Texas Tech University
Outreach and Engagement Inventory
Institutional Summary
Academic Year 2013 Administration
Report April 2014
Page | 1
Texas Tech University 2014 Outreach & Engagement Report
Introduction
In 2009, Texas Tech University (TTU) implemented a modified
version of Michigan State University’s Outreach and Engagement
Measurement Instrument (OEMI), for the purpose of gathering
benchmark data on the institution’s outreach and engagement activities
for TTU’s Strategic Priority 4 “Further Outreach and Engagement: We
will expand our community outreach, promote higher education and
continue to engage in partnerships in order to improve our communities
and enrich their quality of life.” 1
engagement projects and activities which took place during the
academic year of 2013.
TTU has adopted the Carnegie Foundation’s definition of outreach
and engagement: “Community Engagement describes the collaboration
between institutions of higher education and their larger communities
(local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial
exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnerships and
reciprocity.” 2 The Academic Year 2012/2013 OEI used the same
definition.
Since then, the OEMI has been administered annually and undergone
several modifications to meet TTU’s evolving needs. Moreover, in 2012,
TTU’s Faculty Senate approved inclusion of OEMI questions in Digital
Measures (DM), a platform used to gather data on annual faculty activity.
Based on a request from the Provost’s Office, in 2013 the Office of
Planning and Assessment (OPA) and the Office of Engaged Research and
Partnerships collaborated to create a more user-friendly, streamlined
version of the instrument Renamed the TTU-Outreach and Engagement
Inventory (TTU-OEI), the modified instrument has made significant
improvements to its usability. Changing from an online Qualtrics survey
to a database format, a dashboard page now provides ease of entry and
data retrieval for users. While the format and look of the former OEMI
have changed, the survey questions have remained relatively consistent
with previous versions of the OEI.
In November of 2013 a letter by Provost Schovanec was sent out via
e-mail to all TTU faculty and professional staff asking for their
participation in the OEI survey. Reminders about survey participation
were sent during the ensuing weeks. The survey opened on December
3rd 2013, and was closed on January 15th, 2014. A total of 422 responses
were collected via the OEI. In addition to OEI responses, a total of 564
records were extracted from DM. Data from the OEI and DM were
thoroughly reviewed and analyzed to ensure validity and nonduplication of information.
1
2
The present report summarizes the Outreach & Engagement
activities as reported by faculty and staff from academic and
administrative units at Texas Tech University (TTU) via the OEI and
Digital Measures. Data for this report constitute outreach and
www.ttu.edu/stratplan/docs/2012-stratplan.pdf
Methodology and Sample
Results
This report reflects outreach and engagement data collected via the
Texas Tech Outreach & Engagement Inventory (TTU-OEI) and the
University’s Digital Measures Activities Database (a repository for
faculty member’s scholarly work). It should be noted that information
provided for the TTU-OEI is self-reported and while participation is
www.classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php
Page | 2
encouraged, it is voluntary. The information derived from Digital
Measures, while self-reported, often constitutes a portion of a faculty
member’s annual review folder which may be used for tenure and
promotion purposes.
Outreach & Engagement Data
Analysis of AY 2012/13 data reported via the TTU-OEI and DM
suggests the following about faculty and staff outreach and engagement
at TTU: Projects Reported: 986 unique projects were reported by
faculty and staff. In terms of Initiative, 398 (48%) were reported as
individual projects, 254 (30%) were reported as institutional, and 179
(22%) were reported to be multi-institutional in nature. Area of
concern addressed: The majority of projects (435, 26%) reported
Education to be their primary area of concern, followed by Community
Development (330, 20%). Funding: A dollar amount in excess of 53
million was reported as having been generated during AY 2012/13 from
outreach and engagement projects. Education was the area of concern
that generated the most funding ($19,656,970) whereas, by type of
engagement, Engaged Research and Creative Activity generated the most
funding ($13,761,195). Faculty Hours: A total of 69,772 unique faculty
hours were reported as having been dedicated to outreach and
engagement projects which translates to an estimated salary investment
value of over 3.5 million dollars (based on median TTU full-time faculty
salary). Professional staff reported an investment of 186,894 staff hours.
Participants: Primary and secondary level students (K-12) were the
most prominent participants in TTU’s outreach and engagement
activities. The area of concern that involved most participants was
education with a total of 81,112 K-12 students (the variable participants
includes duplicated counts). Outreach and engagement from Texas Tech
University was reported to have a global, national and regional
impact. A total of 20 projects were said to serve all countries, while 108
projects indicated serving a country other than the United States. All U.S.
states were impacted by TTU outreach and engagement. Lastly, all Texas
counties benefited from TTU outreach and engagement with Lubbock
County, and surrounding counties, reporting the greatest involvement.
The following tables and figures provide a detailed and
contextualized summary of outreach and engagement at Texas Tech
University during AY 2012/2013.
Page | 3
Summary by Area of Concern
Unique Projects
Unique Faculty Hours
Unique Staff Hours
986
69,772
186,894
Grand Total
Area of Concern
Business/Economic Development
Community Development
Education
Environment/Natural Resources
Facilities and Construction
Global Issues
Governance and Public Policy
Health and Health Care
Not Reported
Other
Safety and Security
Science and Technology
Youth and Family Relationships &
Well-Being
Grand Total
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Number of
Projects1
External
Funding2
Faculty
Hours3
Staff Hours4
Student
Participants5
Faculty
Participants6
Staff
Participants7
K-12
Participants8
Other
Participants9
435
19,656,970
52,423
181,710
8,080
722
524
81,112
5,654
55
315,129
4,209
9,840
32
330
64
16
46
177
10
649,122
4,753,779
1,753,221
863,440
529,668
1,542
7,245
879,595
1,642
21,000
94
1,750,710
1,657*
6,100
15,312
19,188,104
28
33,013
1,475,907
268
102
2,200
1,293,533
$53,130,178
337
6,115
6,628
28,047
164,813*
0
81,353
8,602
772
9,807
65,226
560
356
11,845
199
9
205
317
3
61
30
0
1
131
98,043
944
572,006*
74
196
1,774
466
1,308
827
52,672
62,955
74
17
24,704*
10
23
929
36
8
22
17
45
8
67
56,045
5
0
604
0
2,041
516
303
143
26,233
82
216
6,673
7
2,871*
0
0
1,971*
200
201
173,697*
17,047
39,254
2,043
93
467
512
2,989
524
1,100
0
29
778
70,490*
Includes duplicated counts as respondents were allowed to select as many areas of concern applicable to their project/activity.
This is the total non-duplicated dollar amount generated by individual, institutional, and multi-institutional partnerships.
This is the product of faculty hours dedicated to a project by area of concern*
This is the product of staff hours dedicated to a project by area of concern*
This is the product of the number of university student participants by area of concern.*
This is the product of the number of faculty participants by area of concern.*
This is the product of the number of staff participants by area of concern.*
This is the product of the number of K-12 students by area of concern.*
This is the combined product of the number of government entities, private entities, and public in general by area of concern.
* Includes duplicated counts as respondents were allowed to select as many areas of concern applicable to their project/activity.
Page | 4
Summary by Form of Engagement
Unique Projects
Unique Faculty Hours
Unique Staff Hours
986
69,702
187,088
Grand Total
Form of Engagement
Clinical Service
Engaged Instruction: Credit
Number of
Projects1
58
71
Engaged Instruction: Non-Credit
Engaged Instruction: Public Events and
Understanding
200
Not Reported
49
Engaged Research and Creative Activity
Experiential or Service Learning
Technical or Expert Assistance
Other
Grand Total
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
237
Funding2
1,287,585
8,871,767
3,249,640
8,099,400
281
13,761,915
169
5,346,755
114
509
1,688*
2,518,736
4,157,125
5,837,255
$53,130,178
Faculty
Hours3
Staff Hours4
Student
Participants5
Faculty
Participants6
Staff
Participants7
K-12
Participants8
Other
Participants9
32,018
42,521
2,879
623
522
52,536
24,452
679
67,482
24,793
17,239
17,297
27,597
35,495
13,402
815
18,506
38,273
200,642*
24,488
116,705
782
2,533
159
351
85
242
44,003
10,345
1,210
1,040
6,068
411
30
27
49,974
46,146
18,751
22,343
370,999*
6,911
3,296
3,875
7,301
38,333*
1,138
557
367
885
5,320*
337
262
665
3,859*
2,206
8,972
53,355
51,603
14,028
20,692
27,665
298,539*
2,366
2,943
16,017
7,853
914
6,688
20,406
106,432*
Includes duplicated counts as respondents were allowed to select as many areas of concern applicable to their project/activity.*
This is the total non-duplicated dollar amount generated by individual, institutional, and multi-institutional partnerships.
This is the product of faculty hours dedicated to a project by form of engagement.*
This is the product of staff hours dedicated to a project by form of engagement*.
This is the product of the number of university student participants by form of engagement.*
This is the product of the number of faculty participants by form of engagement. *
This is the product of the number of staff participants by form of engagement.*
This is the product of the number of K-12 students by form of engagement.*
This is the combined product of the number of government entities, private entities, and public in general by forms of engagement.*
* Includes duplicated counts as respondents were allowed to select as many areas of concern applicable to their project/activity
Page | 5
Institutional Summary by Reporting Unit
Unique Projects
Unique Faculty Hours
Unique Staff Hours
986
69,772
186,894
Grand Total
Reporting Unit
College of Arts & Sciences
Units10
Administrative
College of Agricultural & Natural
Sciences
College of Architecture
Rawls College of Business
College of Education
Number of
Projects1
174
181
54
10
18
Funding2
8,752,100
4,677,392
7,372,950
5,935,500
199,998
Faculty
Hours3
Staff Hours4
Student
Participants5
Faculty
Participants6
Staff
Participants7
K-12
Participants8
Other
Participants9
7,778
138,668
8,550
681
1097
69,861
22,121
120
0
21
12
100
48
8,809
1,086
722
3,852
5
40
3,197
140
108
1038
513
45
39
173
20
22
21,317
84
0
2,673
818
164
93
17,969,616
14,489
28,567
2,654
288
219
34,993
1,927
College of Human Sciences
225
2,913,028
15,579
9,713
1,229
205
94
17,040
2,368
College of Media & Communication
12
525
125
1,063
93
46
148
College of Engineering
School of Law
College of Visual & Performing Arts
Grand Total
42
12
165
986
3,140,683
55,000
0
2,113,911
$53,130,178
1,716
410
18,538
69,772
652
60
5,212
186,894
291
56
3,593
21,919
66
30
536
2,517
41
3
153
1,880
8,019
412
101
16,430
15,830
20,995
167,493
659
68,615
1. This is the count of unique projects reported.
2. This is the total non-duplicated dollar amount generated by individual, institutional, and multi-institutional partnerships.
3. This is the unique number of faculty hours dedicated to a project by reporting unit.
4. This is the unique number of staff hours dedicated to a project by reporting unit.
5. This is the unique number of university student participants by reporting unit.
6. This is the unique number faculty participants by reporting unit.
7. This is the unique number of staff participants by reporting unit.
8. This is the unique number of K-12 students by reporting unit.
9. This is the unique number of government entities, private entities, and public in general by reporting unit, referred to as “other”.
10. Administrative Units are those units that are not considered Colleges such as Office of the Provost, Library, etc.
Page | 6
Other Tables and Figures
The following figures and graphs depict institution-wide outreach and
engagement by initiative type, geographic location and partnerships.
Data is based on 986 unique projects reported.
Projects by Initiative Type
Projects considered Individual Initiative are those that are not
dependent on any support from a program, department, or the
university beyond base salary. Institutional Initiatives includes those
projects that are sponsored or supported by a department, program, or
the university. Lastly, Multi-Institutional Initiatives are those initiatives
led by multiple institutions. .
Projects by Initiative Type
22%
48%
Individual
Institutional
30%
Multi-Institutional
Geographic Location
In terms of the global impact of outreach and engagement at TTU,
917 projects were reported as serving the United States. A total of 20
projects were said to serve all countries, while 108 projects indicated
serving a country other than the United States. The countries most
served by TTU outreach and engagement were Canada (12), Brazil (6),
and Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom with (5).
Projects by Countries other than the US
Afghanistan
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Australia
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo, Democratic Republic of (Zaire)
Czech Republic
Dominican Republic
Egypt
England
Finland
Germany
Ghana
Guatemala
India
Israel
Jamaica
Kenya
Korea, Democratic People's Republic…
Malawi
Mali
Malta
Mexico
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Panama
Philippines
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Tanzania
Thailand
Uganda
United Kingdom
US/Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands, U.S.
Zambia
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Page | 7
In terms of states, a total of 79 projects indicated that they served all
states within the United States. While most projects reported serving the
state of Texas (706), 46 served the state of New Mexico, and 15 served
the state of Oklahoma.
Partnerships
Respondents reported 425 outreach and engagement projects with
one or more partnerships, resulting in nearly 1,500 established
partnerships.
Considerations
While the data presented in this report is thorough and the result of
rigorous analysis there are certain limitations and issues associated with
the data that warrant attention and may be viewed as limitations to the
measurement of outreach and engagement. These limitations may be
confounded by inherent measurement error associated with selfreported instruments. The following comprises a cursory list of
limitations that have been identified:
• Credit for a project or activity is only given to the academic unit of
the primary respondent. This practice precludes credit to
collaborating academic units.
• In-kind revenue or funding is not currently being reported through
the TTU-OEI. This may result in a significant dollar amount that is
currently not accounted for.
• Given that respondents are allowed to select multiple areas of
concern and types of engagement for their projects, it is currently
impossible to identify which of these is the main priority of the
reported project. Associating a ranking to these variables would
allow for a more concise report.
• Recall bias may be causing underestimation of several variables
including: total hours, number of students involved, number of other
(entities) involved. For example, several projects reported extensive
faculty and staff involvement yet failed to allocate hours to such
projects.
• The TTU-OEI lacks clarity pertaining to what defines a project
participant. This concern is particularly relevant when measuring
student participants.
Given these limitations, Texas Tech Outreach & Engagement, the Office
of Planning & Assessment, and the Office of Information Technology
continue to work diligently to improve the measurement of outreach and
engagement at Texas Tech University. This work includes the refining of
the TTU-OEI measurement instrument and educational and recruitment
efforts.
Page | 8