l Hunt, Gary T., “Scholarship Reconsidered and Its Impact on the Faculty Member.”scholarship reconsidered and its impact on the faculty member
Outside demands on universities to improve the manner in which they operate have placed increased pressure on faculty members to examine how they spend their time. Because administrators often resist any pressure to change the way they do business, faculty often find themselves in a situation of adjusting to a changing set of values and reward systems which may not be reflected in the culture of their immediate unit, division, department, or college. This paper discusses the changing priorities of faculty members and the potential impact of these changes on the professorate. It also examines each of the types of scholarship identified in Ernest L. Boyer’s “Scholarship Reconsidered, Priorities of the Professoriate”. This book’s influence on the established climate and culture of American higher education, particularly its influence on the role of the faculty member, is explored.
l Boileau, Don M., “’Scholarship Reconsidered’: A Challenge To Use Teaching Portfolios To Document the Scholarship of Teaching,” Journal of the Association for Communication Administration (JACA), n3-4, 1993, pp.19-24.scholarship reconsidered a challenge to use teaching portfolios to document the scholarship of teaching
Shows how communication instructors and departments might benefit by using teaching portfolios as a means of promoting the scholarship of teaching. Draws on Ernest L. Boyer’s research in defining teaching as scholarship. Outlines how such portfolios would be constructed and used by faculty.
l Locke, Lawrence F., “The Fourteenth Dudley Allen Sargent Commemorative Lecture, 1995. An Analysis of Prospects for Changing Faculty Roles and Rewards: Can Scholarship Be Reconsidered? “Quest, 1995, 47(4), pp.506-24.
Examines Boyer’s book, “Scholarship Reconsidered,” using Sarason’s construct of regularities and Lewin’s force-field analysis model for understanding behavior, noting that implementation of Boyer’s proposals for renewing American universities through restructuring faculty roles and rewards requires devising strategies responsive to forces shaping the present regularities of academic life.
l Chepyator-Thomson, Jepkorir Rose; King, Susan Elizabeth , “Scholarship Reconsidered: Considerations for a More Inclusive Scholarship in the Academy.” Quest, 48(2), 1996, pp.165-74.
The current scholarship model in higher education was conceived, produced, and reproduced in the image of the dominant culture. Within this model, minority group members receive less recognition, sponsorship, favorable evaluation, and positive commentary on scholarship. The paper discusses considerations for a more inclusive scholarship in higher education.
l Boyer, Ernest L., “From Scholarship Reconsidered to Scholarship Assessed,” Quest, 48(2), 1996, pp.129-39.from scholarship reconsidered to scholarship assessed
This presentation revisited the Carnegie Foundation report, “Scholarship Reconsidered,” which discussed faculty roles and rewards, and outlined the framework for the follow-up report “Scholarship Assessed.”
l Davis, Walter E.; Chandler, Timothy J. L., “Beyond Boyer’s “Scholarship Reconsidered.” Journal of Higher Education, 69(1), 1998, pp.23-64.Beyond Boyer’s scholarship reconsidered
Argues that despite good intentions, Ernest Boyer’s “Scholarship Reconsidered” fails as an analysis of and recipe for change in the university because it ignores the broader socioeconomic context within which it functions. Another conceptual model for promoting real change in the university, using a systems approach, is offered, and implications of its use are discussed.
l Rice, R. Eugene, “Beyond “Scholarship Reconsidered”: Toward an Enlarged Vision of the Scholarly Work of Faculty Members.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 90, 2002, pp.7-17. beyond scholarship reconsidered
Examines Ernest Boyer’s 1990 Carnegie report, “Scholarship Reconsidered,” as a “tipping point”–a critical turning point in what is fundamentally valued and rewarded in the scholarly work of faculty members. Gives special attention to the scholarship of teaching and the scholarship of engagement
l Wise, Greg; Retzleff, Denise; Reilly, Kevin, “Adapting “Scholarship Reconsidered” and “Scholarship Assessed” To Evaluate University of Wisconsin-Extension Outreach Faculty for Tenure and Promotion,” Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 7(3), 2002, pp.5-18.adapting scholarship reconsidered and scholarship assessed to evaluate university of wisconsin extension
Asserting the importance of universities reengaging with their communities, details how the University of Wisconsin-Extension built on the core principles presented in Boyer’s “Scholarship Reconsidered” (1990) and Glassick, H”uber, and Maeroff’s “Scholarship Assessed” (1997) to develop a robust definition of the scholarship of engagement and a rigorous model to assess it.
l Wickens, Renate, SoTEL: Toward a Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning, Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 32(2), 2006, pp.21-41.
The publication of Ernest Boyer’s innovative study, “Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate” (1990), sparked sixteen years of academic studies, high level conferences, and campus teaching reforms in a movement that has come to be known as the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). During this same period, a rapidly developing study and practice of digital pedagogy, to be discussed here under the heading of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL), generated its own extensive theoretical and practice-oriented literature. This paper is part of an ongoing work that explores points of intersection between SoTL and TEL in order to lay the groundwork for the latter as scholarship in Boyer’s sense of the term, that is, SoTEL. (Contains 7 endnotes.)
l Bowden, Randall G. “’Scholarship Reconsidered’: Reconsidered,” Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, (7)2, 2007, pp.1-21.scholarship reconsidered reconsidered
“Scholarship Reconsidered” by Ernest Boyer generates a flurry of theoretical and applied activity. Much of the research centers on the concept of the scholarship of teaching as researchers explore what constitutes scholarship, which is often misdirected. Through lexical statistics and rhetorical analysis, the text is examined according to its overall intent with attention given to the scholarship of teaching. Results reveal the scholarship of teaching is a minor but important role and the text is intended for the renewal of the academy and society. Conclusions balance research based concepts advanced by scholars with the text’s intent.
l Wasley, Paula, “Carnegie Foundation Creates New “Owner’s Manual” for Doctoral Programs,” Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(16), 2007, p.A9.
In his 1990 book “Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate”, Ernest L. Boyer, who was then president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, analyzed the balance between teaching and research in the scholarly endeavors of that era. His conclusion that the university rewarded research at the expense of teaching set in motion a series of reforms that sought to re-emphasize teaching as an integral component of scholarship. Seventeen years later, the Carnegie Foundation has again found academe lacking. This time, however, higher education’s most prominent advocates for teaching and teaching reform say that the research has been overlooked. Carnegie Foundation researchers, under the auspices of the foundation’s departing president, Lee S. Shulman, have undertaken a project as ambitious as Mr. Boyer’s: to take stock of the state of doctoral education and how it has responded to, or ignored, the challenges of the 21st century. Over a five-year period ending in 2005, the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate monitored 84 Ph.D.-granting departments in six fields–chemistry, education, English, history, mathematics, and neuroscience. The project’s researchers tracked the selected programs as they analyzed departmental goals and performance, and made changes to improve their own effectiveness in meeting their goals. The group’s findings have been summarized in a 200-page book called “The Formation of Scholars: Rethinking Doctoral Education for the Twenty-First Century” (Jossey-Bass). The book aspires to be a doctoral education “owner’s manual,” offering practical suggestions for promoting principles of progressive development, integration, and scholarly collaboration within Ph.D. programs.
l Gordon, Mordechai, “What Makes Interdisciplinary Research Original? Integrative Scholarship Reconsidered,” Oxford Review of Education, 33(2), 2007, pp.195-209.what makes interdisciplinary research original
This paper focuses on the scholarship of integration in the field of education and argues that although it has gradually been moving into the mainstream of educational research, it is all too often judged on the basis of criteria more applicable to assess the scholarship of discovery. First, I examine the questions: what constitutes original research in education and what makes the scholarship of integration “original”. I assert that the reluctance on the part of many educators to consider integrative scholarship as original research is in part a result of the prevailing conception of originality that is too limiting and often not relevant to evaluate this form of scholarship. Such a conception is incompatible with the valuable lessons that constructivism has taught us about knowledge and learning. Finally, I propose a number of criteria to evaluate integrative research studies, ones which are different from those that apply to other forms of scholarship.
l Pescosolido, Bernice A., “The Converging Landscape of Higher Education: Perspectives, Challenges, and a Call to the Discipline of Sociology,” Teaching Sociology, 36(2), 2008, pp. 95-107.the converging landscape of higher education
Across the field of higher education and within the discipline of sociology, several important reconceptualizations of academic work have emerged. While not absolutely in sync, there is a striking overlap across three of the most visible of these: Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered, Carnegie’s Stewardship of the Discipline, and Burawoy’s Public Sociology. Putting the development of these conceptualizations into the larger context of shifts in higher education, I briefly review each, putting special emphasis on the synergy among them. However, despite these overarching guides and a number of other noted innovations (particularly in the scholarship of teaching and learning), new challenges have arisen. I end by discussing these new developments, drawing from basic sociological research to provide insights for maintaining gains and pushing these efforts forward. In particular, SoTL and the aging of the cohort of leaders who pioneered these redefinition efforts emphasize the importance of Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) programs, and the placement of new PhDs with this broad vision in PhD-granting departments, as well as in liberal arts colleges and universities.