Higher Education community engagement and accreditation: activating engagement through innovative accreditation strategies: the authors studied two very different public institutions and share the benefits they see in linking accreditation with an institutional commitment to student engagement.

Sandmann, Lorilee R. ; Williams, Julie E. ; Abrams, Eleanor D. 等

Linking Accreditation and Engagement

Convergence is occurring between external demands placed on U.S. higher education institutions, such as those from state and federal governments for greater accountability, and calls for higher education's recommitment to public purposes. One important example of this convergence is the redesign of accreditation processes and standards. Because of this redesign, accreditation--traditionally an academic and administrative activity--now has the potential to elevate and advance an institution's commitment to greater community engagement, a more contemporary, innovative institutional priority.

Community engagement is the "collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity" (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 2007 unpaginated Web source). Its objective is to transform American public institutions to prepare citizens for the 21st century--to update the historical "covenant" between public higher education and its stakeholders. Engagement may take many forms:

* Encouraging curricular engagement, such as faculty members integrating service-learning into their curricula or creating learning communities.

* Creating community outreach and partnerships that link research with local, regional, national, or global needs.

* Using technology to provide education for nontraditional students.

* Improving access for demographically diverse groups.

* Demonstrating learning outcomes (through assessment) while providing and improving quality education and containing the costs of providing that education.

Linking the compliance aspects of accreditation with institutional needs and priorities (such as the advancement of engagement) may have many positive benefits. These can include improving the institution's competitiveness when seeking external funding, discovering faculty champions to support and lead the broader institutional strategic priorities identified in the commitment to engagement, and ultimately embedding engagement in the institution's academic and research culture to yield larger and better-designed opportunities to serve the public good.

While accreditation and engagement initially may appear to be separate functions, we propose that the intellectual exploration of one--engagement--can enrich and add depth and meaning to the other--accreditation. We find that administrative and faculty leaders and supporters who can link these two functions can engage in an effective institutional change process, one that results in renewal, transformation, and advancement of innovative strategic priorities.

This article explores trends in accreditation, engagement, and the synergy between the two by reviewing two public institutions with very different missions: the University of New Hampshire, a land-grant research institution, and the University of Southern Indiana, an institution with a broadly defined focus on education and service. We describe how these two distinctly different universities used an innovative accreditation process as a mechanism for transformation to embed and advance various engagement activities in their institutional cultures. The approaches used by these institutions reflect an interpretive accreditation strategy (Alstete 2004) in which campus leaders manage the process carefully to ensure participants understand the meaning and implications of change.

In addition to organizational renewal, improvement, and transformation, we also explore the two-way impact of this synergistic process on individuals. Administrative leaders and faculty members who served as change agents were also transformed by this innovative accreditation review process. At both institutions, leaders involved a range of new faculty champions in parallel strategic planning processes that emphasized engagement.

Finally, we suggest a new model for other colleges and universities that seek such a transformational approach and want to engage new faculty champions. This new model expands Alstete's (2004) interpretive accreditation strategy to yield what we call "activating engagement through innovative accreditation strategies."

Trends in Accountability and Assessment

Declining public funding, increasing competition among education providers, growing needs for new streams of revenue, and expanding public skepticism about higher education as a public good are fueling a heightened emphasis on the three "A's" of higher education: accountability, assessment, and accreditation. After more than a decade of political pressure reflecting concern about these issues, the Commission on the Future of Higher Education issued a report titled A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education (U.S. Department of Education 2006). This report challenged the present systems of accountability in higher education and proposed a federally managed accountability system. The proposal was similar to the legislation enacted for public secondary education (the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), which requires national accountability standards (U.S. Department of Education 2002).

In response to this federal call to action, public universities and higher education associations are attempting to develop a voluntary system of accountability that would provide comparative institutional data and more transparent information about student learning outcomes through assessment (Voluntary System of Accountability Program n.d.). This system, proposed by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), is designed to inform prospective students and parents, as well as policy makers, about student academic performance and learning, thereby responding to many federal accountability challenges. Further, the six U.S. regional accreditation agencies, which are responsible for the well-known process of ensuring and benchmarking quality in higher education, may now be challenged to modify their existing accountability processes and measures to align with a new federally mandated accountability system.

Trends in Engagement

Even as greater accountability has become a national focus, there has been a growing international movement to restore higher education's commitment to public purposes. Over the last decade, a number of forums, declarations, calls to action, and new forms of scholarship have prodded institutions to systematically consider how to engage--or re-engage more effectively--with the public (Boyer 1990, 1996; Duderstadt 2000; Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities 1999; Newman and Scurry 2001; Sandmann 2006). Organizations such as the NASULGC, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), the AACSU, the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH), and Campus Compact have developed significant initiatives to promote more responsive, community-oriented agendas among campus presidents, faculty, staff, and students. Seminal works such as Boyer's (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered; Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff's (1997) Scholarship Assessed; and Lynton's (1995) Making the Case for Professional Service have paved the way for supporting what Knox (2001) describes as faculty work focused on serving broad public interests.

This growing movement has introduced terminology that reflects changes in the relationship between the institution and the public, such as civic engagement, the civic mission, community service, professional service, community engagement, and public scholarship. More traditional terms, like public service and outreach, emphasize a one-way approach to delivering knowledge and service to the public--the "expert" model. However, innovative leaders have begun to use the term engagement to describe a two-way approach to addressing societal needs with external community partners. This new approach emphasizes a shift from an expert model toward a more collaborative model where community partners play an equal (although different) role, creating and sharing knowledge to the mutual benefit of institutions and society. The promotion of academic engagement has catalyzed hundreds of higher education institutions to advance their engagement commitment through strategic planning, thus moving engagement from the margins toward the core of the academic enterprise. Holland (2001) states:

   A decade's worth of state pressures on
   issues of accountability and performance
   have inspired campuses to implement
   program strategies that demonstrate
   their commitment and contribution to
   civic and economic development. For
   all these reasons, many campuses are
   implementing new or revised interpretation
   of faculty roles, student learning experience,
   organizational structures and values, and
   town-gown interactions. (p. 1)

Challenges Associated with Building an Engaged University

In the first two rounds of awarding its newly instituted "community engagement" elective classification, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching recognized 195 institutions with "community engagement" classification status; however, this is fewer than 10 percent of all higher education institutions (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 2007). Since engagement is still a relatively new concept, institutions should anticipate and prepare to respond to the challenges associated with building an engaged institution. We found that when budgets are constrained, two things are likely to occur. First, the necessity of developing a faculty community of engagement champions or other engagement priorities will be questioned. In this environment, engaged faculty will often not be well understood by their colleagues or feel particularly rewarded for their efforts within their academic departments. Second, as institutional and faculty leaders change and strategic priorities shift, interest in engagement may wane and revisiting engagement as a priority may be necessary.

These challenges and changing priorities are best responded to by continuously setting clear goals for central, institutional priorities and then linking engagement to these priorities. For example, engagement can be linked to improved student learning outcomes and retention, more rigorous community-based research, increased external funding, and other more traditional academic goals. Sustaining engagement efforts requires patience in the face of challenges and the ability to manage the many unexpected vicissitudes inherent in the academic environment. Despite these challenges, we believe that innovative accreditation strategies linked with strategic planning can be used to jump-start long-term engagement goals, develop new engagement champions, increase external funding, and support cutting-edge research, all of which will ultimately enhance the quality and depth of partnerships with external constituencies.

As previously noted, the study described in this article features two very different institutions, the University of New Hampshire and the University of Southern Indiana, that have linked engagement to their decennial accreditation review processes. Their accrediting bodies, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) and the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), either include or accommodate institutional engagement as a part of the accreditation review. This emerging model that links engagement to accreditation is not unique to NEASC and NCA; other accrediting bodies and disciplinary organizations are also beginning to include engagement as a key criterion. We expect this trend will continue to affect future accreditation practices, and thus these cases provide an early example for institutional planners.

While clear contrasts exist between the universities' institutional profiles, missions, priorities, and accrediting associations, both had similar positive accreditation review results. In 2008, both institutions achieved the Carnegie Foundation community engagement classification. Both strategically advanced engagement priorities by embedding them deeply into their accreditation review processes and institutional strategic plans. In the case of the University of Southern Indiana, accredited by NCA, engagement and outreach were explicitly part of the accreditation review process. In the case of the University of New Hampshire and NEASC, engagement was addressed through an agreed-upon "focused self-study" designed to advance institutional priorities.

Intentional and innovative strategies can establish engagement as a core value.

In short, both universities successfully used innovative accreditation strategies to advance engagement in ways that we believe can be instructive to other institutions and planners. These cases illustrate how intentional and innovative strategies can be used to achieve organizational improvement and recognition and to establish community engagement as a core institutional value. Further, other institutions that seek to advance and strengthen partnerships with external collaborators can learn from this approach: embedding engagement into institutional strategic plans, developing a pipeline of engagement leaders, and increasing faculty and student learning about the value of engagement and accreditation.

The Framework: Accreditation as an Interpretive Strategy

Despite the growth of national, regional, and professional accreditation, the literature has focused on the history of the process through institutional case studies. As Wood (2006) describes, the literature typically has been limited to explaining aspects or products of the accreditation process, including self-study (Andrade 1998-1999; Coombs and Allred 1993; Garner and Vice 2002), assessment (Vaughn et al. 2000), and strategic planning (Thrash 1987). In contrast, Wood (2006) and others (Alstete 2004, 2007) have more recently addressed the process of preparing for and implementing the accreditation review. Rather than focus on compliance, Alstete (2004) asserts that interpretive strategies developed by institutional leaders should build on the attitudes, symbols, politics, and culture of stakeholders--faculty, students, staff, and, in the case of engagement, community partners. By building on these factors, leaders can manage the meaning of the accreditation process for the future of the institution, including creating linkages with engagement activities.

How the leader sets the stage will determine whether accreditation means merely going through the motions of fulfilling requirements or creating a constructive, ongoing, iterative process designed to improve the institution. This iterative process can build knowledge, transfer it to others, and make it possible for the institution to ultimately use that knowledge constructively. Participants are not merely learning for learning's sake; rather, they are attempting to better the institution as part of an ongoing process.

The ultimate purpose of Alstete's (2004) interpretive accreditation strategy is to bring about organizational change or renewal, which in turn enables continuous learning and transformation as an alternative to the mechanical fulfillment of accreditation requirements. In the institutional cases that follow, key leaders borrowed from Alstete's (2004) approach for the process we call "activating engagement through innovative accreditation strategies."

Accreditation and Engagement: Two Institutional Cases

We selected the University of New Hampshire and the University of Southern Indiana for the in-depth case analysis (Yin 2003) presented in this article for a number of reasons: they were among the first institutions to use engagement as a criterion for accreditation, they were different from one another, and they were accessible to the authors. Our information sources included on-site participant observation; document analysis of reports; and semistructured interviews with administrators, faculty, staff, and the external expert involved in each institution's process. Constant comparative analysis (Merriam 1998) within and across the cases assisted in identifying salient themes and patterns. What follows are descriptions of these two cases, including how institutional leaders collaborated with faculty champions to build and embed engagement across the institution and the specific strategies initiated during the accreditation review process that continued beyond that period to transform the institutions and the individuals involved.

Each university had well-positioned administrators--an associate vice president for research and outreach scholarship at the University of New Hampshire and a vice provost responsible for engagement-related functions at the University of Southern Indiana--who actively worked to engage new faculty champions and support existing faculty champions. These administrators also worked closely with their provosts and deans to clearly articulate the value of engagement and link it to broader institutional priorities, something they continued to do after the accreditation process was complete. Ultimately, they were also able to connect the accreditation process to preexisting strategic planning efforts aimed at advancing engagement and transforming institutional culture. The descriptions of the accreditation and engagement processes presented here appear linear and straightforward; in reality, they were complex and evolving.

University of New Hampshire

The University of New Hampshire (UNH) is a land-, sea-, and space grant, research high-activity, community-engaged institution with more than 900 faculty members and 14,200 students. The university is organized into six colleges offering 28 doctoral programs, 83 master's degree programs, and an array of bachelor's degree programs. UNH Cooperative Extension is a key outreach leader with offices throughout the state; the university also has an urban campus in one of the state's largest cities. Approximately 14 percent of the UNH operating budget is funded by the state. In 2006, externally funded research reached an all-time high of $128 million; in 2008, it totaled $120 million or approximately 25 percent of the budget. UNH places a strong emphasis on undergraduate research and teaching.

UNH initiated its first-ever strategic planning process in 2000. The plan was completed in 2002 and formally adopted the following year. Simultaneously, in 2001, UNH also initiated the self-study in preparation for its decennial accreditation review with NEASC, its accrediting organization. Typically, the self-study is a compliance-oriented process; that is, data are collected to respond to specific standards. However, confident that the university's accreditation would be reaffirmed, the planning team worked closely with NEASC on a specialized "focused self-study" designed to advance three signature areas identified through strategic planning as critical institutional priorities: (1) engagement through research and scholarship, (2) the undergraduate experience, and (3) institutional effectiveness. The planning team believed that connecting these priorities with the accreditation review process would both advance UNH's institutional interests and respond to specific accreditation requirements. Engagement through research and scholarship became the nexus for this new approach with NEASC, since it was the area most in need of study by both NEASC and the broader UNH campus community.

The UNH approach: Institutional leadership and faculty engagement. In 2000, a new leadership position was created to advance engagement and outreach at UNH, and the first associate vice president (AVP) for research and outreach scholarship was appointed in 2001. This position was created to elevate engagement in response to priorities articulated in the university's first academic strategic plan, and it was deemed critical that the holder of this new position be able to actively engage a broad range of UNH faculty. The initial holder of the position began a joint appointment reporting to both the provost and the vice president for research. This positioned her to connect the vision of top-level administrators to the faculty and staff who actually implement change and to foster progress through collaboration and mutual respect.

Immediately following her appointment, the AVP initiated listening and visioning sessions with a wide range of faculty and staff across the campus. These sessions later became the focus for accreditation efforts. She also worked closely with key faculty leaders and provided institutional support for a few large, federally funded grant proposals that focused on engaged scholarship. Subsequent to the AVP's appointment, an engagement advisory board (about half of the board's members were faculty) was appointed and charged with providing institution-wide leadership for articulating the goals of the newly initiated academic strategic planning process and, eventually, the decennial accreditation review. Simultaneously, UNH's first-ever capital campaign was coming to a successful close, with two of the largest gifts focused on the development of "engaged scholarship" centers. The faculty and staff listening sessions, pursuit of federal funding to support engagement activities, successful university fund-raising efforts, and involvement with other academic leaders helped to clarify the strengths, challenges, and opportunities for engagement in UNH's future.

The academic strategic planning process and the preparation for the decennial accreditation review occurred simultaneously from 2001 to 2003, and engagement was identified as a focus of both in order to help advance this key institutional priority. With the permission of NEASC and after months of negotiations, UNH identified an external consultant for engagement. Since few member institutions of NEASC had experience with engagement, this was especially important.

Implementation, review, and renewal in 2008. Institutional change at UNH has required strategic leadership, faculty engagement, and the optimization of fairly limited resources. A few critical issues were identified that focused the work and engaged the faculty. Primary among these was building an interdisciplinary "engaged scholarship learning community" designed to enhance faculty buy-in and understanding of engagement and engaged scholarship. The UNH Outreach Scholars Academy, a semester-long professional development program for faculty from all academic disciplines, was started in 2004. It was designed to help faculty "move from a public service perspective to an engaged scholar's perspective, knowledgeable about how to develop and sustain mutually-beneficial partnerships with external collaborators" (Outreach Scholars Academy 2007, unpaginated Web source). The academy is a vehicle to ensure that engagement remains a priority at UNH by teaching faculty the core principles of engagement and communicating the institutional priority of engaged scholarship. To ensure their continued involvement after they have completed the academy, faculty "graduates" are encouraged to participate in a range of other activities, including the quarterly Outreach Scholars "lunch and learn" series. Since its inception, 72 faculty members have participated in the program, about 15 each year.

Another critical issue for UNH has been the role and positioning of engagement leaders. UNH's AVP reports directly to both the provost and executive vice president for academic affairs and to the vice president for research. This somewhat unusual positioning has far-reaching effects. It has increased synergy so that engagement is integrated into the university's academic and research missions, rather than simply forming a third institutional silo. It has also created opportunities for the AVP to have a significant leadership role in university-wide strategic planning, unit-level planning and review, and planning updates outside engagement. It has enhanced faculty interest and involvement in a range of initiatives sponsored by the AVP's office, and annually both faculty and staff serve in volunteer roles in support of engagement priorities.

In addition, faculty members serve in part-time leadership roles in the office and are part of a recently created "engaged scholarship writing team." A newly reconstituted engagement advisory board includes four of UNH's seven deans, a number of faculty representatives, and external partners who help guide institutional priorities. In 2008, UNH was classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a community engaged institution. UNH's success is becoming nationally known, and the university has received requests for advice and technical assistance from other institutions over the last two years.

University of Southern Indiana

The second institution, the University of Southern Indiana (USI), is a 10,000-student comprehensive university with more than 600 faculty members organized into five colleges. USI offers a doctor of nursing practice degree and an array of master's, bachelor's, and associate's degree programs. The university is focused on excellence in undergraduate education, workforce and economic development, and service to the region and state. In contrast to UNH, USI's state support is more than 60 percent.

In 2006, USI undertook its decennial accreditation review with NCA's Higher Learning Commission and was among the first 20 institutions to use the body's revised criteria. A team of administrators, faculty, and staff especially interested in advancing engagement orchestrated the institution's response to the newest criterion, engagement and service (see the sidebar "Higher Learning Commission: Criterion Five: Engagement and Service"). Unlike UNH, which had to develop a novel accreditation approach that included engagement, USI was able to respond to the new system developed by NCA--the first to include engagement in its accreditation criteria. The chair of the USI Criterion Five Committee stated, "We wanted to support evaluative statements with data to have more of a 'show me' than 'snow me' response. While the Extended Services unit tracked much of the university's outreach activity, engagement activities from some academic units often were not recorded. As a result, data sources were uncoordinated and all over the institution" He further stated, "We also found that our definitions of engagement and service were multiple and inconsistent. This process allowed us to develop a more uniform understanding of this critical area" (M. Edward Jones, pers. comm., January 7, 2009).

The USI approach: Developing understanding and initiatives. At the time of the accreditation review, USI's new provost used the self-study process to place greater emphasis on engagement as a form of scholarship. Engagement and service had not been widely recognized by faculty as priorities and were not included in the tenure and promotion process. To initiate change at the highest level, an academic affairs retreat for all deans and chairs featured a discussion about the scholarship of engagement. Following this retreat, a number of faculty discussions and workshops were held to help clarify and develop a common understanding of "engaged scholarship" and to build a "community of scholars." USI, like UNH, used an external consultant to assist in catalyzing these discussions.

During the self-study, the new focus on engagement as a core component of the reaccreditation process was viewed by the provost and the Criterion Five Committee as an opportunity to reexamine and build on recent institutional outreach initiatives as a means of expanding engagement options for faculty and staff. The results of the USI President's Task Force on Workforce and Economic Development from 2000 were reevaluated to see where the university had responded with effective outreach strategies and to identify engagement opportunities that had been overlooked. This process integrated the evaluation and reporting of past activities for the self-study with the creation of an internal plan to expand engagement options based on recognized but undeveloped opportunities. The plan addressed issues of how to deal with limited resources to support additional engagement, how to encourage more faculty involvement in community engagement, how to reduce the administrative workload for faculty seeking to initiate engagement activities, and what incentives could be offered to encourage faculty and staff participation in outreach and scholarly engagement projects.

A number of new initiatives were undertaken to embed the scholarship of engagement across the institution. For example, USI administrators acquired funding from the Lilly Endowment for a sabbatical leave program to develop and support faculty interest in engaged scholarship. Four new campus centers, the Center for Academic Creativity, the Center for Human Resource Development (which includes an award-winning regional leadership program), the Center for Education Services and Partnerships, and the Center for Applied Research, were developed to focus and advance specific engagement activities. As further evidence of institutional commitment, the USI president used his annual report to highlight the importance of engagement. Faculty who receive engaged research stipends or awards are now acknowledged at the fall and spring faculty meetings, and faculty involved in Center for Applied Research projects are recognized by the provost at an annual reception for the researchers and community partners.

In addition, more formalized recognition of faculty involved in engagement attracted a range of new faculty champions whose interest in the pedagogical approaches supporting engagement has begun to affect student learning. Planners realized that although faculty and staff engagement was increasing, there was limited understanding of the extent of student engagement or its impact on learning. A year-long study by a faculty, staff, and student advisory committee recommended the development of a program capitalizing on the institution's unique characteristics and relationships with the region; subsequent consultation with senior faculty led to the implementation of a formal service learning program. This program, which focuses on student and faculty collaboration with community partners, has been incorporated into academic courses, internships, mentoring opportunities, and consulting activities.

Implementation and update in 2008. At USI, the accreditation review process facilitated momentum toward creating a culture of engagement and strengthened the institution's commitment to engagement as a core value.

For example, engagement recently received special emphasis in academic affairs planning, and engagement and outreach were designated as a central function of the Provost's Office. A new position of vice provost for outreach was instituted to reflect this expanded emphasis. This position was charged with greater responsibility for moving engagement forward throughout the institution, including involving all academic areas in engagement to broaden the connection with faculty and enhance the effect of engagement on student learning. Specific areas on which USI intends to focus future engagement efforts include:

* Recognizing three areas of emphasis for all engagement work: public schools, the region and state, and economic and workforce development.

* Developing regional partnerships and seeking internal and external funding to make USI the regional leader in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM)-related education and applied research disciplines.

* Enhancing and supporting faculty applied research to make USI more responsive to community concerns and to address real-world issues.

* Renewing the emphasis on the scholarship of engagement, particularly on how this work can be considered in promotion and tenure cases.

* Continuing university-wide discussions to advance a common definition of engagement and service.

* Developing a series of workshops: for faculty on documenting engagement activities for promotion and tenure portfolios, for members of promotion and tenure committees on how to evaluate engaged scholarship, and for deans and department chairs on how to encourage and support engaged scholarship.

* Creating a new series of faculty research awards to support engaged scholarship.

A New Model to Activate Engagement through Innovative Accreditation Strategies

These two cases represent distinctly different institutions that were successfully reviewed by their accrediting associations using different evaluative approaches. However, both institutions used strategies to advance engagement priorities by embedding them deeply into the accreditation review process and then linking that process to their institutional strategic plans. The Alstete (2004) model that employs strategies to manage the meaning of the accreditation process explains the approach used in these two cases. In addition, two important new elements were identified that enhanced the effectiveness of the accreditation process by activating engagement through innovative accreditation strategies: (1) building a community of practice to support engagement, and (2) building community linkages to facilitate further engagement.

Building a community of practice. UNH built a "community of practice" (Wenger 1998) to support engagement that took two complementary forms. The first was the initiation of a faculty professional development program, the Outreach Scholars Academy. The academy, now in its fifth year, was designed to engage a range of faculty who would learn together, develop a common purpose, and seek to advance engagement within their departments and institutionally. This situated learning approach (Lave 1988; Lave and Wenger 1991; Rogoff 1990; Wenger 1998; Wertsch 1991) places learners in communities of practice so that the novice learns the activities, knowledge, and sociocultural practices of those already immersed in the community (Lave and Wenger 1991).

Participation in the academy is viewed as an honor, and faculty members from varied disciplines work together in teams on projects with external partners. This team approach has resulted in new cross-disciplinary collaboration among the faculty, innovative course development with community partners, and the submission of successful proposals to federal agencies in support of educational partnerships. In addition, unanticipated cross-disciplinary relationships developed among faculty who had been at the university many years but had not previously encountered one another. Beginning in the third year, meetings among academy alumni were initiated so that these connections among like-minded faculty could become more intentional and systematic.

A second approach to developing the community of practice at UNH was building a team of faculty fellows who would understand and champion engagement. Faculty members from academic departments were hired on a part-time basis to serve as fellows to help lead engagement efforts during and after the accreditation preparation process and to help other groups of faculty integrate engagement into larger research projects and grants. The first faculty fellow was mentored by the AVP to understand the direction of engagement at the institution. This fellow was also encouraged to develop a portfolio of projects, participate in the learning community, and serve as a translator between faculty members across a range of disciplines. It then became apparent that more part-time faculty fellows were needed to manage the increasing workload and to offer the more diverse expertise needed to increase engagement efforts. Other fellows were hired and mentored to help make the vision and goals outlined in the accreditation document a reality. Fellows remain a part of their academic departments and serve as conduits between administration and faculty, thereby developing a greater understanding of each. When their role as a faculty fellow is complete, they remain part of the UNH engagement community and agenda.

Thus, the community of practice working to advance engagement was formed by three collaborating groups: institutional leaders, experienced champions (i.e., those immersed in the community), and novices. At UNH, the AVP for research and outreach scholarship and at USI, the vice provost for outreach were key engagement leaders. Each worked with his or her provost and strategically engaged a range of faculty, a few of whom also became engagement leaders. These administrative and faculty leaders engaged other faculty to build and spread a more knowledgeable community of engagement champions. As a result, the success of engagement in the accreditation process was not contingent on any one individual, but rather on a range of engagement leaders, intermediate journeyfolk, and novices who shared responsibility for implementing the goals and priorities set forth by the accreditation review process. Thus, even after the accreditation review was completed, this process of building the community and spreading the message about the value of engagement continued.

Building community linkages. Institutions that actively engage with their external constituencies to identify and respond to community needs can strategically take advantage of scholarship and grant opportunities and then use those resources to promote new engagement initiatives. For example, USI's Center for Applied Research and Economic Development, which was created during the accreditation process, was a response to the needs of local communities and businesses. However, development of the center also positioned USI to secure private, foundation, and public monies to support other engagement activities.

In contrast, UNH already had an established culture of seeking external funding to support research and innovation. Building on this established tradition, UNH faculty worked with external partners to identify opportunities with agencies that might support such partnerships, such as the National Science Foundation. These efforts have also been supported by the establishment of two endowed centers where community engagement is a strategic priority--the Joan and James Leitzel Center for Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Education and the Carsey Institute, which is focused on the needs of families and communities.

Focus the meaning of the accreditation process on the future welfare of the university.

Lessons Learned

The experiences of UNH and USI illustrate the benefits of linking accreditation with an institutional commitment to engagement. Focusing on the meaning of the accreditation process to the future welfare of the university places that process in a context that goes beyond a routine assessment and compliance activity. This, in turn, creates opportunities for continuous institutional renewal. Activating engagement through innovative accreditation strategies can be particularly beneficial to planners and other institutional leaders who seek to engage internal and external constituencies in planning and organizational efforts. The following lessons can be learned from these two case studies:

* Challenges to advancing engagement as an institutional priority are to be expected, because for many institutions this requires a major culture shift. Such a shift may not be rewarded by traditional reward structures such as tenure and promotion. Instead of focusing on what is slow to change (such as tenure systems), we suggest focusing on creating new incentives and rewards to attract interested faculty.

* Engagement must be strategically linked to top priorities and central to the institution's mission. Financial resources--whether from internal or external sources- must be identified to support and sustain the engagement mission.

* Development of engagement champions via communities of practice is an important strategy to enhance the long-term viability of engagement priorities after accreditation requirements have been met.

* Leaders can make opportunistic use of the documentation and data-gathering process associated with developing the accreditation institutional self-study to create mechanisms for gathering data related to institutional engagement. This serves to educate and inform the institution about the current extent of engagement activities.

* The community-based data-gathering component of the accreditation self-study process can identify grant opportunities and provide validation for new engagement initiatives.

* Knowledgeable administrative and faculty leaders should assume responsibility for managing the engagement aspect of the accreditation process and clearly articulate how this connects to other areas and priorities.

* The accreditation process can be used to provide legitimacy and "cover" for leaders to open the dialogue and move toward reshaping the institutional culture to support engagement.

* The accreditation process can be used to connect engagement to the overall strategic priorities of the institution.

* To the degree feasible, institutional leaders should plan the strategies to be used to link accreditation and engagement. However, adjustments may be needed over time as the process progresses. The leaders at UNH and USI acknowledged that a few of their strategies were developed through improvisation in response to changes in their institutions' personnel, policies, and political milieu.

Intentionally linking engagement and accreditation can lead to organizational improvement.

Final Thoughts

The cases presented in this article illustrate how intentionally linking engagement and accreditation can lead to organizational improvement and recognition by establishing engagement as a core value and practice. Embedding engagement into the institution's strategic plan, developing a pipeline of engagement leaders, and enhancing learning about engagement and accreditation are important intentional strategies that can positively affect the institution's culture and future direction.

References

Alstete, J. W. 2004. Accreditation Matters: Achieving Academic Recognition and Renewal. ASHE Higher Education Report 30 (4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

--. 2007 College Accreditation: Managing Internal Revitalization and Public Respect. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Andrade, S. J. 1998-1999. How to Institutionalize Strategic Planning. Planning for Higher Education 27 (2): 40-54.

Boyer, E. L. 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

--. 1996. The Scholarship of Engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach 1 (1): 11-20.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 2007. Community Engagement Elective Classification. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from the World Wide Web: www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=1213.

Coombs, C. G., and R. Allred. 1993. NCATE Accreditation: Getting the Most from the Self-Study. Journal of Teacher Education 44 (3): 165-69.

Duderstadt, J. J. 2000. A University for the 21st Century. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Garner, S. J., and J. Vice. 2002. Guidelines for Managing and Writing a Self-Study for Accreditation. Planning and Changing 31 (1-2): 62-69.

Glassick, C. E., M. T. Huber, and G. I. Maeroff. 1997 Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Higher Learning Commission. 2003. The Handbook of Accreditation. 3rd ed. Chicago: Higher Learning Commission. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from the World Wide Web: www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org/download/Handbook03.pdf.

Holland, B. A. 2001. Measuring the Role of Civic Engagement in Campus Missions: Key Concepts and Challenges. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Richmond, VA.

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. 1999. Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from the World Wide Web: www.nasulgc.org /NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=183.

Knox, A. B. 2001. Assessing University Faculty Outreach Performance. College Teaching 49 (2): 71-74.

Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lynton, E. A. 1995. Making the Case for Professional Service. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Merriam, S. B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Newman, F., and J. Scurry. 2001. Higher Education in the Digital Rapids. Providence, RI: Futures Project. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from the World Wide Web: www.utwente.nl/cheps /documenten/susu3digitalrapidsreport1.pdf.

Outreach Scholars Academy. 2007. About Us. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from the World Wide Web: www.unh.edu/outreach-scholars/aboutus.html.

Rogoff, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sandmann, L. R. 2006. Building a Higher Education Network for Community Engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 11 (4): 41-54.

Thrash, P A. 1987. A Report on the Role of Outcomes Evaluation in the Accreditation Process. North Central Association Quarterly 61 (4): 481-90.

U.S. Department of Education. 2002. Close-Up on No Child Left Behind--How Achievement is Measured. The Achiever, July 15. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from the World Wide Web: www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/achiever/2002/07152002.html.

--. 2006. A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from the World Wide Web: www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports /pre-pub-report.pdf.

Vaughn, M., B. Everhart, T. Sharpe, and C. Schimmel. 2000. Incorporating a Multisource Assessment Approach in a Teacher Education Program. Education 121 (2): 339-46.

Voluntary System of Accountability Program. n.d. Welcome to the VSA Online. Retrieved January 28, 2009, from the World Wide Web: www.voluntarysystem.org.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. 1991. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wood, A. L. 2006. Demystifying Accreditation: Action Plans for a National or Regional Accreditation. Innovative Higher Education 31 (1): 43-62.

Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Designs and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sidebar: Higher Learning Commission: Criterion Five: Engagement and Service

1. The organization learns from the constituencies it serves and analyzes its capacity to serve their needs and expectations.

* The organization's commitments are shaped by its mission and its capacity to support those commitments.

* The organization practices periodic environmental scanning to understand the changing needs of its constituencies and their communities.

* The organization demonstrates attention to the diversity of the constituencies it serves.

* The organization's outreach programs respond to identified community needs.

* In responding to external constituencies, the organization is well-served by programs such as continuing education, outreach, customized training, and extension services.

2. The organization has the capacity and the commitment to engage with its identified constituencies and communities.

* The organization's structures and processes enable effective connections with its communities.

* The organization's cocurricular activities engage students, staff, administrators, and faculty with external communities.

* The organization's educational programs connect students with external communities.

* The organization's resources--physical, financial, and human--support effective programs of engagement and service.

* Planning processes project ongoing engagement and service.

3. The organization demonstrates its responsiveness to those constituencies that depend on it for service.

* Collaborative ventures exist with other higher learning organizations and education sectors (e.g., K-12 partnerships, articulation arrangements, 2+2 programs).

* The organization's transfer policies and practices create an environment supportive of the mobility of learners.

* Community leaders testify to the usefulness of the organization's programs of engagement.

* The organization's programs of engagement give evidence of building effective bridges among diverse communities.

* The organization participates in partnerships focused on shared educational, economic, and social goals.

* The organization's partnerships and contractual arrangements uphold the organization's integrity.

4. Internal and external constituencies value the services the organization provides.

* The organization's evaluation of services involves the constituencies served.

* Service programs and student, faculty, and staff volunteer activities are well-received by the communities served.

* The organization's economic and workforce development activities are sought after and valued by civic and business leaders.

* External constituents participate in the organization's activities and cocurricular programs open to the public.

* The organization's facilities are available to and used by the community.

* The organization provides programs to meet the continuing education needs of licensed professionals in its community.

Source: Higher Learning Commission 2003, p. 3.1-6.

Lorilee R. Sandmann is an associate professor in the Department of Lifelong Education, Administration, and Policy at The University of Georgia, where in her teaching and research she draws on her more than 20 years in higher education administrative positions. Her leadership and research focuses on major institutional change processes to promote higher education community engagement and on criteria to define and evaluate faculty engaged scholarship. She received her doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She can be reached at sandmann@uga.edu.

Julie E. Williams is associate vice president for research and outreach scholarship at the University of New Hampshire. Her primary responsibilities are leading the institution's engagement mission, building collaborative interdisciplinary and multiinstitutional research teams that have external benefit, and creating faculty professional development opportunities for engaged scholarship. She leads institutional- and unit-level strategic planning efforts. She received her doctorate in clinical psychology from the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. She can be reached at julie.williams@unh.edu.

Eleanor D. Abrams is an associate professor in the Department of Education at the University of New Hampshire. Her research interests include examining how to effectively support students as researchers and evaluating the most productive models to develop communities of engaged faculty scholars. She can be reached at Eleanor.abrams@unh.edu.