"Scholarship Reconsidered"
What is scholarship? The definition is changing in an educational environment with changing needs.
The term "scholarship" was once easy to understand. It conjured up a picture of a scientist in a laboratory, or a professor in a library pouring over books, discovering some unique and narrow facet of information that advanced knowledge in his or her field. Everybody agreed as to what it meant. Lately, however, that has changed. Sparked primarily by Ernest Boyer's Carnegie Foundation Report on the topic in 1990, four different types of scholarship have been identified and used. Since then, the field of scholarship has undergone a major transformation, creating considerable confusion as to what scholarship is, where it belongs, and how it should be done. The following discussion is meant to clarify some of this confusion.
What is "scholarship?"
Scholarship, most simply defined, means research and study on a specific topic. Generally speaking, it was understood as a college professor's original investigation and research into their specialized field or academic discipline. In higher education circles, it has been the means by which college professors remain not only current in their discipline, but improve their own knowledge (making them a better teacher), contribute to knowledge in their area of specialization, and bring recognition to the institution as well as the faculty member. Since the 1940s, faculty scholarship in higher education has commonly been considered "research," the investigation of some aspect of a field using research methods and resulting in the discovery of "new" knowledge, and the advancement of knowledge in that field.
Today the term has been broadened in many circles - by "scholars" of scholarship, by expectations of the institution, and by accrediting agencies. The NCA (North Central Accrediting Agency) has expanded the idea of faculty scholarship to include a much wider view - that of "acquiring, creating, and applying knowledge." In 1990, Carnegie Foundation scholar Ernest Boyer wrote a groundbreaking document, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, which transformed the idea of scholarship in higher education.
Back to Top
What is Boyer's new idea of scholarship?
Boyer mainly addresses the exclusionary aspect of the traditional view of scholarship as typically done in research universities, noting that the professoriate and higher education had changed. (Research universities compose only 7% of institutions of higher education in America today.) Many other ways of acquiring and using knowledge exist in the real life of the faculty member, and all of these are valid to a professor's role and work. Boyer calls for a more "dynamic understanding" of the topic, one in which "rigid categories" are broadened. He defines "four separate, but overlapping, functions" of faculty scholarship (16):
"Scholarship of discovery" refers to traditional scholarship, or the research into one's discipline and discovery of original ideas and presentation of papers on these ideas at conferences or publication in journals. This scholarship usually advances knowledge in one's discipline, and Boyer asserts that his study broadening scholarship does not mean to diminish traditional kinds of research, but rather to strengthen its importance (17).
"Scholarship of synthesis or integration" is a scholarship that synthesizes and interprets the original ideas of the scholarship of discovery, and adds new insights, often making scholarship more public and useful as a result. Boyer states that it is "making connections across disciplines, placing specialties in larger context, illuminating data in a revealing way, often educating non-specialists, too… through connectedness research is ultimately made authentic" (18-19).
"Scholarship of engagement or application" is service to the outside world -- applying the knowledge of the disciplines to the real world, as well as allowing the world of social needs to define areas of investigation … "particularly needed in a world in which huge, almost intractable problems call for the skills and insights only the academy can provide" (23).
The term "scholarship of teaching and learning" is defined originally by Boyer as a careful planning and continuous examination of pedagogical procedures. He cautions however, that "teaching begins with what the teacher knows" (23). In other words, for Boyer, most important is content knowledge, since good pedagogy, with nothing to present, is not good for much.
For more discussion of Boyer's broadening of scholarship, see Broadening Scholarship Definitions.
Back to Top
Did Boyer mean to diminish or even eliminate the idea of traditional research, or "scholarship of discovery?"
Absolutely not. Boyer states: "Research is central to the work of higher learning, but our study here, which inquires into the meaning of scholarship, is rooted in the conviction that disciplined, investigative efforts within the academy should be strengthened, not diminished" (17). Later he emphasizes:
First, all faculty should establish their credentials as researchers. Whether or not they choose specialized, investigative work on an ongoing basis, every scholar must, we believe, demonstrate the capacity to do original research, study a serious intellectual problem, and present to colleagues the results. Indeed, this is what the dissertation, or a comparable piece of creative work, is all about. Second, all members of the faculty should, throughout their professional careers, stay in touch with the developments in their fields and remain professionally alive. But we also underscore the point that this might be accomplished in different ways. (27)
Back to Top
Yesterday I watched a TV show about Zimbabwe on the "Travel Channel" - and really learned some things I didn't know before… I "acquired knowledge." Would Boyer call that scholarship? Where does the definition of scholarship end? What are the parameters?
The "sequel" to Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered, Scholarship Assessed, sets forth standards for what constitutes scholarly work and for evaluating work both as scholarship and as effective scholarship. Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff determine that a good scholar must have six qualities: clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate methods, significant results, effective presentation, and reflective critique. These also encompass Lee Shulman's criteria that scholarship must be public, not private, susceptible to critical review and evaluation, and accessible for exchange and use by other members of one's scholarly community in order to be considered scholarship. Boyer also adds that the area you are investigating (in this case, Zimbabwe) should relate directly to what you do or teach as a faculty member.
Back to Top
Does Boyer believe that some kinds of scholarship are more appropriate to some kinds of institutions, and others, other kinds?
The answer to this question is partially dependent on what kind of institution your school is. In 1990, Boyer quotes Frank Wong, then vice president of academic affairs for Redlands University, as saying:
When I arrived at Redlands two and a half years ago faculty members would frequently comment on the 'identity problems' at the university. A significant number of faculty wanted to pursue the Pomona prototype. A smaller number wished that we were more like Stanford where professional and graduate schools set the tone and dominate the budget. Still others wanted Redlands to be like Hampshire or Evergreen, overtly unconventional and self-consciously progressive. One did not have to look far for the source of the identity problem. There was no definitive model of the comprehensive university. And somehow, the models that existed, those that faculty intuitively turned to, were a poor fit for the assemblage of activities and dynamics that are found at the comprehensive university. Because that specie of institution is so poorly defined and ill understood, those of us at such universities need to create their meaning and interpret their significance. (63)
Boyer says that technical and business schools might gravitate towards scholarship of teaching more, and comprehensive universities might gravitate towards scholarship of integration more. In the end, however, what the institution is, and what its goals are, may be a moot point.
Why? Because Boyer asserts that it is not the institution that should determine and drive the type of scholarship that the faculty produce - it is the individual professors themselves. Note too that the title of Boyer's book is not "Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the New and Varied Institutions." It is Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The purpose of Boyer's document is to expand options for the faculty, not to restrict the faculty. Boyer meant to allow room for creativity and diversity. His fourth chapter, "The Creativity Contract," laments that the "suffocatingly restricted view of scholarship leads frequently to burnout or plateaus of performance as faculty are expected to do essentially the same things year after year" (43). Boyer intends to liberate the faculty from having to produce traditional scholarship year after year for tenure, but does not intend to "jump out of the frying pan into the fire." That is, he does not intend for an institution to select another type of scholarship and designate only that as its sole acceptable form of academic work, in lieu of traditional scholarship, thus effectively still restricting faculty's scholarship options. For any institution to select only one to two or even three of the types of scholarship as appropriate for its faculty, even if that does not include traditional scholarship, is to do exactly what Boyer was trying to avoid. It makes the same mistake that had already been made with traditional scholarship - limiting faculty creativity and options - options that contribute to the academic work of faculty as productively as others. He explains:
To counter burnout and stagnation, scholarship in the fullest sense must be acknowledged. This means not only broadening the rewards system but creating flexible and varied career paths for professors. We urgently need arrangements that encourage shifts and alterations throughout a lifetime…periodically the individual must reorder priorities and change behavior in order to compensate for neglected dimensions of self. (44-45)
Boyer's purpose is not to restrict scholarship, but to broaden it. It is not to identify only one or a couple of types of scholarship as appropriate for certain institutions and others as appropriate for other institutions - it is to allow creativity and flexibility in the careers of faculty everywhere. He writes:
What we propose, in short, is that faculty expectations and related evaluation not only be broadened, but that they be individualized and continuous as well. If faculty are to build on their strengths and contribute constructively to the institutions where they work, evaluation criteria must be tailored to personal talents, as well as campus needs. And it is especially important, we believe, that the criteria used reflect the changing patterns of personal and professional growth across a lifetime. Once again, diversity, not uniformity, is the key. (51)
Back to Top
What about teaching institutions? Notwithstanding faculty need for creativity and diversity in scholarship choices, isn't "scholarship of teaching and learning" the most valuable to them?
It would seem that way. After all, the word "teaching" is in the term "scholarship of teaching." But before we can answer that question, let's first examine what scholarship of teaching is. When Boyer first defined it, he meant one thing, but the concept has evolved over the years in order to address exactly the problems with scholarship of teaching that he considered in his report.
In 1990, Boyer refers to K. Patricia Cross's "classroom researcher," who takes part in a sort of informal kind of teaching and learning that the teacher himself observes as he is in the process of teaching. This requires that the teacher be a "careful observer" of his own classroom interactions - collecting feedback mainly in the form of student performance (61). However, Boyer addresses at length the "question of how to evaluate teaching [which] remains a mare's nest of controversy" (37) and accurately notes that if teaching is to be considered equal to research it must be vigorously assessed - but how? He proposes a combination of many different factors - such as self-assessment, peer assessment, student assessment, and even portfolios - though each of these still largely remain in the subjective realm compared to the objectivity available in other kinds of scholarship.
Twelve years later, a somewhat modified kind of scholarship of teaching emerges, addressing the evaluation and assessment issue. First of all, all types of scholarship have new names, to reflect expanded knowledge in these areas: scholarship of discovery remains the same, but scholarship of integration "and synthesis," scholarship of engagement (formerly "application"), and scholarship of teaching "and learning" are somewhat modified. In December 2001, four Carnegie scholars gathered at the MLA Annual Convention to discuss the scholarship of teaching and learning (Understanding Teaching). To summarize:
The term "scholarship of teaching" is an often confusing term for many, as it seems to be a contradiction in terms, given our assumptions about scholarship and our assumptions about teaching. Because teaching is not generally examined in a scholarly manner, myths abound. Teaching is something that we generally tend to think of, variously at various times: as an art, not a science that is subject to investigation and articulated principles; as an innate, intuitive process, that comes naturally to some, not others, rather than a learned endeavor with standards and techniques; as a personal and anecdotal experience - something we learn on our own through trials and errors, rather than a communally accessible body of knowledge; and as merely an extension of our knowledge of subject rather than a separate body of acquired skills and knowledge. Since teaching tends to be conducted as an isolated, individual, and private practice (the "closed classroom door"), it has no way to improve itself as a profession and practice.
The scholarship of teaching aims to "open the classroom door" and apply research methods to the practice of teaching. With research, one uses scientific methods and builds on the prior work and experience of others to advance knowledge in the field; in addition, research is an activity with an agenda: it focuses on a "problem," controls the variables, and investigates it to find out more. With the "scholarship of teaching," this process is applied to teaching. Teaching then becomes subject to the same rules as Lee Shulman's definition of broad scholarship; it is made public, it is susceptible to critical review and evaluation by other members of one's scholarly community, it is subject to a methodology, and it results in standards of practice and principles that advance the field.
Scholarship must be public and accessible for peer review as per Lee Shulman's criteria for scholarship, or it cannot fit the definition of "scholarship." These scholars call for an "opening of the classroom door" that largely entails applying scholarship of discovery, or scientific research methods, to the act of teaching. Like any scientist in any other discipline, the teacher must isolate a particular problem, prepare a hypothesis, examine the problem using scientific research methods, and present his or her findings. This is somewhat different from Boyer's discussion of it in his 1990 text - though this kind of scholarship of teaching is indeed more rigorous and now able to be subject to "critical review and evaluation" in a way the private professor evaluating his own performance through student feedback and performance could not.
Here is an example of scholarship of teaching: You must first isolate a teaching problem. Perhaps you question the practice of informing the students of a daily lesson agenda before the lesson begins. You might believe, for example, it makes no difference in student performance, or that it improves student performance, or that student performance is better without an agenda. You will then proceed to examine prior research on this topic (scholarship of integration), and discover what the current debate or conclusion on this practice is. At that point, you will be in a better position to design your experiment, including a control group no doubt. Perhaps you will put your agenda on the board before the lesson begins for half your classes, and not use it for the other half of your classes - and you will try to keep the other variables as constant as possible. For more accurate results, you may want to enlist the participation of your colleagues. After gathering your evidence, you will come to a conclusion as to your findings. You may also write a paper on your experiment, and publish it in a journal or present it at a conference.
At this point, scholarship of teaching is now public, generalizable rather than anecdotal, and "repeatable"- objective and able to be evaluated and open to critical review of one's colleagues in a way that Boyer's 1990 description of a teacher's self-assessment of his work through amassing various forms of subjective feedback is not. While this is a more accurate and rigorous scholarship of teaching and so solves Boyer's "mare's nest of controversy" and places scholarship of teaching on the same rigorous level as scholarship of discovery, a closer examination reveals that this is actually scholarship of discovery applied to the field of teaching instead of one's content area.
Is this really the most time-efficient, cost-effective way for faculty to learn about teaching and to improve their teaching skills? The act of scholarship of teaching does improve critical thinking skills, revitalize faculty interest in what they do, and if developed into a paper, provide recognition and improve communication skills - something every type of scholarship does. But as far as the results of this kind of scholarship, wouldn't it be faster and more efficient to learn good pedagogical practices in articles or a one-hour training session in which someone else has spent the time, energy, and money to obtain those various results? Most certainly. However, the act of scholarship of teaching has other benefits along with discovering the final results - these are the same benefits all of the types of scholarship offer.
Other kinds of "scholarship of teaching" include that which is less objective, less quantifiable, less scientific, less able to be rigorously assessed; however, it can be more practical, useful, individualized, and does have a certain level of "publicness" and systemization that allows for a kind of subjective self-evaluation and improvement of one's classroom competence. This includes such techniques and methods as teaching circles, reciprocal classroom observations, team teaching, external peer review, and portfolios. But we are now back to Boyer's original conception of scholarship of teaching, with the same concerns Boyer stated in 1990.
However, even in 1990, Boyer begins his discussion of scholarship of teaching with the exhortation that a professor's content area knowledge comes first, before good pedagogy. Even as he defines "scholarship of teaching," he warns:
As a scholarly enterprise, teaching begins with what the teacher knows. Those who teach must, above all, be well informed, and steeped in the knowledge of their fields. Teaching can be well regarded only as professors are widely read and intellectually engaged. (23)
To teach well, first and foremost, teachers need a strong, current, relevant, deep, and thorough foundation of knowledge in their field.
Of all the types of scholarship, scholarship of integration may be the most valuable for exposing professors to wider collection of current sources and resources in their content area that can most directly affect their teaching - in addition to having the benefits that any scholarship brings. Scholarship of integration is a broad overview of a certain area of one's field and expands content area knowledge in a way that can be noticeable in teaching. Scholarship of discovery may improve expertise more, but of a narrower area and so becomes less conspicuous in the classroom, other than providing the benefits of scholarship in general. Scholarship of integration is also commonly (and perhaps most commonly) seen at conferences. It is also the most widely used by the other types of scholarship. That means: scholarship of discovery, application, and teaching have as their starting point the integration of other scholars' ideas as a foundation for the area to be investigated.
However, Boyer's primary message is that all of these types of scholarship should be made available for faculty and considered valuable for faculty, according to the particular talents, needs, and career path of the faculty member. He discusses that many variables - such as differing individuals, differing fields, differing skills and interests, and even differing times in the same faculty member's life - will determine what kind of scholarship best fits a particular faculty member at a particular time. Institutional awareness of this and flexibility to the individual professor's unique talents and needs is the most important consideration.
Back to Top
Which of these types of scholarship can be developed as a paper and presented at a conference or published in a journal?
All of them. Although we traditionally think of "scholarship of discovery," or traditional research, as that which ends up at conferences and in journals, each type of scholarship has a paper, that can be delivered at a conference or published in a journal, as its possible culminating point. A scholarly paper's advertisement (because it is viewed by others) of the work that has gone before is part of the recognition that scholarship should have, as per proposed NCA requirements, Glassick, et al, and Shulman. It is also then "available for exchange and use" as well as "reflective critique" by others in one's profession. When culminating in a paper, scholarship meets Carnegie scholars' criteria of "public" and "peer reviewed" for determining "what is scholarship."
Since each of these types of scholarship can manifest in a paper describing or documenting the work, each can be a part of a scholarship support program that has at its core writing workshops to improve the quality of scholarly communication and encourage scholarly activity. In the end, the four types of scholarship are somewhat irrelevant distinctions, other than their clarifying purpose in expanding our awareness of the viability and contribution of these differing methods of acquiring, creating, and applying knowledge.
Back to Top
Irrelevant distinctions? What do you mean by that?
They are somewhat irrelevant because when a professor sets out to engage in scholarship, he or she does not think, "Today I'll do scholarship of application." Scholarship is driven by a need, a curiosity, a problem, an interest, an assignment, or a project that a professor has and so seeks to investigate the topic more thoroughly. The particular type of scholarship will be determined by the particular need, problem, interest, or project that the professor has chosen to undertake. Furthermore, one particular scholarship project may contain within it several of these "types" of scholarship. Boyer himself calls his four categories "overlapping" (16) and says, "We acknowledge that these four categories - the scholarship of discovery, of integration, of application, and of teaching - divide intellectual functions that are tied inseparably to each other" (24-25). For example, scholarship of application usually has scholarship of integration as part of its process. In the scholarship of teaching example given above, we see that it is really a scholarship of discovery applied to the field of teaching rather than one's content area, but also entailing scholarship of integration to accomplish the scholar's purpose.
Conferences (disciplinary ones, that is, not ones such as the AAHE that are generally oriented to education/administration) rarely differentiate between these types of scholarship. While they have categories for the papers and presentations that are accepted, these categories aren't based on Boyer's four types, but on the topic at hand. For example, on an AAHE conference form, one might check whether a paper or presentation falls under the category of "Assessment" or "Best Practices" or some other category. But the category of "scholarship of discovery," or "integration," or "application," or "teaching" is not given to describe faculty work. Most journals are not structured that way either. Journals and conferences are arranged according to topic, not kind of scholarship. While some journals will only accept "scholarship of discovery," many journals accept all types of scholarship. At most conferences today, all four kinds of scholarship intermingle freely between papers and within papers as well.
In Boyer's words, "Colleges and universities that flourish help faculty build on their strengths and sustain their own creative energies, throughout a lifetime" (43). It is important for us to be careful not to let these scholarship distinctions get in the way of accomplishing his original purpose: seeing education as a "seamless web" (67), and valuing faculty and scholarship in all their diversity, thus allowing for the best manifestation of each professor's uniqueness, individuality, and creativity.
Works Cited
Boyer, Ernest L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. [Also: Revised Edition, 1997]
Glassick, Charles, Mary Taylor Huber, and Eugene Maeroff. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Back to Top
|
