Resources Events Dialogue Grants Faculty Home

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

Book Review by Matt Lunsford, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Mathematics

Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate
Ernest L. Boyer
Re-released October 1997, Carnegie, ISBN: 0787940690

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

What does it mean to be a scholar? What is the nature of scholarship? What activities of the American professoriate should be deemed as scholarship? These are the central questions addressed by Ernest L. Boyer in his 1990 seminal work entitled Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The passing of a decade has not dulled the cutting edge remarks of Boyer, who served as President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching at the time this special report was published. Boyer takes us on a journey through the history of the changing role of faculty that eventually leads us to reconsider the current trends in faculty priorities. His goal is not only to reposition teaching as one cornerstone of faculty activity, but also to encourage creativity and diversity within the professoriate, bringing renewal to higher learning institutions and ultimately to society.

Boyer contends that central to the current debate on improving undergraduate education is the issue of how faculty spend their time. He explores the history of the American professoriate recounting three distinct overlapping phases: 1)the colonial college phase, which was devoted to the intellectual and moral development of students and thus placed its emphasis primarily on teaching, 2) the national expansion phase, which added service as core to the mission of the university and included the goal of an educated citizenry to serve the greater community, and finally 3) the modern phase, which added the advancement of knowledge through research as a third component to faculty priorities. Thus, we have the triad upon which most faculty in this country are evaluated: teaching, service, and research.

According to Boyer, the post-World War II era has seen a major realignment of these three components. This realignment is clearly expressed through surveys indicating an increase in the percentage of faculty who feel that they must be engaged in publishable research to achieve promotion or tenure. Boyer suggests that this narrowing of standards for measuring academic excellence is in sharp contrast with the expanding mission of the American higher education system, which is now expected to educate the most diverse groups of students in the history of the nation. It is his strong conviction that America's colleges and universities must carefully redefine their mission and reconsider their meaning of scholarship to remain viable in the new century.

Boyer asks the following question: How can the faculty reward system be modified to best meet the challenges of 1) a diverse student body which desires excellence in teaching, 2) a faculty which is not satisfied with the criteria by which it is being assessed, 3) a system of higher learning whose confusion over goals diminishes the sense of community on its campuses, and 4) a changing world with its social, ethical, and environmental issues. He proposes abandoning the old paradigm of research versus teaching for the following new paradigm: faculty should be engaged in the scholarship of discovery, integration, application, and teaching. By embracing these four general views of scholarship, Boyer is challenging us to enlarge our perspective of the priorities of the professoriate.

The scholarship of discovery, says Boyer, "contributes not only to the stock of human knowledge but also to the intellectual climate of a college or university." This tenet of scholarship is very close to what we would otherwise call "research." The scholarship of integration involves conducting research on the boundaries of various converging fields, placing research (your own or others) in its appropriate interdisciplinary context, and interpreting research (your own or others) into "the larger intellectual patterns." Discovery and integration represent the "investigative and synthesizing traditions of academic life." The scholarship of application, which is closely related to what we would call "service", must be closely related to one's own field of expertise and relates acquired knowledge to the larger community. Boyer contends that application need not always follow discovery- the act of application can and should initiate new discovery. Last, but not least, is the scholarship of teaching. Scholarly teaching, says Boyer, "both educates and entices future scholars." The faculty member engaged in this scholarly enterprise must be thoroughly knowledgeable in his given field. Boyer asserts that "teaching, at its best, means not only transmitting knowledge, but transforming and extending it as well." He claims that these four categories of scholarship are inseparable and rest upon the "recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, synthesis, practice, and teaching." Boyer concludes: "We need scholars who not only skillfully explore the frontiers of knowledge, but also integrate ideas, connect thought to action, and inspire students."

This vision of scholarship acknowledges the creativity and diversity of the professoriate. While all scholars should establish credentials as researchers, remain professionally active in their respective fields, and maintain the highest standards of integrity, this new approach to scholarship would allow faculty to have academic seasons of their career in which they might choose to focus more narrowly on one of the four areas of scholarship. The goal of such a program is to "sustain productivity across a lifetime."

Furthermore, this vision of scholarship compliments the diversity needed in our higher learning system. Research institutions may place a greater emphasis on the scholarship of discovery in the assessment of their faculty. Liberal arts institutions may emphasize the scholarship of teaching coupled with integration, while communities colleges may accentuate the scholarship of teaching coupled with application. Comprehensive universities, which typically have difficulties establishing priorities, have "a unique opportunity to carve out their own distinctive missions," says Boyer. "Rather than imitate the research university or arts and sciences model, these institutions should be viewed as campuses that blend quality and innovation." Boyer calls this model for American higher education "diversity with dignity." He argues that while all four views of scholarship may exist on a single campus, each institution can and should find its own special niche in the world of higher learning.

Finally, Boyer asserts that university presidents and other high ranking academic administrators, faculty, professional organizations, and regional accrediting bodies can all play a significant role in redefining scholarship on a given campus. Presidents can use their office to define scholarly priorities and create forums for the discussion and debate of these ideas. Faculty, through committees and senates, can become actively involved in the faculty assessment and reward process. Professional associations and accrediting bodies can legitimize the various forms of scholarship through conferences and accreditation policies, respectively. Boyer calls for a team approach to enlarge the perspective of scholarship on every campus. This new vision of scholarship, he hopes, will bring renewal to the academy and to the rest of society. Who can contest such a noble goal?