Scholarship Of Integration Research Articles

Evaluation research as academic scholarship.

In nursing, the ability of educators to progress successfully toward promotion and tenure may be hampered by heavy teaching or practice workloads and an inability to complete the research mission of the institution. In a 1990 report, Boyer noted that the scholarship of teaching, integration, and application can be embraced in the same manner as the scholarship of discovery and research. One source of data that is often neglected as integral to scholarship is evaluation data that results from teaching, service, and practice. Such data can be reframed and thought of as a compelling avenue for scholarly activity. This article connects the evaluation process with the four types of scholarship outlined in the Boyer model and illustrates how the formal evaluation of a nursing curriculum can be linked to a rigorous scholarship assessment framework.

Letter from the Editor: Why Teach?

Four years ago I was involved in a project on our campus to revise the promotion and tenure criteria for judging scholarship and teaching in our school of education. We had the usual differences of opinion on the scholarship of discovery, teaching, and application but since we were all faculty in a school of education we found common ground fairly easily compared to some of the discussions I have observed across campus. But when we moved to a discussion of the scholarship of integration we had trouble coming to a mutual definition and vision of how the scholarship of integration would be demonstrated in our field.

Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship (review)

Reviewed by: Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship Mary Deane Sorcinelli and Jami Desantis Faculty Priorities Reconsidered: Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholarship, edited by Kerry Ann O'Meara and R. Eugene Rice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. 340 pp. ISBN 0787979201. KerryAnn O'Meara, Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst, and R. Eugene Rice, Senior Scholar at the American Association of Colleges and Universities, bring to their edited volume both research and practice regarding the topic of redefining the concept of scholarship to change faculty work and its rewards. The volume revisits the seminal work of Ernest L. Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (1990), and asks whether efforts to redefine scholarship have in fact resulted in changes in institutional policies and practices over the intervening 15 years. To answer that question, the editors compile essays by scholars, faculty, and academic leaders to present a history of the movement, campus studies of institutions attempting to refine scholarship and reward faculty contributions, results from a national survey of chief academic officers, and principles of best practice. In the three chapters of the first section, "Context," leaders in the field provide an in-depth historical and conceptual framework for the movement to redefine scholarship. In chapter 1, Rice chronicles the history of the movement, emphasizing the revolutionary influence of Boyer's work in broadening the definition of scholarship to include teaching and learning, engagement, discovery, and integration. [End Page 723] A second chapter, authored by six leaders in the field of higher education, highlights key issues related to each of the forms of scholarship, nicely integrating concrete milestones and personal recollections. Readers will be especially interested in chapter 3, as it is here that the movement is contextualized and the focus shifts to the problems and obstacles institutions face as they attempt to "change" perception of and rewards for scholarship. Robert M. Diamond outlines the barriers to redefining scholarship and five general strategies for overcoming them. Kenneth J. Zahorski offers a candid account of his experience at St. Norbert College as the campus attempts to redefine scholarship and revise tenure and promotion criteria. Particularly useful are the "lessons" that the author includes, as they reveal just how challenging and arduous the entire "redefining" process can be. Jerry G. Gaff concludes the chapter by examining the Preparing Future Faculty program, raising important questions about how a new generation of faculty will react to multiple forms of scholarship and how multiple forms of scholarship will affect underrepresented faculty. The campus study format of the second section—nine chapters authored by college and university academic leaders—offers lessons learned from a variety of institutional types. The campus studies are remarkably diverse, inclusive, and wide-ranging, featuring stories of redefining scholarship in small liberal arts colleges; comprehensive, doctoral, and research universities; and a for-profit institution (University of Phoenix). Whether in liberal arts colleges (e.g., Franklin College and Madonna University) or an HBCU (e.g., Albany State University) that have traditionally emphasized teaching and service, or at research and doctoral universities (e.g., South Dakota State, Kansas State, Arizona State) that have traditionally emphasized research, what the reader is struck by is the power of institutional mission and culture as well as internal and external audiences to drive or impede reform. For example, when asked to support, engage in, assess, and reward multiple forms of scholarship, faculty members seemed to fall along a continuum—from describing heightened anxiety about expectations to increased excitement about opportunities to enlarge their work. Sometimes, it is internal constituencies—senior faculty, a department chair, a provost—that either spearhead or dampen the momentum for reform. But equally often it is external audiences—boards of regents, disciplinary associations, other eminent universities—that put limits on innovative reform. Readers will learn a great deal from cases written by academic leaders from their own institutional type. In addition, readers will find wonderfully illustrative examples of the contributions to students, learning, and the community from faculty scholarships of teaching, discovery, engagement, and integration. The final section of the book, which contains chapters by both editors, points to valuable research perspectives, principles of good practice, and aspirations...

Shaping the Discipline of Engineering Education

Journal of Engineering EducationVolume 95, Issue 4 p. 263-264 Shaping the Discipline of Engineering Education David F. Radcliffe, David F. Radcliffe Catalyst Centre for Society and Technology The University of QueenslandSearch for more papers by this author David F. Radcliffe, David F. Radcliffe Catalyst Centre for Society and Technology The University of QueenslandSearch for more papers by this author First published: 02 January 2013 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00901.xCitations: 22AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume95, Issue4October 2006Pages 263-264 RelatedInformation

Ad Astra per Aspera: A Journey from the Periphery

I review my scholarly career, focusing first on the places and people important to my development as an organizational sociologist. Then, drawing on distinctions proposed by Boyer, I discuss four types of scholarly work in which I have been engaged: (1) the scholarship of discovery, in which I studied principally authority systems, organizational effectiveness and institutional structures and processes; (2) the scholarship of teaching, where I describe the variety of courses I have taught; (3) the scholarship of application, involving primarily my work with policy groups at the national level; and (4) the scholarship of integration, including my writing of textbooks and attempts to create community among organizational scholars. I assert that more value should be placed by the academy on the latter three types of scholarship.

Using doctoral education to prepare faculty to work within Boyer's four domains of scholarship

AbstractThis chapter focuses on the role of graduate education in preparing future faculty members for engagement not only in the domain of discovery but also in the scholarships of application, integration, and teaching.

“The Humbuggery of Bullshit” vs. “The Scholarship of Teaching”: Perspective from a Newly Minted Ph.D.

Professor Holbrook's piece in this issue of Marketing Education Review debates whether it is appropriate for students and/or administration to drive course content, and the implications of such a practice with regard to the management of the educational system of our nation. Placing Dr. Holbrook's provocative essay into the larger framework of the priorities of the professoriate, the issue appears to be a manifestation of conflicting priorities between two opposing paradigms operating simultaneously within higher education: “the scholarship of teaching” and “students as customers.” A review of research findings since Boyer's (1990) seminal report indicates that a significant paradigm shift has taken place in academia, with a greater focus on all aspects of academic life (i.e., the scholarship of discovery, integration, teaching and application). Although the synthesis of the readings cited herein and a review of recent environmental trends in higher education provide a solid foundational understanding of the issues involved in this debate, further study and discussion is warranted among all members of the academy. This article attempts to lay the foundation for further discussion, and it is hoped that all members of the academic community, regardless of career stage, will engage in “impassioned” debate of the issues outlined herein.

Social informatics: Overview, principles and opportunities

Social informatics: Overview, principles and opportunities

Examining accounting departments’ rankings of the quality of accounting journals

Abstract Given the importance of research productivity to the tenure, promotion, merit raise processes and growth of the cognitive foundation of the accounting discipline, developing valid criteria for assessing the quality of accounting journals seems indispensable. While many studies have examined the quality of accounting and related journals, they relied mainly on surveys of the perceptions of faculty, accounting program chairs or deans. No study has yet ascertained the rankings that accounting departments actually use in evaluating journal quality. Moreover, few studies that examine journal quality have been published in the last decade. With the American Accounting Association's support and using a survey of accounting programs, we examine how accounting programs actually assess the quality of accounting journals. We document the rankings used by both doctoral-granting and non-doctoral-granting accounting programs, and confirm the existence of an elite set of journals whose rankings are invariant to school type, faculty size, resource base or mission. We interpret this as evidence of the influence of a select group of elite accounting programs in defining the parameters of value in accounting scholarship, which we observe can be detrimental to the scholarship of application, integration and teaching in accounting. Our results offer insight into why accounting departments use (or do not use) journal rankings and presents detailed results that can help develop reasonable criteria for assessing research and scholarship.

A Structured Faculty Development Process for Scholarship in Young Faculty: A Case Report

Background and Purpose. While clinically trained educators are critical to the success of our educational endeavors, many new physical therapist faculty are not academically prepared to maintain ongoing track records of scholarly contributions. The University of the Pacific, along with the majority of accredited physical therapy programs in the country, was out of compliance with the accreditation criterion regarding faculty scholarship. This case report shares how 1 institution used an external accreditation requirement as a stimulus for program enhancement. Method/Model Description and Evaluation. The Scholarly Activity Plan (SAP) incorporates the department's and individual faculty member's commitment to developing a sustained record of scholarly accomplishments. The SAP consists of several steps, including: (1) identifying a senior research mentor; (2) creating a research plan; and (3) regularly evaluating performance consistent with criteria published in the Faculty Handbook of the University and accreditation scholarship requirements. The second step, creating a research plan, culminates in a rubric with intermediate and terminal timelines for ultimate dissemination of results through peer-reviewed presentations and publications for each research project. In addition, faculty members meet with the Scholarly Activity Committee each term to discuss progress and potential problems. Outcomes. Responding successfully to the accrediting body met a short-term goal. Still in progress are the faculty members' success rates with promotion and tenure; however, 2 faculty have submitted successfully their dossiers for third-year retention reviews. Faculty have related that the SAP assists with their own strategic planning for success with promotion and tenure by helping them keep track of short-term goals and progress. Discussion and Conclusion. Creating this model to enhance our program brought an awareness and sense of ownership to the department as well as individual faculty regarding the issue raised by an external accountability agent. Sharing this model with the educational community in the form of a case report may assist others new to academia in identifying current work products and processes that are worthy of sharing as scholarship of integration. Key Words: Scholarship, Promotion and tenure, Accreditation, Change, Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. INTRODUCTION Nearly all workplace settings are faced with the challenges of responding to external accountability issues while confronting their own unique internal realities. Academia is no different. The accountability external to the individual in higher education has many sources, including accreditation criteria (both regional and specialized), institutional promotion and tenure guidelines, and the desire to maintain or achieve a quality reputation for the institution or program. The internal realities are the competing work loads involving teaching, scholarship, service, administrative, and clinical responsibilities. In addition, academic preparation and personal priorities confound the balance of external accountability and internal realities. As physical therapy faculty and administrators, we are facing a challenge: While it is not new, the accountability expectations for scholarly productivity have risen. The impetus for this is likely a combination of the need to train evidence-based practitioners, validation of our call for autonomous practice, the move to doctoral-level education, institutional demands, stakeholder demands, and others. More critical than identifying the sources of our anxiety is developing a response and successfully meeting this challenge, because failure to do so may have drastic consequences to the profession, the institution, the program, and/or the individual. The University of the Pacific was among the majority of physical therapist education programs (66. …

Research and Scholarship Defined for portal: Libraries and the Academy

Research and Scholarship Defined for portal:Libraries and the Academy Charles B. Lowry (bio) This essay serves to explain in some detail the definition of scholarship that the editorial board of portal: Libraries and the Academy applies when evaluating articles and assessing whether they are worthy of publication in our pages. It should be read in the larger context of the mission and purpose of portal that is defined in our front matter. I want to thank the board for its comments and formal adoption of this statement at our meeting during the 2004 annual conference of the American Library Association. At the same time, any failings of this essay are my own. The main categories of scholarship that are the framework for our definition are the scholarships of discovery, integration, application, and teaching. This issue of portal contains a strong thematic core of articles about the utilization of problem-based learning for teaching information literacy. Thus, it focuses on the fourth type of scholarship—one that is often not taken as seriously as it should be. This thematic focus is also a departure for portal that we intend to formalize. It is the editorial board's intention that we take the opportunity that theme issues offer, from time to time, to have deeper, more extended, and critical discussions of important issues that are derived from research. In contrast, our editorial features will continue to emphasize opinion and commentary. Introduction Librarianship, the discipline we practice, arises from the professional training and the resultant work we do in specific institutional settings. At its base, librarianship is responsible for supplying the lifeblood of the rest of the academy—access to information for the advancement of knowledge, invention, and teaching. Since good librarianship is vital to the academic enterprise, it follows that advancing knowledge of the field of librarianship is vital to maintaining [End Page 449] our ability to do so. It is important for portal referees to appreciate that what constitutes scholarship often comes from the context and experience of the work librarians do as individuals. Above all, librarianship is a practiced discipline. Ernest Boyer, past president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, provides four categories of research: "Specifically, we conclude that the work of the professoriate might be thought of as having four separate but overlapping functions. These are: the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship of integration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching."1 These categories are discussed in some detail below. Scholarship of discovery, so-called "pure and applied research," pursues new knowledge. Scholarship of integration synthesizes and interprets knowledge to provide perspective. Scholarship of application solves problems for a larger community using knowledge from one's particular field of expertise. Scholarship of teaching and learning contributes to knowledge about how people learn. Boyer asserts the central principle that: At the research university, original research and publication should remain the basic expectation and be considered the key criteria by which the performance of most faculty will be assessed. Where else but in our major research universities—with their intellectual and physical resources and their tradition of rigorous and untrammeled inquiry—should the bulk of research in a free society be conducted and rewarded?2 He emphasizes that the scope of research (scholarship) necessary to encompass the variety and richness of disciplines requires an "enlarging the perspective" of what scholarship means in order to comprehend its variants, to assure that it strongly supports the core mission of the academy, and to effectively nurture the diversity of the scholarly enterprise. Much of this is useful when considering the research scholarship of our profession, and it certainly applies to all of higher education not just to the "research universities," as defined by the Carnegie Classification schema. The Scholarship of Discovery The scholarship of discovery, at its best, contributes not only to the stock of human knowledge but also to the intellectual climate of a college or university. Not just the outcomes, but also the process, and especially the passion, give meaning to the effort. The advancement of knowledge can generate an almost palpable excitement in the life of an educational institution. ...It is tied inextricably to the...

Practicing Boyer’s Scholarship of Integration: A Program for Community College Faculty—Revised

The Community College Education program at George Mason University is committed to Ernest Boyer’s philosophy of integration; it encourages better pedagogy and it revitalizes the two-year college classroom.

Primary care pediatrics: 2004 and beyond.

Changes in medicine domestically and globally are transforming primary care in the United States. Many have suggested that primary care is in crisis or at least at a crossroads in the United States. The Annals of Internal Medicine recently devoted much of one issue to this topic.1 Primary care for children and adolescents, however, was not addressed specifically. This article focuses on pediatrics and identifies potential roles and new models for primary care pediatrics. The Institute of Medicine has defined primary care as “the provision of integrated, accessible health care services by clinicians who are accountable for addressing a large majority of personal health care needs, developing a sustained partnership with patients, and practicing in the context of family and community.”2 Starfield3 has defined 4 attributes of primary care including first-contact care, longitudinality, comprehensiveness, and coordination. September 11, 2001, the anthrax scare, and emerging threats such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have brought a new focus on the importance of individual-level contacts in addressing population-level threats. Before these world events, however, primary care pediatrics was already grappling with its identity and responding to significant changes in medical systems, science, and family needs. The pace and scope of these changes are such that primary care pediatricians of the future will not be performing the same role as today. Historically, American medicine has tended to be reactive rather than proactive in defining its roles in society. However, dynamic change demands collective reflection; it is time to be proactive in assessing the needs of patients, exploring potential roles as health care providers, and developing the mechanisms to redefine the primary care pediatrician of the future. Projecting future trends requires reflection on the history of the profession of preventive pediatrics. In the 1800s, few physicians in the United States routinely … Address correspondence to Tina L. Cheng, MD, MPH, Johns Hopkins University Department of Pediatrics, 600 N Wolfe St, Park 392, Baltimore, MD 21287. E-mail: tcheng2{at}jhmi.edu

Thirty Years of Explicitly Integrative Scholarship: Comparing Phd and Psyd Contributions

Johnson and McMinn (2003; see also McMinn, Johnson & Haskell, 2003) challenged integrative clinical psychology doctoral programs to show that PhDs produce scholarship and teach in the academy at rates that are demonstrably different from PsyDs. The entire publication history through 2002 of the two most influential integrative journals–-the Journal of Psychology and Theology (JPT) and the Journal of Psychology and Christianity (JPC)–-was analyzed to determine scholarship according to the author's degree. Across the past 30 years, integrative PhDs produced four times as much scholarship as PsyDs. By 2002, PhDs held 85% of the faculty positions in integrative programs, and faculty at these programs who graduated from integrative programs themselves were three times more likely to have a PhD than a PsyD. Implications of these results are offered in conclusion, along with a possible explanation for why integrative clinical psychology doctoral programs tend to receive low subjective ratings of quality from secular peers.

Service Learning and Portfolios

Abstract Service learning provides students the opportunity to realistically assess the strengths of their professional knowledge and skills while contributing to services that address community needs. Process and product portfolios are proposed as tools for integration of thought and action as students analyze their service learning experiences. Ernest Boyer'S concepts of the scholarship of integration and application are presented here as central to the portfolio development process. Student and faculty reports suggest portfolios are a successful tool for encouraging professional reflection and integration of service learning experiences.

Redefining the Scholarship of Business Ethics: An Editorial

Traditionally, the term "scholarship" has been narrowly defined as discovery-based research. Teaching in higher education, by contrast, is perceived as an intellectually inferior activity. However, the teaching-research divide is a crude distinction which fails to capture the richness of scholarly endeavour in all disciplines. Drawing on Boyer's four forms of scholarship, it is argued that academic work in business ethics needs to be reconceptualised in terms which honour and value all contributions. This special issue of the Journal of Business Ethics, arising from an international conference on the teaching of business ethics, is illustrative of the scholarship of discovery, integration, application and teaching.

Can the Internet's Critical Mass Ignite the Priorities of the Communication Professoriate?

Strong words and thoughtful analysis leading-edge digital information scholars raise disturbing questions as well as optimistic celebration about journalism and mass communication education in Symposium that follows. Several research articles, each blind reviewed members of Educator's editorial board and individually accepted for publication, had in common inquiry and discovery involving digital information and media. As a result, I held them in a desktop folder, bundled them for this issue, and invited seven colleagues whose work on processes, effects, and application of information technology is internationally recognized as authoritative and groundbreaking to contribute to Learning Reconsidered: Education in Digital Age, a construction borrowed with reverence from Ernest Boyer. Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered appeared in 1990, just about time that computer network use reached critical mass, which is defined diffusion of innovation scholar and Symposium participant Everett Rogers as the point at which enough individuals adopt an innovation that its future adoption is self-sustaining. Boyer asked educators to do nothing less than reconsider priorities of professoriate. In addition to traditional research, Boyer called for recognition and reward of three additional scholarships: a scholarship of integration that gives context and meaning to isolated discovery; a scholarship of application in which problems themselves define an agenda for scholarly investigation; and a scholarship of teaching in which we take seriously complexity of helping others to learn. The priorities of journalism and mass communication education underlie responses of Symposium participants Helen Chen, Everette E. Dennis, Philip Meyer, John Pavlik, Larry Pryor, Everett Rogers, and S. Shyam Sundar. Their discussion invites careful reflection and reconsideration as individuals and as program faculties. What are implications of digital technology for what we teach, for how we teach, and for how we view our charge as professional educators? Are we integrating digital discovery into larger journalism and mass communication context, or allowing it to float isolated in stand-alone programs of new technology? Are we actively applying new technologies to issues of social consequence, or are we content with their exploitation as a more efficient means of information search and transmission? Are we embracing technology to make our pedagogies support curriculum, or simply adding administrative efficiency to testing, grading and similar managerial functions? A review of literature and disciplinary norms suggests that among Boyer's priorities of professoriate, integration, application, and teaching have yet to reach critical mass. Entrenched priorities and practices continue to drive much of our curriculum and teaching. Journalism education is being squeezed ever more tightly into constraints of craft model, says Symposium contributor Philip Meyer. He identifies digitization of information as a primary cause and says that learning craft emulating a journeyman isn't sufficient. Nor, writes USC Annenberg's Larry Pryor, can we educate for new media simply trying to build on old and by reproducing or linking to it. …

Service Learning as Scholarship in Teacher Education

This article describes how two teacher education service-learning programs illustrate alternative interpretations of scholarship. A tutoring–mentoring program in a teaching oriented masters institution and a motor skill development program in a land grant doctoral–research institution are described relative to how each illustrates forms of scholarship as interpreted by Boyer (1990) We discuss how these forms of scholarship—the scholarship of discovery, integration, teaching, and application—relate to stated institutional mission and evaluation practices. Service-learning experiences for preservice teachers can have the multiple benefits of promoting an ethic of service and social responsibility, demonstrating excellence in teacher education, and exemplifying scholarly endeavors

Service Learning as Scholarship in Teacher Education

This article describes how two teacher education service-learning programs illustrate alternative interpretations of scholarship. A tutoring–mentoring program in a teaching oriented masters institution and a motor skill development program in a land grant doctoral–research institution are described relative to how each illustrates forms of scholarship as interpreted by Boyer (1990) . We discuss how these forms of scholarship—the scholarship of discovery, integration, teaching, and application—relate to stated institutional mission and evaluation practices. Service-learning experiences for preservice teachers can have the multiple benefits of promoting an ethic of service and social responsibility, demonstrating excellence in teacher education, and exemplifying scholarly endeavors.

Creativity Defined: Implicit Theories in the Professions of Interior Design, Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Engineering

The purpose of this study was to examine implicit theories of creativity in related fields through a mail survey of 3 1 3 professors randomly selected from accredited programs in interior design, architecture, landscape architecture, and engineering. To describe a highly creative practitioner in their respective fields, the respondents completed the Gough Adjective Check List (ACL), scored with the Domino creativity scale (Cr). The interior design professors generated a profile of the creative practitioner that obtained a significantly higher mean score than did the architecture or engineering groups on the ACL–Cr scale. No other significant differences on the creativity scale appeared between groups. Exploratory analyses of individual ACL–Cr items found considerable agreement as to what constituted creativeness in implicit theories. At least 75 percent of the respondents in each group described the creative practitioner in their respective fields as imaginative, inventive, and adventurous. Disciplinary differences among groups surfaced in 21 traits on the ACL–Cr scale that were statistically significant in areas of artistic creativity, scientific creativity, intelligence, self–confidence, and task orientation. Further, the creative interior design practitioner was perceived as significantly more individualistic and original than in the other three fields, and sixteen other traits significantly differentiated interior design profiles from those posited in architecture, landscape architecture, or engineering. By promoting a scholarship of integration, findings reveal perceived traits of the creative practitioner in allied fields and advance interdisciplinary understanding. Design educators are encouraged to reflect on their own implicit theories of creativity and those of their students to acknowledge underlying assumptions about creativity that can influence innovation and collaboration.