语言学家的社区参与学术之旅:对定义、实践和评估政策的见解

IF 0.9 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Nicoleta Bateman
{"title":"语言学家的社区参与学术之旅:对定义、实践和评估政策的见解","authors":"Nicoleta Bateman","doi":"10.5130/IJCRE.V11I1.5579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article contributes to the current conversation surrounding the definition of community-engaged scholarship (CES) by providing critical insights from a linguist’s journey towards establishing a CES partnership with a middle school. I argue that a prescribed CES definition for all disciplines is neither possible nor desirable. CES has gained appeal in recent years because of the mutual benefits promised by the scholar–community partner collaboration. At the same time, the conversation around defining CES is ongoing, highlighting the difficulties in establishing a single definition of CES for all disciplines. In response, individual institutions have adopted their own definition in an effort to help their faculty members navigate CES and assist their efforts towards satisfying requirements for promotion and tenure. While designed to ensure rigorous scholarship and true community involvement, institutional-specific definitions can unintentionally limit a scholar’s CES options, particularly given the expectations of the tenure and promotion process. As a result, scholars in disciplines which are not well understood outside academia, such as linguistics, find themselves ill-positioned to engage in CES. And as the general public is unfamiliar with the discipline and its benefits, developing mutually beneficial partnerships with community organisations requires an extensive amount of time – more than is usually required of other disciplines engaged in CES. Furthermore, tenure and promotion timeline expectations may be incompatible with CES work for some disciplines. Two solutions are proposed to address these challenges. First, scholars in disciplines such as linguistics must utilise multiple approaches to developing partnerships, such as volunteerism, community outreach and cross-disciplinary collaboration, and be intentional in college classrooms in engaging undergraduates in activities that make the discipline relevant outside academia. Second, they must challenge current CES definitions and interpretations and advocate for policy changes to the tenure and promotion process on their individual campuses.","PeriodicalId":53967,"journal":{"name":"Gateways-International Journal of Community Research and Engagement","volume":"117 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Linguist’s Journey Toward Community Engaged Scholarship: Insights on Definitions, Practice and Evaluation Policies\",\"authors\":\"Nicoleta Bateman\",\"doi\":\"10.5130/IJCRE.V11I1.5579\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article contributes to the current conversation surrounding the definition of community-engaged scholarship (CES) by providing critical insights from a linguist’s journey towards establishing a CES partnership with a middle school. I argue that a prescribed CES definition for all disciplines is neither possible nor desirable. CES has gained appeal in recent years because of the mutual benefits promised by the scholar–community partner collaboration. At the same time, the conversation around defining CES is ongoing, highlighting the difficulties in establishing a single definition of CES for all disciplines. In response, individual institutions have adopted their own definition in an effort to help their faculty members navigate CES and assist their efforts towards satisfying requirements for promotion and tenure. While designed to ensure rigorous scholarship and true community involvement, institutional-specific definitions can unintentionally limit a scholar’s CES options, particularly given the expectations of the tenure and promotion process. As a result, scholars in disciplines which are not well understood outside academia, such as linguistics, find themselves ill-positioned to engage in CES. And as the general public is unfamiliar with the discipline and its benefits, developing mutually beneficial partnerships with community organisations requires an extensive amount of time – more than is usually required of other disciplines engaged in CES. Furthermore, tenure and promotion timeline expectations may be incompatible with CES work for some disciplines. Two solutions are proposed to address these challenges. First, scholars in disciplines such as linguistics must utilise multiple approaches to developing partnerships, such as volunteerism, community outreach and cross-disciplinary collaboration, and be intentional in college classrooms in engaging undergraduates in activities that make the discipline relevant outside academia. Second, they must challenge current CES definitions and interpretations and advocate for policy changes to the tenure and promotion process on their individual campuses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53967,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gateways-International Journal of Community Research and Engagement\",\"volume\":\"117 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gateways-International Journal of Community Research and Engagement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5130/IJCRE.V11I1.5579\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gateways-International Journal of Community Research and Engagement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5130/IJCRE.V11I1.5579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文通过提供一位语言学家在与一所中学建立社区参与奖学金合作关系的过程中的重要见解,为当前围绕社区参与奖学金(CES)定义的讨论做出了贡献。我认为,为所有学科规定的CES定义既不可能也不可取。近年来,由于学者与社区合作伙伴的合作所带来的互利共赢,CES受到了越来越多的关注。与此同时,关于定义CES的讨论仍在继续,这凸显了为所有学科建立一个单一的CES定义的困难。作为回应,各个机构都采用了自己的定义,以帮助他们的教师驾驭CES,并帮助他们努力满足晋升和终身职位的要求。虽然旨在确保严谨的学术研究和真正的社区参与,但机构特定的定义可能会无意中限制学者的CES选择,特别是考虑到对终身教职和晋升过程的期望。因此,在学术界之外不被很好理解的学科(如语言学)的学者,发现自己在参与CES方面处于不利地位。由于公众不熟悉这门学科及其好处,与社区组织建立互利的伙伴关系需要大量的时间——比从事电子商务的其他学科通常需要的时间要多。此外,对某些学科的任期和晋升时间表的期望可能与CES工作不相容。针对这些挑战,提出了两种解决方案。首先,语言学等学科的学者必须利用多种方法来发展伙伴关系,如志愿服务、社区外展和跨学科合作,并在大学课堂上有意识地让本科生参与使该学科与学术界之外相关的活动。其次,他们必须挑战当前的CES定义和解释,并倡导在各自校园内对终身教职和晋升过程进行政策改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Linguist’s Journey Toward Community Engaged Scholarship: Insights on Definitions, Practice and Evaluation Policies
This article contributes to the current conversation surrounding the definition of community-engaged scholarship (CES) by providing critical insights from a linguist’s journey towards establishing a CES partnership with a middle school. I argue that a prescribed CES definition for all disciplines is neither possible nor desirable. CES has gained appeal in recent years because of the mutual benefits promised by the scholar–community partner collaboration. At the same time, the conversation around defining CES is ongoing, highlighting the difficulties in establishing a single definition of CES for all disciplines. In response, individual institutions have adopted their own definition in an effort to help their faculty members navigate CES and assist their efforts towards satisfying requirements for promotion and tenure. While designed to ensure rigorous scholarship and true community involvement, institutional-specific definitions can unintentionally limit a scholar’s CES options, particularly given the expectations of the tenure and promotion process. As a result, scholars in disciplines which are not well understood outside academia, such as linguistics, find themselves ill-positioned to engage in CES. And as the general public is unfamiliar with the discipline and its benefits, developing mutually beneficial partnerships with community organisations requires an extensive amount of time – more than is usually required of other disciplines engaged in CES. Furthermore, tenure and promotion timeline expectations may be incompatible with CES work for some disciplines. Two solutions are proposed to address these challenges. First, scholars in disciplines such as linguistics must utilise multiple approaches to developing partnerships, such as volunteerism, community outreach and cross-disciplinary collaboration, and be intentional in college classrooms in engaging undergraduates in activities that make the discipline relevant outside academia. Second, they must challenge current CES definitions and interpretations and advocate for policy changes to the tenure and promotion process on their individual campuses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
28.60%
发文量
5
审稿时长
34 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信