The research took place as part of the Active Neighbourhoods project running out of CFICE’s Environmental Sustainability hub in Phase I.

Abstract

This research evaluated a community-led participatory planning process that sought to involve citizens who are often marginalized within planning processes. Participatory planning – which is theoretically informed by communicative planning theory – may shift the legacy of power and marginalization within planning processes and improve planning outcomes, foster social cohesion, and enhance the quality of urban life. The two-year Stewart Street Active Neighbourhoods Canada (ANC) project aimed to build capacity among residents of a low-income neighbourhood in Peterborough, Ontario and to influence City planning processes impacting the neighbourhood. The project, led by a community-based organization, GreenUP, fostered collaborative interactions between residents and planning experts and supported residents to build and leverage collective power within planning processes. The participatory planning approach applied in the Stewart Street ANC transformed – and at times unintentionally reproduced – inequitable power relations within the planning process. Importantly, we found that GreenUP was a vital power broker between marginalized residents and more formal power holders, and successfully supported residents to voice their collective visions within professionalized planning contexts.

by Kira Locken, CFICE Volunteer

Many PhD and post-doctoral students dream of becoming tenured. They dream of it, because being tenured means having a permanent job at a university. It means job security, benefits, funds for travel to conduct research and share it at conferences, and most importantly, the ability to commit to long-term projects without worrying about where the next paycheque is coming from.

The road to becoming tenured is usually long and hard. There are papers to write and publish, grant applications to complete, committees on which to serve, conference presentations to give, administrative responsibilities to tackle, continuously innovating and renewing teaching practice, and more, usually all while working as an Adjunct or Sessional instructor (i.e. an underpaid, non-tenured professor often with a 60-70hour work week and multiple jobs to cobble together a living income).

But what does tenure have to do with community-campus engagement? A lot, actually. And it largely comes down to the criteria needed to merit tenure.

Main factors in tenure process: Research and teaching successes

To get a sense of why tenure has such a huge impact on a professor’s ability to participate in community-campus engagement work, we need to understand how tenure is achieved, or more specifically, the criteria against which professors are assessed in order to merit tenure.

While universities differ in their review processes for tenure, most processes put an emphasis on a candidate’s contribution to their academic field, both as a teacher and a researcher.

At �Ӱ�ԭ�� University, professors looking to receive tenure are judged based on five main criteria. These include a review of their credentials, what courses they have taught, their research, and their ‘service’ to the university and the wider community.

These criteria, and others, are outlined by �Ӱ�ԭ�� University’s Academic Staff Association (CUASA) in their collective agreement with �Ӱ�ԭ��.

According to the ‘University Criteria for Tenure and Promotion’ on page 34 of this agreement, “It is generally accepted that contributions to teaching and scholarly studies should receive paramount consideration in any tenure or promotion decision but that recognition must also be given for valuable contributions to the university, for professional achievement, and for contributions to the community.”

What this means is that a professor’s research and teaching work carries the most weight when they are being considered for tenure.

The ‘value’ of community-campus engagement research to tenure committees

Tenure and promotion criteria, while useful in reviewing other forms of research, can often come in conflict when assessing community-campus engagement (CCE) work.

According to Dr. Peter Andrée, associate professor and principle investigator of CFICE at �Ӱ�ԭ��, a candidate’s research is measured by the number of articles they have published in respected journals. Some disciplines, says Andrée, place highest value on articles authored by one individual.

In comparison, research reports or articles written as part of community-campus engagement projects are often published in lesser-known journals, or shared through websites, and are written by multiple authors.

“That takes a lot of effort to produce, on everyone’s part, but is not really ‘counted’ as a valid academic output by most tenure committees,” says Andrée.

Community-campus engagement work is collaborative in nature.

For pre-tenure professors who deeply value CCE work (and who want a permanent job!), this may mean extra work writing and publishing additional articles in journals respected by their colleagues in order to merit tenure.

Further, gathering data and publishing research can take more time in community-campus engagement projects. This is because research is dependent on relationships between faculty and community partner organizations that can quickly change due to organizational turn-over, competing priorities, and relational difficulties. The added time it takes to do partnership-based research is not always understood by tenure committees.

Community engagement can count as teaching or service criteria

For professors who want to put their efforts into CCE work that will count towards tenure, teaching a course that requires community engagement can be an option. According to Andrée, these courses are considered quite demanding, particularly for professors who are new to the community. But they can be extremely rewarding for both students and professors.

While this effort is looked on favourably by tenure committees, “it won’t count for much if it means your research lags behind that of your colleagues,” says Andrée.

“Profs who do community-engaged teaching need to find ways to keep their teaching workload manageable,” he adds. “Some of my strategies have included inviting community partners to give guest lectures, and reducing the reading load in a course to compensate for the community engagement that I, the students, and partners are all involved in.”

Community-campus research can, at �Ӱ�ԭ��, qualify as ‘service’, provided it relates to the individual’s area of academic expertise. However, committees will not grant tenure based solely on this service, says Andrée. The collective agreement explicitly states that teaching and research are more important criteria.

Unfortunately, this emphasis on valuing certain types of research is not exclusive to �Ӱ�ԭ��.

Thankfully, tenure criteria is changing

As part of its effort to support community-engaged scholarship (CES), the Community Environmental Sustainability Hub of CFICE in Peterborough-Haliburton, under the leadership of the Trent Community Research Centre, initiated an internal report in 2015 examining the enablers and barriers for faculty wishing to engage in CES.

Some of the potential barriers experienced by faculty included a lack of suitable projects in the area, scheduling issues, the increased workload, and lack of understanding about community engagement and its relationship to research, teaching, and service criteria and tenure.

The three key aspects of CES, according to the Trent report, are community-based research, learning, and teaching, and service. These are similar to the research, teaching, and service criteria for tenure but are practiced and understood differently from non-CES in significant ways.

For example, at �Ӱ�ԭ�� University, ‘service’ involves a professor providing consultations and/or collaborations that are relevant to the professor’s disciplinary ‘expertise.’ This means that professors may participate in ‘service’ as long as it relates to the academic discipline they are involved in. In comparison, CES is scholarship that results from a professor’s engagement with their local or regional community, regardless of which discipline they belong to.

Nadine Changfoot, associate professor in political studies at Trent University, CFICE investigator, and co-author of the Trent internal report says that another barrier for faculty is university culture and its view of community based research or CES.

“I think the culture of the university, even while it’s improving in valuing community-campus engagement, for untenured professors the value is yet to be fully appreciated,” says Changfoot.

One way these challenges can be overcome, continues Changfoot, is through research into various faculty experiences with tenure and CCE in order to determine how CES can be better understood and more fully valued in a university tenure process.

CFICE Community Environmental Sustainability (PBTO-HALIB) Hub team. L to R, Back Row: David Tough, Stephen Hill, Randy Stoecker. Front Row: Marie Gage, Heather Reid, Nadine Changfoot, Helen Knibb, Jason Hartwick.

An example of this type of research can be seen in the report, “.” Published by the University of Victoria in April 2017, the report was developed to assist in peer review and evaluation of Community Engaged Scholarship. The impact rubric and guidelines contained in the report are based on a comprehensive literature review and empirical research conducted by the Office of Community University Engagement (OCUE) between August-December 2016.

According to Crystal Tremblay, who authored the report, “[It] encourages Faculties and Departments where faculty engage in CES, to consider its content in reviewing standards and policies applicable to hiring practices, merit evaluations, and promotion and tenure consideration.”

“This resource has been shared widely across the campus,” she continues, which speaks to the need for these types of resources at universities. “It is hoped that these resources help inform and strengthen guidelines for recognizing and rewarding engaged scholarship across the disciplines.”

By recognizing the value of community-campus engagement through the tenure and promotion process, universities will be able to make a greater contribution to the communities in which they exist.

As Tremblay notes, “It is time that institutions tackle this tremendous hurdle, if they want to be serious about their commitment to serving the public good.”

How to cite this article: Locken, Kira. (2018). “The Impact of Tenure on Community-Campus Engagement.”CFICE Connections Newsletter. January 29.  /communityfirst/2018/the-impact-of-tenure-on-community-campus-engagement/

On January 13, Trent University’s Masters of Sustainability Studies (MASS) Colloquium featured the work of local community leaders, students and faculty. This event was brought together by the (Ptbo/Halib) of the Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) project.

, Chair of the Political Studies Department and MASS faculty, hosted the event as the Trent Academic Co-lead of CFICE . “Putting Community-First involves learning new ways of communicating and partnering among community and academy,” said Nadine.

, Executive Director, from the internationally recognized (TCRC) and Community Co-lead of CFICE, discussed research opportunities available through the Centre. TCRC is a bridge organization connecting Trent and community, bringing together students and community organizations for community-based research.

Sheila Ziman from the presented her experiences working with faculty, undergraduate, and graduate students to maintain and restore ecosystems in Haliburton. “The outcomes are important,” said Sheila.

Next, Heather Reid, the Operations Director of , and Melissa Johnston, in second year of MASS, shared their experiences from Melissa’s summer working at Abbey Gardens. “My immersion in the community created an ease and depth of interaction. My ‘insider status’ helped to build trust and open doors,” said Melissa.

Tessa Nasca, also in the second year of MASS, outlined her experience with the project that brings together the Stewart Street neighbourhood, community organizations, the City of Peterborough, and faculty to build capacity within the Stewart Street neighbourhood and the ability to strengthen community participation in planning processes. “High value comes from embedding oneself in the community,” said Tessa.

Finally, Prof. from Environmental Resources Studies and MASS spoke of his experience as a faculty member who seeks partnerships outside of academic institutions. The day’s speakers represent only the start of the many rewarding partnerships possible when academia and the community partner together.

Community-campus engagement opportunities like those featured at the Colloquium offer a platform for students to see local initiatives that build capacity for both community and Trent in Peterborough and the Kawarthas. Building upon the work of CFICE, the new  stream provides experiential learning and community-based action research opportunities for students in a full-time field placement in a community organization during Year 2 of the Program. “It aims to meet the growing need for professionals as a distinct group of skilled, entrepreneurial individuals with the knowledge, tools and practical expertise to address social and environmental challenges and opportunities in community based organizations,” said Asaf Zohar, Director of MASS.