With current crises of academic relevance and legitimacy, there is a need for epistemic equity inherent to community-engaged research. Scholars in science communication and science and technology studies have analyzed, advocated for, and conducted public engagement in pursuit of this goal. However, despite desires to celebrate public engagement, US academic institutions and organizations often present barriers to meaningful community-engaged research. From tenure and promotion requirements, to lack of recognition and resources, universities in the American academic landscape are not currently organized to support such work. In this article, we offer a conceptual framework to examine the complex structural dimensions of academic institutions that have systematically discouraged and devalued faculty participation in community-engaged scholarship. We outline four such structural dimensions: interrogating epistemic biases, neoliberalist tendencies, gendered norms, and colonial-racist defaults. Our goal is to illuminate processes that could inform interventions to bridge the gap between academic aspirations for community-engaged work and current actions in the academy that undermine it.
AdameF (2021) Meaningful collaborations can end “helicopter research.”Nature. Epub ahead of print 29 June. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-021-01795-1.
2.
AlperinJNievesCSchimanskiLFischmanGENilesMTMcKiernanEC (2019) How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion, and tenure documents?Elife8: e42254.
3.
AntonioAL (2002) Faculty of color reconsidered: Reassessing contributions to scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education73(5): 582–602.
4.
AntonioALAstinHSCressCM (2000) Community service in higher education: A look at the nation’s faculty. The Review of Higher Education23(4): 373–397.
5.
BauderH (2005) The segmentation of academic labour: A Canadian example. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies4(2): 228–239.
6.
BeaulieuMBretonMBrousselleA (2018) Conceptualizing 20 years of engaged scholarship: A scoping review. PLoS ONE13(2): e0193201.
7.
BellMZ (2022) The epistemic tensions of nuclear waste siting in a nuclear landscape. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space. Epub ahead of print 22 August 2022. DOI: 10.1177/25148486221117947.
8.
BesleyJCNewmanTPDudoATiffanyLA (2020) Exploring scholars’ public engagement goals in Canada and the United States. Public Understanding of Science29(8): 855–867.
9.
BickerstaffKLorenzoniIJonesMPidgeonN (2010) Locating scientific citizenship: The institutional contexts and cultures of public engagement. Science, Technology, & Human Values35(4): 474–500.
10.
BokDC (1982) Beyond the Ivory Tower. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
BonneyRPhillipsTBBallardHLEnckJW (2016) Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?Public Understanding of Science25(1): 2–16.
12.
BoyerEL (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. New York, NY: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
13.
BrackmannSM (2015) Community engagement in a neoliberal paradigm. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement19(4): 115–146.
14.
BryanCJTiptonEYeagerDS (2021) Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nature Human Behaviour5(8): 980–989.
15.
BurrowsR (2012) Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review60(2): 355–372.
16.
CavallaroCC (2016) Recognizing engaged scholarship in faculty reward structures: Challenges and progress. Metropolitan Universities27(2): 2–6.
17.
ChangfootNAndréePLevkoeCZNilsonMGoemansM (2020) Engaged scholarship in tenure and promotion: Autoethnographic insights from the fault lines of a shifting landscape. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning26(1): 239–263.
CheryanSMarkusHR (2020) Masculine defaults: Identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychological Review127(6): 1022–1052.
20.
ColbeckCLWharton-MichaelP (2006) Individual and organizational influences on faculty members’ engagement in public scholarship. New Directions for Teaching and Learning2006(105): 17–26.
21.
da CruzCG (2018) Community-engaged scholarship: Toward a shared understanding of practice. The Review of Higher Education41(2): 147–167.
22.
DelgadoALein KjølbergKWicksonF (2011) Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 826–845.
23.
DembAWadeA (2012) Reality check: Faculty involvement in outreach & engagement. The Journal of Higher Education83(3): 337–366.
24.
DeWineS (2005) Contributions of engaged scholarship to the academic community. In: SimpsonJLShockley-ZalabakP (eds) Engaging Communication, Transforming Organizations: Scholarship of Engagement in Action. New York, NY: Hampton Press, pp. 191–202.
25.
DobbinFKalevA (2018) Why doesn’t diversity training work? The challenge for industry and academia. Anthropology Now10(2): 48–55.
26.
EckelPHillBGreenM (1998) En Route to Transformation. On Change: An Occasional Paper Series of the ACE Project on Leadership and Institutional Transformation. Washington, DC: American Council On Education.
27.
EditorialN (2018) The best research is produced when researchers and communities work together. Nature562(7725): 7.
28.
EpsteinS (1995) The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology, & Human Values20(4): 408–437.
29.
FeltU (2016) II making knowledge, people, and societies. In: FeltUFouchéRMillerCASmith-DoerrL (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 4th edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 253–258.
30.
FoucaultM (2008) Power/knowledge. New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
GaventaJCornwallA (2008) Power and knowledge. In: ReasonPBradburyH (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, 2nd edn.London: SAGE, pp. 172–189.
32.
GiridharadasA (2019) Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
33.
GrzankaPColeE (2021) An argument for bad psychology: Disciplinary disruption, public engagement, and social transformation. American Psychologist76: 1334–1345.
34.
HaleCR (2008) Engaging Contradictions. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
35.
HarawayD (1990) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York, NY: Routledge.
36.
HardingS (2016) Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
37.
HartleySPearceWTaylorA (2017) Against the tide of depoliticisation: The politics of research governance. Policy & Politics45(3): 361–377.
38.
HaywoodBKBesleyJC (2014) Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: Towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science. Public Understanding of Science23(1): 92–106.
39.
HenrichJHeineSJNorenzayanA (2010) The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences33(2–3): 61–83.
40.
HicksDWoutersPWaltmanLde RijckeSRafolsI (2015) Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature520(7548): 429–431.
41.
HoffmanAJ (2016) Reflections: Academia’s emerging crisis of relevance and the consequent role of the engaged scholar. Journal of Change Management16(2): 77–96.
42.
HoodP (2002) Perspectives on Knowledge Utilization in Education. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
43.
HumphreysLLewisNAJrSenderKWonAS (2021) Integrating qualitative methods and open science: Five principles for more trustworthy research. Journal of Communication71: 855–874.
44.
IrwinA (2002) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
JaegerAJJamesonJKClaytonP (2012) Institutionalization of community-engaged scholarship at institutions that are both land-grant and research universities. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement16(1): 149–170.
46.
JasanoffS (2003) Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva41(3): 223–244.
47.
JasanoffS (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
JasanoffS (2016) The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
49.
JasanoffSSimmetHR (2017) No funeral bells: Public reason in a “post-truth” age. Social Studies of Science47(5): 751–770.
50.
KajnerTA (2015) Living Well with Others: Exploring Community-Engaged Scholarship in Canadian Higher Education. Edmonton, AB, Canada: University of Alberta.
51.
LedgerwoodAHudsonS-kTJLewisNAJrMaddoxKBPickettCLRemediosJD, et al. (2021) The pandemic as a portal: Reimagining psychological science as truly open and inclusive. Perspectives on Psychological Science17: 937–959.
52.
LewinK (1946) Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues2(4): 34–46.
53.
LewisNAJ (2020) Open communication science: A primer on why and some recommendations for how. Communication Methods and Measures14(2): 71–82.
54.
LewisNAJ (2021a) Can we achieve “equality” when we have different understandings of its meaning? How contexts and identities shape the pursuit of egalitarian goals. Psychological Inquiry32: 155–164.
55.
LewisNAJ (2021b) What counts as good science? How the battle for methodological legitimacy affects public psychology. American Psychologist76: 1323–1333.
56.
LewisNAJWaiJ (2021) Communicating what we know and what isn’t so: Science communication in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science16: 1242–1254.
57.
LeydesdorffLWardJ (2005) Science shops: A kaleidoscope of science–society collaborations in Europe. Public Understanding of Science14(4): 353–372.
58.
LohP (2016) Community–university collaborations for environmental justice: Toward a transformative co-learning model. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy26(3): 412–428.
59.
MarcinkowskiFKohringMFürstSFriedrichsmeierA (2014) Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public: An empirical investigation. Science Communication36(1): 56–80.
60.
MitchellT (2002) Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
MooreTLWardK (2010) Institutionalizing faculty engagement through research, teaching, and service at research universities. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning17(1): 44–58.
63.
MountzABondsAMansfieldBLoydJHyndmanJWalton-RobertsM, et al. (2015) For slow scholarship: A feminist politics of resistance through collective action in the neoliberal university. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies14(4): 1235–1259.
64.
NossRF (2020) Handbook of Citizen Science in Ecology and Conservation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
65.
O’MearaK (2002) Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. The Review of Higher Education26(1): 57–80.
66.
O’MearaK (2008) Motivation for faculty community engagement: Learning from exemplars. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement12(1): 7–30.
67.
OnyeadorINHudsonS-kTLewisNAJr (2021) Moving beyond implicit bias training: Policy insights for increasing organizational diversity. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences8(1): 19–26.
68.
OwenRStilgoeJMacnaghtenP (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy42(9): 1568–1580.
69.
PandyaRE (2012) A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment10(6): 314–317.
70.
PereiraMdM (2017) Power, Knowledge and Feminist Scholarship: An Ethnography of Academia. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
71.
PetersSJJordanNRMargaretA (2005) Engaging Campus and Community: The Practice of Public Scholarship in the State and Land-grant University System. Dayton, OH: Kettering Foundation.
72.
PhilipK (2004) Civilizing Natures: Race, Resources, and Modernity in Colonial South India. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
73.
PidgeonNRogers-HaydenT (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or ‘upstream engagement’?Health, Risk & Society9(2): 191–210.
74.
RennOBaghramianMCapaccioliMRijckeSDDrotnerKDubertretL, et al. (2019) Making sense of science for policy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. Evidence Review Report No. 6. Berlin: SAPEA.
75.
RieschHPotterC (2014) Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Understanding of Science23(1): 107–120.
76.
RobertsMR (2009) Realizing societal benefit from academic research: Analysis of the National Science Foundation’s broader impacts criterion. Social Epistemology23(3–4): 199–219.
77.
RobinsonJAHawthorneTL (2018) Making space for community-engaged scholarship in geography. The Professional Geographer70(2): 277–283.
78.
RoseKMMarkowitzEMBrossardD (2020) Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(3): 1274–1276.
79.
RothsteinH (2013) Domesticating participation: Participation and the institutional rationalities of science-based policy-making in the UK Food Standards Agency. Journal of Risk Research16(6): 771–790.
80.
SaltmarshJGilesDEJrO’MearaKSandmannLWardEBuglioneSM (2009) Community engagement and institutional culture in higher education: An investigation of faculty reward policies at engaged campuses. In: MoelyBBilligSHHollandB (eds) Creating Our Identities in Service-Learning and Community Engagement. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, pp. 3–29.
81.
SandmannLSaltmarshJO’MearaK (2008) An integrated model for advancing the scholarship of engagement: Creating academic homes for the engaged scholar. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement12(1): 47–64.
82.
SandmannLR (2008) Conceptualization of the scholarship of engagement in higher education: A strategic review, 1996–2006. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement12(1): 91–104.
83.
SethS (2009) Putting knowledge in its place: Science, colonialism, and the postcolonial. Postcolonial Studies12(4): 373–388.
84.
SettlesIHJonesMKBuchananNTDotsonK (2020) Epistemic exclusion: Scholar (ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education14: 493–507.
85.
ShavitASilverY (2022) Academic excellence and community relevance: Can we have it all?Public Understanding of Science31(3): 314–322.
SlaughterSRhoadesG (2000) The neo-liberal university. New Labor Forum6(Spring–Summer): 73–79.
88.
SmithRDHartleySMiddletonPJewittT (2021) Knowing when to talk? Plant genome editing as a site for pre-engagement institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science30(6): 740–758.
89.
SonerydL (2016) Technologies of participation and the making of technologized futures. In: ChilversJKearnesM (eds) Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 144–161.
90.
StengersI (2018) Another Science Is Possible: A Manifesto for Slow Science. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
91.
StilgoeJLockSJWilsdonJ (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15.
SubramaniamBFosterLHardingSRoyDTallBearK (2016) Feminism, postcolonialism, technoscience. In: FeltUFouchéRMillerCASmith-DoerrL (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 4th edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 407–434.
94.
van GroenigenJWStoofCR (2020) Helicopter research in soil science: A discussion. Geoderma373: 114418.
95.
VogelgesangLJDensonNJayakumarUM (2010) What determines faculty-engaged scholarship?The Review of Higher Education33(4): 437–472.
96.
WadeADembA (2009) A conceptual model to explore faculty community engagement. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning15(2): 5–16.
97.
WardEC (2010) Women’s Ways of Engagement: An Exploration of Gender, the Scholarship of Engagement and Institutional Rewards Policy and Practice. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst.
98.
WardK (2003) Faculty Service Roles and the Scholarship of Engagement. Washington, DC: ERIC Publications.
99.
WarrenMRCalderónJKupscznkLASquiresGSuC (2018) Is collaborative, community-engaged scholarship more rigorous than traditional scholarship? On advocacy, bias, and social science research. Urban Education53(4): 445–472.
100.
WeertsDJSandmannLR (2008) Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities. The Review of Higher Education32(1): 73–106.
101.
WynneB (1989) Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment: Science Policy for Sustainable Development31(2): 10–39.
102.
WynneB (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science–hitting the notes, but missing the music?Public Health Genomics9(3): 211–220.
