Over the past 25 years, community engaged scholarship has grown in popularity, practice, and scholarship. A review of the literature suggests that a wide range of personal, professional, institutional, and communal factors (Demb & Wade, 2012)

While there are various theories about faculty involvement in community-engaged scholarship (CES), there is little understanding of how faculty approach and make meaning of CES for themselves (Morrison & Wagner, 2016). The purpose of this study was (a) to determine if a typology can represent the variety of ways in which faculty approach and make meaning of CES, and if so, then (b) to provide a rich description of the perspective of each "type." Data analysis using Q Methodology and focus groups of faculty who self-identified as being engaged in the community revealed a Community-Engaged Faculty Typology, with five distinct types. Each type is described in detail, followed by a discussion of the emergent typology, its limitations, and its implications for research, theory, and practice. Specifically, the findings from this study suggest that all five approaches to CES should be considered when training, developing programs, supporting, and reviewing the contributions of community-engaged faculty.

The Problem Higher education, including human resource development (HRD) programs, faces increasing public scrutiny for being out of touch with issues and concerns facing local and global communities by guarding limited conceptualizations of scholarship. In response, colleges and universities are identifying ways to bridge the academy (higher education) with the community-at-large and looking to its faculty to weave community concerns into scholarship through means such as community-engaged scholarship (CES). While the literature on and application of CES is robust in other disciplines, it remains less widely discussed in HRD. The Solution HRD scholar-practitioners have expertise in learning, leadership, organizational culture, and change, which could benefit the larger community, but also faculty and their work. Some HRD scholar-practitioners may already be practicing CES; yet, there is limited understanding of CES within HRD despite shared values and principles, including what may be blocking community-engaged efforts. To jumpstart the discussion, this article provides an overview of CES, identifying questions and issues for HRD scholar-practitioners to consider as part of a call to action to inform and advance the practice of and scholarship on CES. The Stakeholders This article has relevance for all who seek direct and indirect ways to collaborate, integrate knowledge across disciplines and contexts (including the community at large, field of HRD, and academicians), address community concerns, and translate knowledge to serve the broader good.

How to keep you doctorate on track: Insights from students' and supervisors' experiences

The Problem Change has changed, and workplaces are grappling with new complexities and ambiguities. Human resource development (HRD) scholar-practitioners are called upon to help workplaces learn to navigate these changes; however, traditional approaches have limited utility when dealing with dynamic, emergent change. To address these limitations, scholars have proposed adopting enactive approaches that are rooted in systems thinking and complexity theories, but there is limited understanding of what this means in HRD practice. The Solution This article explores HRD responses to change from an enactive perspective. Enactivism suggests that people create their context through engagement with physical and social environments. From this perspective, reflection is not necessarily “on” experience, as if somehow separate from it. Rather, reflection is active engagement in, by, and through experience. This article aims to expand theoretical understanding and practical applications of enactivism in workplace learning. The Stakeholders HRD scholar-practitioners seeking new options for navigating workplace learning complexities.