Content uploaded by Cecile Sam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cecile Sam on May 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
© Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Volume 25, Number 1, p. 37, (2021)
Copyright © 2021 by the University of Georgia. eISSN 2164-8212
Supporting University–Community Partnerships:
A Qualitative Inquiry With Contingent Academics
to Understand Their Scholarship of Engagement
Cecile H. Sam, Brent C. Elder, and Stacey Leftwich
Abstract
Using a qualitative interview design and the conceptual framework of
an engaged campus (Furco, 2010), this article examines the engaged
scholarship of contingent academics in a university–community
partnership with several professional development schools in the
United States. This article highlights some facets that make their
engaged scholarship dierent from traditional scholarship, and the
challenges in meeting responsibilities to both the community and
university. The purpose of this article is to extend our understanding of
community-engaged scholarship and help higher education institution
administrators think about policies to support contingent academics
participating in other community partnerships.
Keywords: university-community partnerships, contingent academics, higher
education policies, engaged scholarship
Many research universities
have made a scholarship
of engagement one of the
core components of their
mission—to take the intel-
lectual, resource, and human capital found
within the university and apply them to
key issues that aect regional development
(O’Meara, 2010; Puukka & Marmolejo, 2008;
Stanton, T., 2008). One of the mechanisms
for regional development is university–
community partnerships (Buys & Bursnall,
2007; Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Murphy &
McGrath, 2018) that take the form of long-
term, mutual working partnerships between
the higher education institutions and the
surrounding community stakeholders. In
the case of education departments and
programs in countries such as the United
States, Canada, Australia, Finland, and
Singapore, this partnership can involve
working with schools via collaboratively de-
veloped immersive residency models where
academics and school leaders use research
to focus on a problem of practice (Darling-
Hammond, 2017; Latham & Wedwick, 2009;
Zenkov et al., 2016). Partnerships with
these schools can be benecial for both
parties—the university continues to meet
its mission for regional development, and
local schools and districts can address their
specic concerns with some positive edu-
cational outcomes (Coburn & Penuel, 2016;
Snow et al., 2016).
As policymakers, funders, and universities
become more interested in university–
community partnerships, it is important
for researchers to explore the work that
academics perform in these partnerships.
This understanding can inform institu-
tional policies around the work (Buys &
Bursnall, 2007; Kajner et al., 2012; Murphy
& McGrath, 2018). Depending on the model,
the responsibilities of maintaining a suc-
cessful partnership from the university side
can fall on contingent academics (Kezar &
Maxey, 2015; Ward, 2003). In the United
38Vol. 25, No. 1—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
States and Canada, contingent academ-
ics work full time or part time and are on
contract rather than tenure track (Kezar &
Sam, 2010). This employment model has
parallels in “xed-term contracts” in the
United Kingdom and “casual” or “session
employment” in Australia. Even for ten-
ured and tenure-track academics, nding
a way to meet university and partnership
responsibilities can be dicult, especially
if the institutional policies do not support
the work (Sandmann et al., 2008). For
contingent academics who do not have the
protection of tenure, being unable to meet
responsibilities may lead to unemployment
(Austin, 2003; O’Meara, 2010).
This article uses the conceptual lens of the
engaged university (Furco, 2010) to explore
the work of contingent academics and their
scholarship of engagement. More spe-
cically, it looks at contingent academics
working in an immersive residency model
termed the “professional development
school” network at a public research uni-
versity in the northeastern United States.
In this network, contingent academics are
titled “professors-in-residence,” and they
are situated within 11 local schools. We de-
signed a qualitative inquiry study and asked
the following questions:
1. What are the experiences of contingent
academics trying to conduct a scholar-
ship of engagement in these profes-
sional development schools?
2. How can the university support con-
tingent academics who are conducting
engaged scholarship in a university–
community partnership?
To answer these research questions, we
rst provide a review of the literature. Next,
we provide the conceptual framework for
this research: the engaged campus (Furco,
2010), situating academic work within that
framework. We follow with a description of
the methodology and our ndings. This ar-
ticle ends with a discussion of how to think
about institutional policies as a means for
institutions to support community-engaged
scholarship through these partnerships.
Review of the Literature
There are numerous ways to explore what
community engagement means for a higher
education institution’s mission. The form of
such work ranges from community service
to regional engagement (Kroll et al., 2013).
For this article, we focus on a scholarship
of engagement, or engaged scholarship
(Barker, 2004, p. 125), in the form of a
university–community partnership. Boyer
(1990) argued for the value of engaged
scholarship in his seminal work Scholarship
Reconsidered. This scholarship involves a
mutually benecial relationship between
academics and the community, and it is
an “integration of teaching, research, and
service” (Sandmann, 2008, p. 96). In the
eld of education, engaged scholarship can
involve a partnership with schools to help
solve problems of practice in a local context.
Sandmann (2008) has argued that engaged
scholarship is currently in the fourth stage
of its evolution, the “institutionalization
of the scholarship of engagement within
and across academe” (p. 98). At this stage,
institutions have generally recognized the
value of engaged scholarship, and the chal-
lenge is determining how to integrate it
within institutional structures.
Even though many higher education insti-
tutions have made public and civic engage-
ment part of their mission, the result some-
times has been described as “tokenism”
where programs and initiatives have “little
or no real eect on the broader, overall mis-
sion and work of the academy” (Fitzgerald
et al., 2012, p. 23). This may reect the lack
of alignment between the public engage-
ment mission of the institution and existing
policies such as academic reward structures.
The literature indicates that many academic
reward structures do not place an equal
value on engaged community scholarship
compared to more traditional scholarship,
to the extent that some academics have
perceived that they are being discouraged
from engaged scholarship (Buys & Bursnall,
2007; Checkoway, 2013). When institutional
tenure and promotion policies fail to align
with a public scholarship mission, indicat-
ing that institutions may not value engaged
scholarship, junior academics seeking
tenure may be deterred from conducting
such work (Buys & Bursnall, 2007; O’Meara,
2010).
For those higher education institutions that
want to maintain their mission of com-
munity engagement but will not or cannot
align their tenure-track academic reward
structures, there is another option: con-
tingent academics. In the United States,
contingent academics are full-time or part-
time limited contract employees engaged in
teaching, research, service, or any combina-
39 Supporting University–Community Partnerships
tion of the three (Gerhke & Kezar, 2015).
Often these positions lack job security and
protections of academic freedom. In terms
of degree attainment, Laurence (2013) found
that in 4-year institutions, approximately
30% of contingent academics had a doctoral
degree, and 46.5% reported having only
a master’s. There is also some crossover
of contingent academic employment and
graduate students. In a study on contin-
gent academics, the American Association
of University Professors (2018) found that
at research institutions, graduate students
make up a large percentage of contingent
appointments, replacing part-time posi-
tions.
Universities have used contingent academic
sta for unbundling the professional com-
ponents of academic labor—teaching, re-
search, and service—into disparate parts
(Austin, 2003; Gerhke & Kezar, 2015). A
growing trend may also be unbundling
types of scholarship, relegating engaged
scholarship to contingent academics.
Matthews and Wilder (2018) noted that a
substantial number of contingent academics
fulll service-learning roles. Some institu-
tions explicitly unbundle engaged scholar-
ship by using the designation “professor of
practice” for xed-contract academics who
are engaged in that type of work (Ernst et
al., 2005; Willets, 2017).
Although once considered a small popula-
tion, contingent workers now constitute
the majority of academic appointments
in the United States (Kezar & Sam, 2010).
Similar trends can be seen in the increase
of casual contracts in the United Kingdom
and Australia (Cavalli & Moscati, 2010;
Loveday, 2018). Broadly speaking, contin-
gent academics have experienced an other-
ness that separates them from tenure-track
academics (Haviland et al., 2017). The exist-
ing literature on contingent academics has
examined their experiences in academia
with regard to teaching (Kezar, 2013), ser-
vice (Levin & Shaker, 2011; Waltman et al.,
2012), and scholarship (Kezar, 2013; Ott &
Cisneros, 2015). Contingent academics in
the United States and Canada often lack in-
stitutional and social support for their work
across all three missions of higher education
(Kezar & Sam, 2010, 2013; Haviland et al.,
2017). Research on two-tiered academics
in Australia (Kimber, 2003) and the United
Kingdom has found that casual contract
academics may be experiencing working
conditions similar to those of their North
American counterparts.
Regarding a scholarship of engagement
that includes some combination of teach-
ing, research, and service, aside from a
recent phenomenological study conducted
by Matthews and Wilder (2018), little em-
pirical research has focused specically on
the contingent experience. Levin and Shaker
(2011) argued that contingent academics
tend to be overlooked. Much of the litera-
ture on scholarship of engagement already
focuses on tenure-track academics (e.g.,
O’Meara et al., 2013; O’Meara et al., 2011;
Sandmann, 2008). When they are included
in research, the dierences in their experi-
ence are not highlighted or the employment
status of the participant is unknown (e.g.,
Buys & Bursnall, 2007; O’Meara & Niehaus,
2009). Matthews and Wilder (2018) found
that those non-tenure-track academics who
engaged in service-learning community-
engaged scholarship experienced isolation,
diculty conducting scholarship, lack rec-
ognition for their work, and a need for their
own academic community.
Professional Development Schools as
an Example of University–Community
Partnership
Current literature on immersive residency
models, such as professional development
schools, in the United States focuses on
ways schools and universities collaborate
to improve existing teacher education and
practice (Zenkov et al., 2016) or student out-
comes (Castle et al., 2008). Similar univer-
sity–community partnership models can be
found in other countries, such as Australia,
where “university faculty are working with
teams of teachers and student-teachers in
schools—undertaking curriculum planning,
school improvement strategies and re-
search” (Darling-Hammond, 2017, p. 300).
This emphasis on either teacher education
or school-level research often means that
the literature focuses on elementary or sec-
ondary education rather than the university
side of the work. Likewise, there is a dearth
of higher education research that exam-
ines academics’ experience engaging with
schools or any similar university–com-
munity partnership in education, though
Coburn et al. (2013) described work that
is making inroads in that area. With over
1,000 school sites throughout the United
States alone (Schwartz, 2002) working in
partnership with higher education institu-
tions and their respective academic sta,
40Vol. 25, No. 1—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
it is important to understand this work for
future policy.
Theoretical Framework
The Engaged Campus
To understand the experiences of academic
staff as professors-in-residence, we use
Furco’s (2010) engaged campus as a theo-
retical framework. Furco (2010) connected
the traditional three categories of academic
work (teaching, research, and service) to the
community. The result is three overlapping
key components: (a) community-engaged
teaching, (b) community-based research,
and (c) community service and outreach.
At the center of the engaged campus where
the three circles converge is what Furco
(2010) described as a community service–
based capstone experience that includes a
“strong research component” and seeks “to
provide service to the community to address
an important, identied community need”
(p. 382).
Furco (2010) defined community-engaged
teaching as providing students opportuni-
ties to learn from and within the broader
community while simultaneously being able
to give back to it. In this article, commu-
nity engagement can include experiences
like district-school internships or clinical
experiences and clinical practice for teacher
candidates. Community-based research diers
from more traditional conceptions of public
engagement because it encourages members
of the community as well as university-
based academic sta to shape the research
agenda by identifying the genuine interests
of the community (Furco, 2010; Stanton, C.
R., 2014). Lastly, in community service and
outreach, scholars within the university uti-
lize their expertise to provide assistance to
the community via volunteerism or outreach
programs.
For this article, we locate professional
development school work at the center of
Furco’s (2010) engaged campus. We frame
this capstone experience as four “nonne-
gotiable” responsibilities that each person
must meet in their role as a professor-
in-residence. These responsibilities were
established by the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008)
and guided the National Association of
Professional Development Schools (2008)
nine essentials of professional development
school work. These four nonnegotiables
were adopted as core principles: (a) provide
practicum, student teaching, and intern-
ship experiences; (b) support and enable
the professional development of school and
higher education academics; (c) support and
enable inquiry directed at the improvement
of practice; and (d) support and enhance
student achievement.
Methodology
Supported by the literature on engaged
scholarship (O'Meara et al., 2011; Sandmann,
2008) and the above theoretical framework,
this study is part of a larger community-
based participatory research inquiry (Beh et
al., 2013; Stanton, C. R., 2014) to improve
the policies and practices for all academics
engaged in professional development school
work. This larger inquiry used documents
that included qualitative memos from pro-
gram orientations and retreats, agendas,
and minutes from monthly meetings. There
were also mid- and end-of-year progress
reports. From these document-based data
we recognized that despite a large overlap
in experiences with tenure-track academics,
contingent academics also varied in signi-
cant ways.
Recognizing a need to investigate these
dierences, we situated a smaller inquiry
within the larger project. This particular
study utilizes qualitative interview design
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Patton, 2002) to
delve further into the contingent academic
experience. These interviews allowed con-
tingent academics to voice their own expe-
rience and their needs for conducting en-
gaged scholarship, separate from those who
have dierent appointments. Institutional
Review Board clearance was obtained.
Context of Study
The site of study is a college of education
housed within a 4-year public research uni-
versity in the northeastern United States.
In alignment with its mission, the college
established a partnership with 11 schools.
At this university, the Office of Educator
Support and Partnerships is charged with
supporting this model of engaged scholar-
ship and is the main point of contact for all
schools and their respective academic sta.
Each professional development school in the
network has one person who is a profes-
sor-in-residence, and that person must be
employed by the university. In order to be
41 Supporting University–Community Partnerships
a professor-in-residence, the person must
be employed in an academic capacity (i.e.,
teaching or research). These academics can
be tenure track, tenured, or on a xed-term
contract. Even though a doctoral degree is
not required, research experience is pre-
ferred. At the time of this study, very few
pretenured or tenured academics have been
willing to take the position of professor-in-
residence as part of their scholarship. Thus,
a majority of professors-in-residence are
xed-term academics.
Participants
The nine participants for this study were
all professors-in-residence working in
this university–community partnership.
All participants shared several sets of de-
scriptors. First, each participant was a
contingent academic with a fixed-term
10-month contract. Similar to other types
of academics in the institution, for renewal
each person had to submit a portfolio de-
tailing their research, teaching, and service.
Their employment responsibilities included
teaching at the university and participa-
tion in departmental service. Second, each
participant had a teaching certication and
extensive teaching experience in elementary
or secondary school settings. Third, each
participant was required to hold a master’s
degree.
One participant had received a doctoral
degree, and ve held dual roles as doctoral
students and contingent academics. Among
the ve, one held the position of professor-
in-residence a year prior to becoming a
doctoral student. It is important to note that
despite the dual academic identity of these
ve participants, they still had the same
teaching, research, and service require-
ments that are expected of all university
contingent academic hires in a similar po-
sition. It is also important to note that sev-
eral participants in this study had also held
other academic xed-contract positions as
instructors prior to being professors-in-
residence. See Table 1 for an overview of
participant demographics.
Data Sources
For this article, we collected data from all
participants using three sources. First, as
part of the broader community-based par-
ticipatory research inquiry, we conducted a
round of in-person, informal conversational
interviews (Fontana & Frey, 2000; Patton,
2002). During these sessions, we spoke with
the participants about their general experi-
ences working as professors-in-residence
at their respective schools. We chose this
approach because unstructured interviews
allowed the participants to focus on any
aspect of their work they wanted to discuss
and oered the researcher freedom to ask
questions as they arose from the immediate
context (Patton, 2002). Brent kept memos
from these interviews.
The next source of data was an addi-
tional round of in-person audio-recorded
interviews. For this round, we chose a
semistructured guided interview approach
(Patton, 2002) because it allowed us to fur-
ther explore some of the emerging themes
that arose from the rst interview analysis.
At the same time, the semistructured format
also gave the participants exibility to talk
about any experiences that might not have
been directly listed in the protocol and al-
lowed us to pursue dierent avenues of in-
quiry based on those particular experiences
(Patton, 2002). Common questions in the
second round reected some of the themes
that were emerging in the initial data anal-
ysis: (a) What advice would you give to an
incoming professor-in-residence who has
never done any professional development
school work before? (b) What do you wish
you knew about your roles/responsibilities
as a professor-in-residence prior to begin-
ning your current position? (c) What types
of supports would you like/would have
liked in your position as a professor-in-
residence?
Finally, we conducted a third round of
structured written interviews (Patton,
2002). This third round of interviews was
designed as a follow-up with the partici-
pants from the previous rounds of inter-
views, and any clarifying questions occurred
via email.
Data Analysis
The analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s
(2006) steps for thematic analysis. Data
analysis was an iterative process (Braun &
Clarke, 2006) occurring between rounds and
informing the next round of data collection.
We coded data in three phases: open coding,
axial coding, and selective coding (Bogdan
& Biklen, 2007), which resulted in the
identication of eight signicant themes
pertaining to the participants’ experience.
We analyzed all data systematically and
collaboratively to ensure intercoder reli-
ability (Patton, 2002) and organized and
42Vol. 25, No. 1—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
maintained the data with Dedoose software
(Lieber & Weisner, 2015).
Results
Below, we thematically present the results
based on the data, using interview excerpts
from the nine contingent academics.
Navigating Multiple Roles in One Position
The participants in this article had to play
multiple roles that spanned the school and
university settings. When asked to describe
their role, most respondents answered with
a series of numerous roles such as “super-
visor of clinical practice interns, facilitators
of [culturally responsive pedagogy] profes-
sional development, researcher, teach on-
site courses, liaison between the university
and school” (Macy).
Some of the roles described were specic
to either the school or university setting.
At the school level, the participants were a
resource for the teachers and administra-
tion, providing professional development
and on-site support to teachers. At the
university level, the participants were also
academics who belonged to departments,
taught undergraduate and/or master’s level
courses, and were expected to produce re-
search. However, participants also had roles
that were at the nexus of the school and
university settings (Gauntner & Hansman,
2017). For example, they were key in the
college’s student-teaching program. They
were responsible for student-teacher place-
ment and providing those student-teachers
with various supports and experiences.
To develop a comprehensive professional
development plan for school and other
higher education academics, the contin-
gent academics also established themselves
as liaisons between the schools and the
university. Supporting people on various
levels required them to develop nurturing,
delicate, and vital relationships between
Table 1. Description of Contingent Academics and Their
Teaching and Research Experience
Contingent
academic
Past K-12 teach-
ing experience
Experience
teaching in
higher
education
Number of years
as a professor-
in-residence
In a PhD
program (y/n)
Contingent
Academic 1:
Grace
14 years 1 year 1 year N
Contingent
Academic 2:
Erica
8 years 1 year 2 years Y
Contingent
Academic 3:
Macy
6 years 4.5 years 2 years Y
Contingent
Academic 4:
Derrick
10 years 7 years 2 years Y
Contingent
Academic 5: Nora
10 years 1 year 1 year Y
Contingent
Academic 6:
Wayne
6 years 3 year <1 year N
Contingent
Academic 7:
Kelly
5 years 2 years 2 years Y
Contingent
Academic 8: Lori
6 years 2 years <1 year N
Contingent
Academic 9:
Richard
6 years 3 years 2 years N
43 Supporting University–Community Partnerships
student-teachers, the university, and the
schools.
Having so many roles and responsibilities
can be challenging. When asked about the
sources of tension that they experienced,
respondents also spoke about having these
dierent roles. For example, Erica enumer-
ated, “Wearing several hats as a trainer and
a colleague of teachers; balancing school
needs and [university] perceptions of what
a [professor-in-residence] is; being a PhD
student and a professor; politics at [the uni-
versity] and at [the district].”
Aligning Scholarly Expertise and
Community Interest
Research is a core part of a scholarship of
engagement, but unlike traditional scholar-
ship, engaged research is driven by com-
munity needs. However, community needs
and academic sta expertise and interests
may not necessarily be aligned. The data
indicated that some contingent academics
needed more time to nd ways to connect
their expertise with the needs of the school.
In the following excerpt, Macy articulated
how she took a year to accomplish this task.
Having been [at the school] a year
and working really hard build-
ing relationships is nally paying
o. I feel like I am doing what the
school needs me to do, and that’s
great. . . . I was able to tie [the
professional development] in with
what I am passionate about, which
is research on racial linguistics
related to race, ethnicity, and lan-
guage.
Misalignment between the scholars and
the community interest may cause several
issues. First, the scholars may not be able
to conduct research that is within their ex-
pertise, or they must devote already limited
time to learning a new content area. Second,
community needs may remain unfilled,
which defeats the purposes of engaged
scholarship. Nora described a misalign-
ment between her research interests and
the needs of her school:
One of the things that I am grap-
pling with is that my concentration
in my PhD program is urban edu-
cation, and my work is not in an
urban context. So, moving forward,
as we place professors-in-residence
in schools, thinking about their
research interests and how that is
in alignment with the need at the
school.
Although Nora felt her background and
expertise did meet her school’s needs, she
also felt that the suburban school with a
majority of middle-class students did not
fulll her own interest in urban education.
Because she specically wanted to gain ex-
perience in urban schools, this misalign-
ment could keep her from engaging in the
type of scholarship she desires and limit her
productivity as a researcher.
Investing Time With the Community
All scholarship takes time. From develop-
ment of studies to implementation and nal
production, it is a labor-intensive process.
In terms of a community service–based
experience, contingent academics have
reported investing a large portion of time
trying to be recognized as members of the
school community, or at the very least to
develop trust among the community mem-
bers (Kajner et al., 2012). One participant,
Erica, articulated how long it took to be rec-
ognized: “Prior to going to spring break, I
was nally included as a true member of
the community.” Once she felt accepted, she
felt she could take her work with the school
further.
In interviews, contingent academics con-
sistently discussed the need to develop
trusting relationships with school partners
as they strove to meet their responsibili-
ties. Grace underscored the importance of
building trusting relationships. She stated,
So, what I think that’s going really
well is the connection with the
principals and with the teachers. I
really understand the relationship
and how it’s supposed to be. They
have to fully trust me before they
accept me in their classrooms or
even as part of their school com-
munity.
Grace further explained how gaining trust
was a gradual process. She believed the
teachers and administrators valued her
expertise and thus began welcoming her
into various school spaces as a trusted and
valuable resource.
Almost all the contingent academics report-
ed that it took at least several months and
up to an entire school year to develop rela-
44Vol. 25, No. 1—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
tionships within the community. However,
the “publish or perish” framework of some
research institutions, as well as some of
the outcome-driven decision making that
occurs when evaluating the success of
programs, squeeze contingent academics
between institutional protocols demanding
justication for investment of resources and
communities where groundwork cannot be
rushed. Not investing the appropriate time
can result in the community shutting out
the scholar, which may ultimately under-
mine the goal of the engaged research.
Having Rich Opportunities for Research
One of the potential benets of situating
academic labor within an engaged campus
is the opportunity for academics to combine
service, teaching, and research. This means
that ideally professors-in-residence should
be able to produce research from their re-
spective sites. Macy is one participant who
recognized the potential for research in her
position:
I’m like a kid in a candy store when
it comes to data. It’s ying o the
walls. It’s all over the place. Also,
as someone growing as a novice
researcher, this is the best situa-
tion for me. I appreciate way more
now than I did [last year] . . . I am
also co-authoring with teachers at
my [site].
Once she realized her school was a source of
rich data, Macy engaged teachers in the re-
search process, began coauthoring relation-
ships, and encouraged teachers to present
their collaborative research at a symposium,
highlighting how she was able to connect
her teaching, research, and service in her
work.
One of the challenges that such opportuni-
ties for research present is balancing the re-
search component with the rest of the work.
Erica explained, “I feel like I don’t have a lot
of time that I wish I had to dedicate myself
to the research. It’s always a balancing act.
Research is always a part of my job, like
if I want my job, it has to happen. . . .”
The other responsibilities that come with
working as a professor-in-residence also
required her time and attention.
Needing Research Support
Despite the rich potential for research, not
everyone may be able to utilize that oppor-
tunity equally. As universities continue to
unbundle professional academic labor into
different components (Gehrke & Kezar,
2015), sta performing engaged scholar-
ship may have varying levels of expertise.
In this study, all of the contingent academ-
ics had extensive teaching and professional
experience in schools, but less experience
conducting research. Grace, who had the
most professional experience, had the least
research experience. She described her per-
ceptions:
So, the research piece is big. How do
we even get started? What should
it look like? How do I set achiev-
able expectations for myself while
trying to get this big idea out there?
And, how do I do this without a
background in research? I feel like
I’m at a disadvantage. Where do
I even start? How do I get in the
door? Being new to the university as
well. Not necessarily knowing who
to go to when dierent supports are
needed.
Being contingent academic sta at the in-
stitution may also play a role in an inability
to nd research support. Macy explained,
“Learning to do something while meeting
the expectation of actually doing the work is
a constant battle. As a part-time [academ-
ic], certain supports are not available, such
as funding.” Research indicates that con-
tingent academics often are unfamiliar with
institutional resources, or such resources
may be unavailable to the staff (Kezar &
Sam, 2010). Some of the resources the uni-
versity oered did not address the needs
of contingent academics specically—for
example, several contingent academics de-
scribed how they wanted help applying for
grants, but “some services are not provided
to us because of our level” and they would
like to know “how does that grant process
look for ¾ time faculty?”
Some participants were able to tap into their
doctoral studies resources to nd support
needed to conduct their research. However,
even those who had more research experi-
ence reported still needing research sup-
port, as Erica illustrated:
Honestly, research has always been
the area in which I needed the most
support. I think now, being in the
PhD program, I am a little bit more
supported just because I am getting
45 Supporting University–Community Partnerships
the actual instruction in terms of
how to do the research. I still feel
like I am asked to y the plane, and
at the same time of being given the
tools to build the plane.
All the contingent academics recognized
that conducting research was a core aspect
of their engaged scholarship. What they
wanted was support for their work.
Needing Connections With Other Scholars
Given the dierent roles that the partici-
pants experienced, the data also indicated
that they would have liked to connect more
with other academics at the university. This
collaboration could be either among contin-
gent academics or tenure-track academics.
The administrative oce provided opportu-
nities for all of the professors-in-residence
to collaborate with one another during con-
sistent meeting times and planned monthly
events. That data indicated that some con-
tingent academics needed such opportuni-
ties to collaborate. When asked about what
the university could do to help her work,
Kelly wanted “more time to collaboratively
brainstorm with other professors-in-res-
idence.” This particular need may reect
that their work diers greatly from that of
other academics in the institution, so that
connecting with other academics with simi-
lar responsibilities and learning from one
another could be useful.
The participants expressed that the need
to work with others extended to more
traditional academics at the university.
Grace spoke about wanting to connect with
academics to help meet the needs of her
specic professional development school:
“We actually reached out [to] the univer-
sity departments to see if anyone would be
interested in coming in.” This need also in-
cludes nding ways to fulll their research
responsibilities. Derrick explained, “I work
with the other [professors-in-residence] to
help facilitate their ability to create pub-
lishable research.” Some of the contingent
academics went on to coauthor conference
proposals and/or copresent at research con-
ferences, but this was not the norm among
most. Even with the connections that
they made working with scholars, a need
for more remained. Derrick voiced this as
“I don’t think I have enough exposure to
others’ work.”
Needing Mentorship and Guidance
As evidenced by the results thus far, en-
gaged scholarship is an immense and com-
plex undertaking. Even though the data
indicate a desire to connect with others to
learn from one another, there is also a need
for mentorship and guidance. At times, es-
pecially for a new professor-in-residence,
navigating the university’s expectations
could be overwhelming. Nora expanded on
her experiences:
I think that the expectations across
the board are very clear, but what
it looks like in every school is very
dierent. So, [group meetings do
not] always feel that helpful. I am
just being honest. It feels over-
whelming. Especially when people
are sharing what they are doing in
their school and it doesn’t look like
anything else of what is going on in
anybody else’s school.
Instead of broader collaborative opportuni-
ties, Nora wanted a more specic one-to-
one mentorship process where “working in
pairs would help, because you could know
what someone else is doing in a situation
a little bit closer to what you’re doing.”
Seasoned professors-in-residence also
wanted mentorship. Richard noted that
one of the supports he wanted for his work
was “a mentor to help you through the pro-
cess—not an informal mentor but a formal
structure for peer-to-peer [professors-in-
residence] mentorship.”
University program administrators pro-
vided broader collaborative opportunities
but, at her stage, Nora did not always nd
this structure helpful. Nora’s excerpt un-
derscores the need for flexibility in uni-
versity support for this work. Contingent
academics’ needs may change and are not
one-size-ts-all.
Discussion
The ndings from this study answer the re-
search questions by highlighting the com-
plexities that are part of being a communi-
ty-based engaged scholar. First, this article
illustrates that university–community part-
nerships can oer rich opportunities and
potential for a mutually benecial relation-
ship between academic sta and the com-
munity when the proper alignment among
needs, interests, and experience exists
46Vol. 25, No. 1—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
(Kajner et al., 2012; McNall et al., 2009).
However, without the proper support, rich
opportunities for research and collaboration
can be missed. Second, within a universi-
ty–community partnership, academic sta
had to navigate multiple roles and respon-
sibilities housed within one position that
spanned two contexts. Though traditional
denitions of unbundling of academic labor
involve the separation of teaching, research,
and service (Gerhke & Kezar, 2015), another
type of unbundling may be called for: one
that delegates to some academics the public
scholarship work that other academic sta
may not be incentivized to do.
Finally, we found that to meet their institu-
tional responsibilities that combine teach-
ing, research, and service into a communi-
ty-based research experience (Furco, 2010),
the contingent academics had to establish
themselves in two contexts: their respec-
tive professional development school site
and the university. Despite the challenging
nature of the work, the contingent academ-
ics seemed more comfortable navigating the
roles and building relationships in the pro-
fessional development school setting and in
need of more support at the university level.
If universities want the idea of an engaged
campus to move beyond the tokenism noted
by Fitzgerald et al. (2012), one of the ways
to begin is through institutionalizing sup-
port of the work through institutional poli-
cies and structures (Buys & Bursnall, 2007;
Furco, 2010; Sandmann, 2008).
In terms of policy support, the institution-
alization of a scholarship of engagement
may be even more important if universities
assign (either de facto or purposefully) the
work of engaged scholarship to contingent
academics. This study answers the second
research question by nding that there are
key areas where institutions can provide
more support, especially in terms of the
research component of the position. The lit-
erature on contingent labor already reects
a lack of institutional policies that provide
support and resources (Kezar & Sam, 2010).
In addition, research indicates that uni-
versities in general do not value engaged
scholarship as much as traditional schol-
arship (Checkoway, 2013; O’Meara, 2010),
making contingent academics conducting
engaged scholarship that much more vul-
nerable to being overlooked.
Our ndings yield several implications for
institutional policy. First, if institutions
want to incorporate engaged scholarship,
they must consider some academic reward
systems that support this type of nontra-
ditional scholarly work. The data indicate
that academics performing community
work in schools require more time to situate
themselves in the school context. Academics
unfamiliar with this type of work may have
unrealistic timelines for academic deliver-
ables. For xed-term employees, recogniz-
ing their engaged scholarship could entail
offering multiyear fixed-term contracts,
dierentiating productivity to better reect
the work, and including other stakeholder
feedback to determine renewal.
Because this study was embedded in a
broader community-based research meth-
odology (Beh et al., 2013), the needs of the
contingent academics did not go unad-
dressed. We incorporated feedback from
the contingent academics and made ad-
justments throughout the year. These ad-
justments resulted in the second and third
policy suggestions. The second policy sug-
gestion is for the institution to nd a way to
develop policies for structured opportunities
and mentorship for professors-in-residence
to work with and learn from other scholars.
Such opportunities can include convening
scheduled, structured meetings where aca-
demic sta can connect and learn from one
another. It also could include one-on-one
mentorship programs between newer and
more established scholars. The third policy
suggestion is to have the institution create
policy to share some of the responsibility for
the logistical supports that the contingent
academics need to carry on their work. The
way that these contingent academics expe-
rienced navigating numerous roles showed
how engaged scholars can be overwhelmed
by their university-side responsibilities.
Universities could institutionalize a schol-
arship of engagement by establishing a
centralized higher education administra-
tive office or administrator(s) to provide
logistical support for engaged academics
(Sandmann, 2008).
Conclusion
Though this study documents the work-
ing experiences of contingent academics in
the professor-in-residence position, their
experiences also reect much of the litera-
ture on other academics conducting engaged
scholarship, especially those who are newer
academics (e.g., pretenured academics;
O’Meara, 2013). The differences between
community-engaged scholarship and more
47 Supporting University–Community Partnerships
traditional forms can make it dicult for
academics (regardless of the type of con-
tract) to navigate the institutional policies
and structures designed for traditional re-
search. Support for contingent academics
could also be made available to pretenured
or newer engaged scholars.
As colleges and universities push to become
engaged campuses and incorporate engaged
scholarship as part of their overall mis-
sion, it is not enough to set the directive
and expect academics to accomplish the
task. Even though many academics may be
interested in scholarship that both aligns
with their interests and benets the broader
community, without proper support and in-
centives, it may not be an attractive option.
Even if institutions employ contingent labor
specically to carry on the work of engaged
scholarship, they must be aware of the
complexities involved in such positions and
be willing to reevaluate their structures to
ensure that the relationships that the insti-
tution is building with community through
these scholars are healthy and sustainable.
Conict of Interest Statement
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conict of
interest.
About the Authors
Cecile H. Sam is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Services and Leadership
at Rowan University.
Brent C. Elder is an assistant professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary and Inclusive
Education at Rowan University.
Stacey Leftwich is an associate professor in the Department of Language, Literacy and
Sociocultural Education at Rowan University and currently serves as the executive director of the
Oce of Educator Support and Partnerships.
48Vol. 25, No. 1—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
References
American Association for University Professors (2018, October 11). Data snapshot: Contingent
faculty in US higher ed. https://www.aaup.org/news/data-snapshot-contingent-fac-
ulty-us-higher-ed#.W8VOm2hKhPZ
Austin, A. E. (2003). Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty to face chang-
ing expectations in a shifting context. The Review of Higher Education, 26(2), 119–144.
Barker, D. (2004). The scholarship of engagement: A taxonomy of ve emerging practices.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 9(2), 123–137. https://openjour-
nals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/890
Beh, A., Bruyere, B. L., & Lolosoli, S. (2013). Legitimizing local perspectives in conserva-
tion through community-based research: A photovoice study in Samburu, Kenya.
Society & Natural Resources, 26(12), 1390–1406. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.20
13.805858
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (Vol. 5). Pearson.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Buys, N., & Bursnall, S. (2007). Establishing university–community partnerships:
Processes and benets. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(1), 73–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800601175797
Castle, S., Arends, R. I., & Rockwood, K. D. (2008). Student learning in a professional
development school and a control school. The Professional Educator, 32(1), 1–15. https://
les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ802012.pdf
Cavalli, A., & Moscati, R. (2010). Academic systems and professional conditions in
ve European countries. European Review, 18(S1), S35–S53. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1062798709990305
Checkoway, B. (2013). Strengthening the scholarship of engagement. Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement, 17(4), 7–22. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/
jheoe/article/view/1066
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education:
Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://
doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750
Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Research–practice partnerships: A strategy
for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. William T. Grant
Foundation.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn
from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399
Ernst, B., Hollinger, D. A., & Knight, J. (2005). Professors of practice. Academe, 91(1), 60.
Fitzgerald, H. E., Bruns, K., Sonka, S., Furco, A., & Swanson, L. (2012). The centrality of
engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
16(3), 7–28. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/949
Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated
text. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp 645-672). Sage Publications.
Furco, A. (2010). The engaged campus: Toward a comprehensive approach to public
engagement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58(4), 375–390. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00071005.2010.527656
Gauntner, J., & Hansman, C. A. (2017). Boundary-spanner role conict in public urban
universities. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 21(1), 104–131. https://
openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1319
49 Supporting University–Community Partnerships
Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2015). Unbundling the faculty role in higher education: Utilising
historical, theoretical and empirical frameworks to inform future research. In M. B.
Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Handbook of Theory
and Research 30). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-
13
Haviland, D., Allenman, N.F., & Allen, C.C. (2017). ‘Separate but not quite equal’:
Collegiality experiences of full-time non-tenure-track faculty members. Journal of
Higher Education, 88(4), 505-528. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1272321
Kajner, T., Fletcher, F., & Makokis, P. (2012). Balancing head and heart: The importance
of relational accountability in community–university partnerships. Innovative Higher
Education, 37(4), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9206-8
Kezar, A. (2013). Non-tenure-track faculty’s social construction of a supportive work
environment. Teachers College Record, 115(12), ID 17242. http://www.tcrecord.org/
Content.asp?ContentId=17242
Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2015). Revealing opportunities and obstacles for changing non-
tenure-track faculty practices: An examination of stakeholders' awareness of insti-
tutional contradictions. Journal of Higher Education, 86(4), 564–594. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00221546.2015.11777375
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Non-tenure track faculty in higher education (ASHE Higher
Education Report Series). Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2013). Institutionalizing equitable policies and practices for con-
tingent faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 56–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00
221546.2013.11777278
Kimber, M. (2003). The tenured “core” and the tenuous “periphery”: The casualisation
of academic work in Australian universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 25(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800305738
Kroll, H., Schricke, E., & Stahlecker, T. (2013). Scope and determinants of the “third role”
of higher education institutions in Germany. Higher Education Policy, 26(2), 263–284.
Laurence, D. (2013). A prole of the non-tenure-track academic workforce. ADFL Bulletin,
42(3), 6-22.
Latham, N., & Wedwick, L. (2009). Teacher candidates’ attitudes that inuence prepa-
ration choice: Traditional versus professional development school options. School–
University Partnerships, 3(1), 90–99.
Levin, J. S., & Shaker, G. G. (2011). The hybrid and dualistic identity of full-time non-
tenure-track faculty. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1461–1484. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0002764211409382
Lieber, E., & Weisner, T. (2015). Dedoose (Version 6.1.18) [Computer software]. Dedoose.
https://www.dedoose.com
Loveday, V. (2018). Luck, chance, and happenstance? Perceptions of success and failure
amongst xed-term academic sta in UK higher education. The British Journal of
Sociology, 69(3), 758–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12307
Matthews, P., & Wilder, S. (2018). “Cutting edge” or “ridiculously isolated”? Charting
the identities, experiences, and perspectives of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
engaged in service-learning. International Journal of Research on Service-Learning and
Community Engagement, 6(1), 1–14. https://ijrslce.scholasticahq.com/article/7002-
cutting-edge-or-ridiculously-isolated-charting-the-identities-experiences-and-
perspectives-of-full-time-non-tenure-track-faculty-engaged-in-service-learning
McNall, M., Reed, C. S., Brown, R., & Allen, A. (2009). Brokering community–univer-
sity engagement. Innovative Higher Education, 33(5), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10755-008-9086-8
Murphy, D., & McGrath, D. (2018). A success/failure paradox: Reection on a university–
community engagement in Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
40(4), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2018.1482102
50Vol. 25, No. 1—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement
National Association of Professional Development Schools. (2008). 9 essentials. https://
napds.org/nine-essentials/
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards
for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. http://www.ncate.org/~/media/
Files/caep/accreditation-resources/ncate-standards-2008.pdf?la=en
O’Meara, K. (2010). Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship: Promotion and tenure.
Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions: Vol. 1.
Institutional change (pp. 271–294). Michigan State University Press.
O’Meara, K., Lounder, A., & Hodges, A. (2013). University leaders’ use of episodic power
to support faculty community engagement. Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 19(2), 5–20. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0019.201
O’Meara, K., & Niehaus, B. (2009). Service-learning is…: How faculty explain their prac-
tice. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(1), 1–16.
O’Meara, K., Sandmann, L. R., Saltmarsh, J., & Giles, D. E., Jr. (2011). Studying the pro-
fessional lives and work of faculty involved in community engagement. Innovative
Higher Education, 36(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9159-3
Ott, M., & Cisneros, J. (2015). Understanding the changing faculty workforce in higher
education: A comparison of full-time non-tenure track and tenure line experiences.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(90), 1–28. doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.1934
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative education and research methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Puukka, J., & Marmolejo, F. (2008). Higher education institutions and regional mission:
Lessons learnt from the OECD review project. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 217–244.
https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2008.7
Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher
education: A strategic review, 1996–2006. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and
Engagement, 12(1), 91–104. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/520
Sandmann, L. R., Saltmarsh, J., & O’Meara, K. (2008). An integrated model for advancing
the scholarship of engagement: Creating academic homes for the engaged scholar.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 47–64. https://openjournals.
libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/524/524
Schwartz, W. (2000). The impact of professional development schools on the education of urban
students. Eric Clearinghouse on Urban Education. https://www.ericdigests.org/2001-2/
urban.html
Snow, D. R., Flynn, S., Whisenand, K., & Mohr, E. (2016). Evidence-sensitive synthesis of
professional development school outcomes. School–University Partnerships, 9(3), 11–33.
https://signalisation2000.com/napds/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/93-snow.pdf
Stanton, C. R. (2014). Crossing methodological borders: Decolonising community-
based participatory research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(5), 573–583. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077800413505541
Stanton, T. (2008). New times demand new scholarship: Opportunities and challenges
for civic engagement at research universities. Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice,
3(1), 19–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197907086716
Waltman, J., Bergom, I., Hollenshead, C., Miller, J., & August, L. (2012). Factors con-
tributing to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among non-tenure-track faculty.
The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 411–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.20
12.11777250
Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement (ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report Vol. 29, No. 5). Jossey-Bass.
Willets, K. R. (2017). Square peg round hole. In M. Massé & N. Bauer-Maglin (Eds.),
Staging women’s lives in academia (pp 111-121). SUNY Press.
Zenkov, K., Shiveley, J., & Clark, E. (2016). Why we must answer the question, “What is
a professional development school?” School–University Partnerships, 9(3), 1–10.
