Public Engagement

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about a mild dispute in the local newspaper between two of my faculty friends about whether engineering is indeed a discipline that serves people. I think that the answer ended up as a resounding "yes", but that engineering sometimes hides its human side under a barrel. Browsing through some recent notes, I came across two items that make the case clear.

First, a notice from the engineering web site at Purdue University celebrating the selection by Campus Compact of William Oakes, associate professor of engineering education and co-director of Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS) at Purdue, as the recipient of the 2006 Thomas Ehrlich Faculty Award for Service-Learning. To quote from the web site,

Oakes was chosen for his effective use of service-learning, which integrates community service with classroom work, as well as for expanding the use of service-learning domestically and internationally by pioneering model programs and publishing guiding literature.

Oakes describes service-learning as his "passion." He co-founded the national EPICS program, which offers a sustainable and adaptable teaching model that has been adopted by 17 universities across the United States and abroad. At Purdue, the EPICS program consists of 80 different projects running concurrently that may last as long as ten years. Projects may be aimed at improving water purity, technology education, playground safety, or myriad other community uses of engineering and technology. Oakes is co-author of a recent textbook titled Service-Learning: Engineering in Your Community (Great Lakes Press, 2006), as well as author of an online resource, Service-Learning in Engineering: A Resource Guidebook (Campus Compact, 2004).

I was at the Campus Compact meeting in Chicago where the award was conferred, and what pleased me most was the clear evidence that an engineer could get tenure at a top-ranked, hard-nosed engineering school largely on the basis of engaged teaching. Of course, Oakes's work is innovative and world-class; but that's how teaching—just like research—should be evaluated in any case.

Second, an item last week from our local African-American newspaper, the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, entitled U program exposes Black girls to science and engineering. According to the article,

Last month, in honor of Black History Month and National Engineers Week (February 18-24), the University of Minnesota’s Academic Programs for Excellence in Engineering and Science (APEXES) hosted 60 girls from the Minneapolis Afrocentric charter school Harvest Prep Academy.

“The purpose of the visit is to expose students to different fields of engineering and sciences through hands-on projects,” APEXES Outreach Associate Richard Pollard explained. “By exposing children to science and engineering at younger ages, we have more time to equip them for academic excellence in math and science, which in turn will prepare them to compete at a higher level in college and beyond.”

...

APEXES is a program in the U’s Institute of Technology that encourages academic excellence in engineering, physical sciences, and mathematics. The program focuses on students of color and women, and works to increase the number of students from underrepresented populations who earn degrees in these disciplines.

Given the shortage of both women and African-American students in engineering and the physical sciences, a program like APEXES is enormously valuable.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 05:52 AM | Permalink

This entry was written by Steve Mullaney, an undergrad at the University of Minnesota, member of the Student Committee on Public Engagement (SCOPE), and student employee in the Office for Public Engagement. It's an interesting account of how engagement can be integrated into student life.

Roughly a year and a half ago I ate at Moti Mahal, an Indian restaurant on 29th and Franklin, with other members of the Global Studies Student Association. At the time I was not yet a global studies student, but hung out with them a lot—including this dinner. This, of course made for some really interesting conversation:

“So, what’s your concentration within global studies?”

“Actually, I’m not in global studies.”

“Really?”

“Really.”

“So, what are you doing here?” I had this conversation about a dozen times that night.

Dinner was complicated. People showed up at various points in the evening and the seating at our table spilled into the aisles. Our bill read like the instruction manual for a nuclear warhead. After much mathematical calculation (not our skill set, although we could name the problematic in the numerical quantification of the basic units of survival) we determined what each person owed.

And then, some guy, stopped the conversation: “I have no money. You will have to pay for me.”

Silence. We glanced around the table nervously, hoping that in a fit of Minnesota Nice someone would do something.

“What did you say, I didn’t quite catch that,” someone choked out.

“I have no money. You will have to pay for me.”

That was what he said. Rrrr.

More uncomfortable silence until finally, Everett and Nadia said that they would take that portion of the bill. We really bonded over the experience which didn’t seem to faze either one of them at all. Everett made casual mention of a pasta dinner that he’d hosted at his apartment. Every Wednesday for the past year or so.

“Could I bring something?” It was free. Whatever. He said that he was more interested in gathering people and having a good time. Charging seemed awkward and a donations jar imposing, so it was free.

And wonderful. Pasta Dinner is one of the freest spaces that I’ve ever been to: every week is different and there have been new people at each dinner. I’ve witnessed a break dance battle, an impromptu soprano sax performance, sing-along’s to Gnarls Barkley’s “Crazy” and some of the most interesting conversation I’ve ever had. A Wednesday night fixture, I plan on being a part of the community for a long time.

***

The founding of Pasta Dinner, roughly two and a half years ago, is a great story in public achievement. Two guys, Everett and Bobek, found themselves in a new town without people that they knew. Wanting to create a community they opened up their apartment every Wednesday evening to whoever wanted to stop by for pasta. Quickly, they had the meal down to a science—able to feed dozens of people for under thirty dollars a week. Growth was slow: at first just a few members from an Arabic class, but this has since expanded to include various diverse subcultures: Baha’is, Global Studies students, social justice oriented folks, Irish dancers, band members, residents of Franklin Ave, and so forth.

Space really resonates with people at Pasta Dinner. As soon as people walked in the door they were greeted and made to feel valuable and welcome. Many productive things flowed out of this space, whether it was folks attending lectures or concerts, studying something together, planning events or simply going swimming—the space generated action.

The space worked because of the culture of Pasta Dinner: the focus of pasta dinner is the relationships, not numbers (nobody takes/cares for attendance), or other quantifiable ways (we don’t really measure much of anything at all). These relationships, however, do not exist in a vacuum: because everyone is organized around the concept of building a stronger community, the relationships that we have are productive. Although folks undoubtedly value each other far more than an abstract concept like “public engagement” the concept is in the back of most everyone’s mind—whether they possess the academic language of public engagement or not. Ultimately, because Pasta Dinner is a space which is open—as opposed to one more thing in a busy schedule—folks are able to come and go as they please, be it every week or twice a year.

***

With Pasta Dinner as a model a group of us set out to create a space in the Dinkytown neighborhood which takes advantage of space as opposed to events (one time only things) and programs (movie series, etc.). We want to open up space to take advantage of the flexibility that it allows a group WITHOUT losing the intentionality that comes by focusing on public engagement. Taking advantage of free food as a motivating factor a group of students has been meeting at Duffy’s Pizza every late Tuesday evening with the intention of doing something radical in the community.

Originally focused on throwing some large event, we were all moved by the question “How can we build community externally if we don’t build internally first?” So that’s what we’re doing. Although we haven’t made the news yet, keep an eye out. When a dozen or two folks decide to very consciously pursue community-oriented goals there’s no telling what might happen.

By focusing on creating space, valuing relationships, and really consciously building an internal community which we hope to extend externally we hope to build on the model of Pasta Dinner and forge new ways of doing public engagement for busy people who still care about the neighborhoods they live in.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 03:14 AM | Permalink

The Sunday Star Tribune had a though-provoking and important op-ed article by Lori Sturdevant, one of our best columnists on public policy and higher education issues. Sturdevant writes

Fifty years ago next month, the Minnesota Legislature did something only one other state had come close to doing before. It decreed that "every school district ... shall provide special instruction and services for handicapped children of school age who are resident of such district."

Special education was born here. It's as proud a Minnesota export as Spam and Scotch tape. Maybe prouder.

The main import of the story is that this requirement is a badly underfunded mandate, and is putting severe financial burdens on school districts that have to make up the difference. However, there's some interesting Minnesota history in the piece. Two of the prime movers were Al Quie and Elmer Anderson, who later became two of our most distinguished governors and elder statesmen. The impetus came from the work of a University of Minnesota professor:

The possibility that many developmentally disabled children might be educated and become full participants in society was ripe for interim commission treatment in 1955. Warehousing the handicapped in state hospitals was increasingly seen as inhumane, costly and, with modern therapies, unnecessary. Research at the University of Minnesota by a visionary professor named Maynard Reynolds was showing what was possible with what eventually was called "mainstreaming."

This is the sort of outcome that shows the full promise of public engagement: a professor doing research that challenges the received wisdom, who then connects with government and civic leaders who use their knowledge, stature, and persuasive powers to improve society.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 12:05 PM | Permalink

Disparities in health, education, and other social indicators are among the most troubling features of our contemporary world. The Twin Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul, where the University of Minnesota is located, is noted for its high quality of life and progressive spirit. Yet we have some of the worst disparities between majority and minority populations of all major metropolitan areas. A recent Star Tribune editorial about the difficulty of keeping our middle class gives some dismal statistics. The percentage of children in poverty in Minneapolis-St. Paul has risen by 4% since 1999, to 28.8%, and is now slightly greater than that of Chicago, and significantly greater than some of the cities we most like to compare ourselves to: Austin TX, Denver, San Diego, and Seattle. Poverty and disparities go hand-in-hand.

Our Program in Health Disparities Research at the University of Minnesota is trying to work on disparities as they relate to health. They recently forwarded a Call for Proposals (CFP) from Finding Answers: Disparities Research for Change. The web site says

In 2005, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation launched a new national program, Finding Answers: Disparities Research for Change at the University of Chicago, to award and manage research grants totaling $6 million to healthcare organizations implementing interventions aimed at reducing disparities. The funds are used to evaluate the interventions and their potential for broad dissemination. With this pool of funds, project leaders hope that health plans, hospitals, and community clinics will be encouraged to focus on racial and ethnic disparities as a priority in their quality improvement agendas.

The Purpose statement in the Overview of the CFP says

Finding Answers: Disparities Research for Change seeks to improve the quality of health care provided to patients from racial and ethnic backgrounds likely to experience disparities. Finding Answers will:

• grant funds to discover and evaluate practical and replicable solutions designed to reduce and eliminate disease specific racial and ethnic health care disparities;
• focus on interventions aimed at health care delivery for one or more of the following health concerns: cardiovascular disease, depression or diabetes;
• conduct systematic reviews of the literature regarding racial and ethnic health care disparities interventions; and
• disseminate results from these research efforts and systematic reviews to encourage health care systems to address racial and ethnic gaps in care.

A lot more information is given about the philosophy and details of the program in the FAQ.

Finding Answers can make a partial but important contribution to solving the broader disparities issue. A full solution involves dealing not just with disease, but also with health and nutrition, education, jobs and job training, housing, and transportation. In other words, a pretty thorough revamping of major pieces of our society.

Higher education, both through its expertise and its potential for convening a broad spectrum of players, can play a major role. For potential solutions to be realistic and accepted, that spectrum will have to include community members, whose on-the-ground expertise is a crucial part of the mix.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 11:27 AM | Permalink

An interesting conference announcement turned up in my email late last week, from Student Pugwash USA announcing its 14th National Conference on Science and Social Responsibility: Promoting the Integrity of Science.

Its web site states:

Student Pugwash USA (SPUSA) is an educational, nonprofit organization that strives to add a dimension to scientific study that goes beyond formulas and figures. Activities encourage young people to probe the reasons for scientific advancement and the implications of technology on citizens' everyday lives.

While examining all sides of an issue, SPUSA increases students' ability to think independently about the issues that affect society -- issues that range from international conflict to environmental protection, from genetics research to civil rights. SPUSA focuses on the interplay that lies at the juncture of science, technology, and public policy.

The 14th National Conference celebrates the 50th Anniversary of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. The Pugwash Conferences were prominent in the 1950s and 1960s, at the height of the Cold War and the threat of nuclear warfare. According to Wikipedia,

The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs is an international organization that brings together scholars and public figures to work towards reducing the danger of armed conflict and to seek solutions to global security threats. It was founded in 1957 by Joseph Rotblat and Bertrand Russell in Pugwash, Nova Scotia following the release of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in 1955. Pugwash and Rotblat jointly won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 for efforts on nuclear disarmament. International Student/Young Pugwash groups have existed since 1979.

The Pugwash Conferences, and the bridge between contending world powers that they represented, were an important part of the scientific-political landscape when I was a student and young faculty member. I'm delighted to learn that the tradition is being vigorously carried on by today's generation of students. I was particularly impressed by the SPUSA Pledge

I promise to work for a better world, where science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. I will not use my education for any purpose intended to harm human beings or the environment. Throughout my career, I will consider the ethical implications of my work before I take action. While the demands placed upon me may be great, I sign this declaration because I recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace.

This is the kind of engagement between academic and public issues that our contemporary world needs so badly.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 12:47 PM | Permalink

Yesterday's blog was based on a March 15 column by _New York Times_ columnist Bob Herbert, in which he describes the dreadful job and life prospects of young black men, especially those who drop out without a high school diploma.

Herbert followed that column with another, on March 22, entitled "Stepping on the Dream", in which he points out that even if young people get high school diplomas and do well enough to be admitted to college, they may not be able to afford to go, or may accumulate so much debt that their future choices are severely constrained. The average debt of a college graduate is about $20,000, and the average debt of the average newly minted M.D. is probably in excess of $100,000.

Herbert writes "At the state level, per-pupil spending for higher education is at a 25-year low, even as government officials and corporate leaders keep pounding out the message that a college degree is the key to a successful future."

We see this here in Minnesota, where a "no new taxes" governor, backed by a like-minded legislature, imposed drastic budget cuts on higher education. This, piled on a long string of inadequate appropriations, has had the consequence that tuition at the University of Minnesota has gone up more than 110% in the past 10 years. This year we thought we had elected a different-minded legislature, but the reluctance to raise or redistribute taxes, even for obviously socially beneficial purposes, seems to be a nonpartisan mindset. Other states have similar attitudes.

Colleges and universities genuinely and justifiably view themselves as agents for good in society. They are very unhappy about having to raise tuition to cover the educational costs that the states are no longer willing to cover, but they have no choice if they are to maintain quality programs. They are particularly distressed at the difficulties this puts in the way of economically disadvantaged students, who may be so discouraged by the financial barriers that they choose not to pursue higher education, thereby depriving them of a good living and society of the contributions they would make.

We want to provide affordable access to high-quality higher education. We used to be able to do it, but society seems no longer willing to pay the cost even though it is clearly able to afford it. Without it, the engagement efforts of our higher education institutions, significant though they are, are handicapped because we cannot adequately carry out the core of our mission: to educate and inspire the young people of today to be the fully contributory citizens of tomorrow.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 10:43 AM | Permalink

A high priority for colleges and universities these days is to improve affordability of, and access to, higher education. We care because we want to have students who reflect the diversity of society, and we want to keep our classrooms and laboratories filled. We also care because we know that we can’t have a good society in the future unless most of today’s young people grow up to hold productive, decently-paid jobs, which increasingly requires some college education.

What we may not fully realize is the dire consequences, both to young people and to society, if the young people do not get a decent education or have decent job prospects. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, in his March 15, 2007 column, paints a dismal picture of the prospects and consequences for young black men. He writes,

Black American males inhabit a universe in which joblessness is frequently the norm, where the idea of getting up each morning and going off to work can seem stranger to a lot of men than the dream of hitting the lottery, where the dignity that comes from supporting oneself and one’s family has too often been replaced by a numbing sense of hopelessness. ...

[M]ost black men do not go to college. In big cities, more than half do not even finish high school. Their employment histories are gruesome. Over the past few years, the percentage of black male high school graduates in their 20s who were jobless (including those who abandoned all efforts to find a job) has ranged from well over a third to roughly 50 percent. … For black males who left high school without a diploma, the real jobless rate at various times over the past few years has ranged from 59 percent to a breathtaking 72 percent. ...

Jobless rates at such sky-high levels don’t just destroy lives, they destroy entire communities. They breed all manner of antisocial behavior, including violent crime. One of the main reasons there are so few black marriages is that there are so many black men who are financially incapable of supporting a family.

Herbert points out that some of the most useful job-training programs to move poor young people into productive jobs have been gutted, rather than expanded, and that our educational programs are faltering and largely ineffective.

Many colleges and universities are trying to ameliorate this situation, if only in small ways, through programs with schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods, service-learning, literacy tutorials, clinics and nutrition programs, and so forth. But these efforts have small chance of success if they are not bolstered by other societal investments, and particularly by the prospect of decent jobs.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 08:47 PM | Permalink

At yesterday's screening of "50-50: The American Divide", a prominent theme in the discussion was that just voting, and trying to hold candidates to account for their promises, is—though important—not nearly enough. If our democracy is to survive (or revive) in any useful form, we need to have much more citizen involvement. We can't just vote for politicians and expect them to be our saviors. They can't do that, and we shouldn't expect them to. What we should expect is that they and we find ways, together, to realize our visions.

These ideas are being brought into clearer focus by the November5 Coalition (named for the day after the 2008 presidential election). The coalition is just getting started, but its web site has a lot of interesting material. A few paragraphs from the manifesto give the flavor of the enterprise:

Elections have become too much about celebrities and consultants, not about citizenship. They treat people as consumers, not as citizens who want to be involved with each other, informed about issues, and engaged with our government.

It’s time to break this pattern. We need a new politics of respect for citizen voice and citizen capacity. During the coming months, interactions between voters and candidates will offer opportunities for citizens to take campaigns back from pundits and pollsters, big donors and consultants. How? By creating chances to ask real, rather than scripted, questions. By opening space for citizens to discuss issues with one another, as well as with candidates. Most of all, we need to hear how candidates’ policies will tap civic energies and develop civic capacities. What are candidates’ ideas for engaging people in government’s day-to-day efforts if they get elected? How would they involve citizens in policy matters that they are considering? How would they structure government to support such work? Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous observer of American democracy, observed almost two hundred years ago that “Action of [citizens] joined to that of the public authorities frequently accomplishes what the most energetic centralized administration would be unable to do.” This is more true than ever today - and we know more than ever about how to structure and sustain these kinds of citizen-government collaborations. We should be past the stage where candidates can utter vague pronouncements about citizenship and public life without having to say exactly how they are going to implement their ideas.

We also need change on the voters’ side. As the bipartisan National Commission on Civic Renewal put it in their report about democracy, we have become too much “spectators and consumers.” Our ability to work across differences has weakened. We have a private culture of avoidance and accusation, not a public culture of accountability and action. We must roll up our sleeves, change this culture from “Me to We,” and advance ideas about work that has been done and needs to be done. We need to stop simply asking, “What can you give us?” We need to ask, “How will you work with us?”

If their comments and questions at "50-50" are any indication, it appears that students are particularly attracted to this line of thought and action. Let's hope that they—and we—follow through. We need to make our politics an example of genuine, sustained engagement, not a spectator sport.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 09:00 PM | Permalink

This afternoon I introduced a screening of a documentary movie, 50/50: The American Divide, for about 150 students, faculty, and staff at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities Campus. The movie was made by two people from the University of Minnesota Duluth campus. To quote from the publicity information:

50/50: The American Divide is a documentary about why people vote and why they don’t vote, shot during the 2004 presidential election. The movie was produced by Follow Productions based in St. Paul and the UMD Office of Civic Engagement as part of the American Democracy Project sponsored by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

Videographer Zack Swanson, a young conservative and UMD alumnus and director Bill Payne, a middle aged liberal and UMD faculty member, set out to find a divided country, the red/blue reality that was being hyped by the mainstream media. What they found was an electorate that was more intelligent, more passionate about the political process, and more reasonably centrist than the media were reporting. This documentary presents the voices of we the people and inspires hope about the future of America. The movie starts in Duluth on Election Day 2003 and ends on Election Day 2004. It features Duluth Mayor Herb Bergson, St. Louis County Commissioner Steve O’Neil, U.S. Congressman James Oberstar, and former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton, along with over one hundred American voters and non-voters from across the nation.

The documentary was effective: engrossing and thought-provoking. We broke halfway through for some panel discussion and remarks from the audience. Among the many interesting points raised, these particularly struck me:

• Ask campaigners how they would involve the public in carrying out their vision. Stop pretending that politicians alone can save us.
• Even if it is not often possible to establish a personal relationship with politicians holding state or national office, it is possible to develop useful contacts with their local staff and partners.
• The use of an instant runoff system (recently approved by the voters of Minneapolis) would broaden the spectrum of political choices, thus perhaps mitigating the cynicism that many voters have about the two major parties.
• The accessibility of modern technology could counterbalance the influence of the mass media and the money that controls it.
 

I'm particularly pleased that this effort comes from the University of Minnesota Duluth, since Public Engagement is a system-wide and state-wide activity, and the coordinate campuses are an important part of the U's efforts.

50/50: The American Divide has a fledgling web site. More content will be added there soon. Keep an eye on it.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 05:35 PM | Permalink

Should anthropologists work with the military, the CIA, and other national security agencies? Last Tuesday's on-line Chronicle of Higher Education had an article on this vexing topic, which is of considerable pertinence to public engagement by university researchers in the social sciences. Entitled "Anthropologists Discuss Where to Draw Ethical Lines in Dealing With National-Security Agencies" and written by David Glenn, it describes a panel discussion of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Engagement of Anthropology With the U.S. Security and Intelligence Communities , a temporary committee of the American Anthropological Association. Some of the points that were raised:

• Damage may occur to the reputations of scholars and the discipline as a whole.
• All anthropologists might come under suspicion if some were known to be employees of national-security agencies
• All scholars doing fieldwork in certain countries might find it more difficult to develop relationships with people who provide cultural information.
• All scholars doing fieldwork might all be at higher risk of being arrested for espionage.
• National-security agencies need the expertise of anthropologists on "cultural complexity".
• Working for the military may be troublesome, but not using scholarly expertise to defend against terrorists may be worse.
• Such arrangements are often secret from colleagues, violating scholarly norms of openness and free flow of information.
• Professional credibility can be damaged when others make inappropriate use of scholarly findings.
• Avoiding interactions with the issues raised by national-security concerns may lead to the anthropology association becoming "ethically pure but intellectually impoverished."
• If anthropologists avoid working with national-security agencies, others—perhaps less qualified—may take their place.
• How is working for national-security intelligence organizations different from other kinds of "applied anthropology" in which corporations or government agencies expect control over dissemination of results?

There are important modern instances of academics being forced to deal with ethical dilemmas brought about by a confrontation between their scholarly skills and the demands of the broader society: e.g., the Manhattan Project, the Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA technology, and restrictions on foreign students being able to work on defense-related projects. The dilemmas faced by anthropologists (and other social scientists) are significant additions to this list.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 09:51 AM | Permalink

For a change of scene, I'd like to turn my gaze from Minnesota to a western university that is vigorously pursuing civic engagement: USC. Director Terry Cooper, Associate Director Chris Weare, and their colleagues have an active Civic Engagement Initiative, with an impressive publication program. They have just published a newsletter in which they detail their efforts to reach out to the community with their research results. The newsletter can be accessed at through the CEI home page or directly as a pdf file

Most of the research is focused on the Los Angeles neighborhood councils -- organizations through which citizens interact with government officials to try to find an effective voice in governance. Links to several publications about these studies (as downloadable pdfs) are on the home page.

The interactions between the USC Civic Engagement Initiative and the neighborhood councils are so close that the former Deputy Director of the CEI, Carol Baker Tharp, very recently took a job with the city of LA as general manager of Neighborhood Empowerment, where she will oversee the entire Los Angeles Neighborhood Council system, which consists of 86 local councils.

Every university has a different portfolio of public engagement activities, and different types of interactions with community partners. USC provides a very interesting example.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 09:13 AM | Permalink

In October 2006, Alan I. Leshner wrote an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education on "Science and Public Engagement", which I've used to title today's blog. Leshner, who is chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of Science, is deeply involved in issues of the public understanding of science.

Leshner argues, in a way that I find convincing,

Many scientists argue that the solution to the tension between science and society is to increase public understanding of science. But the problem is not simply a lack of comprehension. The case of stem-cell research is instructive: It is not that opponents do not understand somatic-cell nuclear transfer; they do grasp the fundamental nature of the process, and they don't like it. The notion of destroying an embryo, no matter how noble the cause, conflicts with their core religious beliefs about when life begins, and its sanctity. More education would not be enough. (Chronicle)

He goes on to say "Instead of simply increasing public understanding of science, scientists need to have a real dialogue with members of the public, listening to their concerns, their priorities, and the questions they would like us to help answer." He articulates some important points about how to have such a dialog. (I list just summary phrases; you should read the whole thing.)

• Never pit science against religion.
• Never debate a known ideologue.
• Protect the integrity of science.
• Be very clear about the nature of science, what it can and can't do.
• Frame global scientific issues in a local context.
• Stop expecting people to come to us at our universities or conferences. Meet them on their turf.
• Work with small groups for true interaction.
• Listen. "The most important — and most difficult — lesson to learn is that public engagement involves genuine dialogue, which means both parties must listen and be willing to modify their own positions."

In January of this year, Leshner followed up with an article in Science entitled "Outreach Training Needed", where he takes the idea further. He points out that "engaging the public effectively is an acquired skill, and preparation for outreach strategies has seldom been part of scientific training programs", and proposes two necessary steps.

First, the reward structure of academia needs to be modified. Academic institutions need to support engagement efforts by "putting public outreach efforts among the metrics used to decide promotion and tenure" and funding agencies should expect such efforts to be intergral parts of research proposals.

Second, graduate student and postdoc educational programs should include training in communicating with public audiences, which is different from communicating with students or scientific peers.

This communication needs to be a genuine two-way dialog. As Lesher concludes his editorial,

This will doubtless be an additional burden on existing systems. Unfortunately, there is no alternative. If science is going to fully serve its societal mission in the future, we need to both encourage and equip the next generation of scientists to effectively engage with the broader society in which we work and live.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 08:48 AM | Permalink

Sarena Seifer has sent a summary report about a Wingspread conference on "Community Partner Perspectives on Community-Higher Education Partnerships" convened last April by Community-Campus Partnerships for Health with the collaboration of several other organizations. This meeting involved just community members, many working with Research 1 universities - but there were "no academics in the room". The recommendations from the conference:

• Community partners have the responsibility to share their collective wisdom and knowledge about community-higher education partnerships with community members, colleges/universities, and funding agencies.

• Community involvement and capacity building is needed at the local, regional, and national levels. Supports are needed to develop community members as civic leaders, change agents, and community-based researchers.

• Community partners should develop principles of participation to clarify terms of engagement and expectations in their partnerships with higher educational institutions.

• To facilitate greater understanding, community partners must familiarize themselves with the culture and daily realities of their academic partners, and vice versa.

• Community partners must work together with academic partners/allies to change the culture of higher education into one that values and supports communities as equal partners.

• Community partners must work together with academic partners/allies to elevate the credibility and recognition for the life/work experience of community partners and the context/environment in which they do this work.

• Funding agencies need to reexamine funding priorities, as well as how funding is structured, reviewed, distributed, and evaluated, to ensure that these advance and do not undermine the potential for authentic community-higher education partnerships.

• Community partners should form a collective body to reduce the feelings of isolation experienced by many community partners and increase capacity through mentoring, networking and advocacy.

These recommendations, if put into practice, could make a huge difference in the effectiveness of our public engagement efforts.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 05:31 AM | Permalink

By coincidence, my post yesterday about the need for engineering to better emphasize its human dimension if it is to attract students with a strong motivation to help people rather than just solve technically challenging problems, is eloquently supported today by an article, "Holistic Engineering", in the March 16 issue of The Chronicle Review.

The article, by Domenico Grasso, dean and professor at the College of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences at the University of Vermont, and David Martinelli, chairman of the department of civil and environmental engineering at West Virginia University, asserts

In this evolving world, a new kind of engineer is needed, one who can think broadly across disciplines and consider the human dimensions that are at the heart of every design challenge. In the new order, narrow engineering thinking will not be enough. American higher education is in an unusual position to create the 21st-century engineer.

They point out that many more engineers are being trained worldwide than ever before, many of them in Asia and as technically competent as US-trained engineers. But they assert that technical competence, though certainly necessary, is no longer sufficient. "The crucial question facing academe is whether we are adequately preparing our future engineers and designers to practice in an era that requires integrated and holistic thinking, or are needlessly limiting their solution spaces to those that contain only technological answers, with scant or passing consideration of the myriad other influencing and dependent factors." They write

In engineering, a discipline that purports to design for humanity and improve the quality of life, the unity of knowledge should be a sine qua non that asks engineers to look outward, beyond the fields of math and science, in search of solutions to entire problems. To better serve humanity, engineers must at least attempt to understand the human condition in all its complexity — which requires the study of literature, history, philosophy, psychology, religion, and economics, among other fields.

I'm tempted to quote the whole article, but it's simpler (and less in violation of copyright laws) to refer you to the Chronicle of Higher Education web site to read it yourself.

These arguments apply not just to engineering, but to every academic specialty. To be fully engaged with public concerns—and thus to justify the public support that we expect—we need to broaden our horizons and enrich the education we provide our students.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 10:15 AM | Permalink

Last Wednesday I blogged about an opinion piece by Thomas Fisher, Dean of the University of Minnesota's College of Design, which argued for a more integrated approach to design for human purposes in modern life. Yesterday Bruce F. Wollenberg, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, wrote a Counterpoint in which he challenged Fisher's seeming criticism of engineers as responsible for "for the 'inefficient, even dysfunctional' design of cities", and points out that "cities are usually designed by people educated in 'urban planning.' Engineers may be part of the teams designing cities -- but they are not the principal designers."

Wollenberg goes on to say

It is often thought that engineering is a field that manipulates things and that human need is not within its scope. The reality is quite the opposite. Engineers do what they do to meet human needs. To be truly effective, engineering and design have to work hand in hand in cooperative, interdisciplinary, ways to meet people's needs.

Both Tom Fisher and Bruce Wollenberg are friends of mine, and I have no intention to take sides. However, I think that this dispute holds a lesson about how engineering—which is indeed concerned with people's needs—doesn't make that case strongly enough in trying to attract and educate students. Wollenberg writes

The mistaken idea that engineering is not fundamentally interested in people's needs becomes a barrier to exactly the kind of cross-disciplinary work that is needed to solve complex problems. Perhaps more harmful is the effect this myth has on the career choices of young people. We often hear students say that they would like to pursue engineering but need to find a field where they can help people. This is wrong: the best and the brightest, the compassionate and the caring, driven from a field where they could help people, all by a myth.

Unfortunately, this is a message that doesn't come through as clearly as it might. The home page for undergraduates in the Electrical and Computer Engineering program says

What is engineering?

Engineering is both a science and an art, requiring a combination of imagination, creativity, technical skills, and business acumen to make things that benefit people. Engineers design bridges and automobiles, biomedical materials and robots, mass transit systems and communication networks, processes for cleaning up toxic spills, and systems for improving harvest yields; and that is only scratching the surface. Basically, engineering is the process of producing a technical product or system that meets a specific need.

This does mention benefiting people by meeting their needs, but only in a passing way. The equivalent statement on the home page of the College of Design does somewhat better.

The College of Design encompasses the full range of design disciplines from graphic design, apparel design, and interior design to architecture, landscape architecture, and urban design. The college also includes programs in housing studies and retail merchandising. The faculty and students in the college seek to advance the quality and value of the natural, designed, and social environments, with a focus on the interaction of people and their world.

The real emphasis on the role of these disciplines in dealing with issues that affect people and communities comes in their outreach and service pages:

The College of Design Research & Outreach Units

The College of Design encourages faculty and students to engage in problem-focused research and outreach that has regional, national, and international significance. Research and Outreach establishes professional learning communities of scholars in centers, laboratories, consortiums, museums, and institutes. Such learning communities focus on innovative solutions to design problems relating to architecture, apparel design, interior design, graphic design, housing, landscape architecture, and merchandising, and make up-to-date knowledge available in the classroom.

Engineers Without Borders

The mission of Engineers Without Borders - University of Minnesota (EWB-UMN) is to partner with disadvantaged communities around the world, and to improve their quality of life through implementation of engineered projects that prove environmentally and economically sustainable. Our goals are achieved through cooperation with each other, fellow institutions, and mentors on the basis of commitment, persistence and concern for the recipients of our efforts. We strive to uphold and advance our principles for international responsibility and look forward to applying the experience in our future engineering careers.

Engineering might do better in attracting students who want "to find a field where they can help people" if it put such sentiments—and educational possibilities—up front on its undergraduate and graduate home pages.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 04:42 PM | Permalink

As colleges and universities pay increasing attention to issues of poverty, minority and non-traditional students, preK-12 education, housing, transportation, and urban affairs generally, we are awakening to the fact that we need to encourage business and economic development in our neighboring communities. As nicely stated on the web site of Community-Wealth.org:

Institutions of higher education have an obvious vested interest in building strong relationships with the communities that surround their campuses. They do not have the option of relocating and thus are of necessity place-based anchors. While corporations, businesses, and residents often flee from economically depressed low-income urban and suburban edge-city neighborhoods, universities remain. At a time when foundations which help establish community-based projects are commonly unable to continue with ongoing involvement over long periods of time, universities are inherently an important potential institutional base for helping community-based economic development in general, and civically-engaged development in particular. The question is how to tap this potential in a major way.

John Hamerlinck, of Minnesota Campus Compact, has compiled a list of examples of community investing by colleges and universities. I think this list is a valuable resource, so I'm putting up links to web sites that describe the programs he has found.

• An overview of nine community investment programs (Clark University, Duke University, Harvard University, Marquette University, Stetson University, Trinity College, Union College, University of Pennsylvania, and Yale University) is on the web site of The National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities
• Clark University's University Park Partnership
• Colgate University's Partnership for Community Development
• Duke-Durham Neighborhood Partnership Initiative
• Howard University's partnership with Fannie Mae on the Howard University-LeDroit Park Initiative
• Ohio State's Campus Partners for Community Urban Redevelopment
• Trinity College's Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative
• University of Pennsylvania's West Philadelphia Partnership, including a report on its success to date.
• Williams College's Social Choice Fund

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 11:37 AM | Permalink

I'm not usually a fan of David Brooks's political positions, though I enjoy his lucidity and style. But in his Op-Ed piece in the February 22 issue of the New York Times, he makes some recommendations to potential Republican presidential candidates that are remarkably pertinent to Public Engagement:

Third: Don’t Be a University. Most campaigns organize their policy experts like academic departments — economists on one committee, social policy types on another, religious leaders on a third. They come up with utterly conventional recommendations.

You want to organize your committees according to priorities. For example, create a Flourishing Families Committee. Get economists, religious activists and psychologists in one room to figure out how government can reduce stress on struggling families. You’ll be surprised by how much interdisciplinary creativity you can unleash and how much closer you get to the problems of real people.

Most of all, you’ll break free from the useless categories most pundits use to define Republicans: social conservative, free market libertarian, neoconservative. If you define yourself by those categories, you’re dead.

Good advice can come from any direction.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 04:37 PM | Permalink

Early last week we had a workshop in which about 30 faculty and administrators talked with each other about barriers—real or perceived—to multidisciplinary and civically engaged work. The two are, of course, closely connected, since as someone has said, "Universities have disciplines while society has problems."

In addition to the standard obstacles to multidisciplinary research (dangers to promotion and tenure of probationary faculty, lack of professional recognition in the discipline, shortage of funding, etc.) I pointed out two that became clear to me from my service in the Graduate School.

The first obstacle is the strong influence of the National Research Council (NRC) rankings on departmental behavior. If their disciplines are ranked by the NRC, as are most in the core arts, sciences, and engineering, departments may be reluctant to have their faculty's effort (publications, research grants, dissertation guidance) diverted to collaborative efforts such as interdisciplinary graduate programs.

The second obstacle is recruitment and support of graduate students. Again, this is largely a departmental function. Departments tend to provide financial support—mainly in the form of teaching assistantships—to graduate students who enter the departmentally-centered graduate program. Interdisciplinary graduate programs have trouble finding such financial support for the students they are trying to recruit. The Graduate School can try to help, but (at least at Minnesota) has limited resources.

When we look for barriers to more engaged scholarly work in research universities, we find them deeply embedded in values and practices that we too readily take for granted.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 11:01 AM | Permalink

The Opinion section of Sunday’s Star Tribune carried an interesting interview with Thomas Fisher, Dean of the University of Minnesota’s College of Design. This is a new college, formed by combining the former College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture with the Department of Design, Housing and Apparel in the former College of Human Ecology. This new configuration has led to a broader mission for the College, grounded in a conviction that design—in all its manifestations—is crucial to the quality of our lives.

An example: In response to the question “So design has a chance to liberate us?”, Fisher responds:

Yes, from this highly engineered, inhumane, ugly, heartless and low-morale environment that’s based more on the efficiency of systems than compatibility with people. We’ve been doing work with homeless teenage mothers. In wondering how to make things better, I asked if the problem was housing or training or transportation. They said it was all of those. They can’t get from affordable housing to day care to a job and back again because we’ve designed a bus system for the benefit of the operators, housing at the behest of zoning codes and jobs that require a car, which people can’t afford. This is a classic design problem

Tom Fisher has been an advocate of design in the service of people for a better society for all of his career, an advocacy which he shares with many of his faculty and students. The new College of Design is a great opportunity to implement this vision, and for the University of Minnesota to be in the vanguard of devoting university-based scholarship, teaching, and creative activity to the most important public purposes.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 09:17 AM | Permalink

Ezra Hyland, an instructor in the Department of Post-Secondary Teaching and Learning in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Minnesota, has developed an innovative African-American Read-In program (web site here).

"The Read-In is a literacy initiative addressing the attainment of reading and writing skills in African American students and encouraging reading and writing across the curriculum."

In mid-February, Hyland learned that the program had won $50,000 award from the James Patterson PageTurner Awards, established by the best-selling author, which annually give $500,000 "to celebrate the people, companies, schools, and other institutions which find original and effective ways to spread the excitement of books and reading."

In addition to annual participation in the National African-American Read-In, the University of Minnesota program involves a book drive and a Black Men Reading book club/study group.

A link on the web site leads to an imaginative list of suggested activities for various kinds of host organizations:

• ART - Read a brief biography of an African American artist, accompanied by viewing and discussing his/her work. Read the writing of an artist and compare it with his/her art work, e.g., Margaret Burroughs' "For My People," or Jacob Lawrence's "The Great Migration." Compare the artwork of two African American artists who have illustrated the same narrative (e.g., "Lift Every Voice and Sing" illustration by Elizabeth Catlett compared with the illustration by Jan Gilchrist).
• BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL DAYCARE - Listen to stories written by African American writers. Sing songs written by African American composers. Sing traditional or contemporary songs, such as "This Little Light of Mine" and "We Shall Overcome."
• HEALTH - Read and discuss biographies or writings by African Americans who have contributed to the health sciences and /or health education (e.g., Charles Drew, Percy Julian, Susie Taylor, and Joycelyn Elders).
• ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS AND ESL - Read and discuss a story, poem, play, and/or essay that is included in a literature reading series, literature anthology, or student magazines. Read the works and biographical sketch of an African American poet or essayist. Read an excerpt from a novel or play written/performed by an African American (e.g., Carl T. Rowan, August Wilson).
• MUSIC - Read a brief (auto)biography of an African American musician (composer/lyricist, director, arranger, or performer). Then listen to and discuss their music. Sing songs written by African American composers. Read about and sing spirituals. Perform works by African American composers. Read about African American performance groups and listen to their music (e.g. Sounds of Blackness, Jubilee Singers, Harlem Boys Choir).
• PERFORMING ARTS - Read/listen to and discuss a speech written/performed by an African American (e.g., Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr., Barbara Jordan, Sojourner Truth, Jesse Jackson). Read a play written by or a (auto)biography of an African American playwright. Discuss famous African American actors/actresses, e.g., Paul Robeson, Ossie Davis, and Ruby Dee. Students could perform a dramatic presentation of a play excerpt or poem written by an African American.
• PHYSICAL EDUCATION - Read and discuss (auto)biographies of Black athletes, coaches, and managers. Discuss contributions of African Americans to sports and fitness.
• SCIENCE - Read and discuss a biography of an African American astronaut. Read and discuss inventions/patents of African Americans. Read biographies of African American inventors (e.g., Elijah McCoy). Read about and discuss contributions of African Americans to space science, life science, physical science, earth science, environmental science, medicine, agriculture, etc.
• SOCIAL STUDIES - Read biographies of African Americans who have made contributions to education, law, politics, sociology, psychology, etc. Read and discuss slave narratives.

This is a terrific example of a university program, spearheaded by an imaginative and energetic leader who has garnered broad community support, that effectively implements our public engagement mission. It's great to see it receiving tangible national recognition that will enable it to carry out its objectives even more effectively.

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 12:16 PM | Permalink

I was flattered at having this blog chosen as one of the "most engaging" by Smart Communities. The recognition inspires me to resume, although I hope in a way that involves more contributions from other members of the Public Engagement community in higher education.

Last Friday and Saturday I attended a conference, hosted by Franklin Gilliam at UCLA, on "Research Universities and Civic Engagement". It was the follow-up to one hosted by Rob Hollister at Tufts in October 2005. There was bigger group of universities this time, and I think we were all impressed by the range of activities that each of our institutions is engaged in (pun intended).

Rather than trying to summarize those activities, or the conference itself, I am listing links to the web sites of the participants. Visiting those links will give a great sampling of the public engagement efforts currently underway in our research universities.

• Arizona State University
• Duke University
• Georgetown University
• Harvard University
• Michigan State University
• Stanford University
• Tufts University
• UC Berkeley
• UCLA
• University of Maryland College Park
• University of Massachusetts Amherst
• University of Michigan
• University of Minnesota
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of Southern California
• University of Texas Austin
• University of Washington
• University of Wisconsin
• Vanderbilt University
• California Campus Compact

Posted by Victor Bloomfield at 02:43 PM | Permalink