Is Unrewarded Civic-Engagement Work Philanthropic?

• In Event: Acknowledging Philanthropy in Faculty Work: A New Approach to Understanding the Professoriate

Abstract

Faculty work inherently advances the public good through the pursuit of knowledge and its dissemination. Even when well compensated, research and teaching enjoy a privileged status. But what about work that is formally defined as civic engagement—as distinct from research and teaching?

Service comes in many forms: academic citizenship (e,g.,committee service); professional service (e.g., clinical duties); and more ambiguously civic engagement (applying research or expertise or time to public issues explicitly as a part of faculty work distinct from the voluntary actions of a citizen).

Because most full-time faculty have discretion about allocating their time within broadly defined ranges of work, there is a case for researching the exercise of philanthropy (voluntary action for the greater good) by faculties’ electing to spend time on activities that carry lesser reward.

When mission explicitly claims civic engagement as an institutional commitment, we might expect faculty to be rewarded for it proportionate to institutional claims. With rare exception, service is the least well-regarded. It is this gap between word and action that deserves further research on how faculty who apply themselves to community engagement find reward for deciding to spend their social capital on the greater good of the community. Is it intentional; are service-minded faculty drawn to civic engagement because they recognize their work as philanthropic, thus taking intrinsic rewards in lieu of higher salaries, more rapid advancement, or greater prestige?

Many studies touch on civic engagement, including FSSE, the PES of Imagining America, the Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement, a survey of faculty reward policies at engaged institutions, HERI’s Faculty Survey, and more. However, none explicitly considers aspects of faculty work as philanthropy.

Inferences drawn from existing studies about faculty self-definition of motivation and reward can be supplemented by further research:

1. Do faculty enter their professions intending to find intrinsic satisfaction in their work? How is such motivation characterized and defined? Are there secular and spiritual motivations?

2. What role does graduate training play in developing concepts of faculty work as philanthropic?

3. How are faculty motivated to allocate time to civic engagement and with what expectations of reward? How is behavior affected by policy or advice?

4. How do institutions reward civic engagement?

5. What are the differences between tenure-related faculty and contingent faculty (full or part-time)?

The theoretical frameworks that might shape further research:

1. Leadership: Personal experiences (Grint, 1997; Parry, 1998; Tierney, 1988; Weick, 1995); value-laden (Ashcroft, Griffiths, & Tiffin, 1995; Giroux, 1999; Grint, 1997; Hooks, 1994, 2000); and social change (Kezar 2001).

2. Institutional Change: Boyer 1990; Benson 2007; Calhoun 2006; Checkoway 2001; Eckel & Kezar 2003; Ellison & Eatman 2008; O’Meara 2010; Ramaley 1996; Sandmann & Plater, in press; Votruba 1996; Zimpher 2006.

3. Continuum of Scholarship: Benson 2007; Boyer 1995; Cantor 2009; Doberneck 2010; Ellison & Eatman 2008; Holland 1997; Plater 1999, 2004, 2008; Sandmann & Plater, in press; Weerts & Sandmann 2008, 2010.

Authors

• William M. Plater, Indiana University - Purdue University at Indianapolis

• Richard Turner, Indiana University - Purdue University at Indianapolis