Members present: Trudy Banta, Karen Black, Victor Borden, Bob Bringle, Sharon Hamilton, Susan Kahn, Sara Heiliger
Members absent: None
Discussion of Civic Engagement
Bob passed out a handout, Exemplary Civic Engagement, which includes a summary in the last paragraph of the plan for the self-study. Vic updated the group on the Civic Engagement Inventory, which will be in draft form next week and be ready for the Web in two weeks. This inventory is an online version of what Bob has done in past years. It focuses on four areas:
- Academic-Based Community Learning
- Research scholarship
- Professional service
- Community service
Vic explained that the above categories would be defined and given a set of codes. We need to be clear on the definition of what a program is. This in the end will create a profile of every initiative, answering the questions, for example: Who are the partners? Who funded? Date started? Frequency and duration of events? Academic requirements? Vic will also add: end date, whether the program is ongoing, and whether there is follow up.
The Deans will be asked to answer these questions and provide the data. The inventory will go to all RCs; we will need a slot for SLIS. It is also important for all team members to be aware of programs and initiatives and fill in these profiles when we learn about these. Vic also plans to fill in profiles by visiting Web sites to find what activities are already out there. This will provide the Deans with examples of events and help them with some of their work. Trudy suggested we could also use the Deans´ annual reports as a source of data to fill in examples.
Vic explained that these events are defined as more programmatic than individual; we hope to get the data on individuals´ involvement from the Faculty Annual Summary Report.
Ultimately, individual faculty reporting and school-level reporting should be aligned so that they can be merged. Currently there are different reporting cycles:
Faculty Annual Summary Report-Calendar Year
Dean´s Annual Report-Fiscal Year
The group suggested that members look at other examples of accreditation self studies where a special emphasis was used. (University of Missouri-Kansas City, Northern IL, and St. Louis)
Bob asked for a description of the format for the Civic Engagement document.
Trudy suggested it be 15-20 pages. We are getting away from the traditional format of narrative and appendices and looking towards a Web format arranged hierarchically and linked. Karen recommended that the document be evaluative not just descriptive. It should include discussion of the shortcomings of IUPUI. Bob will provide the group with previous instruments he has used to measure civic engagement.
Susan suggested we talk with Mary Breslin from NCA or even bring her to IUPUI in order to sensitize her to the idea of the non-traditional approach IUPUI is taking to accreditation in 2002. The group wants to make sure she is aware of what to expect and what is being worked on. Trudy will call and try to make these arrangements as well as get the visiting team members´ names.
Discussion on Criteria 3 & 4
The group brainstormed ideas on how to respond to the NCA criteria. The main focus was on identifying sources of evidence relevant to the indicators within each criterion. Karen will work on pulling all this together in the grid already begun for Criteria 1, 2 and 5.
Next Steps
- To develop outlines of responses to the criteria and indicators.
- To conceptualize the structure of the above and of the special emphases and how they will look on the web.
- Talk over guidelines for presenting with PRAC members.
- Keep in mind that NCA indicators do not all need to be addressed specifically; this would cause extensive cross-referencing. Each self-study will vary from university to university. We should remember to address weaknesses.
