© Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, Volume 27, Number 4, p.

23, (2023)
Copyright © 2023 by the University of Georgia. eISSN 2164-8212

A Qualitative Study of Multilevel Faculty

Motivations for Pursuing Engaged Scholarship
Michael Rios and Larissa Saco

Abstract
Drawing on the narrative inquiry method, a qualitative study of 49
engaged scholar interviews at the University of California, Davis was
conducted to understand motivations for practicing engaged scholarship.
Notwithstanding the significant contributions to understanding faculty
motivations in this field, we argue that previous research details the
roles of individuals and institutions of higher learning while leaving
room for further theorization of other important influences and their
intersections. The study findings reveal that faculty report intrinsic,
extrinsic, and relational motivations that interact at multiple levels of
influence. These multilevel motivational influences have implications
for faculty recruitment and retention, implementation of institutional
support strategies, and recognition in merit and promotion.
Keywords: faculty motivation, engaged scholarship, interpersonal, community,
policy

T
he movement for engaged schol- As the topic of faculty recognition in engaged
arship has gained momentum scholarship continues to garner atten-
and further institutionalization tion, grow, and evolve in higher education,
over time in higher education questions remain about how to understand
(Jovanovic et al., 2017), with its faculty motivations for pursuing engaged
benefits for faculty, students, and commu- work, and how to create institutional sup-
nity members gaining increasing recogni- ports that offer effective rewards in light
tion. Scholars credit engaged scholarship of them. For example, faculty are situated
with fostering innovation in research and within a complex set of power relations that
teaching methods (Bowen & Kiser, 2009; span different levels, which affect their be-
McKay & Rozee, 2004; Vuong et al., 2017), haviors—from their individual experiences
promoting principles of democracy and and interpersonal relationships to the com-
civic engagement on campuses (Jovanovic munities, institutions, and policy settings
et al., 2017; Peters et al., 2008), fostering in which they practice engaged scholarship.
knowledge-building collaborations between Understanding how motivations play out
at these different levels is key for several
campus and community partners (Jovanovic
reasons, including successful faculty re-
et al., 2017; Nicotera et al., 2011; O’Meara &
cruitment and retention, identification and
Niehaus, 2009), and disseminating research
implementation of institutional support
findings that address public issues faced lo-
strategies, and the creation of a greater
cally and globally (DeFelippo & Giles, 2015; sense of belonging among engaged scholars.
Osborne & Wilton, 2017; Vuong et al., 2017). Moreover, a focus on motivations provides
However, despite engaged scholarship’s an alternative to a dependency on institu-
benefits, higher education’s current pro- tional norms or the availability of resources
motion and tenure system lacks encourage- when it comes to faculty recognition and re-
ment, fair evaluation, and sufficient rewards wards with respect to promotion and tenure.
for the work of engaged faculty scholars In this article, we draw from Blanchard and
(Colbeck & Weaver, 2008; O’Meara, 2010; Furco’s (2021) conceptualization of engaged
O’Meara & Rice, 2005). scholarship, which can be ideally defined as
 Vol. 27, No. 4—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 24

a form of engagement “built on reciprocal, present within university settings (O’Meara,

mutually beneficial relationships between 2013, 2016).
members within and outside of the acad-
emy” (p. 19). This definition encompasses Within this promising direction in the lit-
multiple frames of engaged scholarship, erature, questions remain that deserve fur-
including community-engaged, publicly ther attention and clarification. Institutional
engaged, civically engaged, public schol- and nonindividual categories may still be too
arship, and critically engaged scholarship. broad and thus obscure the particularities
Relatedly, Beaulieu et al. (2018) identified of interpersonal, community, and societal
the following principles of engaged scholar- levels of influence on engaged scholars’
ship: high quality scholarship, reciprocity, motivation. First, for example, an interper-
identified community needs, boundary- sonal motivation might entail a mentoring
crossing, and democratization of knowledge. relationship, a community-level motiva-
These terms encompass attainment of the tion may refer to an attachment to a spe-
highest academic standards, mutual ben- cific neighborhood or place, and a societal
efit between scholars and their community motivation could indicate a focus on human
partners and collaborators, practical re- rights or a state policy proposal. All of these
sponses to community-identified issues, an motivations can be considered nonindividual
orientation toward crossing disciplinary and motivations, but their specificity here at dif-
knowledge boundaries, and the accessibility ferent levels of influence can provide more
and dissemination of knowledge beyond the clarity about how motivations operate, and
academy. can also guide effective interventions at each
level to support those motivations. Second,
In reviewing the literature of faculty moti- despite a general recognition of overlap
vations for pursuing engaged scholarship, among individual and nonindividual mo-
scholars have described intrinsic and ex- tivations, interactions among motivations
trinsic reasons constituting faculty motiva- are not well understood (Colbeck & Weaver,
tion. Intrinsic motivation refers to individual 2008; O’Meara, 2013). Lastly, although
knowledge, skills, and attitudes commonly increasing numbers of motivational and
attributed to demographics, prior experi- engagement models have appeared in the
ences with academia, or individuals’ pro- literature (Colbeck & Weaver, 2008; Darby &
fessional identity (O’Meara, 2008). Extrinsic Newman, 2014; O’Meara, 2008, 2013; Ward,
motivation often refers to universities’ in- 2010), the field lacks a clear or systematic
stitutional mechanisms such as promotion way to compare and contrast elements in
and tenure, as well as other factors such as these models for empirical or practical pur-
community partnerships and a scholar’s ac- poses. An exception is O’Meara (2016), who
ademic discipline (O’Meara, 2013). Although identified both macro and micro organiza-
internal goals and external conditions are tional practices.
factors that motivate faculty and have been
discussed as long-standing concepts in the This article provides a response to the fol-
literature, scholars have also argued that lowing research question: Why are faculty
a simple intrinsic–extrinsic dichotomy motivated to practice engaged scholarship?
provides insufficient theoretical basis for The findings reveal the existence of various
understanding the complexities of faculty intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that op-
motivation to pursue engaged scholarship erate at multiple levels. Thus, we have used
(Colbeck & Weaver, 2008). In response a multilevel frame to review the literature
to this critique, motivation models have on motivational factors of engaged scholars
become more sophisticated in recent years with a focus on individuals, relationships,
as scholars have more elaborately described organizations, communities, and public
motivational factors in personal, profes- policy. Following the literature review, we
sional, and institutional domains (Wade present a summary of the methods and find-
& Demb, 2009). Scholars have identified a ings from a study of 49 interviews across
range of individual knowledge, attitudes, 10 colleges and schools at the University of
and skills affecting engaged scholarship California, Davis (UC Davis). The majority
motivation (Blakey et al., 2015; Hou, 2010), of the 49 interviewees possessed tenure or
and some scholars have recognized more tenure-track appointments, and the major-
nuance in extrinsic motivation by describ- ity of the 32 interviewees who responded to
ing separate institutional and environmen- a demographic follow-up survey identified
tal categories as well as providing analyses as a woman, a person of color, and/or a
that consider micro and macro inequalities first-generation college student. The results
25 A Qualitative Study of Multilevel Faculty Motivations for Pursuing Engaged Scholarship

of the study are then presented using the tion of engaged scholarship (Franz et al.,
aforementioned levels. The article concludes 2012), leadership support (Hou, 2010; Wade
with a call for more relational approaches & Demb, 2009), financial support (Forbes
to understanding faculty motivations within et al., 2008; Nicotera et al., 2011; O’Meara,
institutions of higher education. 2010; Wade & Demb, 2009), and a center for
student engagement and community part-
Literature Review nerships (Franz et al., 2012; O’Meara, 2010;
Welch & Saltmarsh, 2013). Conducive work
The literature in this field recognizes faculty conditions are important as well, including
motivation to practice engaged scholarship workload (O’Meara, 2010), class schedule,
at various levels, with particular elabora- academic calendar (Franz et al., 2012), au-
tion of various individual and organizational tonomy, and organizational fit (DeFelippo
mechanisms. For example, an array of mo- & Giles, 2015). Campuses, departments, and
tivational variables at the individual level disciplines are all important contexts for
are documented in the literature, includ- influencing motivation (Colbeck & Weaver,
ing personal and professional experiences, 2008; O’Meara, 2013; O'Meara & Niehaus,
identities, and epistemological approaches. 2009; Wade & Demb, 2009).
The personal and professional identities
of engaged scholars are found to be im- Scholars also argue that community part-
portant, shaped by demographic, career, ners’ and students’ perceptions about the
institutional, political, and civic influences engagement arrangement are motivating
(Colbeck & Weaver, 2008; DeFelippo & Giles, factors, including whether they experience
2015; Nicotera et al., 2011; O’Meara, 2008; partnership and collaboration, satisfaction,
O’Meara & Niehaus, 2009; Ward, 2010). and trust (Bowen & Kiser, 2009; Darby &
Scholars are motivated by their inclusive Newman, 2014; DeFelippo & Giles, 2015;
and social approaches to epistemology and Franz et al., 2012; O’Meara, 2008, 2013;
knowledge production, wherein scholars O’Meara & Niehaus, 2009). The literature
challenge traditional forms of knowledge has a significant focus on service-learning
production and embrace engaged principles to improve learning outcomes and meet
and practices in their scholarship (Colbeck community needs, and so relationships and
& Weaver, 2008; O’Meara, 2008; Wade & interactions in classroom and community
Demb, 2009; Ward, 2010). Individuals’ ini- settings between faculty and students, and
tial participation in engaged scholarship between students and community part-
can be motivating in and of itself for future ners, are also an interpersonal motivation
participation, according to more cyclical (Bowen & Kiser, 2009; DeFelippo & Giles,
motivation models (Darby & Newman, 2014; 2015; Hou, 2010; O’Meara, 2008; O’Meara
O’Meara, 2013; Wade & Demb, 2009). & Niehaus, 2009). Interactions with family
members and colleagues, both internal and
Organizational characteristics are well- external to scholars’ home institutions,
documented in the engaged scholarship were documented to positively influence
motivation literature as well. Documented faculty motivations toward engaged schol-
influences include institutional type and arship (DeFelippo & Giles, 2015; Hou, 2010;
mission (Nicotera et al., 2011; O’Meara, Jovanovic et al., 2017; O’Meara, 2008, 2013).
2008, 2013; O’Meara & Niehaus, 2009;
Wade & Demb, 2009), institutional expec- In the public engagement motivation litera-
tations for the value of engaged scholarship ture, a variety of communities and commu-
(Lewing & York, 2017; Nicotera et al., 2011; nity settings are discussed. O’Meara (2008)
O’Meara, 2013), as well as institutional poli- and DeFelippo and Giles (2015) found that
cies and structures (Wade & Demb, 2009). engaged scholars are motivated by spe-
Recognition and reward for community- cific issues, people, and places, aiming to
driven research, teaching, and engagement address problems that affect geographic
in promotion and tenure protocols, faculty locations and communities of people that
work expectations, and faculty appointments matter to them. For example, such scholars
are widely called for by scholars (Darby & may collaborate with particular community
Newman, 2014; Forbes et al., 2008; Franz organizers, neighborhoods, or nongovern-
et al., 2012; Nicotera et al., 2011; O’Meara, mental organizations, or may work with
2008, 2010, 2013). Supportive institutional local government to impact policy for com-
practices include resources for professional munity benefit. Community and university
growth (Forbes et al., 2008; Franz et al., relations are also part of engaged scholars’
2012; O’Meara, 2010, 2013), a clear defini- motivations, where scholars desire to build
 Vol. 27, No. 4—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 26

partnerships (Abes et al., 2002; Banerjee & policy is an explicit focus, an outcome of
Hausafus, 2007), create community engage- community engagement, or a by-product
ment opportunities (DeFelippo & Giles, 2015; of research. In this context, more study is
Wade & Demb, 2009), push back against needed regarding means and ends of en-
traditional exclusionary practices of univer- gaged scholarship vis-à-vis public policy,
sities (Osborne & Wilton, 2017), and colearn and when this type of work can be catego-
and coproduce knowledge with communities rized as engaged scholarship—that is, when
(Franz et al., 2012; Ward, 2010). it is focused on reciprocal and mutually ben-
eficial relationships. It is not surprising that
Scholars also discuss communities in the a policy focus often intersects, intertwines,
context of desired impacts from engage- and is associated with political engagement
ment, including beneficial or useful sup- and social issues. For example, O’Meara and
port to address public or community needs Niehaus (2009) found that some service-
(Abes et al., 2002; Darby & Newman, 2014; learning faculty are committed to a specific
Franz et al., 2012; Hou, 2010; O’Meara & social cause, issue, need, or situation with
Niehaus, 2009; Osborne & Wilton, 2017; impact ranging from local to global, where
Ward, 2010). Colbeck and Weaver (2008) policy-related work may involve connecting
found that, out of all their identified goal people to political engagement opportuni-
types, integrative social relationships, which ties, including policy advisement. In addi-
“serve to maintain or promote other people tion to people and places, engaged scholars
or social groups” (Ford, 1992, as cited in are also committed to specific social issues.
Colbeck & Weaver, 2008, p. 11), were the A range of social issues have been reported,
most common among their study inter- including but not limited to environment,
viewees. Examples of this goal type include public health care, public education, urban
academically supporting students, serving planning, poverty, homelessness, sustain-
society, and producing tangible benefits ability, child advocacy, prisoner education,
for communities, departments, and uni- women’s health, rural community vitality,
versities (Colbeck & Weaver, 2008, p. 16). and economic and social justice (DeFelippo
Students make up a group of people that & Giles, 2015; O’Meara, 2008; Peters et al.,
matter to faculty, with improved learning 2008). Commitments to social issues may be
and development resulting from engaged supported by a university mission and public
scholarship as desired student outcomes funding source (Osborne & Wilton, 2017)
(Abes et al., 2002; Banerjee & Hausafus, and knowledge gained from an academic
2007; Blakey et al., 2015; Darby & Newman, discipline (DeFelippo & Giles, 2015). Some
2014; DeFelippo & Giles, 2015; Franz et al., researchers encourage engaged scholars to
2012; O’Meara, 2008, 2010). Professional be conscious and reflective about their com-
communities that offer faculty support and mitments to social issues and obligations in
socialization around engaged scholarship general, including biases, interests, roles,
have also been documented (Baez, 2000; politics, identities, and stances (O’Meara,
Franz et al., 2012; O’Meara, 2010, 2013; 2008; Osborne & Wilton, 2017; Peters et al.,
Wade & Demb, 2009). Several national or- 2008). Studies report faculty desiring to ad-
ganizations and networks, such as American dress social problems by becoming experts
Democracy Project, Campus Compact, and to influence public policy issues, creating
Imagining America, have been vital in this more socially just and democratic univer-
area (Orphan & O’Meara, 2016). However, sity classrooms and spaces, and making
leadership and support from disciplinary as- academic disciplines relevant in democratic
sociations is lacking, with limited guidance transformations of higher education and
coming from a few notable examples such community life (DeFelippo & Giles, 2015;
as the Modern Language Association and O’Meara, 2008).
the American Anthropological Association
(Staub & Maharramli, 2001). Although psychological, organizational, and
cultural fields have furthered scholarly and
Although overall less documented in the practical understandings of faculty pursuing
literature, public policy work has been rec- engaged scholarship, scholars have argued
ognized as a mode through which individu- that models from these areas overestimate
als practice engaged scholarship, as well as the roles of individuals and higher educa-
an example of how levels intersect vis-à- tion organizations and underestimate other
vis scholar motivations. Public policy is an profound influences on engaged scholar-
area that needs further conceptual clarity, ship (O’Meara et al., 2011). In discussing the
including distinguishing whether public perspective of psychology and motivation,
27 A Qualitative Study of Multilevel Faculty Motivations for Pursuing Engaged Scholarship

O’Meara et al. (2011) suggest that “origins of the private sector (Davis, 2009).
faculty engagement” can also be shaped by
We therefore offer a threefold rationale
“the social, economic, or cultural context”
(p. 89). They argue these contexts could for focusing on scholars at a public land-
better explain “origins” such as “genera-grant research university in California: (1)
The literature on faculty motivations has a
tional influences, involvement in identity
growing but small representation of insti-
politics, or power struggles for social jus-
tutional case studies conducted explicitly in
tice” (p. 89). The present study addresses
the western United States (McKay & Rozee,
this tension in the literature by asking the
research question, “Why are faculty moti-2004; Nicotera et al., 2011; Russell-Stamp,
2015), (2) none of the analyzed western U.S.
vated to practice engaged scholarship?” To
institutions were explicitly described as
address this question, we have paid analytic
public land-grant research universities, and
attention and description to various levels of
(3) given the empirical and practical inten-
influence on engaged scholars’ motivations,
tions of conducting this research, the study
including interpersonal relationships, com-
munity, and public policy. team sought to identify, first, motivations
and related opportunities and constraints at
Methods UC Davis specifically and, second, those that
may be transferable to other institutions of
Study Context, Sampling, and Recruitment higher learning.
The present study was conducted at UC The choice of a single case study approach
Davis, a public land-grant research uni- also has a threefold rationale: (1) Case
versity in the western United States. The studies are suited to addressing “why”
aim of the study was to understand faculty and “how” research questions like the one
motivations to practice engaged scholar- pursued in this study, (2) they are used to
ship in order to inform faculty program understand and describe in-depth complex
and development opportunities as well as social phenomena, and (3) they attend to
mechanisms that would increase recogni- social phenomena rooted in lived experi-
tion for this field in merit and promotion, ences and events structured by multiple
given the focus on engagement at this levels of influence (Yin, 2009). As stated in
research-intensive institution. Engaged Robert K. Yin’s (2009) book on case study
scholarship—as an aspirational ideal and a research design and methods:
set of emerging practices—remains periph-
eral to the actual work of most universities. As a research method, the case
The research literature explains this lack of study is used in many situations, to
priority by citing two powerful institutional contribute to our knowledge of indi-
barriers that affect both public land-grant vidual, group, organizational, social,
and research-oriented universities in par- political, and related phenomena
ticular. The first is the growing privatization . . . the case study method allows
of public universities, with education being investigators to retain the holistic
viewed increasingly as a private benefit and meaningful characteristics of
rather than a public good (Boyer, 1990; Rice, real-life events—such as individual
2016). As government funding decreases, life cycles, small group behavior,
the logic of the marketplace takes over, and organizational and managerial
it becomes difficult to justify research that processes, neighborhood change,
does not promise short-term economic or school performance, international
commercial value (Harkavy & Hartley, 2012; relations, and the maturation of
Newfield, 2008). The second barrier consists industries. (p. 4)
of internal university practices (Gelmon et
al., 2013; Jaeger et al., 2012; Stanton, 2012), The study was reviewed, approved, and
particularly merit and promotion processes assigned exempt status from the institu-
that skew faculty incentives away from en- tion’s IRB, but all study procedures were
gaged scholarship (Ellison & Eatman, 2008). implemented in alignment with IRB human
These two factors are mutually reinforcing. subjects research principles and practices,
The recent trend toward quantifying faculty including informed consent and confiden-
research products and outlets via measures tiality. A purposive sampling strategy was
such as H scores and impact factors rep- adopted that aimed for representative-
resents the transfer to the academy of the ness across engaged scholars’ disciplines,
bottom-line metric mentality prevalent in faculty ranks, colleges, and schools. Study
 Vol. 27, No. 4—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 28

team members created a list of initial in- The 49 interviewees are affiliated with 10
terviewee recommendations based on their academic colleges and professional schools
own knowledge of engaged scholars at the across the university. The schools and col-
university, and they also emailed deans leges with the most interviewees include the
from each college and professional school College of Letters and Science, the College
requesting the names of five to 10 faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences,
members committed to engaged research and the School of Medicine. Approximately
and/or teaching. The study team emailed 67 49% of the sample are full professors, and
recommended individuals to recruit for the over half of the interviewees have been with
study, and 54 of them participated in a one- the university for over 10 years. At UC Davis,
tenure is granted at the associate professor
hour interview, yielding an approximately
level for all colleges and schools. Additional
81% response rate. Of the 54 interviewees,
information on institutional characteristics
49 individuals were considered to hold an
is presented in Table 1.
academic position; therefore, five interview-
ees holding a nonacademic position were After all the interviews were conducted and
removed from the sample for analysis. analyzed, the authors sought to contextual-

Table 1. Institutional Characteristics of Interviewees

Characteristic n

College or School

College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences 7

College of Biological Sciences 3

College of Engineering 5

College of Letters and Science 10

School of Education 4

School of Law 5

School of Management 2

School of Medicine 5

School of Nursing 4

School of Veterinary Medicine 4

Title

Professor 24

Associate professor 8

Assistant professor 10

Assistant adjunct professor 2

Lecturer SOE (Security of employment) 1

Other a 4

Years at Institution

Less than 5 9

5–10 11

More than 10 29

Total 49
a
Interviewees in the “other” category held academic administrator and staff positions but not professorial
or lecture positions. Affiliations in this category include directors and codirectors of institutionally affiliated
centers, professional researchers and research administrators, and clinical staff in social work.
29 A Qualitative Study of Multilevel Faculty Motivations for Pursuing Engaged Scholarship

ize the interview findings with respondents’ faculty at UC Davis, and people of color rep-
self-reported demographic characteristics. resented 37.5% of survey respondents, com-
Based on manuscript reviewer comments, pared to 26.1% of senate faculty at UC Davis
the authors created and distributed an (see Table 2). These figures are consistent
electronic follow-up survey to the 49 re- with scholarship finding that women and
spondents in the study’s analysis sample in faculty of color are more likely to conduct
August 2022. This Qualtrics survey included engaged scholarship compared with men
the following three demographic questions: and White faculty (Abes et al., 2002; Antonio
(1) “How do you describe your racial and/or et al., 2000; Astin et al., 2006; Baez, 2000;
ethnic identity?”, (2) “How do you describe O’Meara, 2002). The demographic survey
your gender identity?”, and (3) “Are you also reported one respondent as nonbi-
the first in your family to receive a four- nary (3.1%) and a little under a third of the
year college degree?” The first two survey sample (28.1%) as the first in their family to
questions allowed for multiple answers and receive a four-year college degree.
included a text entry option, and the third
survey question allowed for a single answer. Qualitative Data Collection and
The survey was distributed via email to re- Development of the Interview Guide
spondents, followed by one email reminder.
Between November 2017 and February
A total of 32 respondents from the analytic
2018, the interviews were conducted with
sample completed the survey, yielding a
individuals who practice engaged scholar-
65.31% response rate and meeting the gen-
ship, the majority of whom held tenure-
eral norm of 20 to 30 completed responses
track appointments (see Table 1). Initial
in nonethnographic, interview-based quali-
interviews were conducted face-to-face
tative work (Warren, 2001). Demographic
by the principal investigator and a trained
data responses were collected anonymously
graduate student researcher, followed by
to promote trust, rapport, and commitment
the remainder of interviews conducted by
to the study (Carr et al., 2018).
the graduate student researcher. Interview
Most survey respondents (75%) described questions focused on individuals’ experience
themselves as a woman, a person of color, navigating and practicing engaged scholar-
and/or a first-generation college stu- ship, including the request for individuals to
dent. Women made up a majority of the share a story of a project or personal experi-
engaged scholar survey sample (59.4%). ence. Interviews often became a reflection
Underrepresented racial and ethnic minori- on the interviewee’s research and teaching,
ties made up 15.6% of demographic survey and the joys and challenges of working in
respondents, compared to 10.2% of senate an academic institution. The specific ques-

Table 2. Race and Ethnicity Comparisons Between UC Davis

Faculty and Survey Respondents

Category UC Davis facultya Survey respondents

Underrepresented racial and ethnic minoritiesb 10.2% 15.6%

People of colorc 26.1% 37.5%

Total (N) 1,400 32

a
UC Davis faculty data were obtained from UC Davis Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (2020), which reports
data collected in October 2016 on Academic Senate faculty that hold tenure/tenure track titles of assistant,
associate, or full professor.
b
UC Davis defines underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities as “African Americans, American Indian/
Alaska Native, Chicanx/Latinx (including Puerto Rican), and Pacific Islander (including Native Hawaiian)” and
excludes the categories “Other White/Unknown/Decline to State and White” (UC Davis Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion, 2020, Notes, para. 1).
c
UC Davis defines people of color as “all underrepresented minorities and Asian categories (Chinese-
American/Chinese; East Indian/Pakistani; Filipino/Filipino-American; Japanese American/Japanese; Korean-
American/Korean; Other Asian; SE Asian[,] not Vietnamese; and Vietnamese)” and excludes the categories
“Other White/Unknown/Decline to State and White” (UC Davis Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, 2020, Notes,
para. 1).
 Vol. 27, No. 4—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 30

tions from the interview guide that relate to and relationships with people, places, and
motivations, the focus of the present study, events that may have influenced motiva-
are as follows: (1) “Did you have any key tions for their engaged scholarship projects
mentors or people who deeply influenced and aspirations.
who you are, what you believe in and what
you’re committed to in your work and life? Qualitative Data Coding and Analysis
Tell me about them.” (2) “What led you to The interviews were recorded, transcribed,
do publicly-engaged scholarship? Had you and then imported into MAXQDA. Similar
been doing publicly-engaged scholarship to prior qualitative scholarship on engaged
before you came here [UC Davis]? What at- faculty perspectives (Darby & Newman,
tracted you to do this type of scholarship?” 2014), the coding and analysis plan drew
(3) “What would you say most motivates from Hennie Boeije’s (2010) widely cited
you to do publicly engaged scholarship? coding procedure. After the data collection
What are you most excited or passionate of interviews was complete, the graduate
about? What are the goals you most want student researcher who was present in all
to accomplish in this aspect of your work? of them began with an initial read-through
Not so much the goals that are in your job of the transcripts and proceeded with open
description, but the goals you hold person- coding the data in MAXQDA. Regular check-
ally?” (4) “Did you have any life-changing ins occurred among the research team about
experiences that put you on the path that the development of concepts and categories,
led you to be doing what you’re doing today? drawing from the team’s collective experi-
Tell me about them.” ence conducting and reading literature on
Interviewing faculty exemplars is a meth- engaged scholarship.
odological approach that has helped shape After reaching saturation of the initial
the literature on engaged scholarship moti- codes, the graduate student researcher and
vation (O’Meara, 2008; Peters et al., 2008). PI progressed to axial coding and continued
The present study builds on this tradition by regular check-ins. This process led to the
centering engaged scholars’ practice stories, definition and delineation of the following
wherein faculty describe an instance of their axial codes: Alternative ways of producing
scholarship in depth to illuminate the prac- and disseminating knowledge, engaged
tical contours of their work (Forester, 1993). scholarship’s scales of impact, a sense of
The theoretical approach that informed the obligation to people and places, and a per-
design of the study’s interview guide was sonal sense of reward and fulfillment. The
the narrative inquiry method (Clandinin & third phase, selective coding, then com-
Connelly, 2000), which lends itself to prac- menced between a second graduate stu-
tice stories by illuminating the storyteller’s dent researcher and the PI (the authors)
meaning-making from actual lived experi- for processing the theoretical models and
ences. These stories inform critical assess- evidence from an extensive literature review
ments of both knowledge production and on faculty motivations for pursuing engaged
practice in interdisciplinary fields, which scholarship. After observing the literature’s
maps well to engaged scholarship as both a more detailed elaborations of psychologi-
concept and a form of critical praxis that can cal and organizational factors in contrast
transcend disciplinary boundaries. to the data’s equal complexity of commu-
The narrative inquiry method is not a fixed nity, policy, and interpersonal factors, the
protocol and can vary in approach by study authors decided to apply a social ecological
(Clandinin, 2006; Clandinin & Connelly, lens to the data. The interview excerpts were
2000; Creswell, 2007), but the element well fitted to social ecology’s individual,
interpersonal, organizational, community,
threading approaches together is attention
and policy levels of analysis (McLeroy et
to a study’s particular field and interview-
al., 1988; Sallis et al., 2008), demonstrating
ees’ personal, social, and historical contexts
the empirical efficacy of this analytic lens
(Clandinin, 2006). Clandinin and Connelly
and addressing a meaningful tension in the
(2000) described a three-dimensional nar-
conclusions found within the faculty moti-
rative inquiry space that involves “the per-
vations literature.
sonal and social (the interaction); the past,
present, and future (continuity); and the
Trustworthiness of Findings
place (situation)” (Creswell, 2007, p. 56).
These dimensions informed the interview The rigor of the present study is evidenced
questions’ focus on personal trajectories by the ways in which our methods align with
31 A Qualitative Study of Multilevel Faculty Motivations for Pursuing Engaged Scholarship

Andrew Shenton’s (2004) “provisions” of going debriefing sessions took place among
trustworthiness, which are based on the the research team to exchange reflective
methodological contributions of Egon G. commentary on data collection impres-
Guba and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Guba, 1981; sions and analytic patterns throughout the
Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In addition to the life course of the study. Data analysis also
detailed transparency in our research pro- entailed negative case analysis to account
tocols provided above, and the limitations for all the data excerpts, categorizing each
noted later in the article, below we explain of them into analytic themes. Quoted data
the provisions of trustworthiness that we excerpts are included in the following sec-
applied for this study. tion to thickly describe themes for readers’
own assessments of the findings.
We adopted appropriate, well-recognized
qualitative research methods consistent
with extant interview studies about engaged Findings
faculty motivations (Darby & Newman, 2014; We analyzed the interview data and ascer-
O’Meara, 2008; Peters et al., 2008). Research tained that faculty motivations for pursu-
team members developed an early familiar- ing engaged scholarship existed at multiple
ity with the culture of the participating or- levels. It is worth noting that the findings
ganization through years-long occupational draw attention to interpersonal, community,
and educational affiliations with the uni- and public policy sources of motivation that
versity. The study designers employed the we argue deserve more elaboration in the
triangulation of different respondent types literature. The following section discusses
(representing various schools and colleges at the findings organized at the individual,
the study institution), job titles, years at the
interpersonal, organizational, community,
institution, racial and/or ethnic identities,
and policy levels.
gender identities, and generational college
statuses (see Tables 1 and 2). Triangulation
Individual Level Motivations
was also supported by conducting follow-up
surveys to quantitatively contextualize select Individual experiences shape scholars’ mo-
social identities represented in the sample, tivations to pursue engaged scholarship in
while relying on interviews to qualitatively their academic career. Interviewees spoke
understand how and when social identities about their personal and professional iden-
and experiences may shape faculty public tities informing their decisions to become
scholar motivations. engaged scholars, drawing from experiences
being raised in families and communities
Research team members adopted both writ- within contexts of race and ethnicity, educa-
ten and verbal strategies to help encour- tion, immigration, income, and geography.
age honesty during interviews, including A number of interviewees touched on the
scheduling in-person interviews, sharing theme of personally experiencing structural
their positionalities as engaged scholars, inequities, such as racism, sexism, and pov-
expressing openness about using the data erty, and using education and knowledge to
to improve support of engaged scholars,
effect change. They explained how engaged
and reassuring respondents of their rights
scholarship connects to their individual
to confidentiality, asking questions, raising
passion for intellectual development and
concerns, and skipping questions or re-
lifelong learning, motivating them to both
moving themselves from the study without
understand and resolve complex problems.
consequence. As reflected in the interview
For example, a professor in Native American
questions, iterative questioning took place
Studies who works with community part-
in the interview dialogues to clarify and
ners on how to form mutual relationships
elaborate on expressed perspectives for both
that support Native self-determination ini-
the interviewer’s and the interviewee’s un-
tiatives shared: “I grew up spending a lot of
derstanding.
time outside. I grew up [as] one of the very
Regarding data processing and intercoder few minorities in the community where I
reliability, an initial graduate student re- grew up and dealt with racism, both overt
searcher led the open and axial coding and covert, in multiple ways growing up, so
process, and a second graduate student I was drawn to social justice issues that deal
researcher led the selective coding and with the environment.” Scholars may turn
social ecological analysis. Although only to engaged work for its capacity to address
one graduate student researcher at a time social inequities experienced on a personal
coded at each of these stages, early and on- level.
 Vol. 27, No. 4—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 32

In the study, engaged scholars recognized site is, and were to contact us, that
that they never have all the answers, yet would be something that we could
individually they have the desire to keep at least tell them what happened . .
learning and growing. An assistant adjunct . clarified for me how important it is
professor in the School of Management ex- what we’re doing, even just at this
plains how their research connects to their interpersonal level.
individual passion for personal develop-
ment: “And just the intellectual curiosity of Interviewees also appreciated guidance from
all the things you have to learn and continue dedicated mentors, who demonstrated the
to learn. Right? It’s a lifelong learning pro- importance of cocreating knowledge and
cess. You can’t ever be truly up to date. You disseminating findings to create positive
can never hope to know everything you need impacts that address social issues and pro-
to know. So, there’s this constant charge duce beneficial outcomes for involved places
to continually learn.” While motivated to and people, such as students and commu-
understand complex problems, scholars nity partners. A professor in the School of
are also individually motivated to have an Medicine shared a story about meeting their
impact by concretely addressing those prob- mentor who prioritized community needs:
lems. A professor in the School of Education
who focuses on STEM education for high And I remember him saying, “If
school youth shared, I’m going to help you, I need you
to make sure that you stay true to
What I discovered was that, even what you are saying you’re going to
the more tedious moments of it, I do. And that’s to help the commu-
enjoyed them more, because I felt nity.” And I remember just thinking
like I was doing something good. profoundly like, wow, he not only
That was one moment, not the only believes this and says it, but he lives
one, clearly, but a moment late in it.
my college career where I thought,
I really want something that has For another faculty member, an assistant
that applied aspect to it, and that professor in the College of Agricultural and
feels like it’s a tangible good that Environmental Sciences, it is important that
I’m doing. . . . their research is relevant and understood in
accessible ways: “I want something that [a
Such feelings of self-efficacy served as an family member] can clearly articulate, that
individual motivational basis, and were also my research matters and this is why, versus
closely tied to the ways individual scholars something that’s articulated in a tenure file
personally connected with others. as an impact factor or citation count.” The
stories shared by interviewees capture a
Interpersonal Level Motivations range of interpersonal relationships—from
early childhood through completion of
Interpersonal experiences also fueled schol-
formal education to the types of relation-
ars’ motivations to address public needs
ships established with peers and individual
and overcome setbacks along the way.
community members.
Interviewees described a sense of fulfill-
ment from making a positive difference in
Organizational Level Motivations
people’s lives. Individuals shared stories of
influential relationships on their paths to Organizationally, interviewees indicate mo-
becoming engaged scholars, including with tivations based on the university’s institu-
individual family members, community tionalized principles that align with engaged
partners, university colleagues, and stu- scholarship. An associate professor in the
dents. A professor in the College of Letters College of Agricultural and Environmental
and Science, who collaborates with deport- Sciences observed:
ees in Mexico, offers the following example
of the importance and impact of relation- There is more and more support at
ships in engaged work: the university level, again the inter-
est or commitment of the Provost
We have his story that’s been pub- for this community engaged schol-
lished. His daughters have seen it. arship strategy, that speaks greatly
They know it’s out there, and if they to the value that the university is
have lost him . . . and they’re some- putting on the recent relocation
how able to find out where the web- of Imagining America to UC Davis
33 A Qualitative Study of Multilevel Faculty Motivations for Pursuing Engaged Scholarship

similarly I think represents a com- the management of a mill on the

mitment of the university for en- other side of the hill. So, after that,
gaged scholarship. we had to dig a well, but I guess to
say, I spent a lot of time outside so
Scholars noted that the mission of a land- this region is really important to
grant university aligns with scholars’ desires me.
to partner with and benefit communities, as
well as integrating research with teaching. Individuals also expressed commitments to
They recognized this alignment despite the produce knowledge that would benefit com-
complicated history of public land-grant munities that face social injustices, such as
universities with regard to building systems poverty and racism. An assistant professor
of oppression, land dispossession, and ties in Human Ecology explained their motiva-
to government and industry, which several tion:
interviewees acknowledged. An assistant
professor in the School of Education indi- The reason I do the work and tend
cated the reason they chose to take a posi- to focus on marginalized commu-
tion at the university: “So I ended up at UC nities is [that] I’ve seen what good
Davis because the opportunity to work and research can do in terms of cap-
create and teach and do the theoretical and turing people who listen or people
then apply it to actual products, apply it to who make decisions and what good
learning and teaching, that’s what brought research can do to help people listen
me here.” Interviewees also spoke about the to the challenges that are going on
university’s institutional identity coincid- or draw connections.
ing with the goal of making a difference
through engaged scholarship. A professor Sometimes scholars shared their prior
and director of a health disparities research hesitancy to start engaged work, but then
center shared the following perspective on observed the positive impacts it can yield.
the university’s purpose: A professor in the College of Letters and
Science remembered the following trans-
I think that the mission of the formation in their scholarly trajectory:
university, in terms of research,
education, and service is related I was very happy in the archive . .
pretty much, being a land-grant . I think I overcame that by seeing
public institution, that we are to work that other people were doing
serve. And serving means not only and seeing the potential for the
through education, but also through impact that community-based work
service and through reaching out to can achieve, and gradually got over
communities and trying to make my fear or reluctance or whatever
things better for, in my case, in that was. And now I can see very
underserved communities. clearly the potential impact of work,
of community-based work.

Community Level Motivations Other scholars discussed the imperative

Interviewees also reported developing a of people being involved in the problem-
sense of obligation at the community level, solving related to ecological issues. A pro-
many discussing attachments to specific fessor in the School of Veterinary Medicine
populations and places. A lecturer in the elaborated: “I learned how important com-
School of Law powerfully stated: “Then munities and humans were in that equa-
there’s those of us who come from that tion. . . . Not only were we the ones that
community and of course this is the whole were changing environments that made
reason why we’re here.” Similarly, a pro- them less optimal for wildlife populations,
fessor in Native American Studies identified but we were also the only ones that could
their attachment to place as the impetus for reverse that.” A professor in the College of
their research: Biological Sciences similarly discussed their
following interest: “Human activities have
I grew up without electricity for the a really big effect on these ecosystems. . . .
first ten years and we got our water I could see these ecosystems decline. That’s
from a spring and the spring dried why humans have to be part of the whole
up part way through my childhood. ecosystem. . . . It was just obvious that
It was related to some changes with humans had to be involved in the ecology.”
 Vol. 27, No. 4—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 34

Interviewees also reported experiencing science. They need a scientist to talk

community-level sources of motivation to in ways that they can understand
on their university campus. At both un- and take up and then use.
dergraduate and graduate levels, students
comprise communities that motivate en- Individuals also articulated engaged schol-
gaged teaching and collaboration for schol- arship’s influences on law and policy and
ars. Individual scholars also benefited from potential benefits for the public. An associ-
groups of colleagues who share similar ate professor in the College of Agricultural
engaged scholarship interests and dedicate and Environmental Sciences who directs
time and expertise to collaborative efforts. an action-oriented research center shared:
Through such campus community supports, “What motivates me is really the impact,
faculty feel encouraged in their commit- the benefits that we can have on changing
ments to the public good by directing their public policy, on supporting community em-
academic skills and education toward en- powerment, on channeling more resources
gaged scholarship. towards disadvantaged communities, that
kind of thing.” As is apparent in this quote,
Policy Level Motivations this conceptualization of impact intersects
In terms of public policy, scholars expressed at community and public policy levels. Other
a personal obligation to affect policy as a interviews expressed impacts that cut across
way to spur social change. Interviewees ex- two or more levels, which suggests that in-
perienced reward from influencing public terventions at different levels can work to-
discourse; affecting policy issues; producing gether and complement each other, and that
applied, tangible products with the results perhaps concepts such as power, inequality,
of their scholarship; and seeing the impact and differential access may be implicated
of policy change. A professor in Earth and at multiple levels of influence as well. As
Planetary Sciences emphasized their urgent, evidenced by our study’s examples, a focus
policy-level sense of obligation: “I’m trying on policy is more than regulatory reform; it
to motivate individual change but also I’m also encompasses aspirations toward politi-
trying to motivate people to get their gov- cal, societal, and environmental change.
ernment to change . . . because I work on an
issue that is extremely pressing and rapidly Implications
moving, and we have to do something about The findings provide evidence for exploring
it quickly.” Another faculty member, a pro- ways that institutions of higher education
fessor in Theatre, Dance, and Performance can support faculty at multiple levels, espe-
Studies, described the intellectual sense ofcially at universities that prioritize research
reward from partaking in politically relevant
over teaching and service, while at the same
work: time increasing efforts to recruit and retain
women and faculty of color. Interviews
Because you become much more qualitatively explored how and when social
sensitized, especially in the fields identities and experiences have shaped fac-
that I work in, to the way that your ulty public scholar motivations. When asked
body doesn’t stop at its skin. It goes about motivation, some engaged scholars
out from there. And thinking about spoke about experiences being raised in
the social and political implications families and communities within contexts of
of that is probably what has made it race and ethnicity, education, immigration,
intellectually really interesting to do income, and geography. At the individual
community work. level, a number of interviewees touched on
the theme of personally experiencing ineq-
Scholars want their scholarship not only to uities, such as racism, sexism, and poverty,
be published in journals, but also shared and using education and knowledge to effect
widely to influence important decisions change.
affecting communities. A professor in
Evolution and Ecology, who is a strong ad- The study underscores concerns about fac-
vocate in government, media, and educa- ulty recruitment and retention of engaged
tional circles, shared: scholars, especially women and faculty of
color, given that these populations repre-
You can write as many publications sented a significant percentage of the en-
as you want, but mitigation lies gaged scholars in our survey sample. More
in the hands of policy makers and broadly, a focus on recognition of engaged
government agencies, and they need scholarship necessarily encompasses equity
35 A Qualitative Study of Multilevel Faculty Motivations for Pursuing Engaged Scholarship

in scholarship and epistemic inclusion, es- support include providing individual fac-
pecially among faculty of color who practice ulty clear merit and promotion and tenure
engaged scholarship (Settles et al., 2019, guidelines, or examples of engaged scholar-
2020). Such recognition includes valuing ship evidence, both of which could reduce
the full array of faculty life experiences and confusion about what counts in dossier
ways of being in the world beyond social- reviews. At the interpersonal level, men-
ized disciplinary identities; it includes the torship by senior engaged scholars and es-
different types of knowledge that faculty tablishment of peer support networks could
bring to bear on their scholarship, and the help scholars gain firsthand knowledge from
diverse approaches to how knowledge is engaged scholars who have successfully
produced, with whom, and with what ef- navigated the system of faculty personnel
fects. To consider engaged scholarship as an reviews on such topics as how to articulate
equity issue challenges traditional knowl- holistic and impactful representations of
edge communities in the academy and the community-engaged research and/or teach-
ways these spaces are policed that devalue ing. Although more common, organizational
engaged scholarship. A key issue concerns level supports are also vital. For example,
how Whiteness reproduces social hierarchies explicit merit and promotion policies signal
and norms about engaged scholarship and to faculty that their work is supported by
how socialized behaviors support and re- their institution, while also providing guid-
inforce particular faculty motivations over ance to department chairs, faculty personnel
others, and related expectations for promo- committees, and others who review faculty
tion and tenure. Often, engaged scholars are dossiers. Similarly, faculty recruitment and
tokenized. At other times they are met with retention efforts that make explicit men-
resistance, hostility, and dismissiveness by tion of faculty public scholarship are an
their colleagues. These types of experiences important strategy to ensure a more diverse
also do epistemic harm and highlight ten- professoriate. Resources that support fac-
sions of othering and belonging inherent in ulty involvement in engagement centers,
structural marginalization (powell, 2012). recognition awards, and grant programs
are other examples. Shifting to the com-
Relatedly, the study has implications for fac- munities that are the focus of much en-
ulty recognition and the role of the promo- gaged scholarship work yet receive little to
tion and tenure system (Colbeck & Weaver, no institutional resources, grant assistance
2008; DeFelippo & Giles, 2015; Franz et al., to support these community partnerships,
2012; Jovanovic et al., 2017; Nicotera et al., as well as community coauthorship recog-
2011; Wade & Demb, 2009). Responding to nition, would provide significant recogni-
faculty motivations at multiple levels can tion of the labor behind the coproduction
more holistically meet individual and col- of knowledge. Additional ways to recognize
lective needs, which has implications for partners as coequals include community
promotion and tenure. Such a holistic ap- partner involvement in merit and promo-
proach is also a response to scholars who tion reviews, as well as the establishment
call on higher education leadership “to of IRB community advisory boards. Lastly,
diagnose micro and macro inequalities in the community of engaged scholars can be
how diverse forms of scholarship are rec- further enlarged, especially in the STEM
ognized” (O’Meara, 2016, p. 104). Insights fields, through institutional support strat-
from interviewees’ promotion and tenure egies that mirror engaged scholar motiva-
reflections articulate an array of challenges tions to produce research that responds to
and opportunities for universities to respond societal challenges and/or has public policy
to engaged scholarship motivation at mul- impacts. Such a focus on broader impacts is
tiple levels of influence. Universities would a timely response to growing public criti-
gain by taking more holistic and multilevel cism of institutions of higher education.
approaches to recognition and rewards,
Faculty recognition in the merit and pro-
thereby responding directly to faculty moti-
vations rather than framing reward systems motion system is not the only example
solely on institutional norms or the avail-to illustrate how institutions can provide
multilevel supports that match faculty
ability of resources, because multiple levels
of influence have the potential to support motivations. Similar approaches can be ap-
faculty motivation and subsequent produc- plied to increasing faculty involvement in
tivity. community-engaged learning or multiyear
anchor institution initiatives. A diversified
Possible forms of multilevel institutional investment strategy that spans supports at
 Vol. 27, No. 4—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 36

different levels will pay dividends in terms ated several faculty-facing programs and
of individual meaning, creating a sense resource supports between 2019 and 2021.
of faculty belonging, increasing retention At the individual and interpersonal support
rates, enabling new forms of knowledge levels, this new office offered guidance and
production, and demonstrating community- resources for faculty seeking evaluation of
based and policy-relevant impact. their public engagement activities for merit,
promotion, and tenure, as well as the es-
To further bolster motivation, and to pre- tablishment of a Public Scholars Community
vent hesitation to act on those motivations, to connect engaged scholars to one another.
the work of engagement needs to be recog- At the organizational level, several cohort-
nized and not punished by the institution. based faculty fellows programs were cre-
In reviewing our interviewees’ promotion
ated and focus on advancing individual
and tenure reflections, a few interviewees
scholarship and integration of community
noted how some department leaders and
engagement in coursework. Additionally, a
colleagues privilege traditional scholarship
research grant program supports university
in faculty evaluation, create conditions
researchers who are working in partner-
that compel engaged scholars to be risk
ship with nonuniversity groups. Although
averse, and discourage engaged scholar-
much work remains to effect change in
ship through punitive measures. Moreover,
merit and promotion policies, the office
engaged scholarship is one way to assess
has begun consultations with the univer-
the accountability of institutions of higher
sity’s faculty senate to consider changes to
education to the mission of the university.
the academic personnel manual, the policy
Engaged scholarship is especially vital for
document that describes expectations with
land-grant universities, which espouse
respect to research, teaching, and service.
adherence to the public good or societal
At UC Davis, the areas still most needing
benefit. This form of scholarship is also an
attention are community and public policy
avenue for unleashing faculty innovation
level motivations. However, plans are in
and creativity, as well as leveraging addi-
the works to provide community partners
tional sources of funding.
temporary affiliate status that would allow
them to gain access to training opportuni-
Conclusion ties, library services, and university events,
This study addresses a gap in the literature among other benefits. Additionally, internal
by focusing on different levels of influence collaborations are being explored to build
on engaged scholars’ motivation and offers the capacity of individual scholars to com-
a nuanced reading that takes into account municate and disseminate their research
an individual’s life experience, meaning- through nonacademic channels, including
making, and sense of belonging. Based on public policy briefs.
data from 49 interviews detailing practice
The present study’s findings bolster ar-
stories of engaged scholarship at a public
guments for multilevel approaches where
land-grant research university, this study
personal commitments, knowledge pro-
sought to understand faculty motivations for
duction and dissemination, and outcomes
this type of scholarly practice. Interviewees
are motivated and experienced not only
reported individual, interpersonal, orga-
at a few levels, such as the individual and
nizational, community, and public policy
institutional, but at multiple levels that dy-
influences on their motivation for engaged
namically interact with each other includ-
scholarship. The results offer an analytical
ing interpersonal, community, and public
structure for conceptualizing interactions
policy. These findings suggest the need for
between motivational themes and levels of
influence, as well as a practical approach relational theories and nonbinary models to
for university leadership to identify areas of further understand and analyze faculty mo-
change in institutional policies, programs, tivations for pursuing engaged scholarship
and processes to better support engaged and concordant practical interventions that
scholarship, especially around promotion support multilevel motivations. However,
and tenure. given that the present study focused on one
institution—a public land-grant research
Results from this study have already directly university in the western United States—it
influenced an implementation strategy at is limited in its methods and data, pre-
UC Davis centered on faculty recognition senting opportunities for future research.
and rewards. The newly formed Office of We encourage future researchers to apply
Public Scholarship and Engagement initi- multilevel analyses to other types of higher
37 A Qualitative Study of Multilevel Faculty Motivations for Pursuing Engaged Scholarship

education institutions to assess the suit- and ranks, yielding a limited sample size of
ability and fit of our findings, highlighting
49. Although these study constraints limit
the unique contexts and pathways in which the generalizability of findings, future re-
engaged scholarship is pursued. Future search can expand study sample sizes and
research may also explore the relationship aim for randomized sampling methods to
between motivational levels and various minimize sampling biases. Lastly, multilevel
engaged scholarship frames such as com- studies that examine equity and inclusion
munity, public, civic, or critical (Blanchard
are needed. For example, the field would
& Furco, 2021). Researchers may employ benefit greatly from relational and multi-
comparative study designs to analyze more scalar studies that critically examine how
than one institution vis-à-vis a multilevel individuals are situated in geometries of
framework, as well as how, if at all, motiva-
power regarding their own social identities,
tions may vary by level(s) of influence for relationships to others, the institutional
different demographic groups. cultures in which they find themselves, the
communities they engage, and the public
Additionally, the present study’s purposive policies that directly impact communities.
sampling strategy aimed for representative-
ness across scholars’ disciplines, schools,

Author Note
We thank Dave Campbell for his contribution to research design and Hannah Adamy
for her contribution to transcribing and analyzing the research data, as well as Bemmy
Jennifer Maharramli, Dave Campbell, Erika Kohl-Arenas, Stacey Muse, and Tessa Hill
for reviewing an earlier draft of this manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge the
individuals interviewed for this study, which shaped the formation of the UC Davis Office
of Public Scholarship and Engagement and the development of faculty recognition and
reward programs and supports. Data collection and analysis were sponsored by the Office
of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael Rios, Office of

Public Scholarship and Engagement, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue,
Davis, CA 95616. Email: [email protected]

About the Authors

Michael Rios is vice provost of public scholarship and professor of human ecology at the
University of California, Davis. His research interests focus on community engagement,
university–community partnerships, and collective impact in higher education. He received
his PhD in political geography from The Pennsylvania State University and his master of
architecture and master of city and regional planning from the University of California,
Berkeley.
Larissa Saco is a graduate student researcher at the University of California, Davis. Her research
interests broadly focus on politics–expertise dynamics between communities, universities,
policymakers, and markets. She received her master’s degree and is pursuing a PhD in sociology
from the University of California, Davis.
 Vol. 27, No. 4—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 38

References
Abes, E. S., Jackson, G., & Jones, S. R. (2002). Factors that motivate and deter faculty use
of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 5–17. http://
hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0009.101
Antonio, A., Astin, H., & Cress, C. (2000). Community service in higher education: A look
at the nation’s faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 373–397. https://doi.
org/10.1353/rhe.2000.0015
Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Misa, J., Anderson, J., Denson, N., Jayakumar, U., Saenz, V.,
& Yamamura, E. Y. (2006). Understanding the effects of service-learning: A study of students
and faculty. Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.
Baez, B. (2000). Race-related service and faculty of color: Conceptualizing critical agency
in academe. Higher Education, 39(3), 363–391. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003972214943
Banerjee, M., & Hausafus, C. O. (2007). Faculty use of service-learning: Perceptions,
motivations, and impediments for the human sciences. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 14(1), 32–45. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0014.103
Beaulieu, M., Breton, M., & Brousselle, A. (2018). Conceptualizing 20 years of engaged
scholarship: A scoping review. PloS ONE, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0193201
Blakey, J. M., Theriot, S., Cazzell, M., & Sattler, M. L. (2015). Is service-learning worth it?:
A mixed-methods study of faculty’s service-learning experiences. International Journal
of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 3(1), Article 10. https://doi.
org/10.37333/001c.21572
Blanchard, L., & Furco, A. (2021). Faculty engaged scholarship: Setting standards and build-
ing conceptual clarity. Academy of Community Engagement Scholarship. https://doi.
org/10.17615/0xj1-c495
Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Bowen, G. A., & Kiser, P. M. (2009). Promoting innovative pedagogy and engagement
through service-learning faculty fellows programs. Journal of Higher Education Outreach
and Engagement, 13(1), 27–44. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/481
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Carr, D., Boyle, E. H., Cornwell, B., Correll, S., Crosnoe, R., Freese, J., & Waters, M. C.
(2018). The art and science of social research. W. W. Norton & Company.
Clandinin, D. J. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Sage
Publications.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative
research. Jossey-Bass.
Colbeck, C. L., & Weaver, L. D. (2008). Faculty engagement in public scholarship: A motiva-
tion systems theory perspective. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement,
12(2), 7–32. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/509
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Darby, A., & Newman, G. (2014). Exploring faculty members’ motivation and persis-
tence in academic service-learning pedagogy. Journal of Higher Education Outreach
and Engagement, 18(2), 91–119. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/
view/1116/1115
Davis, G. F. (2009). Managed by the markets: How finance reshaped America. Oxford University
Press.
DeFelippo, A., & Giles, D. (2015). Mid-career faculty and high levels of community
engagement: Intentional reshaping of meaningful careers. International Journal of
Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 3(1), Article 11. https://doi.
org/10.37333/001c.21573
Ellison, J., & Eatman, T. K. (2008). Scholarship in public: Knowledge creation and tenure policy
39 A Qualitative Study of Multilevel Faculty Motivations for Pursuing Engaged Scholarship

in the engaged university. Imagining America.

Forbes, B. A., Wasburn, M. H., Crispo, A. W., & Vandeveer, R. C. (2008). Teaching service
learning: What’s in it for faculty at research universities? Journal of Higher Education
Outreach and Engagement, 12(4), 29–44. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/
view/488
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Sage
Publications.
Forester, J. (1993). Learning from practice stories: The priority of practical judgment. In
F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp.
186–212). Duke University Press.
Franz, N., Childers, J., & Sanderlin, N. (2012). Assessing the culture of engagement on
a university campus. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 5(2), 29–40.
https://doi.org/10.54656/NHRR3108
Gelmon, S. B., Jordan, C., & Seifer, S. D. (2013). Community-engaged scholarship in the
academy: An action agenda. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(4), 58–66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2013.806202
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75–91. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/30219811
Harkavy, I., & Hartley, M. (2012). Integrating a commitment to the public good into the
institutional fabric: Further lessons from the field. Journal of Higher Education Outreach
and Engagement, 16(4), 17–37. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/980
Hou, S. I. (2010). Developing a faculty inventory measuring perceived service-learning
benefits and barriers. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(2), 78–89.
http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0016.206
Jaeger, A. J., Jameson, J. K., & Clayton, P. (2012). Institutionalization of community-engaged
scholarship at institutions that are both land-grant and research universities. Journal
of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16(1), 149–169. https://openjournals.libs.
uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/926
Jovanovic, S., Moretto, K., & Edwards, K. (2017). Moving from thin to thick conceptions of
civic engagement: Faculty identity and goals for democratic learning. The International
Journal of Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement, 5(1), Article 4. https://
doi.org/10.37333/001c.29753
Lewing, J. M., & York, P. E. (2017). Millennial generation faculty: Why they engage in
service-learning. Journal of Community Engagement & Higher Education, 9(3), 35–47.
https://discovery.indstate.edu/jcehe/index.php/joce/article/view/411
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
McKay, V. C., & Rozee, P. D. (2004). Characteristics of faculty who adopt community service
learning pedagogy. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(2), 21–33. http://
hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0010.202
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on
health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351–377. https://doi.
org/10.1177/109019818801500401
Newfield, C. (2008). Unmaking the public university: The forty-year assault on the middle class.
Harvard University Press.
Nicotera, N., Cutforth, N., Fretz, E., & Thompson, S. S. (2011). Dedication to community
engagement: A higher education conundrum? Journal of Community Engagement and
Scholarship, 4(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.54656/SPEA6513
O’Meara, K. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship.
The Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2002.0028
O’Meara, K. (2008). Motivation for faculty community engagement: Learning from ex-
emplars. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(1), 7–30. https://
openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/518
O’Meara, K. (2010). Reframing incentives and rewards for community service-learning and
 Vol. 27, No. 4—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 40

academic outreach. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 8(2), 201–220.
https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/628
O’Meara, K. (2013). Research on faculty motivations for service learning and commu-
nity engagement. In P. H. Clayton, R. G. Bringle, & J. A. Hatcher (Eds.), Research on
service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment: Vol. 2A. Students and faculty (pp.
215–243). Stylus Publishing.
O’Meara, K. (2016). Legitimacy, agency, and inequality: Organizational practices for full
participation of community-engaged faculty. In M. A. Post, E. Ward, N. V. Longo, & J.
Saltmarsh (Eds.), Publicly engaged scholars: Next-generation engagement and the future
of higher education (pp. 96–109). Stylus Publishing.
O’Meara, K., & Niehaus, E. (2009). Service-learning is . . . How faculty explain their
practice. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 16(1), 17–32. http://hdl.handle.
net/2027/spo.3239521.0016.102
O’Meara, K., & Rice, R. E. (Eds.). (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple
forms of scholarship. Jossey-Bass.
O’Meara, K., Sandmann, L. R., Saltmarsh, J., & Giles, D. E. (2011). Studying the profes-
sional lives and work of faculty involved in community engagement. Innovative Higher
Education, 36(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-010-9159-3
Orphan, C. M., & O’Meara, K. (2016). Next-generation engagement scholars in the neo-
liberal university. In M. A. Post, E. Ward, N. V. Longo, & J. Saltmarsh (Eds.), Next-
generation engagement and the future of higher education (pp. 214–231). Stylus Publishing.
Osborne, G., & Wilton, S. (2017). Professing in the local press: Professors and public re-
sponsibilities. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 10(1), 67–80. https://
doi.org/10.54656/VGBZ5148
Peters, S. J., Alter, T. R., & Schwartzbach, N. (2008). Unsettling a settled discourse: Faculty
views of the meaning and significance of the land-grant mission. Journal of Higher
Education Outreach and Engagement, 12(2), 33-66. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/
jheoe/article/view/514/514
powell, j. a. (2012). Racing to justice: Transforming our conceptions of self and other to build an
inclusive society. Indiana University Press.
Rice, E. R. (2016). Ernest Boyer’s “scholarship of engagement” in retrospect. Journal of
Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 29–33. https://openjournals.libs.uga.
edu/jheoe/article/view/1250
Russell-Stamp, M. (2015). Faculty use of community-based learning: What factors really
matter? Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21(2), 37–48. http://hdl.handle.
net/2027/spo.3239521.0021.203
Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. (2008). Ecological models of health behavior. In K.
Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory,
research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 465–485). John Wiley & Sons.
Settles, I. H., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2019). Scrutinized but not recognized: (In)vis-
ibility and hypervisibility experiences of faculty of color. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
113, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.003
Settles, I. H., Jones, M. K., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2020). Epistemic exclusion:
Scholar(ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 14(4), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000174
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research proj-
ects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
Stanton, T. K. (2012). New times demand new scholarship II: Research universities and
civic engagement: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Higher Education Outreach
and Engagement, 16(4), 271–304. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/
view/1015
Staub, S., & Maharramli, B. (2021). Recognizing community-engaged scholarship in academic
personnel review: Advancing UCLA global and local engagement strategy priorities. UCLA
Center for Community Engagement.
41 A Qualitative Study of Multilevel Faculty Motivations for Pursuing Engaged Scholarship

UC Davis Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. (2020, June 22). Strategic vision data appendix.
https://diversity.ucdavis.edu/data
Vuong, T., Rowe, A. N., Hoyt, L., & Carrier, C. (2017). Faculty perspectives on rewards and
incentives for community-engaged work: A multinational exploratory study. Gateways:
International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 10, 249–264. https://doi.
org/10.5130/ijcre.v10i0.5268
Wade, A., & Demb, A. (2009). A conceptual model to explore faculty community engage-
ment. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 15(2), 5–16. http://hdl.handle.
net/2027/spo.3239521.0015.201
Ward, E. (2010). Women’s ways of engagement: An exploration of gender, the scholarship of
engagement and institutional reward policy and practice [Doctoral dissertation, University
of Massachusetts, Boston]. Arrow@TU Dublin. https://doi.org/10.21427/D7RX9R
Warren, C. A. B. (2001). Qualitative interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.),
Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 83–102). Sage Publications.
Welch, M., & Saltmarsh, J. (2013). Current practice and infrastructures for campus centers
of community engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 17(4),
25–56. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1067
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Vol. 27, No. 4—Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 42