Exploring Community-Engaged Scholarship: Insights and Questions for HRD

Abstract

The Problem

Higher education, including human resource development (HRD) programs, faces increasing public scrutiny for being out of touch with issues and concerns facing local and global communities by guarding limited conceptualizations of scholarship. In response, colleges and universities are identifying ways to bridge the academy (higher education) with the community-at-large and looking to its faculty to weave community concerns into scholarship through means such as community-engaged scholarship (CES). While the literature on and application of CES is robust in other disciplines, it remains less widely discussed in HRD.

The Solution

HRD scholar-practitioners have expertise in learning, leadership, organizational culture, and change, which could benefit the larger community, but also faculty and their work. Some HRD scholar-practitioners may already be practicing CES; yet, there is limited understanding of CES within HRD despite shared values and principles, including what may be blocking community-engaged efforts. To jumpstart the discussion, this article provides an overview of CES, identifying questions and issues for HRD scholar-practitioners to consider as part of a call to action to inform and advance the practice of and scholarship on CES.

The Stakeholders

This article has relevance for all who seek direct and indirect ways to collaborate, integrate knowledge across disciplines and contexts (including the community at large, field of HRD, and academicians), address community concerns, and translate knowledge to serve the broader good.

Keywords

community-engaged scholarship faculty development community partnerships

As foregrounded in the opening of this special issue, academia and the role of faculty are changing. Higher education, and within this context human resource development (HRD) programs, is facing increasing public scrutiny and criticism for lacking relevance (Bartunek et al., 2006), being out of touch with public problems (Fitzgerald et al., 2016; Post et al., 2016; Tsui, 2013a) and with the public good (Akdere & Egan, 2005; Bierema & Cseh, 2003; Furco, 2010; Hatcher, 2004; Kezar et al., 2005; Rice, 2002; Saltmarsh, 2011; Storberg-Walker, 2012; Tsui, 2013b). In response, college and university leaders are encouraging faculty to conduct public scholarship (Colbeck & Weaver, 2008) as a way to mitigate these criticisms. Yet, to do so may “be perceived by many [faculty] as yet another impossible expectation” (Colbeck & Weaver, 2008, p. 7), alongside increasing pressures to publish, secure funding, and teach innovatively (Colbeck & Weaver, 2008; O’Meara, 2018).

Despite these pressures, increasing numbers of faculty are finding ways to integrate their scholarship with community-identified cares and concerns (Demb & Wade, 2012; Morrison & Wagner, 2016, 2017; O’Meara et al., 2010; Post et al., 2016; Rice et al., 2000; Wade & Demb, 2009). Such ways may constitute community-engaged scholarship (CES). CES refers to faculty and community stakeholders’ contributions, in their respective areas of expertise, to co-create knowledge that addresses community-identified cares and concerns, as well as serving the public good (O’Meara, 2018).

The aims of CES complement those of HRD. Reviewing the debates on HRD definitions highlight ethically and socially responsible core values that include individual and collective learning, training, and development, especially that which benefits the greater good of organizations, communities, and society (Academy of Human Resource Development [AHRD], 2018); or, stated more succinctly by McLean and McLean (2001), “the whole humanity” (p. 322). Given this complementarity, CES offers a viable way for the field of HRD, our respective HRD programs, faculty, students, and community stakeholders to bridge any real or perceived gaps between higher educational institutions and the broader community. Within the HRD literature, several empirical studies offer insights into the role HRD scholar-practitioners can play in fostering higher education-community partnerships (Akdere & Egan, 2005) and community development and improvement efforts (Akdere, 2003, 2004; Akdere & Egan, 2005; Hatcher, 2004; Wilensky & Hansen, 2001). Furthermore, albeit anecdotal, evidence suggests some individual HRD scholar-practitioners are already conducting CES and a handful of presentations about forms of CES appear in AHRD conference proceedings.

The research on this form of scholarship in the HRD literature and at AHRD conferences is scant. Published scholarship that is directly tied to CES in HRD is not recent. Rather, HRD articles address related topics such as serving our countries and world (Hatcher, 2004; McLean et al., 2012; Tsui, 2013a, 2013b), developing the workforce as a public good (Storberg-Walker, 2012), addressing issues of social justice (Bierema & Cseh, 2003; Hatcher, 2004), and cultivating corporate social responsibility and sustainability (Bierema & D’Abundo, 2004; Fenwick & Bierema, 2008; Garavan & McGuire, 2010). These initial CES forays within HRD highlight potential areas where scholar-practitioners can share expertise, contributing to the scholarship on CES, bolstering the HRD literature, and enhancing practice.

As the merits and limitations of CES are well reported in the broader literature (Demb & Wade, 2012; Furco, 2010; Morrison & Wagner, 2016; O’Meara, 2008; O’Meara et al., 2010; Post et al., 2016; Rice et al., 2000; Wade & Demb, 2009), the purpose of this article is to invigorate inquiry and discussion on the relationship between CES and HRD. After establishing a more nuanced working understanding of CES, exploring how it emerged, how the academy has developed it, what the key principles are, and how faculty approach it, attention then turns toward exploring the integration of approaches to CES and HRD, closing with a call for action.

The Call for CES

Approximately 30 years ago, scholars recognized the dangers of higher education becoming irrelevant and failing to address the heart of the nation’s work (Bok, 1990; Delve et al., 1990; Newman, 1985). Out of concern, then President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Ernest Boyer (1990) issued a clarion call for colleges and universities to remember their missions and reclaim their civic purposes. He broadened the conceptualization of scholarship (Boyer, 1990, 1996), offering a vision of “faculty work that would reunite personal and institutional endeavors, bring wholeness to scholarly lives, and, at the same time, meet the broadly diverse and changing educational needs of society” (Rice, 2002, p. 9). Scholarship Reconsidered served as a tipping point, shifting the discussion on what the academy values as scholarly work (Rice, 2002) and coalesced the scholarship of engagement (SOE) movement.

Central to this movement is the premise that scholarship is more than research. Knowledge is gained through research, synthesis, practice, and teaching; the associated functions of scholarship being discovery, integration, application, and teaching (Boyer, 1990). These functions are inseparable, reflecting the value and legitimacy of the full range of faculty work (Boyer, 1990; Colbeck & Wharton-Michael, 2006). While presented and discussed as discrete functions, each informs and is informed by the others. All work together and are essential to faculty scholarship within, across, and beyond the academy, especially for community-engaged faculty (CEF) (Boyer, 1990; Colbeck & Wharton-Michael, 2006; O’Meara et al., 2010).

Responding to the Call for Engagement

Since Boyer’s (1990) call, colleges and universities have displayed varying levels of commitment to and engagement in their broader communities. Engagement has included service-learning, outreach, participatory action research, community-based participatory research, and public scholarship (Akdere, 2003; Bringle et al., 1999; Colbeck & Wharton-Michael, 2006; Fear & Sandmann, 1995; Glass et al., 2011; O’Meara & Rice, 2005; Sandmann, 2008; Strand et al., 2003). As the practice of and scholarship on the SOE has developed, scholars and community stakeholders have begun reflecting more critically on the role and quality of community involvement (Cruz & Giles, 2000; Strand et al., 2003; Zlotkowski, 2011), finding that the community’s role and voice were often limited or missing in designing, conducting, and/or assessing engagement efforts.

Research and scholarly writing on community involvement in engaged scholarship efforts prompted many colleges and universities to reflect on, assess, and recognize the need to strengthen their connections, emphasizing community in CES. As part of this, many asserted or renewed their civic commitments, (re)established community partnerships, (re)visited their conceptualizations of scholarship, and took steps toward becoming engaged campuses (Furco, 2010; Holland, 2001). Engaged campuses establish genuine, authentic community partnerships (Furco, 2010) for “mutually-beneficial exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge, expertise, resources, and information” (Holland, 2001, p. 24). Such high-quality campus-community partnerships are much more likely to result in scholarship that is not only relevant (Wade & Demb, 2009) and rigorous (O’Meara & Rice, 2005), but also becomes integrated throughout the institutions’ teaching, research, and service functions (Furco, 2010; Giles et al., 2010; Holland, 2001). Thus, engagement moves from the margins to the mainstream of institutional work (Sandmann, 2008), encouraging faculty to incorporate community engagement into their scholarship (Welch, 2016).

While some institutions have created clear pathways for community engagement through faculty scholarship, many of their faculty have yet to realize, even partially, the vision for such work. For instance, faculty may seek ways to integrate their research, teaching, and service responsibilities so that they complement and inform one another, reducing the pressures. However, there may be a mismatch between espoused values and expectations at the department, college, and/or university levels and the dominant methods of assessment (Driscoll & Lynton, 1999; Giles et al., 2010; Glass et al., 2011; Glassick et al., 1997; O’Meara & Rice, 2005). Even where aligned, colleagues may question the contributions and legitimacy of CES; as a result, CEF may feel marginalized (O’Meara, 2016). As reviewers of policies and practices, faculty may have implicit bias against CES (O’Meara, 2018; Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2016) and be unfamiliar with criteria for assessing engaged scholarship (Furco, 2010; Glassick et al., 1997; O’Meara, 2018) unless the outcomes include top tier publications (Huff, 2000; O’Meara, 2018; Saunders, 2011). Hence, CEF may encounter difficulties while navigating institutional policies and practices for promotion and tenure review (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2016). To better support CEF, colleges and universities need to make explicit expectations for faculty work and provide clear, transparent guidelines for assessment (O’Meara, 2018) that take the principles of CES into account.

Principles of CES

As the practice of CES has grown, so too has the debate over and research on what constitutes CES. In a comprehensive meta-analysis of the CES literature, Beaulieu et al. (2018) identified five key principles. First, the scholarship must be as rigorous as traditional standards (Barker, 2004; Glassick et al., 1997; O’Meara & Rice, 2005; Sandmann, 2008). Second, CES must address community-identified needs. Rather than impose their agenda, scholars listen and work with community members to address issues of shared concern (Wade & Demb, 2009), cultivating reciprocity—the third principle. Fourth, CES involves spanning boundaries, working across disciplines and sectors to tackle complex problems (Buzinski et al., 2013). Finally, CES supports the democratization of knowledge and shared knowledge creation (Barker, 2004). Knowledge should be accessible to all (Hatcher, 2004), especially study participants. The vital distinction for CES is that it requires rigorous scholarship and is accountable to the community, upholding principles of ethical research and good practice (Cruz & Giles, 2000; Honnet & Poulsen, 1989; Sigmon, 1979; Wendler, 2012). Ultimately, “scholarship is what is being done, engaged scholarship is how it is done, and for the common or public good is toward what end it is done” (Sandmann, 2009, p. 3).

Faculty Approaches to CES

Faculty play a vital role in CES (Fitzgerald et al., 2016; Welch, 2016) and the literature on faculty engagement is extensive (see Demb & Wade, 2012 for a summary). Yet, in literature and in practice, CEF have often been treated as a relatively homogeneous group (Buzinski et al., 2013; Pearl, 2015). Questioning this assumption, Morrison and Wagner (2017) examined if and how CEF differ in their motivations to conduct CES, their preferred form of scholarship (Boyer, 1990), their preferred type of service (Morton, 1995), and their conceptualization of community (Morrison & Wagner, 2016). Five distinct approaches that constitute the CEF Typology were identified, offering evidence that dispels assumptions of homogeneity. In light of this evidence, new questions emerge for HRD scholar-practitioners and all who seek to create knowledge that benefits the greater good through CES.

Before outlining the approaches and discussing how these may be integrated with HRD, there are three caveats. Like all typologies, there is no hierarchy or “better” approaches per se; neither are there similar proportions of each within the general population. Furthermore, they are not intended to be used as a substitute for relationship building. Rather, the CEF Typology’s utility lies in raising awareness about distinctions between approaches to CES to better understand CEF and the unique contributions each offers. By understanding and exploring the implications of differences between types, HRD scholar-practitioners can gain new insights into how faculty integrate community-identified cares and concerns with their scholarship. In addition, HRD scholar-practitioners may be more equipped to assess, recognize, and value the contributions and broader impact that can emerge from CES. The five approaches are as follows:

Educators Advancing their Field (EAF) identify as scholars first and foremost. They prioritize educating students and advancing knowledge of their discipline. They draw upon all four domains of scholarship and tend to preference service projects. EAFs generally do not work directly with the broader community; instead, they focus on equipping graduates with the knowledge and skills needed to ultimately benefit communities. Hence, their primary community is higher education.

Collaborators Applying Knowledge (CAK) identify as collaborators and prefer integration and application scholarship types. They prefer direct service that addresses immediate community needs by collaborating, integrating, and applying expertise in relation to their academic discipline. They work across disciplines and contexts. CAKs tend to develop ongoing partnerships with specific community organizations, seeking ways to engage students in real-world contexts.

Researchers in Community Contexts (RCC) identify most with being researchers, aligning with the domain of discovery scholarship. They conduct studies with and in specific communities that address community-identified concerns and examine root causes. With an eye toward social change, RCCs often seek ways to integrate hitherto excluded perspectives and community voices, showing respect for and valuing reciprocal academic-community partnerships.

Teachers Advancing Civic Values (TACV) identify most as teachers who want to enhance student learning and benefit the broader community at the same time. They resonate with the domain of teaching scholarship and utilize direct, project-based, and social change levels of service depending on their courses and what the community needs. TACVs engage students in critical reflection to understand root causes, issues of justice, and roles and civic responsibilities.

Community Advocates (CA) identify as members of the communities to which they belong and have an ongoing commitment to a specific issue or community. Applying the domain of teaching scholarship, they teach students how to be informed, engaged community members, emphasizing the importance of understanding root causes of social issues, working for social change, and advocating with and on behalf of a community.

Each of the approaches to CES contributes expertise and generates knowledge that serves the public good and the academy.

Integrating CES and HRD

With this working understanding of CES and the CEF Typology, attention can now focus on the relationship between CES and HRD. For this discussion, it helps to reconsider Boyer’s (1990) conceptualization of scholarship and the associated debates about HRD in the light of CES. These provide a foundation from which to contemplate HRD scholar-practitioners’ potential roles in raising awareness and understanding, designing trainings and faculty development, and leading organizational change to incorporate and sustain individual CEF and broader CES efforts. (It is important to note that the premise of this article is not that all HRD scholarship should be community-engaged, but rather that CES deserves full consideration and recognition as a viable andvalued area of scholarship and practice for HRD scholar-practitioners.) Embedded within this discussion is the invitation for HRD scholar-practitioners to reflect on how espoused values of humanistic development (Bierema & Callahan, 2014) and democratic engagement (Hatcher, 2004) are enacted, alongside working to dissolve the boundaries—real or perceived—between research, theory, and practice at individual and collective levels (Saunders, 2011; Tsui, 2013b; Tyler, 2009).

Boyer (1990) conceptualizes “scholarship” as having:

a broader, more capacious meaning, one that brings legitimacy to the full scope of academic work. Surely, scholarship means engaging in original research. But the work of the scholar also means stepping back from one’s investigation, looking for connections, building bridges between theory and practice, and communicating one’s knowledge effectively to students. (p. 16)

Boyer’s ideas and the associated engaged scholarship movement include a wider range of activities as scholarship. His comments are akin to the debates on the dual hurdles of rigor and relevance (Brown & Latham, 2018; Hodgkinson & Rousseau, 2009) for management research and the field of HRD. These debates highlight the disconnect between (business and management) scholars and practitioners, citing differences in the focus and activities of each, as well as the limited interaction between groups (Bartunek et al., 2006; Van Aken, 2007); researchers placing greater emphasis on the scholarship of research rather than application (Tsui, 2013b; Tyler, 2009). Saunders (2011) summarizes the associated debates as differences in the focus of interest, measured outcomes, and ways of working. He notes that some academics question the knowledge of practitioners while some practitioners question the relevance and utility of academic research. Yet, within CES, such divides are less common as faculty work is often interconnected. Hence, CES may offer a way for HRD scholar-practitioners to embody the aims and values of HRD more deeply, generating knowledge that is rigorous and relevant by engaging in the broader community as community-engaged scholars and practitioners. However, CES is unlikely to occur unless academics take seriously community requests for collaboration or take initiative and engage community stakeholders in efforts to co-create knowledge (Bartunek & Rynes, 2014; Saunders, 2011). For faculty interested in CES, it is important to collaborate (Bartunek, 2007), recognize critical interdependence (Learmonth, 2008), and share a desire to make a difference beyond the academy (Huff et al., 2006).

McLean and McLean’s (2001) definition and AHRD (1999, 2018) ethics purport a responsibility for HRD to contribute to the greater good in mutually beneficial ways. In re-examining the aims and values of HRD in light of CES, there is clear congruence. HRD should play a role in public concerns (Bierema & Callahan, 2014; Bierema & D’Abundo, 2004; Hatcher, 2004; Kim et al., 2014) that consist of more than thinly veiled efforts of “outreach” in which power over the research and scholarship remains with those in academia (Akdere & Egan, 2005; Bierema & Callahan, 2014; Hatcher, 2004). Indeed, there is an ethic of social responsibility within HRD (AHRD, 2018; Kim, Park, & Kolb, 2014). Given this alignment, the existent array of research related to CES in the HRD literature as noted earlier, and the content expertise within the field of HRD, professionals are poised to develop a robust understanding of CES and CEF in HRD, as well as make substantive contributions to the broader scholarship on and practice of CES. To actualize these aspirations, HRD professionals may need to take coordinated and simultaneous actions at the professional, collegiate, and departmental levels to support CEF in HRD and beyond.

Professional Associations

Within most academic disciplines (e.g., HRD, psychology, sociology), there is often at least one professional association comprising both scholars and practitioners that seeks to advance the understanding and practice of a particular field or discipline. For instance, AHRD is a

global organization made up of, governed by, and created for the HRD scholarly community of academics and reflective practitioners. The Academy was formed to encourage systematic study of human resource development theories, processes, and practices; to disseminate information about HRD; to encourage the application of HRD research findings; and to provide opportunities for social interaction among individuals with scholarly and professional interests in HRD from multiple disciplines and from across the globe. (AHRD, 2019)

Professional associations play an important role in advancing individual and collective understanding about key issues, practices, and aspirations facing their respective fields. Some develop principles and guidelines for assessing educational effectiveness within a particular discipline that then shape program curriculum, licensure, and accreditation standards (e.g., American Psychological Association Commission on Accreditation). Others provide quality assurance, overseeing the standards for particular degree programs within a field and/or discipline (e.g., Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business). Hence, in order for engagement to become a core dimension of faculty work, it is important that professional associations reflect upon, clarify, recognize, and prioritize the public aspects of their work (Sandmann, Saltmarsh, & O’Meara, 2008), as well as identify where and how they can contribute to the advancement of the academic discipline.

Colleges and Universities

Many institutions intent on enacting CES focus on individual faculty, but fail to change the organizational culture needed to sustain and retain CEF (Demb & Wade, 2012; Sandmann et al., 2008). It is unreasonable to expect faculty, especially those who are junior, to utilize CES if the institution does not clearly recognize and reward such engagement (Driscoll & Lynton, 1999; Fitzgerald et al., 2016; O’Meara, 2016). Systemic changes to and within institutions can be made to support and sustain individual, departmental, and institution-wide CES (Furco, 2010). Approaches to faculty support, development, and recognition need customization and revision to account for distinct approaches to CES (Buzinski et al., 2013; Morrison & Wagner, 2017; Welch, 2016), recognizing the unique strengths of each type. Efforts likely include faculty-to-faculty participation, dialogue, and mentorship. HRD scholar-practitioners are well equipped to inform, if not lead, these organizational changes, dialogues, trainings, and faculty development efforts.

Academic Departments

While faculty may agree in principle with efforts to incorporate CES, unconscious bias and patterns of habitual thinking may thwart such good intentions. Faculty may unconsciously evaluate each other’s work given their own approach and expertise. Research suggests that traditional promotion and tenure processes may favor EAF and RCC faculty (Morrison & Wagner, 2017). Revising promotion and tenure processes to include clear structures for recognizing and evaluating CES and its broader impact (O’Meara, 2018) helps CEF and encourages faculty to consider their work’s impact on whom or what. For HRD departments, these questions are relevant and timely given the aims and ethical standards for scholar-practitioners to cultivate individual and organizational development, as well as benefit the greater good (AHRD, 2018; Kim et al., 2014; McLean & McLean, 2001).

Alongside supporting current faculty, there needs to be more awareness about a new generation of students and scholars who seek engaged work. Many are engaged in their communities as undergraduates and expect to be similarly engaged in graduate school. Likewise, many new scholars want to pursue academic work with the public now rather than once tenure has been earned (Post et al., 2016; Welch, 2016). In some departments, the current evaluation system privileges top publications to the extent that it discourages CES. However, departments, including HRD, can take active steps to reconsider its aims, purposes, conceptualizations of scholarship, metrics for assessing quality, and alignment between espoused professional, institutional, collegiate, and departmental values and its curriculum for graduate education, recruitment efforts, and assessment measures and processes (e.g., scholarly products, co-authorships, journals not based in one’s own discipline, community voice in assessing CEF). Those in HRD departments should also reflect critically on the current realities within their departments and institutions regarding CES before recruiting graduate students and new CEF. While bringing in CEF may offer a boost of new energy to develop more widespread CES, the benefits may be short-lived if there are significant, (in)visible departmental, collegiate, or institutional barriers. Hence, to recruit and retain engaged students and scholars, HRD faculty would be well-served to reflect on their culture and then, either make any necessary changes or be transparent with candidates about their current realities and aspirations for CES (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2016). For those in HRD departments who recognize, value, and reward CEF, consideration should be given to publicizing their efforts to not only recruit new engaged students and faculty, but also encourage other HRD departments to take seriously their responsibility to serve the broader good.

A Call to Action: Implications for HRD Scholar-Practitioners

CES offers HRD scholar-practitioners with a viable way to uphold and extend the values espoused within the field, including benefiting the greater good (McLean & McLean, 2001). To further understand the utility, legitimacy, and relevance of CES for HRD scholar-practitioners, vigorous examination and discussion are needed. To this end, I offer a series of questions as a springboard for discussion and a call to action. These questions are not meant to be an exhaustive list. I encourage you to add your own. To fully address many of these questions requires simultaneous and coordinated actions at the individual, departmental, university, and/or professional association levels:

Defining and Increasing Awareness of CES

How is CES defined within HRD, as well as within your department and institution? To what extent do these groups recognize, encourage, and value CES?

Which CES approaches are most likely to be supported or marginalized within HRD, your institution, and your department? What potential contributions may have been taken for granted or gone unnoticed?

How does CES intersect, inform, and align with HRD scholar-practitioners’ respective research, teaching, and practice?

How can awareness of and appreciation for the different types of contributions from CEF be increased in general, as well as for approaches that differ from one’s own?

In increasing awareness, how can unconscious biases among scholar-practitioners, faculty, administrators, and community stakeholders about CES and CEF be surfaced and addressed?

Evaluating CES

What are the standards and evaluation procedures for CES in HRD, your institution, and your department? How clear and transparent are they?

How will CES be evaluated for impact and rigor? How, if at all, do these processes and standards vary for position types (e.g., contract or tenure-track)?

When evaluating CEFs’ contributions, what safeguards are in place to prevent potential unconscious biases for/against CES in general, for a particular approach to CES, or personal experiences and identities around CES?

To what extent are faculty within HRD, your institution, and your department familiar with the different approaches to CES and able to offer substantive guidance and/or evaluation of engaged work?

How are community stakeholders included in evaluating CES? How much weight, if any, are they given?

Training and Development

To what extent, if any, are HRD faculty development efforts created and customized to support the full range of CEF types?

To what extent, if any, are CES trainings developed in collaboration with and for community stakeholders? Scholar-Practitioners

How are faculty and administrators trained on CES even if they are not themselves CEF?

How are reviewers—journal peer reviewers, editors, senior scholars, external reviewers for promotion and tenure, and so on—trained on assessing the merits and contributions of CES efforts?

Graduate Education and Faculty Pipeline

How should we be preparing HRD students to effectively address the dynamic, complex, and seemingly intractable issues that they will be called upon to address within our organizations and communities?

Is CES an effective way to teach HRD students about the professional ethical responsibilities of being a HRD scholar-practitioner?

For those in the academy, how are community-engaged students and faculty recruited, socialized, and retained in your department?

Considerations for HRD and Professional Associations

With expertise in leadership, organizational change, learning, and organizational culture, how can HRD scholar-practitioners help institutions assess different knowledge generation processes?

How might HRD faculty’s current research focus, teaching, and practice evolve by incorporating CES?

What role can and should associations play in establishing guidelines for defining and evaluating what constitutes high quality CES within HRD?

How can professional associations develop a cadre of senior scholars with expertise in CES who are equipped to serve as external reviewers for junior faculty, as well as consult with institutions who seek assistance on revising the HRD curriculum to integrate CES?

To what extent should all HRD scholar-practitioners consider the impact and relevance of their work for the broader community?

Conclusion

Guarded and limited conceptualizations of scholarship are being challenged and faculty encouraged to collaborate more, integrate knowledge across disciplines, address community concerns, and translate knowledge to serve the broader good (Boyer, 1990; Fitzgerald et al., 2016). CES offers the academy a clear way to respond to these concerns and “retain social relevancy and public legitimacy” (Post et al., 2016, p. 1), while simultaneously providing a means for faculty members to integrate their work, develop their scholarship, and navigate the changing expectations for their roles. CES provides the field of HRD with a way to bridge—or even dissolve (Tyler, 2009)—the gap between the academy and community at large (Tsui, 2013a, 2013b) through knowledge and application (Wang, 2017). CES may also inspire a “curiosity-driven and pragmatic approach to HRD research” (Reio, 2012, p. 284), balancing relevance and rigor in ways that blur and dissolve the divide between HRD scholars in academia and practitioners in the field (Brown & Latham, 2018; Reio, 2012; Saunders, 2011). Hence, HRD scholar-practitioners can and should be agents for CES. The challenge is there.

My hope is that this article increases awareness, invigorates discussion on quality CES in HRD, and prompts reflection and action to develop the scholarship on and practice of CES in higher education. The question is what are we willing and able to do to respond? Have we privileged academia and been guarding a limited view of who can generate knowledge? Within this, have we only been guarding colleagues whose work and approaches align with our own? If we broaden our ways of knowing and approaches to our collective work, might new innovations, collaborations, and generative synergy emerge that could address the wicked, complex problems we’re called to face? As Tsui (2013a) rightly asks, “is our scholarship serving our nation[s] and our world” (p. 137)? Taking this question one step further, what needs to change so that all HRD scholar-practitioners and in particular, faculty, can answer with an emphatic “Yes!”?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Emily A. Morrison is an engaged scholar, working to co-create knowledge that benefits the community and enhances science. She is an assistant professor and directs the Human Services & Social Justice Program at George Washington University.

References

Academy of Human Resource Development. (1999). AHRD Standards on Ethics and Integrity (1st ed.). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Academy of Human Resource Development. (2018). AHRD standards on ethics and integrity (2nd ed.). Richmond, VA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

Academy of Human Resource Development. (2019). https://www.ahrd.org/page/about_ahrd_2

Akdere

(2003). Action research paradigm in the field of training and development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27(8), 413–422.

Akdere

(2004). HRD in community development: A US case study of diverse community development. In Egan

Morrison

(Eds.). Academy of Human Resource Development 2004 International Proceedings. Bowling Green, OH.

Akdere

Egan

T. M.

(2005). Higher education-community partnerships: An HRD perspective. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED492249.pdf

Barker

(2004). The scholarship of engagement: A taxonomy of five emerging practices. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 9(2), 123–137.

Bartunek

J. M.

(2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1323–1333. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.281659

Bartunek

J. M.

Rynes

S. L.

(2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1181–1201.

10.

Bartunek

J. M.

Rynes

S. L.

Ireland

R. D.

(2006). What makes management research interesting and why does it matter? Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 9–15.

11.

Beaulieu

Breton

Brousselle

(2018). Conceptualizing 20 years of engaged scholarship: A scoping review. PLOS ONE, 13(2), Article e0193201.

12.

Bierema

L. L.

Callahan

J. L.

(2014). Transforming HRD: A framework for critical HRD practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(4), 429–444.

13.

Bierema

L. L.

Cseh

(2003). Evaluating AHRD research using a feminist research framework. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 5–26.

14.

Bierema

L. L.

D’Abundo

M. L.

(2004). HRD with a conscience: Practicing socially responsible HRD. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 23(5), 443–458.

15.

Bok

D. C.

(1990). Universities and the future of America. Duke University Press.

16.

Boyer

E. L.

(1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

17.

Boyer

E. L.

(1996). The Scholarship of Engagement. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 49(7), 18–33.

18.

Bringle

R. G.

Games

Malloy

E. A.

(1999). Colleges and universities as citizens. Allyn & Bacon.

19.

Brown

T. C.

Latham

G. P.

(2018). Maintaining relevance and rigor: How we bridge the practitioner–scholar divide within human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29(2), 99–105.

20.

Buzinski

S. G.

Dean

Donofrio

T. A.

Fox

Berger

A. T.

Heighton

L. P.

Selvi

A. F.

Stocker

L. H.

(2013). Faculty and administrative partnerships: Disciplinary differences in perceptions of civic engagement and service-learning at a large, research-extensive university. Partnerships: A Journal of Service-Learning & Civic Engagement, 4(1), 45–75.

21.

Colbeck

C. L.

Weaver

L. D.

(2008). Faculty engagement in public scholarship: A motivation systems theory perspective. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(2), 7–32.

22.

Colbeck

C. L.

Wharton-Michael

(2006). Individual and organizational influences on faculty members’ engagement in public scholarship. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 105, 17–26.

23.

Cruz

N. I.

Giles

D. E.

Jr. (2000). Where’s the community in service-learning research? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7, 28–34.

24.

Delve

C. I.

Mintz

S. D.

Stewart

G. M.

(1990). Promoting values development through community service: A design. In Delve

C. I.

Mintz

S. D.

Stewart

G. M.

(Eds.), Community service as values education (New Directions for Student Services #50) (pp. 7–29). Jossey-Bass.

25.

Demb

Wade

(2012). Reality check: Faculty involvement in outreach & engagement. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 337–366.

26.

Driscoll

Lynton

E. A.

(1999). Making outreach visible: A guide to documenting professional service and outreach. Presented at the AAHE Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards, Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

27.

Fear

Sandmann

L. R.

(1995). Unpacking the service category: Reconceptualizing university outreach for the 21st century. Continuing Higher Education Review, 59(3), 110–122.

28.

Fenwick

Bierema

(2008). Corporate social responsibility: Issues for human resource development professionals. International Journal of Training and Development, 12(1), 24–35.

29.

Fitzgerald

H. E.

Bruns

Sonka

Furco

Swanson

(2016). The centrality of engagement in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 223–243.

30.

Furco

(2010). The engaged campus: Toward a comprehensive approach to public engagement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58, 375–390.

31.

Garavan

T. N.

McGuire

(2010). Human resource development and society: Human resource development’s role in embedding corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and ethics in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 12(5), 487–507.

32.

Giles

D. E.

Jr. Sandmann

L. R.

Saltmarsh

(2010). Engagement and the Carnegie classification system. In Fitzgerald

H. E.

Burack

Seifer

S. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of engaged scholarship: Contemporary landscapes, future directions. Vol. 2: Community-campus partnerships (pp. 161–176). Michigan State University Press.

33.

Glass

Doberneck

Schweitzer

(2011). Unpacking faculty engagement: The types of activities faculty members report as publicly engaged scholarship during promotion and tenure. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(1), 7–30.

34.

Glassick

C. E.

Huber

M. T.

Maeroff

G. I.

(1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. Jossey-Bass.

35.

Hatcher

(2004). On democracy and the workplace. HRD’s battle with DDD (Democracy Deficit Disorder). Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2), 125–129.

36.

Hodgkinson

G. P.

Rousseau

D. M.

(2009). Bridging the rigour-relevance gap in management research: It’s already happening! Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 534–546.

37.

Holland

B. A.

(2001). Toward a definition and characterization of the engaged campus: Six cases. Metropolitan Universities, 12(3), 20–29.

38.

Honnet

E. P.

Poulsen

S. J.

(1989). Principles of good practice for combining service and learning. Johnson Foundation.

39.

Huff

A. S.

(2000). 1999 presidential address: Changes in organizational knowledge production. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 288–293.

40.

Huff

Tranfield

van Aken

J. E.

(2006). Management as a design science mindful of art and surprise: A conversation between Anne Huff, David Tranfield, and Joan Ernst van Aken. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(4), 413–424.

41.

Kezar

A. J.

Chambers

A. C.

Burkhardt

J. C.

(Eds.). (2005). Higher education for the public good: Emerging voices from a national movement. Jossey-Bass.

42.

Kim

Park

J.-Y.

Kolb

J. A.

(2014). Examining the AHRD Standards on Ethics and Integrity using a multiple ethical paradigms approach. Human Resource Development Review, 13(3), 293–313.

43.

Learmonth

(2008). Speaking out: Evidence-based management: A backlash against pluralism in organizational studies? Organization, 15(2), 283–291.

44.

McLean

G. N.

Kuo

M. H.

Budhwani

N. N.

Yamnill

Virakul

(2012). Capacity building for societal development: Case studies in human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(3), 251–263.

45.

McLean

G. N.

McLean

(2001). If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can we define it in another? Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 313–326.

46.

Morrison

E. A.

Wagner

(2016). Exploring faculty perspectives on community-engaged scholarship: The case for Q methodology. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(1), 5–14.

47.

Morrison

E. A.

Wagner

(2017). A community-engaged faculty typology: A self-referent approach to understanding faculty perspectives. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 23(2), 5–23.

48.

Morton

(1995). The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 19–32.

49.

Newman

(1985). Higher education and the American resurgence. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

50.

O’Meara

(2008). Motivation for faculty community engagement: Learning from exemplars. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Involvement, 12(1), 7–29.

51.

O’Meara

(2016). Legitimacy, agency, and inequality: Organizational practices for full participation of community-engaged faculty. In Post

M. A.

Ward

Longo

N. V.

Saltmarsh

(Eds.), Publicly engaged scholars: Next-generation engagement and the future of higher education (pp. 96–109). Stylus.

52.

O’Meara

(2018, August 22). Accurately assessing engaged scholarship. Inside Higher Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2018/08/22/academe-needs-better-evaluate-engaged-scholarship-opinion

53.

O’Meara

Rice

R. E.

(2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. Jossey-Bass.

54.

O’Meara

Sandmann

L. R.

Saltmarsh

Giles

D. E.

(2010). Studying the professional lives and work of faculty involved in community engagement. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 83–96.

55.

Pearl

A. J.

(2015). Community-engaged scholarship in the professoriate: A mixed-methods exploration of faculty motivations, satisfaction, and productivity. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

56.

Post

M. A.

Ward

Longo

N. V.

Saltmarsh

J. A.

(Eds.). (2016). Publicly engaged scholars: Next generation engagement and the future of higher education. Stylus.

57.

Reio

T. G.

Jr. (2012). The need for curiosity-driven scholarship in the field of human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(3), 281–284.

58.

Rice

R. E.

(2002). Beyond scholarship reconsidered: Toward an enlarged vision of the scholarly work of faculty members. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 90, 7–18.

59.

Rice

R. E.

Sorcinelli

M. D.

Austin

A. E.

(2000). Heeding new voices: Academic careers for a new generation. American Association for Higher Education.

60.

Saltmarsh

(2011). Engagement and epistemology. In Saltmarsh

Zlotkowki

(Eds.), Higher education and democracy: Essays on service-learning and civic engagement (pp. 342–353). Temple University Press.

61.

Saltmarsh

Hartley

(2016). The inheritance of next-generation engagement scholars. In Post

M. A.

Ward

Longo

N. V.

Saltmarsh

(Eds.), Publicly engaged scholars: Next-generation engagement and the future of higher education (pp. 15–33). Stylus.

62.

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.

63.

Sandmann

L. R.

(2009). Placing scholarly engagement “on the desk.” Research University Engaged Scholarship Toolkit, Campus Compact.

64.

Sandmann

L. R.

Saltmarsh

O’Meara

(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.

65.

Saunders

M. N. K.

(2011). The management researcher as practitioner—Issues from the interface. In Cassell

Lee

(Eds.), Challenges and controversies in management research (pp. 243–257). Routledge.

66.

Sigmon

R. L.

(1979). Service-learning: Three principles. Synergist. National center for service-learning. Action, 8(1), 9–11.

67.

Storberg-Walker

(2012). Introducing a new paradigm for 21st century HRD: Workforce development and the public good. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14(4), 586–606.

68.

Strand

Marullo

Cutforth

Stoecker

Donohue

(2003). Community based research and higher education: Principles and practices. Jossey-Bass.

69.

Tsui

A. S.

(2013a). Making research engaged: Implications for HRD scholarship. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24(2), 137–143.

70.

Tsui

A. S.

(2013b). On compassion in scholarship: Why should we care? Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 167–180.

71.

Tyler

J. A.

(2009). Moving beyond scholar-practitioner binaries: Exploring the liminal possibilities of the borderlands. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(4), 523–535.

72.

Van Aken

J. E.

(2007). Design science and organization development interventions: Aligning business and humanistic values. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(1), 67–88.

73.

Wade

Demb

(2009). A conceptual model to explore faculty community engagement. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15(2), 5–16.

74.

Wang

(2017). Integrating research and practice: Looking back. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 19(3), 219–231.

75.

Welch

(2016). Engaging higher education: Purpose, platforms, and programs for community engagement. Stylus.

76.

Wendler

(2012). Human subjects’ protection: A source for ethical service-learning practice. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18, 29–39.

77.

Wilensky

A. S.

Hansen

C. D.

(2001). Understanding the work beliefs of nonprofit executives through organizational stories. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(3), 223–239.

78.

Zlotkowski

(2011). Social crises and the faculty response. In Saltmarsh

Zlotkowki

(Eds.), Higher education and democracy: Essays on service-learning and civic engagement (pp. 13–27). Temple University Press.