You’re Getting Two For One With Me: Difficult New Sites Of Community Engagement Leadership Within Higher Education


  • David Peacock University of Alberta
  • Katy Campbell



Carnegie Community Engagement Classification pilots, community engagement professionals, Australian and Canadian higher education


The emerging literature on community engagement professionals (Dostilio), who occupy a 'third space' (Whitchurch) between academics and professionals within higher education, has helped construct a potentially unifying identity among staff leading community engagement activity within contemporary post-secondary institutions. This presentation critically engages this literature, and profiles the professional identities of Australian and Canadian postsecondary staff leading the adaptation and adoption of the elective Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement in their institutions. Drawing from interview data of 15 staff responsible for the Carnegie Pilot within their institutions across both Australia and Canada, and employing a narrative inquiry method sensitive to feminist analyses of power and institutional misrecognition (Fraser), we probe the tensions and frustrations of those leading the work of community engagement. We find that although exercising considerable leadership of academic engagement functions, these staff, regardless of their own more hybridized identities as practitioner-scholars or 'prac-academics', are often misrecognized through institutional designations as professional staff. Two staff portraits in particular highlight two sources of misrecognition: gender intersecting with race, and from the relegation of community engagement to an external relations function that runs parallel to the core academic purposes of the institution. The Carnegie Pilots in Canada and Australia represent a valuable attempt to institutionalize community engagement as the critical third mission of higher education. Yet the experiences of these staff also attest to an ambivalence about community engagement within the academy, and the people leading this work, particularly in the most research-intensive and most established universities in each nation.


Author Biographies

David Peacock, University of Alberta

is the Director of Community Service-Learning in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Alberta. His research interests are in community-university engagement policy and practice, institutional ethnography, discourses of Canadian experiential learning, and ‘first generation’ university student participation in community-engaged learning. 

Katy Campbell

is a Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Alberta. She works with narrative and autoethnography within a feminist, poststructural theoretical framework, examining the socially constructed nature of instructional design practice in higher education, primarily as questions of identity (intersectionality), agency, identity, and social change in design. 


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.

Acker, S. (2014) A foot in the revolving door? Women academics in lower-middle management. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1), 73-85,

American Council on Education (February 9, 2022). The Carnegie Foundation and the American Council on Education announce a partnership on the Carnegie Classifications for institutions of higher education.

Benneworth, P., Ćulum, B. Farnell, T., Kaiser, F., Seeber, M., Šćukanec, N., Vossensteyn, H., & Westerheijden, D. (2018). Mapping and Critical Synthesis of Current State-of-the-Art on Community Engagement in Higher Education. Institute for the Development of Education.

Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2007). Performing and reforming leaders: Gender, educational restructuring, and organizational change. SUNY Press.

Carl, J., & Menter, M. (2021). The social impact of universities: assessing the effects of the three university missions on social engagement. Studies in Higher Education, 46(5), 965–976.

Carnegie Elective Classification for Community Engagement (2021). Canadian Pilot Cohort: Closing Report- Collective Feedback. Internal member report.

Clarke, M., Hyde, A. & Drennan, J. (2013). Professional identity in higher education. In B.M. Kehm, B.M. & U. Teichler (Eds.), The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges (pp. 1-21). Springer.

Dostilio, L. D. (2017). The Community engagement professional in higher education: A competency model for an emerging field. Campus Compact.

Dostilio, L. D. & Perry, L. G. (2017). An explanation of community engagement professionals as professionals and leaders. In Dostilio, L. D. (Ed.), The Community engagement professional in higher education: A competency model for an emerging field. (pp. 1-25). Campus Compact.

Dostilio, L.D. & Welch, M. (2019). The community engagement professional’s guidebook: A companion to the community engagement professional in higher education. Campus Compact.

Engaged Scholarship Consortium (n.d.) Outreach and Engagement Practitioner Network.

Einarsdottir, U. D., Christiansen, T. H., & Kristjansdottir, E. S. (2018). “It’s a man who runs the show”: How women middle-managers experience their professional position, opportunities, and barriers. Sage Open, 8(1), 2158244017753989.

Fraser, N. (2000). Why overcoming prejudice is not enough: A rejoinder to Richard Rorty, Critical Horizons, 1(1), 21-28.

Griffiths, V. (2012). Women leaders in higher education: Organizational cultures and personal resilience. Generos, 1(1), pp. 70–94.

Grummell, B., Devine, D., & Lynch, K. (2009). The care-less manager: Gender, care and new managerialism in higher education. Gender and Education, 21(2), 191–208.

Guarino, C.M & Borden V.M.H. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family? Research in Higher Education, 58, 672–694.

Hanasono, L. K., Broido, E. M., Yacobucci, M. M., Root, K. V., Peña, S., & O’Neil, D. A. (2018). Secret service: Revealing gender biases in the visibility and value of faculty service. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(1), 85-98.

Hazelkorn, E. (2016). Contemporary debates part 1: Theorizing civic engagement. In Goddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., & Kempton, L. (Eds.), The civic university: The policy and leadership challenges. (pp. 34-64).

Hirshfield, L.E. & Joseph, T.D. (2012). “We need a woman, we need a black woman”: Gender, race, and identity taxation in the academy. Gender and Education, 24(2), 213-227,

Huppatz, K. & Goodwin, S. (2013). Masculinised jobs, feminised jobs and men’s ‘gender capital’ experiences: Understanding occupational segregation in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 49(2-3), 291–308.

Ispa-landa, S., & Thomas, D. (2019). Race, gender, and emotion work among school principals. Innovative Research Universities Gender & Society, 33(3), 387–409.

Kloot, L. (2004). Women and leadership in universities. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(6), 470–485.

Kreber, C. (2009). The modern research university and its disciplines: The interplay between contextual and context-transcendent influences on teaching. In Kreber, C. (Ed.), The university and its disciplines: Teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries (pp. 19–31). Routledge.

Lambert, T. (May 17, 2021). Alberta government unveils 10-year plan for PSE to mixed reviews. University Affairs.

Ledwith, S., & Manfredi, S. (2000). Balancing gender in higher education. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 7(1), 7–33.

Lawless, B. (2018) Documenting a labor of love: Emotional labor as academic labor. Review of Communication, 18(2), 85-97. https://doi-org.10.1080/15358593.2018.1438644

Lechuga, V. M. (2012). Emotional management and motivation: A case study of underrepresented faculty. New Directions for Institutional Research, 155, 85-98.

McIlraith, L., Broderick, C., Naughton, M.M., Kelly, M. (2021). The Irish Carnegie Community Engagement Classification pilot: A critical analysis on culture and context from a community of practice approach. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 14(1), 1-15.

McNay, L. (1999). Gender, habitus and the field: Pierre Bourdieu and the limits of reflexivity. Theory, Culture & Society, 16(1), 95–117.

Miller, R.A., Howell, C.D. & Struve, L. (2019) “Constantly, excessively, and all the time”: The emotional labor of teaching diversity courses. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 31(3), 491-502.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.

Priola, V. (2007). Being female doing gender: Narratives of women in education management. Gender and Education, 19(1), 21–40.

Public Purpose Institute (n.d.). Defining community engagement.

Schneijderberg, C., & Merkator, N. (2013). The new higher education professionals. In B.M. Kehn & U. Teichler (Eds.), The academic profession in Europe: New tasks and new challenges, (pp. 53–92). Springer Netherlands.

Siegel, S. (2018). Participant Observation. In B.B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation, (pp. 1214-1215). Sage Publications.

Simon Fraser University (n.d.). Carnegie community engagement classification – Canadian pilot cohort.

Smith, C., Holden, M., Yu, E., Hanlon, P. (2021). ‘So what do you do?’: Third space professionals navigating a Canadian university context. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43 (5), 505-519.

Stewart, S. (2019). Navigating the academy in the post-diaspora: #Afro-Caribbean feminism and the intellectual and emotional labour needed to transgress. Caribbean Review of Gender Studies, 13, 147–172.

Turner, C.S.V., Myers, S. L., & Creswell, J. W. (1999). Exploring underrepresentation: The Case of

Faculty of Color in the Midwest. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 27–59.

University of Technology Sydney (n.d.). Carnegie community engagement classification – Australia pilot.

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.

Weerts, D.J. & Sandmann, L.R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities. Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 73-106.

Weerts, D.J. & Sandmann, L.R. (2010). Community Engagement and Boundary-Spanning Roles at Research Universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 632-657,

Whitchurch, C. (2008). Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of third space professionals in UK higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 377-396.

Whitchurch, C. (2012). Reconstructing identities in higher education: The rise of ‘third space’ professionals. Routledge.

Whitford, E. (January 12, 2022). Carnegie Classifications seek a new home – again. Inside Higher Ed.

Woodiwiss, J., Smith, K., & Lockwood, K. (2017). Feminist narrative research: Opportunities and challenges. Palgrave Macmillan.

Zhou, Z. (May 12, 2021). Australian universities brace for ‘ugly’ 2022 after budget cuts. The Guardian.



How to Cite

Peacock, D., & Campbell, K. (2023). You’re Getting Two For One With Me: Difficult New Sites Of Community Engagement Leadership Within Higher Education. Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning, 9(1), 39–60.

Similar Articles

<< < 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.