Resources Events Dialogue Grants Faculty Home

  Book Reviews Faculty Articles Faculty News Faculty Workshops Newell Innovative Teaching Award

Book Review by Kina Mallard, Ph.D., Chair & Associate Professor of Communication Arts and Director of of the Center for Faculty Development

Scholarship Assessed: An Evaluation of the Professoriate
Charles E. Glassick, Mary Taylor Huber, Gene I. Maeroff
March 2000, Jossey-Bass Publishers, ISBN: 0787910910

Check it out in the Emma Waters Summar Library or Buy It At

A companion piece to Boyer's classic, Scholarship Reconsidered, Scholarship Assessed takes the academy through a process for setting standards of scholarly work, documenting scholarship, developing trust in the process and suggesting the qualities of a scholar. This review will highlight the parts of the book that seem most germane to the discussions of scholarship taking place at Union University.

The treatment of scholarship in this work is based on Boyer's work which broadens the scope of scholarship into a new paradigm that views scholarship as having four separate but overlapping dimensions: the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching.

While this model has taken off like wildfire in academe, the critical question is how are these dimensions assessed? Glassick, et.al., found through their research that when people praise of work of scholarship, they usually mean that the project in question has been guided by the following qualitative standards:

1. Clear goals. Does the scholar state the basic purpose of his or her work clearly? Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable? Does the scholar identify important questions in the field?
2. Adequate Preparation. Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the field? Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to his or her work? Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the project forward?
3. Appropriate methods. Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals? Does the scholar apply effectively the methods selected? Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances?
4. Significant Results. Does the scholar achieve the goals? Does the scholar's work add consequentially to the field? Does the scholar's work open additional areas for further exploration?
5. Effective Presentation. Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organization to present his or her work? Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating work to its intended audiences? Does the scholar present his or her message with clarity and integrity?
6. Reflective Critique. Does the scholar critically evaluate his or her own work? Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to his or her critique? Does the scholar use evaluation to improve the quality of future work?

The next section of the book discusses documenting scholarship focusing primarily on the teaching portfolio and developing a process that ensures trust. Glassick, et.al. write, "The biggest challenge that a broadened view of scholarship poses for documentation concerns the types and sources of materials that provide evidence of quality. Simply put, some scholarly activities are more readily documented than others." Suggestions are given for documenting the four types of scholarship.

Chapter four, Trusting the Process, discusses the challenge of setting clear goals for scholarship, giving time for adequate preparation for evaluators and candidates, learning how to effectively present completed work and understanding the process of reflective critique that keeps evaluation flexible and open to improvement over time.

Finally, the authors pose three qualities of scholars for discussion: integrity, perseverance and courage. Academicians looking for a formula of scholarship, assessment and process will not find it in this book. What they will find is a clearly written, thought-provoking work that leaves room for flexibility and gives guidelines to help each institution of higher learning define for themselves what they want scholars and their work to look like on their campus. This is a must-read companion piece to Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered.