Copyright eContent Management Pty Ltd. Contemporary Nurse (2009) 32(12): 3041.

Re-visiting scholarly community engagement in the contemporary research assessment environments of Australasian universities
JAN DUKE
Deputy Registrar, Social Workers Registration Board, Wellington, New Zealand; Former Professor and Head, Graduate School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

CHERYLE MOSS
Associate Professor, Nursing, Research and Practice Development, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Frankston, VIC, Australia

ABSTRACT
Restructuring of university environments to meet funding requirements based on research performance presents challenges internationally to nursing and other allied health groups. These funding models generate more emphasis on the scholarship of discovery than on the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of sharing knowledge. Yet achievement of health advances by these disciplines is unlikely to emerge through laboratorybased research. They are more likely to emerge through scholarly research activities which involve partnerships between universities and communities. Current emphases on research assessment and quantum measurements are particularly associated with the scholarship of discovery, and thus raise concerns that such pressures may lead universities and other organisations away from community engagement. In response to these issues, the importance of linking scholarship and communities, furthering mechanisms to legitimise scholarly community engagement, and reducing barriers to this in the context of the contemporary university research environments are argued. Boyers model of scholarship (that the work of universities centres around four areas of scholarship: discovery, integration, application and sharing knowledge) highlights these tensions. It is suggested that by revisiting Boyers model and considering the ways in which it may generate possibilities for scholarly community engagement, university schools of nursing in the contemporary research assessment environment could nd ways to balance the forms of scholarship by which social good can be advanced.
Keywords: scholarship of engagement; nursing; research quantum; university scholarship; community engagement

30

CN

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

Re-visiting scholarly community engagement

CN

INTRODUCTION
ontemporary university schools of nursing need to be concerned about the direction that economic forces within the sector are leading health research and scholarship. Forces which reduce the capacity of universities to advance the greater good beyond economic rationalist ends. Contemporary re-consideration of the work of Boyer (1990, 1996) in relation to the role of universities in scholarly community engagement is urged. Boyers (1990) declaration that in achieving the mandate of advancing the greater good, the work of universities is centred around four forms of scholarship: discovery, integration, application and knowledge sharing should be useful to schools of nursing as they seek to position their scholastic endeavours to fulll the requirements for research quantum and meet their wider obligations in relation to the health and community sectors. It is clear that the Performance Based Research Funding (PBRF) in New Zealand, and the Research Assessment Exercises (RAE) in the United Kingdom, and in Hong Kong stimulate the scholarship of discovery (James & Clark, 2007; Luker, 2007). However, nursing has commitments to the scholarship of integration and application as well as the scholarship of discovery and knowledge sharing. Yet, the research assessment models are much stronger drivers of the scholarship of discovery than other forms of scholarship. There is a serious danger of the scholarship of integration and application being down-graded to the status of nice to do rather than central to do. There is also a risk of shaping the activities of what would constitute a scholarship of discovery to the managerial view of those who occupy senior positions within the university rather than having this informed by broader perspectives of society. In light of these perceived risks it is argued that it is timely for nursing schools to consider ways and means of advancing their form of scholarly community engagement. Boyers (1990, 1996) model of scholarship is helpful to this task.

While most if not all universities have as part of their mandate service to the community, restructuring of universities to meet funding requirements based on research performance presents challenges to achieving this as a central activity. As Boyer (1990, 1996) noted in his seminal work on The Scholarship of Engagement the academy must become a more vigorous partner in the search for answers to our most pressing social, civic, economic and moral problems (Boyer, 1996. p. 11). If when he and Jacoby (1987) were writing 20 years ago, they observed that the inuence of the academy in civic life had declined because the nature of being an academic was contrary to the notion of community service, how much more is this a concern to universities faced with the contemporary models of funding and the competitive research assessment environments that so epitomise their livelihoods and reputations? It is because of these shared concerns that Boyers work still has relevance today. Mirrored by the situation today, Boyer continues that education has become a private benet rather than a public good and that universities are now seen as places where students get credentialed, academics get tenured and that their work does not necessarily address the most pressing needs of society. He describes the nature of public discourse over these issues as impoverished cultural discourse (Boyer, 1996, p. 15) precisely because of the detachment of academics from society. The prevailing model of academic work is individualistic and discovery often proceeds with limited engagement with the social context. Klay, Brower, and Williams (2001) argue that this model inhibits inquiry by neglecting the communities of practice within the institution and the wisdom that exists in the practitioners who work in complex social situations. Nursing needs local engagement between academia and the community to access clinical data, clinicians and consumers of health care in order to generate knowledge and to effect evidence transfer and evidence utilisation. Given the changing role of the university, the emphasis on large research grants at the expense of scholarship, local research endeavours, community service and teaching, we

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

CN

31

CN

Jan Duke and Cheryle Moss

2001a). Engaged scholarship provides a way of meeting this obligation. The report of the Commission on CommunityEngaged Scholarship (2005) in the health professions notes that over the past decade the community engagement of health professional schools has been an essential strategy for improving health professional education, and forming the foundation for collaborative health service research which addresses the critical issue of the relevance of research and its translation into policy and practice. Yet politically the drivers of research and research outcome measures are primarily shaped by university based values. The user pays model of university managerialism does not accommodate disciplinary leadership informing research decisions. Abbot (1991) argues that such university management undermines and erodes professional control. Research Assessment Exercises in the UK, Hong Kong and New Zealand demonstrate signicant challenges over who sets the research agendas and what constitutes appropriate scholarly inquiry (Anthony, 2005; James & Clark, 2007; Luker, 2007; Watson, McKenna, & Thompson, 2007). In our current academic environment we need to address the challenge of meeting health care needs through active involvement of the communities that face the health issues and at the same time meet university imposed requirements for research. We argue that community based research is an answer that we need to actively pursue. Seifer and Calleson (2004, p. 418) dene community based research as: research that involves community members in identifying specic community based problems and environmental conditions to study. This method supports a highly collaborative model of data gathering, analysis and policy formation between university researchers and community members. Researchers work with community members to utilise the ndings in ways that directly benet the local community. This differs from an expert model of research in which the authority and control of research questions are proposed by the researchers themselves.

argue that new models of engagement between university departments and their community and industry partners need to be developed for mutual benet and relevance if socially effective research is to thrive. University institutional focus on community engagement is relatively new in the southern hemisphere. In Australia, the Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance was formed in 2002, and there is no such initiative as yet in New Zealand. Ansley and Gaventa (1997) note that although community engaged scholarship is a relatively new concept for many higher education institutions, engagement has had a strong presence at the margins within the academy. Typically these examples come from the health or social service professions, often from nursing and midwifery. Yet these disciplinary based models appear to have little impact on the university sector as a whole or on the development of wider academic discourses that might challenge the dominance of attention to scholarship of discovery over integration, application and knowledge sharing as the other forms of scholarship.

LINKING SCHOLARSHIP AND

COMMUNITIES

Community engaged universities need to address some fundamental questions if they are to be able to embed engaged scholarship into their everyday operations. Fundamental questions include: how will knowledge be created, how do we form meaningful and long term alliances with our respective communities, and how do we properly prepare our students for their role in society as creative and productive individuals (Ramaley, 2001)? The answers to these questions may differ according to the type of university. For example those institutions with health professional faculties may answer in a different manner to those without this cohort of academics and students. Also, as publicly funded institutions, surely universities have an obligation to share their resources with the community that provides that funding. In this case resources include academic staff and their scholarship (Finkelstein,
32

CN

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

Re-visiting scholarly community engagement

Strand (2000) argues that community based research differs from traditional academic research in that it is directed toward democratising the control of knowledge, the production of knowledge and that this knowledge is aimed at producing positive social change. Certainly in the USA where there are large universities that have co-located academic health centers this method of engaging the community is growing as demonstrated by the activity within the CommunityCampus Partnerships for Health collaboration (CCPH, 2007). Academic health centers in this context usually mean that the universities have a medical school, another health professional school such as nursing and a teaching hospital, for example the University of Massachusetts Medical Centre. Research from these centers indicates that there are a number of factors that can inuence participation in this type of community engagement and also factors that limit the possibilities. These factors can be either internal or external to the organisation (Calleson, Jordan, & Seifer, 2005). Internally, the schools familiarity with the leaders of community organisations appears to have the biggest inuence on participation, closely followed by the institutional leadership and having faculty staff interested in community participation. Externally, the public perception of the academic health center is the most inuential factor in facilitating community involvement. And of course there is always the issue of available funding what type of research it supports and where the funding source sits in the pecking order of prestigious grants. Seifer and Calleson (2004, p. 422) identify a number of benets that ow to the community from this type of research: It encourages the relationship with the community to last beyond the life of the project; It involves the community members/agencies in identifying the health research needs of the community; It involves the community members/agencies in dening research objectives and determining how the research will be conducted;

CN

It involves the community members/agencies in the analysis of the data and the distribution of the results; and It increases the communitys capacity to conduct independent research. There are a number of challenges embedded within engaged scholarship that ultimately provide benet to universities. Engaged scholarship involves a new way of considering research value and implementation. Research becomes a bottom up process such that theories and models emerge in the context of the real world and their value depends on their relevance to it (Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, & Donohue, 2003, p. 233). The opportunities enable the institution to become more proactive in their communities particularly as this work, which is often at the margins, is low threat to the status quo and it brings ideas into the mainstream. However, as Fear, Creamer, Pirog, Block, and Redmond (2004) note, this work on the margins is often not seen as supported by the institution and people involved are not equally valued as academic peers. Universities need to be able to manage business as usual and business unusual (Fear et al., 2004, p. 150) at the same time. Over time the unusual becomes more usual and alternative unusuals appear.

DEFINING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF

ENGAGEMENT

The current restricted view of scholarship is one that limits discovery to a hierarchy where basic research has come to be viewed as the rst and most essential form of scholarly activity. Lack of understanding of engaged scholarship leads to the perception that it is less scholarly (Silka, 1999). This is a risk in nursing research that nursing academics satisfying this discourse at the cost of community engaged scholarship may in the longer term reduce the social effectiveness of our research cultures and health outcomes. The type of research that is currently valued tends towards global rather than local relevance in the rst instance. This may see the local

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

CN

33

CN

Jan Duke and Cheryle Moss

The Taskforce on the Scholarship of Engagement (2001, p. 3) also considers that the scholarship of engagement implies not outreach, but partnership, whereby students, faculty, and external communities are fully and equally engaged working in transdisciplinary, dynamic, exible partnerships of research and learning. As such, university faculty and students and community actors all become co-creators of knowledge and jointly responsible for dissemination and application. The notion of service is replaced by a new practice of engagement, partnership, and learning in all sites of knowledge production the classroom, the community and the laboratory. The university goes on to say that the distinguishing characteristics of the scholarship of engagement are: Contribution to the public welfare or public good; A call upon faculty members academic and/or professional expertise; Directly addressing or responding to real-world problems, issues, interests or concerns; Engagement with off campus publics in reciprocal partnerships; and Contribution to the creation of new knowledge. (Taskforce on the Scholarship of Engagement, 2001, p. 8) Boyer (1990), in his work that discussed the priorities for the professoriate, proposed a new paradigm of scholarship that is not so different to that which we strive to implement today through the use of evidence based health care. He proposed the scholarship of discovery that is that we research and move forward the frontiers of knowledge. Boyer calls for the commitment to knowledge for its own sake, to freedom of inquiry and to following, in a disciplined fashion, an investigation wherever it may lead (Boyer, 1990, p. 17). This scholarship should not only contribute to the overall stock of knowledge but in the process contribute to the intellectual climate of the university. However the imposition of research performance

community recruited to studies that emanate out of the interests of academia and once again are perhaps not seen as having relevance (at least in the short term) to the local community. Such a situation may see the local community accuse the university of doing to rather than with or, as Bringle, Games, and Malloy (1999) note, see the university using the community as needy pockets or passive laboratories for experimentation by experts. Barker (2004, p. 123) notes that the scholarship of engagement challenges mainstream academic activities and broadens and deepens the public aspects of academic scholarship. Drawing on the work of Schn (1995) Barker argues that engaged scholarship has more epistemological legitimacy because the resulting claims to knowledge are not made in isolation. Schns epistemology democratises the research process and includes viewpoints and knowledge from a range of research partners. Ramaley (2001) describes the engagement agenda as a challenging one, particularly where direct involvement with community is not considered as scholarly as other academic work and that institutional changes required to promote this type of engagement may be viewed with suspicion by the academy. However, a number of authors argue that the distinctions between traditional and engaged scholarship are unnecessary (e.g. Boyer, 1990; Finkelstein, 2001b; Glassick, Huber, & Maeroff, 1997) and attempt to change this hierarchical approach and dene the scholarship of engagement in a way that is equally valued to other types of scholarship. Glassick et al. (1997) further develop Boyers (1990) original work and argue for a broader denition of scholarship and that whatever the scholarly emphasis, the approach deserves dignity and respect, insofar as it is performed with distinction; excellence must be the only yardstick (Glassick et al., 1997, p. 10). This broader denition is inclusive of community service activities which are tied directly to ones special eld of knowledge and relate to and ow out of this professional activity. Such service is serious, demanding work requiring the rigor and the accountability traditionally associated with research activities (Glassick et al., 1997, p. 12).
34

CN

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

Re-visiting scholarly community engagement

based funding regimes in universities means that the traditional view of academic scholarship in this area is changing to a very narrow and individualistic one. Although the frontiers of science may be being stretched, the engagement of the academy with each other, let alone the communities they serve, as this occurs is being diminished. Secondly, Boyer (1990) called for the scholarship of integration. That is, to contextualise the knowledge generated. Boyer was visioning a much broader integration of facts than we currently manage as individualistic researchers. He was talking of connectedness to make research authentic, to place our specialisations in a broader context to engage and make the connections across disciplines. It is serious, disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together and bring new insight to bear on original research tting ones own research or the research of others into larger intellectual patterns (Boyer 1990, pp. 1819). He argues that specialisation, without broader perspective, risks pedantry (Boyer, 1990, p. 19). This is a step that we do not do well and need to be attentive to. Boyer further argues that as the boundaries of human knowledge are being dramatically reshaped, the academy must surely give increased attention to the scholarship of integration (Boyer 1990, p. 21). Thirdly, Boyer (1990) argues for the scholarship of sharing knowledge, and the evolution of practical processes for communicating and publishing the results of our academic endeavours or knowledge/evidence transfer. As nursing academics we need to revisit what we publish and how and where we publish. The Council of Deans of Nursing and Midwifery (ANZ) (2007) recently published a report on the ranking of refereed journals for Australian and New Zealand nursing and midwifery researchers. Although a very worthy document this exercise has rmly located the top nursing and midwifery research within the paradigm that is associated with international research assessment exercises that by their very nature value discovery and value less the scholarship of integration and application or indeed

CN

community engagement. As community engaged researchers we need to ensure that the results of our endeavours are equally valued. Finally, Boyer (1990) discussed the need for the scholarship of application of knowledge. He discussed this as different in meaning to the integration of knowledge. He was talking here about a number of things avoiding irrelevance and ensuring that the work of scholars is responsibly applied to consequential problems (Boyer, 1990) and directed to humane ends (Boyer, 1996, p. 17). This form of knowledge utilisation is key in health care. However, we would suggest that the utilisation of knowledge discourse that currently frames our professional talk is very compartmentalised to address particular issues or health problems, and is not reective of the broad brush vision of engaged scholarship that Boyer had. For Boyer (1990, 1996) the scholarship of community engagement embodies the four forms of scholarship (discovery, integration, application and knowledge transfer) and connects the resources of the university to societys most pressing social, civic and ethical problems. The CCPH (2007) has extended the Boyers work and argues that community engaged scholarship is that which involves a mutually benecial partnership between the institution/faculty and the community, it can be transdisciplinary and often integrates multiple forms of scholarship but from this comes application, through collaboration, of institutional resources to address and solve challenges facing communities. This position is supported by others who have argued Boyers work as a basis for evolving the dimensions of scholarship and community scholarly engagement within the contemporary university sector (Braxton, Luckey, & Helland, 2002; McDonald, 2002; McDonald et al., 2000). These denitions of community engaged scholarship provide an interesting counterpoint to understanding the constitution of value in research, particularly nursing research. Engaged community scholarship produces different social (and health) outcomes that are not easily measured in the current research quantum processes,

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

CN

35

CN

Jan Duke and Cheryle Moss

may emerge from more open groupings and town, gown, crown intersections, which while generated for the purpose of scholarship are not generated on the basis of research status. There is a need for advancement of our thinking and strategies in relation to how nursing, and other disciplinary groups in universities can better achieve scholarly community engagement in a research assessment environment that primarily emphasises the value of the scholarship of discovery. Given this, there are important questions for schools of nursing, nursing academics, and professional groups to address. For instance academics and professional leaders need to give serious consideration to the following questions. How can these different forms of scholarship be acknowledged, progressed, and inuence or satisfy the conditions within the research assessment and quantum environments, for example the PBRF in New Zealand and the yet to be announced revised system within Australia? For instance, local academic groups may ask how do we ensure, as academics generally, and more particularly within the nursing profession, that we engage in activities that benet the public good while at the same time meeting the research requirements of our particular universities? Further in applied disciplines such as nursing, critical work is needed to explore how the scholarships of integration and application can be lifted to similar status as the scholarship of discovery. There are also practical issues that require the attention of both the disciplines and the universities to generate new models and nd new ways of integration and application. For instance, academic time is not innite and asking academics to participate more in research, has diminished community engagement with an unknown cost to the greater good. It is here that the work that has been undertaken by nurses internationally and in Australia, in relation to new forms of clinical partnerships (e.g. joint appointments, clinical chairs, dedicated educational and research units) offers some helpful frameworks for advancing academic practice. Yet reading reports of these activities reveals there is little mention of the multiple forms of scholarship

that have so far reinforced outcomes and practices associated with the scholarship of discovery, and which have less clarity around the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application and the scholarship of sharing knowledge.

BARRIERS TO SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT IN NURSING RESEARCH

However, engaging in a comprehensive programme of community based research is not a quick x to meeting our social obligations. As Calleson, Seifer, and Maurana (2002) note, universities need to grow their relationships with their communities community based anything takes time, length and breadth. Those institutions that manage their community based research well have built the trust of the community over a number of years often engaging in the rst instance in providing community based teaching and clinical care to build a foundation of trust. Smaller or minority communities are particularly vulnerable to being over researched so it is essential to be mindful of culturally appropriate participation with these communities. Then, once the relationship is established the process of participatory involvement is also time consuming. This is not research for the faint hearted it is not research that will produce quick, tangible results. Thinking about university outcomes, the benets from engaging in this form of enterprise while socially critical, may directly clash with the conditions associated with outcome measurement in research quantum exercises. For instance, two distinctive aspects can be seen to create a culture clash. The rst aspect of culture clash relates to the issues that emerge in relation to the timeframes and the complexities of community engagement and development. There is a need for the development of new university models and responsiveness for achieving this in practice and for capturing social investment, social pertinence and social relevance. The second aspect relates to the tendency of current quantum measures to attribute scholarship to established groupings or to individuals within the university sector (Curtis & Matthewman, 2005), while better synergies for progressing social good
36

CN

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

Re-visiting scholarly community engagement

that can (and probably are) being achieved by these processes. There are still issues for many nursing schools in Australia and New Zealand in gaining credibility and acceptance of these models within the wider university sector (Duke, McBride-Henry, Walsh, & Foureur, 2009). There are even greater barriers than the time needed to carry out community based research. These include the importance that community engagement is given in the institutions mission; how the institution denes scholarship; the reality of how this type of research is considered in our institutions in terms of equivalency with bench science or even clinical trial research; and how it is considered in promotion and tenure processes. The biggest issue confronting us is how to address the institutional mission. This requires a culture change. Cope and Leatherwood (2001) argue that for engaged scholarship to be maintained within a university it needs to be a shared value, either by design, as adaptation and evolution, or as a strategic effort to change culture. Amen (2001) builds on this theme and suggests that the culture needs to be one that values collective rather than individual expertise, research and scholarship and that University leaders should stimulate a debate within the university on its relationships with its communities. Recognising these barriers, groups such as the US organisation CCPH (2007) which has been in existence for just over 10 years and has as its mission to promote health through partnerships between communities and higher educational institutions has generated best practice examples. To encourage research in this environment, this groups goals are to: Combine the knowledge and the wisdom that is in communities and in academic institutions to solve major health, social and economic challenges; Build the capacity of communities and higher educational institutions to engage each other in authentic partnerships; Support communities in their relationships and work with academic partners;

CN

Recognise and reward faculty for community engagement and community-engaged scholarship; Develop partnerships that balance power and share resources equitably among partners; and Ensure that community driven social change is central to service learning and community based participatory research to promote health in communities. (CCPH, 2007, p. 1) Nursing academics need to be constantly vigilant in seeking ways to work within or around the barriers identied and encourage their institutions to generate processes that will minimise these.

EVALUATING THE SCHOLARSHIP OF

ENGAGEMENT

In the current research assessment environments there is a need for different but transparent mechanisms to be established to evaluate engaged scholarship. There are a number of elements contributing to community based research that need considering in any assessment of faculty members undertaking this type of research. Firstly is the evaluation of the actual process of collaborating. Calleson et al. (2005, p. 319) argue that the process itself can have an important effect on community health improvement, leading to increased leadership and capacity by communities for sustaining intervention programs and determining whether communities will continue to work long term with the faculty member. Secondly, an evaluation of product. The nature of the academic product needs to be considered in a different light to the traditional gold standard of peer reviewed research articles as a result of an NHMRC or equivalent type grant. A broader consideration leads to balancing of community priorities and university requirements for knowledge generation, transmission and application (Sandmann et al., 2000, p. 44). Normal indices of quality therefore may not apply. Evaluation needs to consider inclusion of other means of dissemination to the community with

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

CN

37

CN

Jan Duke and Cheryle Moss

make it more difcult to focus on community engagement across the different forms of scholarship, and that community engagement itself may be compromised in this environment. Universities are changing what they are doing and the ways in which they emphasise different forms of scholarship, the research assessment environment and competitive ends generated by these systems are powerful forces for these changes. As yet there has been no assessment of the impact of these changes on their communities, and on the values that are placed on community involvement in the scholarship of discovery, integration, application and sharing knowledge. In this paper we have highlighted signicant tensions that are promoted by the economic and social forces of research assessment environments. We have argued that there is contemporary pertinence in Boyers (1990, 1996) model of scholarship, to assist nursing schools, academics and other professional champions to promote and argue for forms of scholarship beyond discovery in the search for progress of social good. We believe that the involvement of communities in these processes is essential to achieving these outcomes. Within the paper, ways of developing and supporting scholarly community engagement have been suggested. For the nursing profession, which has a mandate to be attentive to the health needs of their communities, this raises a dilemma. It is essential that nurses within academic communities consider ways in which they can prole the denitional aspects of community engaged research within their institutions. Further to this, nursing leaders within health and academic institutions need to work collaboratively to effectively reduce barriers to community engagement to ensure appropriate health research. A beginning point for advancement of this in nursing in Australia and New Zealand may be some critical dialogue in relation to the forms of scholarly community engagement proposed by Boyer (1990) particularly in relation to the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of sharing knowledge. It will be

recognition given to forums, and presentations to policy makers. And thirdly, impact. Aside from the traditional measurement of impact we need to consider the contextual realities of the work. Fear (1994, p. 115) considers this as t relating to contextual realities that is timely and relevant knowledge that is highly applicable. Impact in this regard, however, is not just the tangible measurement of change in health outcomes. Impact can also be evaluated as improvement in the community capacity for further engagement and increased student knowledge of community. These impacts however may take longer to achieve and document, particularly if the outcome is sustained change. The engagement interface is a dynamic, evolving and co-constructed space a collaborative community of inquiry where partners work together participants in the engagement interface make choices about change that are intended to make a difference to peoples lives and, at the same time, to generate ways of knowing and acting (Rosaen, Foster-Fishman, & Fear, 2001, p. 10). Our evaluation of research product needs to be accommodating and valuing of this way of doing academic scholarship.

CONCLUSION
Boyer, in contemplating the future of scholarship in universities, once observed, it is simply impossible to have an island of excellence in a sea of community indifference (Boyer, 1996, p. 10). Yet, there are risks that the research assessment environments and contemporary models of university funding are focussing so much on the scholarship of discovery as conditions for excellence that other forms of scholarship such as those associated with integration, application, and teaching are viewed as less prestigious or somehow less excellent. This is further complicated by the fact that community engagement, as partnership, is central to the overall goal of excellence and for achieving social good. It has been suggested in this paper that these economic rationalist forces create challenges for universities and
38

CN

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

Re-visiting scholarly community engagement

important that this dialogue occurs at a strategic level within nursing [e.g. the Council of Deans of Nursing and Midwifery (ANZ)], within the nursing professoriate, within the wider university, and within our health-based communities. For critical dialogue to emerge in these groups it is likely that some tempering of the discursive dominance of the scholarship of discovery will be needed, otherwise the other forms of scholarship are likely to remain overshadowed. Greater gain will come from more creative visioning and practical consideration of these ways in conjunction with discovery as means of advancing the disciplines scholarly community engagement agenda. Failure to act on this agenda runs the high risk of impoverishing the capacity of nursing scholarship to effect social capacity in the discovery, sharing, integration and application of pertinent health knowledge. Scholarly community engagement is not just the ethical or the right thing to do its also critical to an institutions long term survival and success (Richardson, 2004). Boyer (1996, p. 19) claims universities cannot afford to remain islands of afuence, self-importance and horticultural beauty in seas of squalor, violence and despair. We argue that nursing scholarship and schools of nursing cannot afford to remain islands of disengaged teaching and research in seas of ever increasing health inequalities and disparities. Research needs to be relevant and contextual and not occur in isolation. This is not a new concern. However, there is a critical need in the context of research assessment environment, which positively distinguishes the scholarship of discovery over the related scholarship of integration, of application and of sharing knowledge, for schools of nursing in Australasia to revisit and establish the premises of scholarly community engagement as a foundation to a better future.

CN

at the 2007 Joanna Briggs Institute International Convention: Pebbles of Knowledge: Evidence for Excellence.

References
Abbot, A. (1991). Professionalism and the future of librarianship. Library Trends, 46(3), 430443. Amen, M. (2001). The power of institutions and agents: Sources of failed university-community collaboration. Metropolitan Universities, 12(4), 3050. Ansley, F., & Gaventa, J. (1997). Researching for democracy and democratizing research. Change, 29, 653. Anthony, D. (2005). The nursing research assessment exercise 2001: An analysis. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing, 9, 412. Barker, D. (2004). The scholarship of engagement: A taxonomy of emerging practices. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 9(2), 123137. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press/The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Boyer, E. (1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 120. Braxton, J. M., Luckey, W., & Helland, P. (2002). Institutionalising a broader view of scholarship through Boyers four domains. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 29, No. 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley. Bringle, R., Games, R., & Malloy, E. (Eds.). (1999). College and universities as citizens. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Calleson, D., Jordan, C., & Seifer, D. (2005). Community-engaged scholarship: Is faculty work in communities a true academic enterprise? Academic Medicine, 80(4), 317321. Calleson, D., Seifer, S., & Maurana, C. (2002). Forces affecting the community involvement of AHCs: Perspectives of institutional and faculty leaders. Academic Medicine, 77, 7281. Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship. (2005). Linking scholarship and communities: Report of the Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the health professions. Seattle: Author.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge the support of staff at Victoria University of Wellington; we particularly thank Dr Ken Walsh, Dr Joan Skinner, and Dr Jo Walton for their critical input to a related paper presented

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

CN

39

CN

Jan Duke and Cheryle Moss

Klay, W., Brower, R., & Williams, B. (2001). A community-oriented model of academic professionalism. Metropolitan Universities, 12(3), 1424. Luker, K. (2007). Assessing the quality of research: A challenge for nursing, Nursing Inquiry, 14(1), 1. McDonald, W. M. (Ed.). (2002). Creating campus community: In search of Ernest Boyers Legacy. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. McDonald, W. M., Bacon, J. L., Brown, C. E., Carter, A. W., Littleton, R. A., Moore, B. L., et al. (2000). Collaboration and community: Boyers guiding principles. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Ramaley, J. (2001). Why do we engage in engagement? Metropolitan Universities, 12(3), 1320. Richardson, W. (2004). A shared legacy of engagement. Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation. Accessed January 11, 2005, at http://www. wkkf.org/Knowlegdebase/Pubs/RenderRes. aspx?CID=0&1D=3794. Rosaen, C., Foster-Fishman, P., & Fear, F. (2001). The citizen scholar: Joining voices and values in the engagement interface. Metropolitan Universities, 12(4), 1029. Sandmann, L., Foster-Fishman, P., Penny, G., Lloyd, J., Rahue, W., & Rosaen, C. (2000). Managing critical tensions: How to strengthen the scholarship component of outreach. Change, 32(1), 4552. Schn, D. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 2635. Seifer, S., & Calleson, D. (2004). Health professional faculty perspectives on community based research: Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(4), 416427. Silka, L. (1999). Paradoxes of partnerships: Reections on university-community collaborations. Research in Politics and Society, 7, 335359. Strand, K. (2000). Community-based research as pedagogy. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 8596. Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Community-based research and higher education: Principles and practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Taskforce on the Scholarship of Engagement (2001) Report of the Taskforce on the

CommunityCampus Partnerships for Health. (2007). Celebrating a decade of impact. Seattle: Author. Cope, G., & Leatherwood, M. (2001). Maintaining a culture of engagement: Challenges and opportunities in an evolving institution. Metropolitan Universities, 12(4), 8092. Council of Deans of Nursing and Midwifery (ANZ)/Centre for Health Initiatives, University of Wollongong (2007) Development of a ranking tool for refereed journals in which Australian and New Zealand nursing and midwifery researchers publish their work. Final report. Curtis, B., & Matthewman, S. (2005). The managed university: the PBRF, its impacts and staff attitudes. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 30(2), 117. Duke, J., McBride-Henry, K., Walsh, K., & Foureur, M. (2009). The expectations of two New Zealand health services of the role of clinical chairs in nursing and midwifery. Contemporary Nurse, 31(2), 129141. Fear, F. (1994). Background papers to university outreach at Michigan State University: Extend knowledge to serve society. East Lansing, MI: Ofce of the Provost for University Outreach. Fear, F., Creamer, N. G., Pirog, R., Block, D., & Redmond, L. (2004). Higher education-community partnerships: The politics of engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 9(2), 139156. Finkelstein, M. A. (2001a). Linking research and outreach: The center for engaged scholarship. Metropolitan Universities, 12(4), 917. Finkelstein, M. A. (2001b). Toward a unied view of scholarship: Eliminating distinctions between traditional and engaged work. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 6, 3544. Glassick, C., Huber, M., & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. Special report of The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Jacoby, R. (1987). The last intellectuals: American culture in the age of academe. New York: Basic Books. James, V., & Clark, J. M. (2007). Benchmarking research development in nursing: Currans competitive advantage as a framework for excellence. Journal of Research in Nursing, 12, 269287. 40

CN

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

Re-visiting scholarly community engagement

Scholarship of Engagement. Chicago: University of Illinois. Watson, R., McKenna, H., & Thompson, D. R. (2007). What does the Cooksey report hold for

CN

nursing research in the UK? Nurse Education in Practice, 7, 121122.

Received 15 December 2008 Accepted 16 April 2009

CHILD & FAMILY BOOKS FROM POSTPRESSED

Seeing Red: Critical Narrative in ADHD Research Brenton Prosser ISBN: 978-1-876682-92-2 This study presents cutting edge thinking and innovative strategy for approaching gaps in sociology and education to inspire others to address social and cultural problems presented by ADHD. Literacy for Children with Down Syndrome: Early Days Margaret Farrell, Pat Gunn ISBN: 978-1-876682-11-6 A preschool primer this book moves from the mechanics of learning to read to the nurturing atmosphere which encourages children to be willing and continued participants in a life of literacy experience. Our Adolescents: Issues for Teachers, Schools & Communities Nan Bar, Kristelle Hudry ISBN: 978-1-876682-39-6 This is an invaluable resource for beginning and experienced teachers as they attempt to address and resolve the educational challenges that they face along with the young people in our society. Each Parent Carries the Flame: Waldorf schools as sites for promoting lifelong learning, creating community and educating for social renewal Tom Stehlik ISBN: 978-1-876682-37-8 This is an invaluable resource for beginning and experienced teachers as they attempt to address and resolve the educational challenges that they face along with the young people in our society. Following Vygotsky to a Learner-Centred School Robert G Grandin ISBN: 978-1-876682-96-5 Recognising the problem of individuality in learning, this book addresses the demands of children, as curious individuals who want to learn, and a greater diversity of learners remaining within the schooling system, by engagement with them in learning and recognising their achievements through schooling structures and teacher support. Stories From The Margin: Mothering a child with ADHD or ASD Lorelei Carpenter, Elke Emerald ISBN: 978-1-921214-43-1 Mothers of children with ADHD or ASD try to compose their lives, highlighting contradictory and complex intersections of diagnoses and treatment with questions around disability and difference. Performing Bodies: Narrative, Representation, and Childrens Storytelling Kerry Mallan ISBN: 978-1-876682-49-3 Childrens early play often takes the form of a story called pretend. This book contributes to understanding how these stories work and how their storytelling functions as a social, political and educative activity. Adolescents in Schools and Communities Nan Bahr ISBN: 1-876682-19-1 Issues of adolescence have an impact on school life beyond comprehending concepts in specific curriculum areas. This book considers the role of the teacher in the lives of adolescents and the community. Becoming Parent: Lesbians, Gay Men, and Family Damien W Riggs ISBN: 978-1921214-16-5 Mixing personal narratives with critical commentary this book speaks to parents and non-parents, including diversity within queer communities, the media, law and narratives of family. Making Hope Practical: School Reform for Social Justice Peter McInerney ISBN: 978-1-876682-71-2 Explores how the politics of possibility can be brought to bear in creating a more socially just society in, and through, public schooling. The account is based on research combining a critical policy analysis with an ethnographic account of school reform at a culturally diverse, working-class community attempting to redress educational inequalities stemming from classed, gendered and racialised experiences of students.

eContent Management Pty Ltd, PO Box 1027, Maleny QLD 4552, Australia Tel.: +61-7-5435-2900; Fax. +61-7-5435-2911; subscriptions@e-contentmanagement.com www.e-contentmanagement.com

Volume 32, Issue 12, AprilJune 2009

CN

41