months, but I haven’t had time to finish it. Why? I’ve been engaged ... in the trenches … out in the field. It’s the work I love to do, but it doesn’t mesh well with academic life.
For the past two years, I’ve been working with a community organization documenting the impact of massive job loss in one North Carolina county (a county hard-hit by economic restructuring), examining its effect on individuals, families and the community. It’s not a glamorous task: indeed it’s downright depressing most of the time to work with people who have devoted many years of their lives to textile manufacturing, and who have watched their jobs and way of life vanish before their eyes.
It’s the kind of ‘engaged’ sociology I do that isn’t something you leave behind at the office. Trying to be detached and academic about people’s misery is virtually impossible. That’s why I’m in the field … out in the trenches … trying to use the tools of my discipline to make social change, trying to find solutions to social problems by being engaged.
In sociology we call this public sociology, taking sociology beyond the academy and to various publics. It’s the kind of work that made me want to be a sociologist in the first place. It’s not always easy work to do. Often, engaged scholars are looked down upon by established members of the academy. Working with communities isn’t always considered scholarly, nor is it recognized as having the same merit as work that is published in professional journals.
This is a sentiment felt within disciplines and not just across campuses. Indeed, the American Sociological Association created a Task Force to address the issue of the lack of scholarly recognition of public sociology. The findings of the Task Force gave legitimacy to public sociology, arguing it is as scholarly as traditional academic products. But the fact that a Task Force was required is quite telling of the situation.
Academia requires writing and publishing: publish-or-perish is the name of the game. Within this model, engaged scholars often have to carve out a niche of their own and be very creative in finding ways to mesh the public-or-perish model with their engagement activities. Many times this means waiting until after tenure to become engaged.
One of the reasons for this is that community-based scholars simply don’t have the time to reflect. The reflexive requirements of writing require the luxury of time, something engaged scholars plainly don’t have enough of. Universities will say they support community engagement, but when it comes time for tenure, publications generally win out.
Herein lies the problem: universities want engaged scholars, and universities desire strong town-gown partnerships. Yet we have this mismatch, this contradiction. Community-based research is not always prioritized, and more often than not, not considered scholarly. How can universities provide incentives for faculty to do engaged research and get rewarded for their engagement? Here are a few ways universities can do this:
o Frame community engagement as scholarship and have this reflected in university promotion and tenure guidelines;
o Integrate and link engagement into the curriculum; associate community engagement with teaching and research;
o Professionalize engagement with the community through a point of contact within the university; universities need a central office for communities to identify. A central office would provide orientation to the practices and politics of the university and help bridge the cultural divide between community and university.
o Develop and provide resources that support university community engagement.
Why is all of this important? Why engagement? It is important because universities are in the business of training students to become community members. Universities create and generate a body of knowledge that, ideally, should flow back into the community. Engaged scholars provide this bridge. Engaged academics bring enthusiasm into the classroom for community involvement, stewardship and giving back to the community.
During the Job Loss project I’ve been working on, I engage my students in every step of the research process. Students use their research skills, collect and analyze data and work with members of the community on day-to-day basis. They learn leadership skills and the importance of being connected to their communities. They learn the substantive components of the discipline and apply theory and praxis in the community.
At a time when universities are criticized for their lack of civic engagement, and for not training students to be socially responsible and civic minded, we need to focus on these kinds of community-university partnerships. Creating a viable, sustainable academy-community partnership that engages students, faculty and community members is not an easy task. It requires time and commitment from all parties. Creating a culture of engagement within the university requires an organizational structure that values and rewards the scholarship of engagement.
As a scholar, I know my community-based research is as valuable and important as the traditional academic pieces I produce. Both are scholarship, both reflect well upon the academy and the university. While this is not a directive for all academics, it’s simply a way of recasting and reframing what scholarship can be, and a plea for universities to recognize and reward various forms of scholarship. An engaged campus recognizes that scholarship has multiple configurations and creates structures that reward all of them. It encourages, not penalizes, faculty who choose to be in the trenches and out in the field and who engage their communities.
Leslie Hossfeld is an Assistant Professor at UNC Pembroke and was a 2004-2005 GlaxoSmithKline Faculty Fellow at the Institute for Emerging Issues.
Comments
Leslie Hossfield is correct about the need for the academic community to get involved with the real world.
It is in the real world of politics that solutions to our problems with public education will be found. One example follows.
A Solution to the School Crisis in Wake County
By Stan Norwalk
The Wake County Commissioners, working together with local governments, can make a major step in addressing the crisis that faces the Wake’s Public Schools (WCPSS). An Adequate Public Facilities (APF) ordinance for schools could generate $50 million annually. That would put the burden on growth for almost 50% of the cost of added school capacity. It would reduce the amount of the anticipated tax increase – although an increase still would be needed to cope with past under-funding of construction budgets by the County Commissioners.
An APF does not require additional authority from the NC General Assembly (NC GA). Four counties in N.C. already use APF’s. Leadership and the willingness to confront the powerful development lobby are required. And cooperation between County and municipal governments is a must.
WCPSS’s crisis is real. The lowest estimate for construction and maintenance of our public schools over the next decade is $4.5 billion. It is questionable that the public will support the necessary bonds. Wake’s high growth rate, and past under-funding, has bent the school board into contortions: mandating huge and disruptive reassignments, year round schools, high-cost modular schools and trailers everywhere.
The Commissioners have formed a blue-ribbon committee to define means of paying for new schools and other infrastructure. But NC counties have few independent means of creating added sources of revenue – other than raising the property tax. Revenue sources widely used nationally in hundreds of other jurisdictions, e.g. impact fees and property transfer taxes, cannot be employed without the approval of the NC GA. Nine NC counties have received such powers. But under pressure from developers, the NC GA has repeatedly refused to extend similar authority elsewhere. The developers’ clout results from their huge war chest, used to fund the campaigns of those who support them – or defeat those who do not toe the line.
Can half-measures solve Wake’s problems? Wake is growing by 68 residents per day. Twelve thousand new residences were built in 2005. Six thousand new students per year require over $100 million per year in new facilities – plus the increasing renovation bills for 50-60 older schools.
The last blue-ribbon committee, formed in 2000, was called the Growth Management Task Force. They did nothing to control the rate of growth. Their consultant’s first recommendation was an APF ordinance. An APF can apply to any public infrastructure, e.g. roads, utilities or schools. Under an APF a building permit is denied if there are not adequate facilities, e.g. permanent school seats, to service the new development. A “phasing” variation rations permits to match planned infrastructure.
Since the County has no authority regarding building permits outside the unincorporated areas, the municipalities must also employ them. Several years ago Cary passed a school APF. Cary allowed development if a fee was paid, in a roundabout way, an impact fee.
But neither the County nor the other municipalities would follow Cary’s lead. Developers could circumvent Cary’s APF by “moving across the street” into a neighboring town. Many did so and Cary’s growth dropped sharply. Despite that, several million dollars was collected for schools. After a more development friendly town council was elected, Cary recently repealed its schools APF. Orange, Cabarrus, Stanly and Currituck Counties have APF’s. Other counties are considering same. If a $4,000 fee was collected in Wake it would have provided $50 million in 2005, enough to finance almost 50% of the cost of growth.
Developers may claim that a Wake APF faces the same fate as Cary’s. But where would developers move? The surrounding counties have growth problems of their own and have employed impact fees or APF’s in various forms. Among the major counties in the Triangle region, Wake has made the feeblest effort to manage the growth rate. Wake is growing because of jobs and demographics. Only the fast-buck artists among the developers would leave Wake. Those that recognized that the health of the community was essential to their welfare would stay and prosper. They might even find that less draconian impact fees are not that bad after all.
Due to their previous denial of APF’s, the Commissioners would have to take the lead. Without bold leadership and organized public support, the odds are against an APF. But sooner or later the public will demand a solution. Other high growth states and counties have found a solution in APF’s. Why not Wake?
Stan Norwalk can be reached at stann@nc.rr.com. He is a former member of the WCPSS’s Financial Advisory Board and the County Planning Board.
Posted by: stan norwalk | January 25, 2006 06:12 PM