0Ob ooot owo - boyerarchives.messiah.eduboyerarchives.messiah.edu/files/Documents6/1000 0002...
Transcript of 0Ob ooot owo - boyerarchives.messiah.eduboyerarchives.messiah.edu/files/Documents6/1000 0002...
0Ob ooot owo
Chapter 8
PATTERNS TO FIT PURPOSE
In this section, we will examine the way a broader definition of scholarship may relate to
the work of both higher learning institutions and individuals. We proceed with the conviction
that as Americans approach the twenty-first century, America’s colleges and universities have an
opportunity to achieve a degree of intellectual energy unparalleled in their history. Our assertion
is based on the confidence that a broadened and deepened definition of scholarship)—a fairly
simple, presently available, widely applicable idea-wili, we believe, free faculty talent and
invigorate institutional programs in a way not seen since scientific research redefined the
American university over a century ago.
In his 1963 Godkin Lectures, Clark Kerr saw the American university on the verge of a
major transformation. He predicted that, within 25 years, “ there will be a truly American
university, an institution unique in world history, an institution not looking to other models but
serving, itself, as a model for universities in other parts of the globe.” The world-class research
university became the expression of Dr. Kerr’s prediction. And it has been, for more than 25
years, the dominant institutional model, influencing all others much more than it was affected by
them.
A network of world rank research universities is crucial. The discovery of knowledge is
urgently required and it is our conviction that the university, more than any other institution,
should be a home for such endeavor. Indeed, we view, with considerable concern the moment of
research to corporate laboratories—beyond the academy itself.
What we worry about especially is that the quality of research is being compromised
today precisely because it is being attempted on campuses that have neither the time nor the
resources to deliver.
What’s disappointing is the way prospects for creating and experimentation in higher
education has remained so strikingly unfulfilled. The pressure was to conform to external
PATTRN-3, (ELB/dmo), June 19,1990 1
PATTRN-3, (ELB/dmo), June 19, 1990 2
mandates of the guild, but to a coherent, inspired vision. Indeed, there is a strange irony in the
fact that while American higher education has spoken, with satisfaction, about diversity, the day-
to-day professional pressures increasingly have been to imitate the Berkeley and the Amherst
models. To be sure, this nation provides technical training schools, two-year community
colleges, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive colleges and universities, doctoral and research
universities. But aside from community colleges and technical schools, other types of
institutions have been too much affected by the dominant research model, a model that has
contributed to conformity not to diversity.
Even free-standing liberal arts colleges, with their historic commitment to teaching, are
mightily influenced by the research orientation expressed best by major universities.
Consequently, many outstanding liberal arts colleges describe themselves as “ research
colleges.” Whereas it seemed that four-year colleges and small universities had at least two
models—Berkeley and Amherst—now the latter fall in line behind the former, the research
college in step with the research university. “ In step” not only in terms of the emphasis on
research but with regard to the general culture of the faculty, too.
What seems to be emerging is a resurgence interest in the potential diversity in types of
institutions and diversity in the work of faculty. But what now is necessary is for each institution
to define more clearly and honestly, its special mission particularly with regard to characteristics
of scholarship described in the report. It is not our intention to force particular types of
institutions arbitrarily within one category or another. We assume that all forms of scholarship
will, to one degree or another, be found on every campus. At the same time, we suspect that
only a handful of institutions have the capacity to do perform all dimensions of scholarship well
and we are convinced that colleges and universities can and indeed should focus their priorities
and shape a reward system that gives special emphasis to the one form of scholarship or another.
If the emphasis of American higher education would, in fact, celebrate diversity we could
imagine a mosaic of institutions that would complement each other, rather than compete.
PATTRN-3, (ELB/dmo), June 19,1990 3
There is, however, one commitment to scholarship that we believe must be sustained,
without compromise, at eveiy institution. Every college and university that enrolls students has
an ethical obligation to give priority to teaching and reward those who are effective in the
classroom. Critics of research universities are right when they fault these institutions for
allowing faculty to teach, too often, in such a perfunctory way. Research universities must
require good teaching in their undergraduate programs. And faculty in all institutions of higher
education must make a commitment to teaching excellence, expecting teaching to be done as
skillfully as possible and always treating that task as serious, honorable business. Rewards and
sanctions should reflect these expectations. Again, this does not mean that every place is a
teaching institution. What it does mean that its unacceptable to recruit students and then ignore
them.
But having said that, we are especially concerned to make the point that leaders at many
colleges and universities need to think more now about how they could better define their
institutions. What we emphasize is that it is essential for all four forms of scholarship to be
respected, but not be given equal weight in all types of institutions. In a small liberal arts college
where the professional life of faculty is built around teaching, there will still be persons who will
have meaningful research projects. And, as another example, we know from our data that even
in the top 50 research universities, where discovery is the centerpiece of facing culture, there is
still a core faculty who not only teach, but prefer teaching to research.
Still, the extension of scholarship to the four forms offered here is an opportunity for new
definition or redefinition, for a reaffirmation of a long-standing commitment or introduction of a
creative alternative. It is a time to see that patterns fit purposes.
PATTRN-3, (ELB/dmo), June 19,1990 4
The scholarly mission of the research university, with its strong graduate programs, fits
most comfortably with the current view of scholarship. Research leading to the advancement of
knowledge will have the highest priority in the research university—the name says it and the
society depends on it. Further, research universities are the primary location for professional
schools. Thus, the application of knowledge and learning from practice are as firmly established
here as is undergraduate education. The special forms of scholarship required by these key
elements are increasingly recognized as legitimate. But, we repeat, it should not be the only
form of scholarship recognized as legitimate and appropriately rewarded. Research at the
university needs to be embedded in larger concerns and capabilities related also to the integration
and application of knowledge. And teaching-especially the teaching of
undergraduates—provides perspectives that enhance the quality of research and inhibit the
specialist from becoming disconnected from the rest of life. There is a growing recognition that
other scholarly forms need to be given more credibility within these institutions. This is
particularly true of the scholarship of teaching. The very presence of an undergraduate program
demands it. Also, since to a large extent these universities are preparing tomorrows
professoriate, they should be contributing to the scholarship of the teaching-learning process.
Indeed, if this attempt to enlarge the conception of scholarship is to have any chance, it must
take hold in the research university; for it is there that the professional priorities of new faculty
across the world of higher education are shaped.
Many new programs for preparing teaching assistants have been established with
Stanford, Harvard, and the University of Califomia-San Diego leading the way. Centers for
teaching effectiveness have existed for years at the University of Texas (Austin) and the
University of Rhode Island. Obviously more emphasis on teaching is needed and the research
universities should adjust their reward systems appropriately.
Teaching is rightfully a proud emphasis in the mission of the community college. The
Commission on the Future of Community Colleges put it this way:
PATTRN-3, (ELB/dmo), June 19,1990 5
At the center of building community there is teaching. Teaching is the heartbeat of the educational enterprise, and when it is successful, energy is pumped into the community, continuously rewarding and revitalizing the institution, Therefore, excellence in teaching is the means by which the vitality of the college is extended and a network of intellectual enrichment and cultural understanding is build (Commission on the Future of Community Colleges, 1988, pp. 7-8).
Community college faculty accept the centrality of the teaching mission—and so they
should. We join them in celebrating their success with this important responsibility. But
community college faculty, too, should engage in advancing the frontiers of knowledge. Faculty
in this sector should provide leadership in the scholarship of teaching. There is so much to learn
about how students learn, particularly students from diverse backgrounds, and faculty in
community college are, or should be, authorities on this field of scholarship.
The classroom research Pat Cross writes about is particularly appropriate for community
college faculty who are willing to make an intellectual investment not only in teaching but in the
opportunities for scholarship there. Classroom research is not an amateur’s venture. It, as Cross
points out, requires investigative skills and hard intellectual work. It is a probing, questioning,
systematic pursuit about learning and the impact of teaching upon it.
Lee Shulman has called attention to what he calls “ pedagogical content knowledge” ;
that is, the examination of how knowledge in a particular discipline can best be taught. This
kind of scholarship links the intellectual content of a discipline with the methods employed in
teaching that subject. The community college is an especially appropriate place for
advancement of knowledge in this area to occur.
Just as in the other sectors of higher education, faculty at community colleges have
responsibility for other forms of scholarship. Currently, about two thirds of all community
college students are enrolled in career programs and technical studies. Clearly, scholarship on
the application of knowledge would be pertinent here.
PATTRN-3, (ELB/dmo), June 19,1990 6
At liberal arts colleges, it is widely agreed that the scholarship of teaching should be
honored. After all, this is very much a part of their tradition, there are virtually no graduate
programs at these places and its understandable that the____institutions should give
undergraduate instruction a central role. But here again, the position cannot be obsolete,
discovery of knowledge has had an historic place at selective liberal arts colleges and further,
these colleges have always valued the application of knowledge to the major professions, and
assumed that liberal studies are the best preparation for meaningful work. In recent years many
of these colleges also have become even more career-oriented, and an understanding and
appreciation of the application of knowledge is essential to their new puiposes.
Still, most liberal arts colleges are committed to educating students and may also give
sustained attention to questions of value and meaning, to moral dilemmas and ethical responses.
Thus they, perhaps more than others, should become skilled in the scholarship of teaching and of
integration, focusing on the human capacity for integrating self and world, the knower and the
known, the real and the ideal. Integrative studies, whether in interdisciplinary programs, general
education, or capstone seminars, should feature the interconnectedness of things.
Research in these institutions is taking on a special character. Kenneth Ruscio, in his
study of “ The Distinctive Scholarship of the Selective Liberal Arts College,” has found research
in the small college setting to be less formally organized and more flexible. Ruscio refers
specifically to what he calls “ integrative scholarship,” research that is typically more
“ horizontal,” reaching across disciplines and bringing ideas from different sources together in
new ways. Especially valued is the “ ability to see outside the framework of one’s discipline . . .
.” Ruscio concludes that in the liberal arts sector: “ Scholarly work has a high priority, but the
boundaries of specialization and the taxonomies of the disciplines are considered artificial and
constraining.” Thus, the scholarship of integration can not only thrive in and of itself but inform
undergraduate teaching at these institutions and shape their research contributions.
PATTRN-3, (ELB/dmo), June 19,1990 7
It is the classification of institutions called “ comprehensive” that seem to have struggled
most. The confusion about mission that is endemic to this broad sector of higher education can
be attributed in part to the pressure for career training demanded by their constituency and,
additionally, to pressure from faculty guided by the old definition of excellence-keyed on
research.
During the period of rapid growth following World War n , many of these colleges
acquired the title of state college university or simply state university. The 14 state universities
recently formed into the state system of higher education, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, are
good examples. Many are former teachers colleges and, because of the dramatic change and
expansion they have undergone recently, are having an especially difficult time sorting out
institutional priorities. Leadership of the more rapidly advancing—that is, emerging institutions
in this group—are pressing for greater national visibility through research productivity. At this
same time, job training, and more effective teaching, is being called for by a demanding public
and by consumer-oriented students. These strains tear at the faculty and create severe tensions,
often between senior and junior faculty members.
In addition, within this category there are the self-styled “ metropolitan universities.” At
these institutions with campuses in large urban areas there is emphasis is on the application of
knowledge. These colleges and universities, looking back, have found inspiration in the land
grant tradition and have argued, with conviction, that they have a special obligation to direct the
intellectual talent of their___for social and economic problems that surround them just as the
land grant colleges did a century ago.
Although all these dimensions of institutional mission, educational responsibility added
to the campus, we stress again the point that priorities shaping faculty work, in many cases,
changed very little. The traditional definition of scholarship has tended, not only to dominate,
but to narrow the prospects of innovation and distinctiveness even further. The evaluation and
reward systems are largely oblivious to the changes in institutional purpose.
PATTRN-3, (ELB/dmo), June 19,1990 8
We are impressed that the comprehensive university opens opportunities for faculty to
focus especially on the application of knowledge and its integration. This richer understanding
of the profession would accommodate the individual strengths of faculty and give recognition to
the special contributions which many are already making to a broad based institutional mission.
If constricted and even conflicting views of scholarship continue to prevail, they will be a major
impediment to unleashing the full intellectual potential of the faculty in these colleges and
universities.
Broadening the definition of scholarship not only is important for institutions; it’s crucial
for the professoriate as well. Recent faculty surveys, including Carnegie Foundation data,
suggest that the faculty member’s job differs tremendously at different kinds of institutions, but
this rich mix of activities and orientation are not being recognized and rewarded in an equitable
way. What we propose in short, is a formal recognition that disciplines and departments—just
like institutions—vary greatly in their ways of knowing and in the ways scholarship is
encouraged and advanced. While all rely, in the end, on the discovery of knowledge, some
depend especially on the integration or application of knowledge. Performance in such fields
should be rewarded for contributing to scholarship in its own way.
Another point: Because the scholar’s interests may shift over time, almost certainly over
a lifetime, we favor professional growth contracts that help a person to design a pattern of
concentration and progression. The time frame for each plan may be three to five years. The
context, both a constraint and a release, is the mission of the institution with which one is
affiliated. (A “ reality check” will be the faculty work load requirements of the department or
program.) Finally, the four categories of scholarship should provide general guidelines for the
work as well as criteria for evaluation. (More on this in chapter 8).
PATTRN-3, (ELB/dmo), June 19,1990 9
Because what is now honored as scholarship is usually highly specialized and technical,
faculty find themselves removed from—both lured from and pushed away from—many of the
intellectually challenging tasks related to the broader responsibilities of the modem college and
university. The faculty member has too often lost a wider sense of belonging. If the definition
of scholarship can be enlarged the academy would recognize, more openly, the full range of
human talent available to it. Faculty would be freer to shape their work to fit their special
strengths and interests, while also seeing their professional lives as institutionally useful.
We conclude that to broaden the definition of scholarship—and give equal weight to the
separate forms—would free colleges and universities to define their own unique missions.
Departments could bring their distinctive strengths to bear on scholarship, depending on the field
and resources provided by individual faculty. All of us could, then, celebrate the rich variety of
scholarly talents, making it possible for both professors and colleges to feel pride in their blend
of teaching, research, and service. This wider view would bring, we believe, a surge of
creativity and energy to higher learning and, in the process, deepen rather than diminish the
excellence of the work to which we are all committed.