[download PDF file]
Administrative Advisory Committee:
Shirley Baugher, Dean, College of Human Ecology
John Brandl, Dean, Humphrey Institute
Charles Casey, Dean, University of Minnesota Extension Service,
Co-chair
Frank Cerra, Sr. Vice President, Academic Health Center
Thomas Fisher, Dean, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Mary Heltsley, Associate Vice President for Outreach (Administrative
Leave)
Jeffrey Klausner, Dean, Veterinary Medicine
Kjell Knudsen, Dean, School of Business & Economics, UMD
Geri Malandra, Associate Vice Provost, Ex Officio
Charles Muscoplat, Vice President and Dean, COAFES, Co-chair
Mary Nichols, Dean, College of Continuing Education
Donna Peterson, Associate Vice President, University Relations
Donald Sargeant, Chancellor, UMN-Crookston
John (Fritz) Schwallr, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, UMN
Morris
Alfred Sullivan, Dean, College of Natural Resources
Billie Wahlstrom, Vice Provost, Ex Officio
Steven Yussen, Dean, College of Education and Human Development
Table of Contents
Charge to Committee
Executive Summary
Section 1: Scope
Section 2: Values
Section 3: Priorities/Communication
Section 4: Expenditures
Section 5: Central Leadership
Charge Statement from Robert Bruininks, Executive Vice President
and Provost
September 17, 2001
"Provide a report with recommendations for improving funding, accountability,
and communication strategies with respect to the University's public
engagement/outreach activities."
Executive Summary of Recommnedations
This document is based on the following core principals: Engagement
is part of the core mission of the University of Minnesota that
enhances teaching and research and/or serves the public good. Engagement
provides good will. Because there is ever increasing accountability,
there is a compelling reason to better define public engagement/outreach
in order to determine the best means of financing public engagement.
UMN needs to determine how these expenses are covered, the source
of revenue, and the kind of revenue including sponsored, non-sponsored
funds and gifts.
Recommendation: Scope
The University of Minnesota might use the following definition for
public engagement/outreach: An engaged university strengthens and
transforms community and economy; applies knowledge to address key
social issues in teaching and research; informs its discovery agenda
through teaching and outreach, and values the open marketplace of
ideas.
Recommendation: Value
The people of Minnesota should value public engagement/outreach
at the University of Minnesota for the following reasons:
The University provides access to new knowledge; speaks with a trusted
voice; provides relevant research and teaching; the University's
learning environment is enhanced to promote interaction between
learners and teachers; and it uses the tools of engagement to foster
the public good.
Recommendations: Priorities/Communication
Recommendation 1
The University should be proactive in communicating with the public
regarding outreach. Powerful messages can be framed for the public
focusing on the results of outreach rather than the activity of
outreach, and emphasizing the powerful synergy between teaching,
research, and outreach. Outreach results that are transforming in
their impact often take years to come to fruition, and the public
needs to be aware of the process and progress being made.
Recommendation 2
In its external communication, the University should focus on relationships
between collegiate units and their primary constituents as the crucible
in which the most meaningful outreach with the most significant
public benefit is forged, recognizing also that interdisciplinary
relationships often contribute to the results they achieve and the
messages they can convey.
Recommendation 3
Because the results of outreach efforts may take years to come to
fruition, collegiate units should be evaluated on their ability
to establish and manage mutually productive relationships with their
primary constituents, and their success in achieving an appropriate
level of funding for their outreach, which is a reflection of its
value.
Recommendation 4
Recognizing the public's perception that the University is a personal
and constituent resource for information, the University should
manage expectations about its capacity to provide responses to every
constituent.
Recommendations: Cost
The University should define the parameters and determine the expenditures
of public engagement using a set of tools made available to colleges,
departments, and campuses.
Recommendation 1
Define parameters of public engagement/outreach in order to be clear
when asked for the costs and return on investment.
Recommendation 2
Determine the expenditures of public engagement using a set of tools
made available to colleges/departments/campuses and following a
common template:
- Expenditures analysis should be done over a multiple year period
establishing a track record for the college, unit, or campus;
- Tools may include an external review using standard cost models
and an internal Internet template to determine faculty, civil
service, and other indirect costs.
- Descriptive statistics of public engagement /outreach should
be included to provide a narrative of the kinds of engagement
that exists.
Recommendation 3
Create guidelines for how much of public engagement/outreach should
be covered to sustain existing good will and mission, finding new
funding methods, or be eliminated.
- If engagement is necessary for teaching and research in a particular
college, then resources can be allocated accordingly.
- There is a need to prioritize what is paid for by fees, grants,
sponsored and non-sponsored funds, tuition revenues and where
costs can be shifted to make the best and most appropriate use
of available resources.
Recommendation: Leadership
One of the following options/alternatives to provide central leadership
for public engagement should be considered:
- Place Public Engagement in the portfolio of one or several people
in central administration
- Have each college/coordinate campus appoint a liaison for public
engagement
- Establish a coordinating council with a chair designate to report
to the Provost
- Coordinate with other University-wide efforts with University
Relations, alumni, and foundations
Section 1: Scope
What is the definition of public engagement and outreach? In order
to define public engagement, the committee began with definitions
developed at peer institutions, NASULGC, Kellogg, and elsewhere.
An exemplary, engaged University
- Strengthens and transforms community and economy;
- Applies knowledge to address key social issues in its teaching
and research;
- Informs its discovery agenda through teaching and outreach;
and
- Values the open marketplace of ideas.
An engaged university can be recognized by its responsiveness;
respect for partners; institutional neutrality; balanced scholarship;
accessibility; integration; coordination; and, resource partnerships.
As an engaged institution, the University of Minnesota must
- Be organized to respond to the needs of today's tomorrow's students,
not yesterday's.
- Enrich students' experiences by bringing research/discovery
and engagement into the curriculum and by offering practical opportunities
for students to prepare for the world they will enter.
- Put its critical resources (knowledge and expertise) to work
on the problems the communities it serves identify.
Scope of outreach
Outreach activities are separated from the other activities of the
University only incompletely and with difficulty. Outreach activities
are integrated into the daily activities of University personnel.
Using a "first-contact" definition, outreach would encompass all
the first-hand experiences people have with University resources
through people, media, print, and technology. From a broader perspective,
outreach would include the impact research discoveries and teaching
have on our community.
Recommendation
The University of Minnesota should use the following definition
for public engagement/outreach: An exemplary engaged university
strengthens and transforms community and economy; applies knowledge
to address key social issues in teaching and research; informs its
discovery agenda through teaching and outreach, and values the open
marketplace of ideas.
Definitions Workgroup: Shirley Baugher (Chair), Geri Malandra,
Billie Wahlstrom
Section 2: Value
Why should the people of Minnesota value public engagement/outreach
at the University of Minnesota?
The University provides access to new knowledge.
- Public engagement is a way for citizens and their communities
to have a voice at the University. Community needs inform teaching
in the classroom and research/discovery in the laboratory, ensuring
relevance of the academic enterprise.
- New knowledge can be translated and applied to address individual
and community needs.
- The next generation of professionals is a tangible University
product. Their continuing education is essential to the quality
of life for all citizens.
- Technology enhances access to the intellectual assets of the
University.
The University speaks with a trusted voice.
- Education at the University is world-class, ranging from formal
credit and degree programs to informal life-long learning opportunities.
Students emerge equipped to recognize and discuss issues of importance.
- Research that produces new knowledge is balanced and unbiased.
- The University creates "public spaces" in which faculty and
citizens can wrestle with pressing and sometimes controversial
contemporary issues.
Why should the University of Minnesota value public engagement outreach?
Public engagement makes research and teaching more relevant
- Public engagement is a way for the University to listen to and
learn from the people it serves, enriching the institution's research/discovery
and teaching agenda.
- As engagement with an informed citizenry increases, the University's
capacity to address current societal issues will increase.
The University's learning environment is enhanced.
- Through public engagement, faculty's ability to learn through
research and discovery as well as its ability to enhance teaching
is enhanced.
- Public engagement provides for the creation of virtual and actual
spaces where faculty and learners can come together as citizens.
- An engaged curriculum yields learners who are better prepared
to contribute to the public good as a result of their exposure
to relevant research and teaching.
Public Engagement/outreach builds public support.
- The University uses the tools of civic engagement to shape its
contribution to the public good so that it will be valued and
visible.
- Stakeholders will understand and experience the University's
public value.
- The University's ivory tower/silo culture will change.
Recommendation
The people of Minnesota should value public engagement/outreach
at the University of Minnesota for the following reasons: The University
provides access to new knowledge; speaks with a trusted voice; provides
relevant research and teaching; the University's learning environment
is enhanced to promote interaction between learners and teachers;
and it uses the tools of engagement to foster the public good.
Value Workgroup: Chuck Casey (Chair), Al Sullivan, John Brandl,
Don Sargeant
Section 3: Priorities/Communication
How can engagement be viewed proactively?
Framing outreach/access/engagement for the public
- Starts from the premise that outreach/access/engagement has
had enormous impact on the State and the broader society over
the years;
- Defines outreach/access/engagement clearly and explains its
synergistic relationship with teaching and research;
- Focuses on results, not current activities. What matters is
not how much we can demonstrate that we spend or how extensive
the list of activities in which we engage, but what results can
be demonstrated;
- Requires that a long-term perspective be applied, recognizing
that some outcomes we are experiencing now are actually the result
of work done 10-25 years ago (e.g., companies founded and jobs
created, leaders educated, breakthrough inventions yielding new
products or methodologies);
Collegiate units should be central in determining Outreach priorities
- Some outreach results in benefits to the general public (e.g.,
medical breakthroughs or major companies like Medtronic founded).
Nevertheless, outreach occurs most often through sustained relationships
with primary constituents or direct stakeholders, and it is often
through those relationships that the public good is served.
- Collegiate units have different primary constituencies, and
both in the specific and the aggregate, these constituencies make
up the public.
- Strategic relationships with primary constituents are the most
meaningful long-term, and should be fostered as a function of
outreach initiatives;
- Colleges should be expected to engage in outreach that is strategic
for them, and if they do, they will be achieving "the greater
good" for the greater number of people;
- The synergies to be gained between teaching-research-outreach
will be different for different colleges (e.g.,Medical School
and CLA);
- The economic model for funding outreach will vary across colleges,
with different reliance on fees for service, grant funding, central
subsidy, etc.
What expectations should the University and the public have
for colleges with respect to outreach, and how should collegiate
efforts be evaluated?
- The University should expect colleges to be linked with their
primary constituents in meaningful ways so useful information
can flow between them.
- Colleges should be expected to "close the loop" so that when
input is obtained from constituents of a college, the college
subsequently shares how it has responded and why.
- Collegiate units should be asked if they are using an economic
model that responsibly funds outreach not at the expense of teaching
or research but in proportion to the benefits to all.
Not all outreach/access/engagement efforts can be conducted
on the collegiate level, and the same questions with regard to "expectations"
that are asked of colleges could be applied here as well.
An effort needs to be made to capture results that are not captured
with a collegiate-level of analysis. These efforts might include
the following:
- Results from interdisciplinary activities such as research centers
or joint research or teaching programs;
- Public access to library and other commonly-held resources;
- Programming and attendance at various museums and galleries
as well as sporting and other cultural events; and
- Course access for non-admitted students.
Recommendation 1
The University should be proactive in communicating with the
public regarding outreach. Powerful messages can be framed for the
public focusing on the results of outreach rather than the activity
of outreach, and emphasizing the powerful synergy between teaching,
research, and outreach. Outreach results that are transforming in
their impact often take years to come to fruition, and the public
needs to be aware of the process and progress being made.
Recommendation 2
In its external communication, the University should focus on
relationships between collegiate units and their primary constituents
as the crucible in which the most meaningful outreach with the most
significant public benefit is forged, recognizing also that interdisciplinary
relationships often contribute to the results they achieve and the
messages they can convey.
Recommendation 3
Because the results of outreach efforts may take years to come
to fruition, collegiate units should be evaluated on their ability
to establish and manage mutually productive relationships with their
primary constituents, and their success in achieving an appropriate
level of funding for their outreach, which is a reflection of its
value.
Recommendation 4
Recognizing the public's perception that the University is a
personal resource for information, the University should manage
expectations about its capacity to provide responses to every constituent.
External Work Group: Mary Nichols (Chair), Kjell Knutsen, Donna
Peterson, Jan Swanson
Section 4: Cost
What are the expenditures of public engagement/outreach?
- The University should define the parameters and determine the
expenditures of public engagement using a set of tools made available
to colleges, departments, and campuses.
- An expenditures analysis should be done over a multiple year
period establishing a track record for the colleges, units, and
campuses.
- Tools used to determine expenditures might include an external
review using standard cost allocation models and an internal Internet
template to determine faculty, civil service, and other indirect
costs including infrastructure
- Despite the complexity of determining what resources are actually
allocated to teaching, research and engagement, such an analysis
may be complex but can and should be done.
Recommendation 1
Define the parameters of public engagement/outreach in order
to be clear when asked for the costs and return on investment.
Recommendation 2
Determine the expenditures of public engagement using a set
of tools made available to colleges/departments/campuses and following
a common template:
- Expenditures analysis should be done over a multiple year period
establishing a track record for the college, unit, or campus;
- Tools may include an external review using standard cost models
and an internal Internet template to determine faculty, civil
service, and other indirect costs.
- Descriptive statistics of public engagement /outreach should
be included to provide a narrative of the kinds of engagement
that exists.
How is public engagement/outreach financially supported?
Recommendation 3
Create guidelines for how much of public engagement/outreach
should be covered to sustain existing good will and mission, finding
new methods, or be eliminated.
- If engagement is necessary for teaching and research in a particular
college, then resources can be allocated accordingly.
- There is a need to prioritize what is paid for by fees, grants,
sponsored and non-sponsored funds, tuition revenues and where
costs can be shifted to make the best use of available resources.
Internal Expenditures Workgroup: Chuck Muscoplat (Chair), Terry
Bock, Tom Fisher, Steve Yussen
Section 5: Central Leadership
What are the recommendations for central leadership for public
engagement?
The consensus of the Administrative Advisory Committee of Public
Engagement/Outreach is that leadership from central administration
is essential for coordination and integration of public engagement
issues into the overall priorities of the University. Public engagement
addresses the land-grant mission of the institution. Public engagement
can create synergy between teaching and research. Public engagement
needs to be in the portfolio of one or several individuals in the
central administration. Public engagement will receive increasing
attention in the next decade. Public engagement helps articulate
the public value of the University to the people of the state.
Central leadership might include the following responsibilities:
- Coordinate various public engagement efforts
- Serve as a voice at the table for the value of public engagement
at the UMN
- Articulate the value of public engagement, its benefits and
challenges
- Oversee overall budget for public engagement
- Integrate with initiatives such as the portal project
- Serve an integrator for issues like community service awards,
civic engagement, vital aging, etc.
- Coordinate efforts of colleges, centers, and coordinate campus
efforts
- Communicate public engagement efforts
- Work with University Relations to "tell the story"
- Become a central contact point for community requests
- Expand Extension and CCE as a model to other colleges
Recommendation
One of the following options/alternatives to provide central
leadership for public engagement should be considered:
- Place Public Engagement in the portfolio of one or several people
in central administration
- Have each college/coordinate campus appoint a liaison for public
engagement
- Establish a coordinating council with a chair designate to report
to the Provost
- Coordinate with other University-wide efforts with University
Relations, alumni, and foundations
|
Return
to: U of M Home
