National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement


The National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement was created to review and evaluate the scholarship of engagement of faculty who are preparing for annual review, promotion and tenure. The board is composed of individuals who represent varied institutions of higher education and a wide range of disciplines, as well as the roles of program directors, vice presidents, vice provosts, presidents, and tenured faculty. These board members have been leaders in the institutionalization of community engagement, service learning, and professional service. The review board members have committed to review and evaluate faculty portfolios for three years and have collaboratively engaged in preparation for the review process.


National Review Board WebsiteOpens in a new window



National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement Evaluation Criteria


Goals/Questions

  • Does the scholar state the basic purpose of the work and its value for public good?
  • Is there an "academic fit" with the scholar's role, departmental and university mission?
  • Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable?
  • Does the scholar identify intellectual and significant questions in the discipline and in the community?



Context of Theory, Literature, "Best Practices"

  • Does the scholar show an understanding of relevant existing scholarship?
  • " Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to the collaboration?
  • " Does the scholar make significant contributions to the work?
  • " Is the work intellectually compelling?


Methods

  • Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals, questions and context of the work?
  • Does the scholar describe rationale for election of methods in relation to context and issue?
  • Does the scholar apply effectively the methods selected?
  • Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances?


Results

  • Does the scholar achieve the goals?
  • Does the scholar's work add consequentially to the discipline and to the community?
  • Does the scholar's work open additional areas for further exploration and collaboration?
  • Does the scholar's work achieve impact or change? Are those outcomes evaluated and by whom?
  • Does the scholar's work make a contribution consistent with the purpose and target of the work over a period of time?


Communication/Dissemination

  • Does the scholar use a suitable styles and effective organization to present the work?
  • Does the scholar communicate/disseminate to appropriate academic and public audiences consistent with the mission of the institution?
  • Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating work to the intended audience?
  • Does the scholar present information with clarity and integrity?


Reflective Critique

  • Does the scholar critically evaluate the work?
  • What are the sources of evidence informing the critique?
  • Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to the critique?
  • In what way has the community perspective informed the critique?
  • Does the scholar use evaluation to learn from the work and to direct future work?
  • Is the scholar involved in a local, state and national dialogue related to the work?