OUTREACH COMMITTEE REPORT

Submitted to Dean Marty Schimpf

September 13, 2006

The Outreach/Engagement Committee was established by Dean Schimpf in June 2006 and charged with making recommendations about ways the College could encourage and reward activities that create networks with the surrounding community.

Committee Members:

• Greg Hampikian (Biology)
• Ann Hoste (Theatre Arts)
• Helen Lojek (English, Associate Dean, Committee Chair)
• Mike Samball (Music)

The committee met three times (June, August, and September) and communicated by email. We looked at a variety of descriptions and definitions of Outreach—materials from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and materials from a variety of other universities (Michigan State, University of Massachusetts/Amherst, Pennsylvania State, Texas Tech, Northern Illinois University, Cornell, and Central Michigan, for example). We adopted appropriate portions of Boise’s State’s “Charting the Course” Strategic Vision and have shaped our recommendations to fit that vision.
As the College works to improve and expand its Outreach efforts, we believe that it will be important to establish clear, non-restrictive definitions of a variety of terms.

We operated with the following understandings:

• Outreach refers to partnerships with the non-campus community, the two-way street of influence that has campus and community joining to pursue mutual goals.
  Research refers (as it does in Charting the Course) to both progressive scholarship and creative activity.
• Although it would be possible to create a separate category of Outreach, parallel to the University’s traditional areas of Teaching, Research, and Service, we have chosen to integrate Outreach with the traditional areas, believing that it is not separate from them but an important aspect of each.

Finally, we note that the College’s response to the University mandate for Outreach is just beginning. We trust that the College of Arts and Sciences will continue to investigate the meaning and purpose of Outreach, that it will continue to develop appropriate means of evaluating successful Outreach, and that it will approach the recommendations below as the first steps in a course whose map is not yet complete. It might be wise to charge a particular committee or individual with responsibility for continuing our exploration of Outreach and for coordinating and publicizing the College’s Outreach.

Recommendations

This report contains a number of recommendations focused on the College of Arts and Sciences. It is, though, our belief that major responsibility for a university-wide initiative lies with central administration, and that the University (not just the College) should develop a real requirement to document Outreach and should provide real rewards for successful Outreach. Deans, as well as department/program heads and faculty, should be evaluated on their nurturing of Outreach. We hope that you, as Dean of the University’s largest College, will communicate that belief to the central administration.

I. MISSION AND GOALS RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the College adopt the following mission and goals:
Outreach Mission: To foster mutually beneficial relationships with the surrounding community, through teaching, service, and research.

Goals:

1. To develop network and outreach opportunities with the surrounding
   community
2. To respond to the educational, cultural, and intellectual needs of the region
3. To gain increased recognition of the College’s academic excellence and of its partnerships with the community

II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC ACTIONS

The recommendations below are aimed at facilitating, documenting, and rewarding Outreach and Engagement. Recommendations are grouped in three general categories, though some have implications that cross categories.

A. Enhancing our culture of engagement

As individuals, as departments, and as a College we should review our current Outreach activities and rethink the way we tell the story to ourselves and to others. This involves both departmental initiative and encouragement from College and University administration, and it requires that the College be responsive to changes on campus and in the community. Specifically, we make the following non-prioritized recommendations:

1. That an interactive portion of the College website be created so that outreach activities could be posted where others could learn about them. That postings include appropriate links to department websites or to the websites of individuals directing the outreach efforts. A member of each department should be designated to coordinate departmental postings.
2. That the College develop a weekly public radio spot, along the lines of the College of Business’s Idaho Business Matters.
3. That an on-line newsletter reporting on outreach be created and distributed to the University community and to College alums.
4. That departments and programs review their websites to be certain that the sites (often the public’s first introduction to our programs) continue to serve their purposes effectively.
5. That the Dean study the benefits of departmental Advisory Boards and “Friends of” organizations.
6. That the Dean ask departments to prioritize their Outreach efforts, identifying specific activities that best represent their Outreach efforts.
7. That the College and departments highlight Outreach in a variety of ways: working closely with Communications and Marketing, focusing on Outreach in various newsletters, displaying framed posters of Outreach activities, etc.
8. That departments and programs work with the College’s Development Officer to facilitate and fund collaborative, cross-department and cross-college Outreach projects.
9. That departments maintain active networks with alums, schools, and businesses—networks aimed at attracting gifted students and providing internship and mentoring opportunities.
10. That the Dean recommend to the Provost that the University website provide higher profile coverage of Outreach.

B. Providing support and resources

The increasing expectations of scholarship and creative activity associated with becoming a Metropolitan Research University of Distinction have already stretched the personnel and financial resources of the College, but encouraging Outreach requires providing resources, not all of which are financial. We make the following recommendations:

1. 1. That the College develop a grant program for Outreach activities. Grants could be used to provide additional resources for existing programs, to enhance activities that help recruitment efforts, to seed new programs, or to fund single events—and they could provide support for many of the other recommendations in this category. Priority might be given to large-scale, collaborative projects.
2. That the College maintain a list of community contacts available for various campus activities (classroom demonstrations, performances, mentoring, professional exchanges, etc.). Such a list would be roughly parallel to the current Speakers Bureau (maintained by Communications and Marketing) that identifies campus individuals available for community presentations.
3. That the College develop a “One-Day-Away” program that releases faculty to engage with local schools. The program could be highlighted (with appropriate links) on the Outreach section of the College webpage, and it could include a minimal stipend (of, say, $100) that the faculty member could use to provide appropriate materials to students whose classroom will be visited.
4. That the College create a series of workshops, to provide additional advice on such topics as dealing with the media, writing grants, designing websites. A workshop for chairs could focus on how to encourage departmental Outreach.
5. That the College develop clear explanations of ways in which the Development Officer and the Grants Accounting Officer can assist departments and faculty members.

C. Providing recognition and reward

The College must demonstrate its commitment to Outreach by providing both significant recognition and meaningful reward for Outreach activities. As a start, we make the following recommendations:

1. That the College develop a Work Load Policy that clearly indicates how departments should incorporate Outreach activities into the distribution of work-load units, and that the Dean recommend that the University Work Load policy be revised to include instructions about incorporating Outreach.
2. That the Dean appoint a committee to review the College of Arts and Sciences Promotion and Tenure Guidelines and suggest ways to incorporate attention to Outreach activities, ensuring that they will be an important factor in considerations of both promotion and tenure. Outreach is connected to all three of the established categories (Teaching, Research, Service) on which promotion and tenure are based, and guidelines should indicate how candidates can demonstrate the value of their Outreach activities.
3. That the Dean consider adding an Outreach Award to the current College Awards in Teaching, Research, and Service. The Dean might also recommend that the Provost add such an award to the University Scholar Awards. [Alternatively, all such Awards could be slightly re-structured, so that Outreach becomes an important sub-category in each area.]
4. That the College develop a way to recognize students engaged in outstanding Outreach. Such recognition could include both awards and scholarships.
5. That the College develop a way to recognize and reward programs (e.g. internships or Service Learning projects) that effectively promote Outreach activities that are mutually beneficial for both students and the community.
6. That the Dean continue to include a space for Outreach activities on the annual faculty surveys. [Alternatively, the faculty surveys could specify that Outreach activities be highlighted in each of the three areas on which promotion and tenure are based; this would keep the surveys parallel to the promotion and tenure process.]
7. That department chairs and the Dean find ways to publicize not only Outreach efforts, but also the particular faculty who organize them, and the faculty who receive Outreach awards.
8. That evaluation forms for department/program heads and for the Dean be revised to incorporate specific evaluation of the success of their efforts to nurture Outreach.

 

Home Boise State Top of page