faculty engagement in public scholarship

7/28/2019 Faculty Engagement in Public Scholarship

1/26

Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Volume 12, Number 2, p. , (2008)

Faculty Engagement in Public Scholarship:A Motivation Systems Theory Perspective

Carol L. Colbeck and Lisa D. Weaver

AbstractTis study used the lens o motivation systems theory to

explore why research university aculty engage in public schol-arship. Faculty engaged in public scholarship integrate theirresearch, teaching, and service to address societal needs. Analysiso the motivational patterns (including goals, capability belies,context belies, and emotions) o twelve aculty actively engaged

in public scholarship at a single public research university is usedto identiy leverage points or other aculty and administratorswho wish to support, increase, or enhance their own and othersengagement in public scholarship.

Introductionuring a period when aculty eel ever-increasing pressures toproduce more publications, secure more external unding,use innovative pedagogies in the classroom, and engage

undergraduates in research, all while making their teaching andservice scholarly, encouragement to conduct public scholarshipmay well be perceived by many as yet another impossible expecta-tion. Nevertheless, Checkoway(2001, 143) imagines aculty whoseresearch promotes public scholarship relating their work to thepressing problems o society; whose teaching includes community-based learning that develops substantive knowledge, cultivatespractical skills, and strengthens social responsibility; whose servicedraws upon their proessional expertise or the welare o society;and whose eorts promote a vibrant public culture at their institu-tion. Checkoways imaginings indicate the potential benets publicscholarship holds or students, aculty, universities, and society.

Public scholarship is scholarly activity generating new knowl-edge through academic reection on issues o community engage-ment. It integrates research, teaching, and service. It does not assumethat useul knowledge simply ows outward rom the university tothe larger community. It recognizes that new knowledge is created

in its application in the eld, and thereore benets the teachingand research mission o the university (Yapa 2006, 73). Tus,while similar to common conceptions o service-learning or civicengagement, public scholarship is neither supplemental to primaryteaching or research responsibilities, nor can it be accomplished

D


2/26

8 Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement

by simply adding community service and reection componentsto the courses aculty teach. Public scholarship rerames academicwork as an inseparable whole in which teaching, research, and ser-vice components are teased apart only to see how each inorms and

enriches the others, and aculty members use the integrated wholeo their work to address societal needs (Colbeck and Michael 2006b;Kellogg Commission 2000).

Despite benets o public scholarship or aculty, universi-ties, and communities, encouraging, evaluating, and rewardingthe work o aculty members who do public scholarship remainsproblematic (OMeara 2002; OMeara and Rice 2005). Moreover, most

prior research about aculty

involvement in service-learning,community-based research, orengaged scholarship has beenatheoretical. An exception isWards (2003) review o priorresearch in this area in whichshe categorizes aculty membersreasons or engaging in com-munity service as attributable to

intrinsic or extrinsic motivation.Among the intrinsic reasonsor engagement, Ward lists per-

sonal values, prior involvement, sense o responsibility, nature oones discipline, eeling o belonging, and eeling that ones workhas purpose. Extrinsic reasons include job descriptions, rewards(such as grants, release time, and cash awards), and recognitionand enhanced reputation. Lack o such extrinsic rewards is oencited as a reason why more aculty are not involved in service (Ward2003).

A simple intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy provides insufcienttheoretical basis or understanding aculty motivation to engagein public scholarship, however, because o lack o clarity in theterms and conicting opinions about the relationship between thetwo types o motivation. Intrinsic motivation has been denedseveral ways by organizational psychologists, leading to conu-sion about how it can be distinguished rom extrinsic motivation.

Advancement and recognition, or example, have been classiedas intrinsic rewards in some studies and as extrinsic rewards inothers (Dyer and Parker 1975). Some denitions posit that intrinsicmotivation originates rom internal needs and eelings existingprior to a particular work situation (Slocum 1971). Others posit that

Public scholarshiprerames academic workas an inseparable whole inwhich teaching, research,and service componentsare teased apart only tosee how each inorms and

enriches the others . . .


3/26

Faculty Engagement in Public Scholarship

a persons current intrinsic motivation is inuenced by past experi-ences, social context, and current perceptions o extrinsic rewards(Dyer and Parker 1975). Not only do theorists disagree about whetherintrinsic motivation must precede an individuals current situa-

tion, they also dier about whether intrinsic and extrinsic moti-vation complement or conict with each other. When applyingexpectancy theory to understand proessors motivation to teachand conduct research, Mowday(1982) assumed that intrinsic andextrinsic rewards are additive; together, they could increase indi-viduals motivation. In contrast, Bess (1977) and McKeachie (1982)asserted that proessors joy in teaching or its own sake woulddecrease i they pursued external rewards or that aspect o theiracademic work. Tus, improved understanding o aculty motiva-tion to engage in public scholarship requires a more sophisticatedtheoretical lens.

Motivation systems theory provides such a lens. Martin Ford(1992) developed the comprehensive theory o motivation aerconducting a thoughtul review o scores o other motivationtheories. Motivation systemstheory (MS) posits that motivationinvolves interactions between ones personal goals, capability belies(perceptions o ones own skills), context belies (perceptions o

whether or not ones environment provides needed support), andemotional arousal processes (eelings that help one mobilize anddeploy energy). We used MS to understand why aculty membersare motivated to engage in public scholarship at a single publicresearch university. Lessons learned rom their examples may helpidentiy leverage points or other aculty and administrators whowish to support, increase, or enhance their own and others engage-ment in public scholarship.

Conceptual FrameworkTe conceptual ramework or this study, depicted in gure 1,

integrates MS with prior research about reasons or acultyinvolvement in service-learning, community-based research, orengaged scholarship as well as prior research on academic workroles.

Individual characteristics are likely to shape aculty membersmotivation to engage in public scholarship. In their review o prior

literature about what inuences aculty to participate in service-learning and community-based research, Colbeck and Michael(2006a) noted other researchers have ound associations betweenthe demographic characteristics o rank, experience, discipline,


4/26


gender, and race and aculty involvement in community service.In particular, concern about evaluations or the critical up-or-outtenure decision may inhibit many tenure-seeking aculty romscholarly engagement in the community(OMeara 2005). In addition,experiences as citizens and as members o the academic proession

may inuence aculty motivation or engaged academic work(Boyte2004). Identity is what it means to be who one is (Burke 2003, 1).Faculty members may either perceive their proessional identitiesas ragmented between their teaching, research, and service rolesor as an integrated whole (Colbeck 2008). Tose who perceive con-nections and integration between their roles may be more likely toengage in public scholarship (Colbeck and Michael 2006b).

Personal goals represent the consequences an individual is trying

to achieve and direct the processes the individual uses to producethe consequences. Ford (1992) developed a taxonomy o twenty-our goals, arranged in six categories: aective (entertainment,tranquility, happiness, bodily sensations, and physical well-being),cognitive (exploration, understanding, intellectual creativity, posi-

Individual

Characteristics

Rank

Experience

as citizen

as academic

Professional identity

Motivation

GoalsAffective

Cognitive

Subjective organization

Self-assertive social relationship

Integrative social relationship

Task

SatisfactionCuriosity/Interest

DiscouragementDisinterest

Emotions

Department

Discipline

Campus

Context Beliefs

Strengths Weaknesses

Capability Beliefs

Public Scholarship

Engagement

Integration

Pervasiveness

Figure 1: Motivation Systems Theory and Faculty Engagement in Public

Scholarship


5/26

Faculty Engagement in Public Scholarship 11

tive sel-evaluation), subjective organization (unity, transcendence),sel-assertive social relationship (individuality, sel-determination,superiority, resource acquisition), integrative social relationship(belongingness, social responsibility, equity, resource provision),

and task goals (mastery, task creativity, management, materialgain, saety). Some o these goals may be more associated withengagement in public scholarship than others. Faculty mem-bers who value integrative social relationship goals such as socialresponsibility, or example, might be more likely to engage in publicscholarship than aculty holding strong sel-assertive social rela-tionship goals such as superiority and resource acquisition.

Goals alone are not enough to shape motivation. Individuals

must also believe they have the personal agency to attain their goals.According to Ford (1992), two sets o belies about personal agencyinteract to inuence motivation. Capability belies are evaluationso whether one has the necessary skills to attain a goal. Perceptionso ones skill strengths and weaknesses may shape public scholar-ship involvement. Tus, a aculty member who perceives herseladept at communicating with multiple stakeholders might be morelikely to engage in public scholarship than one who eels most com-ortable talking with academic peers. Even an individual with the

necessary skills may nd a goal difcult to attain i he perceivesthat his organizational context is not supportive or has inadequateresources. Prior experiences outside and inside academe are likelyto shape aculty members belies about their capabilities to engagein public scholarship (Bandura 1977). Context belies are evaluationso whether ones environment will support goal attainment; theyinvolve congruence o personal goals with organizational goals(Maehr and Braskamp 1986), perceptions o availability o resources,and perceptions o social support and rewards. Faculty membersperceptions o their department, disciplinary, and campus con-texts may dier, and each might inuence engagement in publicscholarship.

Interactions between capability and context belies yieldpersonalagency belie patterns (Ford 1992). A person with positive capabilityand context belies, or example, is likely to have a robustpatterncharacterized by a strong sense o purpose and optimistic outlook.In contrast, one with negative capability and context belies is

unlikely to have much expectation o success. A person with posi-tive capability belies but neutral or variable context belies is likelyto have a tenacious pattern, and the strength to deal with contextualchallenges. A modestpersonal agency belie pattern associated withpositive context belies and moderate or variable capability belies


6/26


provides an opportunity or learning or the individual who eels per-sonally allible but supported by the environment. In contrast, indi-viduals with positive capability belies and negative context beliesmay exhibit an antagonistic pattern and be more likely to blame

the context rather than themselves or problems. A discouragedpattern is associated with negative context belies and modestcapability belies, and an individual with this pattern is unlikely toanticipate making progress in the current context.

Goals, capability belies, and context belies set the stage orthe ourth component, emotional arousal. Emotions are subjec-tive states that reveal the extent o success, problems, or ailure anindividual anticipates in relation to a goal. Emotions become most

salient when immediate, vigorous action is required. O the oursets o emotions categorized by Ford (1992), two are most relevantto aculty motivation to engage in public scholarship. Te rst setinvolves instrumental emotions that help regulate the initiation,continuation, repetition, or termination o behaviors. Tey includesatisaction, discouragement, curiosity or interest, and disinterestor apathy. Te second set o relevant emotions are those that helpregulate eorts to cope with potentially disrupting or damagingcircumstances. Tey include surprise, annoyance or anger, wari-

ness or ear, and dislike or disgust.A desired consequence o motivation is achievement, the attain-

ment o a personally or socially valued goal within a specic con-text. For this study, we dened achievement as a aculty membersull engagement in public scholarship in terms o role integrationand pervasiveness. Role integration involves whether and how aaculty member synthesizes research, teaching, and civic engage-ment as he or she engages in public scholarship activities (Colbeckand Michael 2006b). Te extent to which public scholarship aectsall aspects o aculty work activities is an indicator opervasive-ness. We used Fords (1992) motivation systems theory to explorethe reasons why twelve aculty members actively engage in publicscholarship at the Pennsylvania State University.

University ContextAn ever-growing group o aculty and administrators at the

Pennsylvania State University are enacting public scholarship. Tey

are committed to integrating the teaching, research, and serviceaspects o their work in service to the community. An initial smallcore group worked with Associate Vice President and Senior Deanor Undergraduate Education Jeremy Cohen in 1999 to articu-


7/26


late goals or recruiting other aculty, creating opportunities ormeaningul participation, developing a center to oster publicscholarship, and sharing public scholarship in ways that recog-nized aculty members integrated scholarly contributions (Cohen

and Yapa 2003). Small grants unded by various campus ofces andthe Pennsylvania Campus Compact were oered to aculty whoincorporated public scholarship into their undergraduate courses.Awardees also became Public Scholarship Associates. By 2006, thePublic Scholarship Associates included nearly one hundred ac-ulty rom the main University Park campus and several o PennStates nineteen commonwealth campuses. Disciplines representedincluded geography, philosophy, electrical engineering, rural soci-ology, political science, communications, and higher education.Public Scholarship Associates met one to two times per semesterto interact with community representatives, oversee the under-graduate minor in civic engagement, explore o the meaning andpractice o public scholarship, and plan undergraduate poster exhi-bitions and day-long seminars on public scholarship.

MethodsTe qualitative methods or this exploratory study involved

interviews with twelve Penn State aculty members engaged inpublic scholarship. We hoped that lessons learned rom acultyalready doing public scholarship would help us identiy leveragepoints or encouraging more aculty to engage in the practice.

Identication o likely participants was acilitated by the rstauthors active membership in the Public Scholarship Associates.Faculty invited to participate in the study had current and/or priorgrants or public scholarship courses or were known to be actively

engaged in the practice. We also selected participants or severaldimensions o variation. Te sample included six men and sixwomen. Four were ull proessors, our were associates, two wereassistant proessors on the tenure track, and two held the title oassistant proessor but were not on the tenure track. wo partici-pants were ethnic minorities. en participants worked at PennStates main University Park research campus; two held positionsat smaller branch campuses. Tree held (or had recently held) posi-tions with administrative and budgetary authority over other aculty;

two additional participants were center directors, and a sixth wasvery active in aculty governance. Participants home departmentsincluded engineering, education, nutrition, geography, landscapearchitecture, psychology, agricultural economics, English, andwomens studies.


8/26


We conducted a sixty- to ninety-minute interview with eachparticipant to elicit inormation about their prior experienceswith civic engagement, how they identiy themselves proession-ally, and their perceptions o their disciplinary and campus con-

textsincluding the impact o tenure. We also asked about theirown goals or their academic work, their belies about their workstrengths and weaknesses, and their belies about whether theirwork contexts were supportive o public scholarship. Finally, weasked how oen their research, teaching, and civic engagementroles inorm each other and whether their teaching o one publicscholarship class has spilled over into other areas o their academicwork. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed.ranscriptions were coded and thematically analyzed using theconcepts rom motivation systems theory to construct a motiva-tion map or each participant and to ascertain motivation patternsacross all participants.

FindingsIn this section, we describe the major themes that emerged

when analyzing each motivational concept, then compare char-acteristics that reveal important dierences in their motivation

maps.

Prior experiencesWe asked each participant to describe prior experiences as citi-

zens and as academics that contributed to their current engage-ment in public scholarship. Family and community groups wereprimary shapers o these aculty members current civic engage-ment.1 Eight o the twelve participants indicated the importanceo their amilies or amily situations, such as the impact o beingrst in the amily to attend college, appreciating support providedaer a parents death, or being raised going to peace marches andprotests. O these eight, ve shared lengthy anecdotes about theirathers, mothers, or grandparents who introduced the graticationo engaging people and being seless or modeled the way that helistened to people, the way that he valued and respected people,the way that he entered his perspective into the conversation andhis high comort with the ambiguity o a representative, collec-

tive decision-making process or described what it was like to livewith the legacy o a war long aer the conict was over. One whowas born to privilege was encouraged to help others; three born toworking-class amilies recognized the comparative privilege theyhad attained as academics and now wanted to empower others.


9/26


Good and bad experiences with community groups also inu-enced participants to use their aculty positions to make a positivedierence. While volunteering with a community group to reur-bish homes in the inner city, one participant realized that type o

eort would not help stop a crushing generational cycle o poverty.He reected on his athers encouragement to work or social justice:I remember the conversation that I had with my dad. I prepared allmy lie just or situations like this but here I am painting a bloodykitchen. What dierence would it make to the lie o this girl? Teparticipant then began an intellectual journey to determine how hecould use his intellectual skills to address social inequities throughpublic scholarship. Another participant elt encouraged to questionauthority or the rst time when she enrolled in a womens studiescourse as a young mother. Whilethree said they have always had asense o doing things or the com-munity, two described very nega-tive experiences that engendered adesire to acilitate communicationprocesses that would oster genuinedemocratic engagement.

Participants ranks were reectedin the dierent ways they perceivedthat their academic experiencescontributed to their public scholar-ship. wo senior aculty acknowl-edged their early career ocus wasprimarily on disciplinary research,but they now had the time andinterest to reocus on community-based research and learning. Anoer o external unding to replicate a discipline-specic commu-nity engagement eort led one administrator to adopt public schol-arship as an agenda or his department. wo senior aculty sawthe philosophy animating public scholarship as a way to challengetaken-or-granted notions o power in dominant theories in theirelds; similarly, our relatively early-career aculty saw their publicscholarship teaching and research as activism in the academy. One

participant was already engaged in public scholarship when sherealized that not only was it research, but her work had demon-strable impact on peoples lives, even when she did not publish thework in standard ways.

One participant wasalready engaged inpublic scholarshipwhen she realized

that not only was itresearch, but her workhad demonstrableimpact on peoples

lives, even when she didnot publish the work

in standard ways.


10/26


Professional identityWe began each interview by asking the aculty members to

tell us who they were as proessors o their respective disciplines.Rather than using traditional academic categories, this group o

aculty described themselves as having multiple proessional iden-tities in terms o discipline, roles, and positions. An overwhelmingmajorityten o the twelvedescribed their work as interdisci-plinary. Tree had joint appointments. Another described her workas the interace between our disciplines, and a h said he hasworked or years at the interace o physical sciences and socialsciences. Other participants described collaborations with col-leagues across the disciplines that either led to or resulted romtheir involvement in public scholarship.

Several participants also perceived connections across theirteaching, research, and service roles. One said that although aca-demics oen compartmentalize teaching, research and service asthree parts o our job, . . . I have just always had a hard time sepa-rating those three things. I cant separate them and because I teachall the time, I do science all the time, and . . . I would not do thosethings . . . i I didnt think it was going to do something good or thecommunity. Similarly, a center director with a joint appointment

in two departments who ostered connections between people,ideas, and disciplines noted the synthesis between his teaching,research, and outreach roles as well as his academic, practitioner,and administrative positions. Participants comments about theiridentities revealed that they were complex individuals who acili-tated interpersonal connections and intellectual connections intheir work. Teir descriptions o their prior experiences and pro-essional identities were helpul or understanding their goals,capability belies, context belies, and emotions.

GoalsWe asked participants to talk about goals in two dierent

ways: the most important purposes o their work and the proes-sional goals they would like to accomplish in the next ve years.We combined both responses to categorize their goals accordingto the broad categories in Fords typology: aective, cognitive, sub-jective organization, sel-assertive social relationship, integrative

social relationship, and task. Te overwhelming majority o goalsvolunteered by participants were easily categorized as integra-tive social relationship goals, which serve to maintain or promoteother people or social groups (Ford 1992). Participants sometimesexpressed these goals in general terms: I would like to do thingsthat have an impact and matter or I am here to make the world


11/26


a better place. Some targeted their integrative social relationshipgoals toward one academic role, such as teaching: o make goodcitizens out o undergraduates and grad students so they have asense o their responsibilities more than their rights. Other partici-

pants recognized multiple results possible rom a single goal, suchas actually delivering the product to them that they are impressedwith, and that extends our reputation as a department, it extendsthe goodwill or the campus and it provides a wonderul commu-nity service that these people, a lot o community would not haveotherwise. Tree compared the relative importance o their cur-rent public scholarship goals to their ormer goals or publishingresearch. As one said, Ive always wanted my research to have moremeaning than ve academics reading an article.

Te next largest number o goal content statements were cog-nitive in nature and concerned with the intellectual work involvedin all aspects o public scholarship, such as developing theories,developing public scholarship as a new epistemology, a dierentway o thinking, a dierent way o solving problems or dealingwith complex issues and complex situations. Some participantsarticulated specic task goals or their work, including or theircurrent public scholarship projects such as data collection or

securing grants. A ew discussed sel-assertive relationship goals,which are associated with maintaining or promoting the sel. AsFord indicates, individuals may have both strong sel-assertiveand integrative social goals. One tenure-track assistant proessorwith a strong activist agenda also elt a strong responsibility as pri-mary amily income provider, so attaining tenure was a key goal. Arecently tenured participant wanted promotion to ull proessor, inpart to validate his public scholarship. In contrast, two participantsvoiced sel-assertive goals o leaving the university because theyperceived incongruence between their own goals and those o theirwork contexts. None o the participants mentioned goals that couldbe categorized as aective or subjective organization goals.

Capability beliefsIndividuals capability belies reect their condence or doubts

about any o a number o personal strengths or weaknesses (Ford1992, 128). Strengths in common volunteered by several o these

public scholars include communication skills, relevant experiences,various ways o making connections, and passion. Many partici-pants elt that acilitating communication between university andcommunity groups, between students, aculty, and communitymembers, and within any type o diverse group is essential to eec-tive public scholarship. Success and enjoyment in this work owed


12/26


rom their abilities to listen, synthesize, and translate. For example,one participant described why he elt his ability to see dierent per-spectives enhanced his comort with the idea that there are indeedmultiple legitimate interests around any issue, any public issue and

public space, and that those interests need to be respected. I thinkalso, I hope that I am a good listener which I think you have to beto do that work and urthermore you need to have the ability tointegrate and synthesize the perspectives that are put on the table.Another participant valued his ability to articulate the meaning ohis public scholarship to students. My strengths are that I can seethis issue airly clearly and I can explain it to even reshmen whounderstand the argument; they are persuaded. Communicationin service or students learningeven to the extent o being ashameless promoterhelped another participant build her publicscholarship agenda. She said, I go out and talk to everybody. . . .I dont perceive mysel as being particularly outgoing but whenI get going talking about what my students do and what kind ostudents I have, I have wonderul students and that to me is one othe strengths. Fostering meaningul student learning with publicscholarship was a strength voiced by several participants. Othersperceived that their relevant experiences are strengths, including

real world experience with lots o the topics that I talk about inclass, having been a practitioner beore coming into academia,and being reasonably well-connected because I have been aroundor a while and because o that connectivity, [students] get oppor-tunities . . . they wouldnt normally get. A strength voiced directlyby only two participants seemed to resonate throughout theinterviews o all: passion. A tenure-track assistant proessor, orexample, described how her passion helped her meet requirementsor tenure even while doing public scholarship:

I just think that i you do work that you are passionateabout, that that translates into good things, and . . . Imworking on issues that are really important to me, oth-erwise I wouldnt be doing good work, and I wouldnt bepublishing in really good journals, because the passionwouldnt come through.

Participants in this study were able to see the good side o theirweaknesses. A couple, in act, even said that their strengths weresometimes also their weaknesses. A ew ound that the passionarticulated or notthat animated their public scholarship workinspired some students, but was rejected by others. One used to


13/26


worry, Do I really have the ability to motivate students to thinkbeyond their own lives and how do I do that? So what I like as mystrength I also think is my limitation because I dont reach everystudent, its very clear that I dont. Faculty engaged in public schol-

arship are very busy, i this group is any indication, because someperceived that not working ast enough, taking too much time withstudents, or not being able to say no were among their weaknesses.Several also allowed themselves room to grow as they describedweaknesses they were working to overcome, such as experiencewith teams, giving eedback to students eectively, or learningmore about networks and making contacts.

Individually and as a whole, this group o aculty seemed to

have a strong sense o their own abilities to accomplish publicscholarship, whether or not they perceived public scholarship asadditional to or as an integral part o their regular aculty respon-sibilities. Tey all worked at the same university; however, theirperceptions o their work contexts were more variable and lessavorable than their sel-perceptions.

Context beliefsWe asked participants to discuss their perceptions o the degree

to which their department, disciplinary, and university contextssupport public scholarship. Belies about support rom depart-ment contexts ranged rom very positive to very negative. Fourparticipants perceived positive support or public scholarship intheir departments, six described department support as moderateor variable, and two perceived only negative messages within theirdepartments. Te participant who perhaps perceived the mostpositive support reported that an expectation o equal attentionto teaching, research, and service or evaluation is reality rather

than rhetoric in his department. Not only is it part o the ethosin this department, but his public scholarship attracted a higherthan typical amount o grant dollars to the department, so he saidthat bringing in resources may explain the acceptance. Anotherparticipant described his department and college as extremelysupportive and even aggressive in pursuing these sorts o oppor-tunities. Te process o mounting a major international publicscholarship eort has been acilitated by deans as well as with

nancial resources rom both colleges where one participant hasjoint appointments, so she perceives the climate or public scholar-ship is good in both places. In contrast, six participants perceivedmixed messages or messages that have changed over time. A senioraculty member described a long tradition o commitment to the


14/26


public work o the university, but during the last ten years therehas been increasingly a lack o support. A tenure-seeking acultymember elt well-supported by her department chair or her tra-ditional academic work but perceived no recognition o her public

scholarship in a pretenure review. Another participant ound sim-ilar benign neglect: Te department doesnt really do anything toget in the way; they have been very helpul. A department headtrying to mobilize aculty interest in public scholarship provided aninteresting and dierent perspective on this issue when he said:

I think that there is a receptiveness to the ideas, quicklyand universally to some extent. I think that this is true bothwithin the department; in other words, most aculty or

students you talk to think its a good idea. . . . I you talkto the dean, the dean is very enthusiastic. . . . Now, whenyou get down to brass tacks o unding and time alloca-tion, I think it takes a dierent slant. I probably have adozen aculty in the department who are interested inprinciple, but I only have about two who will actually goout and teach that [public scholarship course]. . . . And Ind that kind o interesting so there are like two sides o

that coin, you know, there is, the ideas are very quicklyreceived, the projects are always interesting, people liketo see them, but when it comes down to getting peopleinvolved to do it, it is a challenge.

wo aculty ound nothing positive in their department climatesor public scholarship. One described an unhappy department inwhich there are strong disincentives or spending time with stu-dents, there are strong disincentives as well or collaboration even

to the point where revealing what you are studying to another col-league can be dangerous in some situations because o competi-tiveness. Similarly, a nontenure-track aculty member elt she wasdoing more than tenure-track aculty, but her department head didnot recognize or reward her eorts.

Disciplinary contexts were more supportive o public scholar-ship than department contexts, according to the nine participantswho discussed this issue. Five reported positive climates, and twoothers perceived indicators o important and avorable changes.One perceived variable messages within his discipline, and anotherelt the disciplinary climate or public scholarship was negative.Several o those who perceived a positive disciplinary climate asso-ciated it with the interdisciplinary nature o their elds. Said one,


15/26


So because what I teach to my students is interdisciplinarity, I amenabled to do that through my discipline. Perhaps even more tellingwere our aculty who reported evidence o positive change in theirelds. wo participants rom very dierent disciplines described

similar scenarios at national conerences. Both described sessionswith research leaders in their elds talking about public scholar-ship, and as one said, it was an 8:00 a.m. session, the room waspacked, and it was a big room. And I think its important that theother people that were on this were also very big names. Anotherparticipant rom a third discipline said, More and more o theleaders in the discipline are applied people who write books andare really trying to give things away and I think thats a wonderulshi, so I think in our discipline the expectations are very slowlychanging away rom separate teaching, research, and service and byservice really meaning be on a committee not serving the commu-nity. Te participant who perceived mixed messages had receiveda grant or his public scholarship, but had two manuscripts rejectedby the education journal in his discipline. Te participant who per-ceived a negative disciplinary climate or public scholarship saidit was discouraging because a lot o proessors wont think thatway because they themselves have never been exposed to public

scholarship.Participants also perceived the university context as somewhat

more supportive o public scholarship than their department con-texts. Most o the participants mentioned they valued the interdis-ciplinary connections with colleagues aorded by occasional PublicScholarship Associates meetings and eorts made by Associate VicePresident Jeremy Cohen to champion the philosophy and practiceat Penn State. Tree mentioned that a ve-year-old policy changein university promotion and tenure policy to recognize outreachscholarship was beginning to have a positive eect on some deci-sions. A couple o participants who had earned university awardsand unding rom several university ofces or their highly visiblepublic scholarship work elt the university was moving in a gooddirection. One said, I think it may be somewhat o an embryonicatmosphere right now, we dont know where we are all going to gowith this yet it seems like everyone is on the band wagon, let meput it that way. Everyone is on the band wagon, where is that wagon

going to go? It is going to take people to really kind o start steeringwhere they are going to bring this, but I think its a very excitingtime at Penn State. While ve described a positive climate, anotherve ound the same university climate only moderately or variablysupportive o public scholarship. A aculty member working at a


16/26


branch campus said that despite the strong support o the campuschancellor, ew other aculty or administrators were even aware opublic scholarship. A participant at the main campus said that theuniversity emphasis on securing externally unded research inhib-

ited public scholarship. He said, What you dont see, are probably,you know, the hundreds o projects that were never done, becausethey could not t within the institutional structure o research.Aparticipant who was active in university governance identied gapsin university support.

I think you have to have top-down support, there isabsolutely no doubt, and then you have to have thegrass-roots eorts. You have to have individual aculty

say, Yes it counts when you are on the P and com-mittee, so thats got to be there. But there is just a wholelot o middle administrators who just dont get it, and Iam not sure they are going to. Tey just sort o roll theireyes. And some senior proessors too, you know, whosort o, took a more traditional track, were told, Dontyou dare do this. And so now they just keep repeatingthat mantra. And so I think we have a way to go, but I

am very optimistic about it.

EmotionsEmotions associated with their public scholarship involvement

were expressed by participants directly in words and indirectly intheir tone, demeanor, and descriptions o their work and workcontexts. Te our emotions expressed most oen by participantsincluded satisaction/joy, curiosity/interest, wariness, and resent-ment. wo participants who perceived no positive support rom

their work contexts elt discouraged and resentul. A tenure-trackaculty member who elt she must delay some o her natural desireto ully engage in public scholarship until aer she received tenureexpressed wariness. Eight participants, particularly those who elttheir research and teaching were invigorated or changed in excitingnew directions because o public scholarship, expressed curiosity/interest. All participants ound satisaction and joy to varyingdegrees rom engaging in public scholarship. Teir commentsranged rom a simple Its un! to eusiveness: I ound some-

thing that I really love to do and that I want to get out o bed in themorning and come in every summer day, and that I kind o eel likeI have made an impact on a couple students, I have made an impacton a ew other aculty, and I have certainly grown mysel.


17/26


IntegrationOne o the outcomes o interest was how participants viewed

linkages between their teaching, research, and service roles as aresult o engaging in public scholarship. Tree participants ini-

tially identied themselves in terms o their integrated work roles.Five others recognized holistic connections as they discussed theirpublic scholarship. One told us that public scholarship was the onlything that links all his academic work. Other examples include:

Public Scholarship comes into my research, my researchcomes into my public scholarship. Its really hard tocreate a dividing line between my public scholarship,my teaching, and my research. Tey have all kind o

morphed into this one thing.

Research, teaching, public mission; research, publicmission, teachingto me its just all a dynamic seam-less web o interdependency.

I think my teaching has always been integrated, obvi-ously my service has always been integrated, but I thinkits more recently that I have tried to do that more withmy research.

wo aculty participants perceived public scholarship as linkingmore strongly to their teaching than to researcha construction sim-ilar to service-learning. Another perceived links more strongly withresearcha construction similar to community-based research.

Pervasiveness

We were also interested in the extent to which participantslimited the time and energy they devoted to public scholarshipor perceived public scholarship as their approach to aculty workas a whole. Eight participants indicated that public scholarshippervaded their academic work, and some gave detailed examplesabout courses, writing projects, community collaborations, andadministrative work. Others made simple declarations, such asWell, I am sure there is something I do where it isnt, at the microkind o level, but I think it is a theme that runs through my work

or My proessional goal is public scholarship. wo participantsdescribed changes they were beginning to make in the way they didsome o their work to incorporate more public scholarship. Onedescribed two specic ways that he was incorporating ideas rompublic scholarship into new proessional development programs


18/26


he was planning or undergraduate majors in his eld. Anotheraculty member shared that he considered incorporating publicscholarship into more o his classes only because o encouragementrom one o his graduate students. Te aculty members who were

more ocused either on service-learning or on community-basedresearch were less likely to eel that public scholarship pervaded alltheir academic work.

One participant described a potential benet o allowing publicscholarship to pervade ones work: or her, rather than increasingher workload, it was something that has made my lie so mucheasier.

Cross-Case Analysis: Motivation MapsWe created maps o the relationships between motivation

systems theory concepts or each individual participant, whichallowed us to make sense o how motivation had led each to theircurrent state at the time o the interview and to make some edu-cated guesses about how their engagement in public scholarshipwas likely to aect uture career choices. Fords articulation o per-sonal agency belie patterns (interactions between capability andcontext belies) guided this part o the analysis. Although all par-

ticipants had been selected or their active engagement in publicscholarship, we ound interesting variations in their motivationmaps that suggested patterns ranging rom a low discouraged toa high robust. (See table 1.)

Te participant who exhibited a discouraged pattern identi-ed primarily as a teacher and ocused chiey on integrative socialgoals related to teaching; she had moderate capability belies, and

very negative context belies about her department, discipline, anduniversity. Public scholarship remained on the periphery o her

Table 1. Public Scholarship and Participants Personal Agency Belief Patterns

Context beliefs

Capability beliefs

Strong Moderate/Variable Weak

Positive Robust

3

Modest

2

Fragile

0

Neutral/Variable Tenacious

4

Vulnerable

1

Self-defeating

0

Negative Antagonistic

1

Discouraged

1

Hopeless

0

Adapted from Ford 1992


19/26


academic work. She anticipated taking early retirement. She saido public scholarship:

Its a tool or making, helping students to see the validity

o what they are studying, the value o what they arestudying, and or cementing the inormation in a muchmore valuable way. Now, do I want to take that artherproessionally? I there were any rewards or me I might,but there are none.

Leaving the university was on the agenda o another partici-pant whose public scholarship ully integrated her work roles andpervaded much o her proessional lie. Although she had strongly

positive capability belies, she perceived little that was supportiverom her work contexts. Aer trying, without success, to eectchange in her work contexts, this participant was beginning toexplore other places to practice public scholarship. Her motivationmap t the antagonistic patternthat is, having a general senseo ones own adequacy but distrust o the environment.

Te motivation maps o three participants t somewherebetween a vulnerable and a modest pattern. Both were charac-

terized by moderate capability belies, but the vulnerable patternalso has moderate or variable context belies. Te mixed messagesrom the environment probably would not dramatically inhibitprogress toward goals, but people with this pattern are likely toeel anxious or worried and may be a bit cautious in setting goals.Te modest pattern benets rom positive context belies, andthe resulting sense o security may establish good conditions orlearning or new skills development. Te three participants ttingthese patterns included an assistant, an associate, and a ull pro-

essor/administrator, each with amily and prior community ser-vice experiences. Each acknowledged still having much to learnabout their roles and were eager to engage in that learning withtheir public scholarship. Tey did not see giving up public scholar-ship to meet other goals avored by their contexts as a viable option.As one said:

Its denitely not a way o helping me be efcient. Itdenitely is extra work. And yet, i I didnt do the extra

work, I dont think that Id be as successul in terms omy writing because thats kind o what energizes me.


20/26


Te tenacious pattern t our participants with stronglypositive capability belies and neutral or variable context belies.According to Ford (1992), this pattern has high motivational powerbecause individuals with it are likely to persist under challenging

conditions. In act, because they are not surprised by negativeaspects o their contexts, individuals with this pattern are likely tobe prepared to surmount them. Te sense o resilience was articu-lated by one participant:

I can pretty much bounce back rom very, very badthings and barriers and say is there a way around thisand I think that adaptivity or resiliency is somethingI try to teach my students. I try to encourage my col-

leagues to have it as well. Its like sitting home and cryingabout it isnt going to do any good. Either beat down thedoor, or nd another door, or knock quietly and ask tobe invited, or do somethingbut dont give up.

All ranks were distributed across the tenacious pattern, romnontenure-track assistant proessor to associate to senior ull pro-essors. Teir public scholarship involvement was oreshadowed by

their amily and community experiences. All our had undertakensome administrative or aculty leadership role in addition to theiracademic responsibilities. Tey elt both intellectual curiosity andsatisaction with their work. For two o the our, public scholarshipintegrated and pervaded their work. Te others were nding waysto increase their public scholarship involvement.

Tree aculty t a robust pattern, characterized by stronglypositive capability and context belies. Motivation is strong orpeople with this pattern, who set high goals and maintain expec-

tations they can ulll them. Tey are likely to perceive setbacksas temporary and not predictive o uture problems (Ford 1992).Faculty with robust patterns included a tenure-track assistant pro-essor, an associate proessor, and a ull proessor. Similar to thetenacious group, each had assumed some level o administrativeresponsibility. All identied strongly as interdisciplinary and hadmultiple goals, including integrative social goals. Intellectual curi-osity and overall sense o satisaction and joy permeated discus-sion o their work. Public scholarship integrated and pervaded theacademic work o two, and one was more ocused on research butwas exploring bringing public scholarship into at least one o hiscourses. Participants with this pattern also talked o how institu-tional support or public scholarship intensied their commitment


21/26


to the university as well as to their academic work. An associateproessor said,

And to be honest with you, thats why Im still here. I mean,

here, because o this commitment. . . . You know, to behonest with you, tenure was not my main motivation.So, but its this commitment, and wouldnt be at anyother, as long as institutions support this commitment,I am happy as a clam.

DiscussionViewing the work o these aculty through the lens o motiva-

tion systems theory(Ford 1992) challenged the notion that simplesolutions or encouraging more aculty engagement in communitywork, such as those suggested through an intrinsic/extrinsic moti-vation lens, are likely to have mucheect. A ocus on intrinsic motiva-tion, or example, suggests that onlythose aculty with relevant lie expe-riences and prior interest in com-munity matters are likely to become

involved in public scholarship. Manyo the participants in this study did,indeed, have prior experiences andinterests that ostered their engage-ment, but others became involved rel-atively late in their academic careersand or a variety o reasons. Similarly,extrinsic motivation ocuses attentionon the aculty evaluation and rewardsystem. Results o this study reveal that this explanation is insu-cient as well. Most o the participants in this study attained littleexternal reward or public scholarship other than small grants toenhance their work with the community. Further, almost all theparticipants said that pretenure aculty should not get involved inpublic scholarship or knew o colleagues who had advised others tosecure tenure beore engaging in public scholarship. Nevertheless,eight o the ten tenure-line participants began their public scholar-

ship while they were still tenure-seeking assistant proessors.In contrast, Fords (1992) motivation systems theory recognizes

that there are multiple, interrelated components o motivation.Goals, capability belies, context belies, and emotions must all beinuenced to move individuals toward achievement. Moreover,

Participants with thispattern also talkedo how institutional

support or publicscholarship intensifed

their commitmentto the university

as well as to theiracademic work.


22/26


aecting one motivational component may aect other compo-nents in unexpected ways. Te twelve aculty who participatedin this study were selected because they were actively engaged inpublic scholarship at a research university where there was spe-

cic, targeted support or aculty engagement in public scholarship.Nevertheless, the complexity o motivational patterns was revealedin the similarities and dierences across their individual back-grounds, experiences, sel-perceptions, belies about their workcontexts, and their emotions. Analysis o these aculty membersmotivational patterns helps identiy several levers or increasingaculty engagement in public scholarship.

Te individual characteristic that emerged as most closely

associated with integration and pervasiveness o public scholar-ship throughout ones academic work was proessional identity.Participants who immediately iden-tied themselves and their workas interdisciplinary, who perceivedsynthetic connections betweentheir teaching, research, and serviceroles, and who had experience inacademic and administrative posi-

tions also were more likely to dis-cuss how public scholarship helpedthem integrate all aspects o theiracademic work. In contrast, par-ticipants who perceived teaching,research, and service as ragmentedand competing roles were morelikely to talk about public scholar-ship as an add-on to their required

academic work. In this admittedly small sample, demographiccharacteristics such as gender, ethnicity, and discipline did notaect public scholarship engagement. It is most striking, however,that both rank and tenure had little impact. Faculty rom all rankswere represented in each major sector o the motivation maps romthis analysis: robust, tenacious, modest or vulnerable, and antago-nistic or discouraged. Tus, encouraging aculty to see, explore, andexploit the connections between public scholarship and their other

aculty responsibilities may become an important way to leveragemore public scholarship engagement. Tis could be achieved byasking aculty to highlight connections between their research,teaching, and public scholarship when preparing annual activityreports and dossiers or promotion and tenure (Colbeck 2002).

[E]ncouraging aculty tosee, explore, and exploitthe connections betweenpublic scholarship and

their other acultyresponsibilities maybecome an importantway to leverage morepublic scholarshipengagement.


23/26


Te number and variety o goals mentioned by participantswas meaningul rom the perspective o motivation systems theory.According to Ford (1992, 208), the strongest motivational patternsare those anchored by multiple goals. Most participants in this

study easily volunteered multiple goals, which indicates somestrength in their motivation. Additional strength was indicated bythe personal importance o integrative social relationship goals.Participants whose goals or public scholarship urther includedcognitive, task, and sel-assertive relationship goals were also ac-ulty who discussed how public scholarship pervaded and inte-grated all aspects o their academic work. Another leverage point,then, or aculty and administrators who wish to encourage theircolleagues to engage more completely in public scholarship is cre-ating contexts that allow such goal alignment (Ford 1992). In act,ve o the participants volunteered their interest in preparing doc-toral students as publicly engagedscholars.

Given the approach or selectingparticipants, it is not surprising thatnone discussed their strengths andweaknesses in a way that suggested

they had weak capability belies oracademic work in general or or publicscholarship in particular. On the otherhand, their comments revealed thatcapability belies o our o the twelveparticipants were moderate or vari-able. Feeling tentative, however, did notkeep them rom engaging in public scholarship; two o the our indicat-ed high levels o public scholarship integration and pervasiveness.

Similarly, the ndings show that context matters, but acultyneed not believe their university, department, or disciplinary con-texts are perectly supportive in order to engage in public scholar-ship. With some support, including leverage points such as targetednancial support or specic projects, ormal policies or recog-nizing civic engagement and public scholarship as valued parts othe aculty portolio, and a community o like-minded colleagues,these aculty endured many other discouraging aspects o their

department, university, and disciplinary contexts. Tey were alsowilling to work or positive change or themselves and others. Onthe other hand, there may be a tipping point where too much nega-tivity is likely to drive away dedicated, innovative aculty. In suchan atmosphere, a aculty member with strong capability belies may

[C]ontext matters,but aculty need not

believe their university,department, or disci-plinary contexts areperectly supportivein order to engage inpublic scholarship.


24/26


continue public scholarship engagement but look or another aca-demic home that is more supportive o such eorts. Furthermore,institutional support or public scholarship has an added benet oruniversities: it helps them retain active, engaged aculty. Tree ac-

ulty said they had intensied their commitment to the institutionand ignored oers rom other universities because o the supportor public scholarship they perceived at Penn State.

Active, communal support or aculty engaged in public schol-arship may depend upon leverage points more sophisticated thansimple incentives. Ford (1992) notes that some incentive programsmay be too specic, take autonomy away rom aculty who mightotherwise be interested in the topic, or generally be seen as too

invasive. o motivate more engagement in public scholarship,departmental and institutional leaders can also use acilitationo conversations among aculty interested in public scholarshipas a leverage point. Tey could provide support or increasedlevels o public scholarship by acilitating conversations amongaculty that allow or goal generation and ownership. Te PublicScholarship Associates (PSA) program at Penn State is a dynamicexample o how an institution can oster aculty ownership anddialogue about public scholarship while providing seed money to

start public scholarship projects. As in the PSA example, there areample opportunities or departmental leaders to provide eedback,both constructive and laudatory, to aculty. Constructive eedbackcan help acilitate realistic goal setting, trigger adaptive emotionalresponses, and provide a solid basis or constructing and modi-ying capability belies and context belies (Ford 1992, 210). Sucheorts will help set an agenda o public scholarship or an institu-tion and help aculty work together on long-term goals or publicscholarship.

Faculty who engage in public scholarship, such as those whoparticipated in this study, share values integral to the academicenterprise, including democracy, sharing power, acilitating com-munication, and encouraging voice or those oen unheard. Whenpublic scholarship integrates and pervades their academic work,public scholars tend to nd ways to actively incorporate thesevalues in their teaching, research, and administration or roles ingovernance, to the overall benet o their students, departments,

disciplines, and universities. Public scholarship connects the insti-tution and its students to the surrounding community while pro-ducing valuable student learning outcomes and ostering greaterconnections between what happens within the university and thesurrounding community.


25/26


Endnote1. Interview transcripts are on le with Carol L. Colbeck, Universityo Massachusetts Boston.

ReferencesBandura, A. 1977. Sel-efcacy: oward a uniying theory o behavioral

change. Psychological Review 84 (2): 191215.

Bess, J. L. 1977. Te motivation to teach. Journal o Higher Education 48 (3):24358.

Boyte, H. C. 2004. Going public: Academics and public lie. Dayton, OH:Kettering Foundation.

Burke, P. J. 2003. Introd. toAdvances in identity theory and research, ed. PeterJ. Burke, . J. Owens, R. . Serpe, and Peggy A. Toits.New York: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers.Checkoway, B. 2001. Renewing the civic mission o the American research

university.Journal o Higher Education 72 (2): 12547.

Cohen, J., and L. Yapa. 2003. Introd. to A blueprint or public scholarship atPenn State, ed. Jeremy Cohen and Lucksmann Yapa. University Park, PA:Te Pennsylvania State University.

Colbeck, C. L. 2002. Integration: Evaluating aculty work as a whole. InEvaluating aculty perormance, ed. Carol L. Colbeck, 4352. NewDirections or Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Colbeck, C. L. 2008. Proessional identity development theory and doctoraleducation. In Educating integrated proessionals: Teory and practiceon preparation or the proessoriate, ed. Carol L. Colbeck, KerryAnnOMeara, and Ann E. Austin, 716. New Directions or eaching andLearning.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Colbeck, C. L., and P. W. Michael. 2006a. Individual and organizationalinuences on aculty members engagement in public scholarship. InLaboratory or public scholarship and democracy, ed. Rosa A. Eberly andJeremy Cohen, 1726. New Directions or eaching and Learning. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Colbeck, C. L., and P. W. Michael. 2006b. Te public scholarship: ReintegratingBoyers our domains. In Analyzing aculty work and rewards: UsingBoyers our domains o scholarship, ed. John M. Braxton, 720. NewDirections or Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dyer, L., and D. F. Parker. 1975. Classiying outcomes in work motivationresearch: An examination o the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy. Journalo Applied Psychology60 (4): 45558.

Ford, M. E. 1992.Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agencybelies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kellogg Commission on the Future o State and Land-Grant Universities.

2000. Renewing the covenant: Learning, discovery, and engagement ina new age and a dierent world. http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/Kellogg2000_covenant.pd.

Maehr, J. L., and L. Braskamp. 1986. Te motivation actor: A theory o personalinvestment. Lexington, MA: Lexington.


26/26

McKeachie, W. J. 1982. Te rewards o teaching. In Motivating proessorsto teach eectively, ed. William McKeachie, 714. New Directions oreaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mowday, R. . 1982. Expectancy theory approaches to aculty motivation. InMotivating proessors to teach eectively, ed. William McKeachie, 5970.New Directions or eaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

OMeara, K. 2002. Uncovering the values in aculty evaluation o service asscholarship.Journal o Higher Education 26 (1): 5780.

OMeara, K. 2005. Eects o encouraging multiple orms o scholarshipnationwide and across institutional types. In Faculty priorities reconsid-ered: Rewarding multiple orms o scholarship, ed. KerryAnn OMeara andR. Eugene Rice, 25589. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

OMeara, K., and R. E. Rice, eds. 2005. Faculty priorities reconsidered:Rewarding multiple orms o scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Slocum, J. W. 1971. Motivation in managerial levels: Relationship o need sat-isaction to job perormance.Journal o Applied Psychology55: 31216.

Ward, K. 2003. Faculty service roles and scholarship o engagement. ASHE-ERICHigher Education Report, vol. 29, no. 5. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yapa, L. 2006. Public scholarship in the postmodern university. In Laboratoryor public scholarship and democracy, ed. Rosa A. Eberly and JeremyCohen, 7383. New Directions or eaching and Learning. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

About the AuthorsCarol L. Colbeck is dean o the Graduate College oEducation and proessor o higher education at the University oMassachusetts Boston. She was ormerly director o the Centeror the Study o Higher Education and a public scholar associateat the Pennsylvania State University.

Lisa D. Weaver is assistant proessor in the Departmento Academic Development and Counseling at Lock HavenUniversity in Pennsylvania. She is director o the HavenAchievers program, which provides a comprehensive academic

support program to assist selected students in becoming suc-cessul in a higher education setting.

faculty engagement in public scholarship

Documents