Abstract
This article reports on an examination of the distinctive second-generation challenges and opportunities faced by an early institutional adopter of the Boyer model of scholarship. Following the first cohort of faculty to be reviewed for tenure and promotion based on these criteria, we report the results of a survey designed to determine the perceptions of faculty and administrators of the degree to which emerging forms of scholarship had been integrated into the university culture including factors such as institutional identity, support structures, and faculty participation. This case study sheds light on the process of adaptation at this single institution and provides glimpses of how cultural change might occur across higher education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2014). Bridging the divide between faculty and administration: A guide to understanding conflict in the academy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Birnbaum, R. (1983). Maintaining diversity in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Braxton, J. M., Luckey, W., & Helland, P. (2002). Institutionalizing a broader view of scholarship through Boyer's four domains. ASHE-ERIC higher education report. Higher and adult education, 29. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chalmers, D. (2011). Progress and challenges to the recognition and reward of the scholarship of teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 30, 25–38.
Coser, L. A. (1974). Greedy institutions; patterns of undivided commitment. New York, NY: Free Press.
Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4
Cruz, L. (2014). Opposing forces: Institutional theory and second generation SoTL. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080101
Cruz, L. (n.d.), Multiple forms of scholarship. Retrieved from Western Carolina University, http://www.wcu.edu/learn/faculty/coulter-faculty-commons/multiple-forms-of-scholarship/
Cruz, L., Ellern, J., Ford, G., Moss, H., & White, B. J. (2009). Recognition and reward: SOTL and the tenure process at a regional comprehensive university. MountainRise: The International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(3), 1–27.
Cruz, L., Ellern, G. D., Ford, G., Moss, H., & White, B. J. (2013). Navigating the boundaries of the scholarship of engagement at a regional comprehensive university. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 17(1), 3–26.
Cuban, L. (1999). How scholars trumped teachers: Change without reform in university curriculum, teaching and research, 1890–1990. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dedehayir, O., & Steinert, M. (2016). The hype cycle model: A review and future directions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 108, 28–41.
Doberneck, D. M., & Schweitzer, J. H. (2012). Disciplinary differences in engaged scholarship: What research tells us. Institutions, 100(198), 2.
Driscoll, A., & Sandmann, L. R. (2016). From maverick to mainstream: The scholarship of engagement. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(1), 83–94.
Forrest, K. (2013). Utopia university: A faculty member reflects on recommendations for the future of SoTL. Insight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 8, 73–79.
Foster, B. L. (2006). From faculty to administrator: Like going to a new planet. New Directions for Higher Education, 134, 49–57.
Geertsema, J. (2016). Academic development, SoTL and educational research. International Journal for Academic Development, 21, 122–134.
Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., Maeroff, G. I., & Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional theory and educational change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 637–661.
Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: Life, career and generational factors in teachers’ emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 967–983.
Henderson, B. (2006). Teaching at the people’s university: An introduction to the state comprehensive university. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Henderson, B., & Buchanan, H. (2007). The scholarship of teaching and learning: A special niche for comprehensive universities. Research in Higher Education, 48, 523–543.
Hoppes, C. R., & Holley, K. A. (2014). Organizational trust in times of challenge: The impact on faculty and administrators. Innovative Higher Education, 39, 201–216.
Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (Eds.). (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered: Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jones, W. A. (2012). Variation among academic disciplines: An update on analytical frameworks and research. Journal of the Professoriate, 6(1), 9–27.
Kember, D., Hong, C., Yau, V., & Ho, A. (2014). Is it the teaching or the discipline? Influences of disciplinary epistemology and pedagogy on students adapting study behaviour and epistemological beliefs. European Journal of Higher Education, 4, 348–362.
Kern, B., Mettetal, G., Dixson, M. D., & Morgan, R. K. (2015). The role of SoTL in the academy: Upon the 25th anniversary of Boyer's scholarship reconsidered. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(3), 1–14.
Linden, A., & Fenn, J. (2003). Understanding Gartner’s hype cycles. Strategic Analysis Report N° R-20-1971. Stamford, CT: Gartner.
Lueddeke, G. R. (2003). Professionalizing teaching practice in higher education: A study of disciplinary variation and teaching-scholarship. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 213–228.
Matthews, K. E., Lodge, J. M., & Bosanquet, A. (2014). Early career academic perceptions, attitudes and professional development activities: Questioning the teaching and research gap to further academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 19, 112–124.
McKinney, K. (2004). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Past lessons, current challenges, and future visions. To Improve the Academy, 22, 3–19.
McKinney, K. (2007). Enhancing learning through the scholarship of teaching and learning: The challenges and joys of juggling. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Morphew, C. C., & Huisman, J. (2002). Using institutional theory to reframe research on academic drift. Higher Education in Europe, 27, 491–506.
Moser, D., & Ream, T. C. (2015). Scholarship reconsidered: Past, present, and future. About Campus, 20, 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.21181
O’Meara, K. (2006). Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Have academic cultures really changed? In J. Braxton (Ed.), Analyzing faculty work and rewards: Using Boyer’s four domains of scholarship (pp. 77–96). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285
Pellino, G. R., Blackburn, R. T., & Boberg, A. L. (1984). The dimensions of academic scholarship: Faculty and administrator views. Research in Higher Education, 20, 103–115.
Poole, G. D. (2007). Using the scholarship of teaching and learning at disciplinary, national and institutional levels to strategically improve the quality of post-secondary education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2007.010203
Poole, G. D. (2013). Square one: What is research? In K. McKinney (Ed.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in and across the disciplines (pp. 135–151). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2004). Theories of organizational change and innovation processes. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 374–397). New York, NY: Oxford.
Quinn, K., & Trower, C. A. (2009, February). Tips for recruiting and retaining faculty: What different generations want. Paper presented at the 26th Annual Conference on Academic Leadership: What Is on the Horizon, Orlando, FL.
Schön, D. A. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 27–34.
Secret, M., Leisey, M., Lanning, S., Polich, S. L., & Schaub, J. (2011). Faculty perceptions of the scholarship of teaching and learning: Definition, activity level and merit considerations at one university. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(3), 1–20.
Simpson, A. (2017). The surprising persistence of Biglan's classification scheme. Studies in Higher Education, 42, 1520–1531. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1111323
Stanton, T. K. (2012). New times demand new scholarship II: Research universities and civic engagement: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16, 271–304.
Tight, M. (2015). Theory development and application in higher education research: Tribes and territories. Higher Education Policy, 28, 277–293.
Vajorczki, S., Savage, P., Martin, L., Brin, P., & Kustra, E. D. H. (2011). Good teachers, scholarly teachers, and teachers engaged in scholarship of teaching and learning: A case study from McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2011.1.2
Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2007). Generational preferences for work environment fit: Effects on employee outcomes. Career Development International, 12, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710733631
White, B. J., Cruz, L., Ellern, J., Ford, G., & Moss, H. (2012). Bound by tradition? Peer review and new scholarship: An institutional case study. Research in Higher Education Journal, 17, 70–87.
Witman, P. D., & Richlin, L. (2007). The status of the scholarship of teaching and learning in the disciplines. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol1/iss1/14/z
Zepeda, S. J. (2012). Professional development: What works? (2nd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Robert Crow earned a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology and Research from the University of South Carolina and is Assistant Professor of Educational Research at Western Carolina University. His special interests are assessment, evaluation, and the emerging field of improvement science. He can be reached at rcrow@wcu.edu.
Laura Cruz earned a Ph.D. in History from the University of California at Berkeley and is the Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence at Tennessee Tech University. Her special interests are emerging forms of scholarship, educational technology, innovative pedagogies, and organizational development in higher education. She can be reached at lcruz@tntech.edu.
Gillan (Jill) D. Ellern earned an M.A. in Library and Information Science from Louisiana State University and is Associate Professor and Systems Librarian at Western Carolina University. Her special interests include Boyer’s model of scholarship, PC authentication and privacy in libraries, jail librarianship, and Facebook use in libraries. She can be reached at ellern@email.wcu.edu.
George Ford earned an Ed.D.in Educational Leadership from Western Carolina University and is Associate Professor of Construction Management at Western Carolina University. His special interests include mechanical engineering and energy management. He can be reached at gford@email.wcu.edu.
Hollye Moss earned a Ph.D. in Industrial Management from Clemson University and is Professor of and Director of the School of Economics, Management, and Project Management in the College of Business at Western Carolina University. Her special interests include business statistics and operations management. She can be reached at hmoss@email.wcu.edu.
Barbara Jo White earned a Ph.D. in Computer Information Systems from the University of Mississippi and is Professor of Computer Information Systems at Western Carolina University. Her special interest include systems analysis and design. She can be reached at whiteb@email.wcu.edu.
Appendices
Appendix A: Rubric for Institutional Assessment of Boyer Integration
Dimension 1: Philosophy and Mission
Pre-Stage No Integration (0) | Stage One Initial Integration (1) | Stage Two Partial Integration (2) | Stage Three Full Integration (3) | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Formal changes to reward system | No rewards system revision begun in recognizing multiple forms of scholarship. | Beginning stages of rewards system revision aimed a recognizing multiple forms of scholarship. | Some institutional revision of rewards system recognition of multiple forms of scholarship. | Institution-wide revision of rewards system aimed at encouraging multiple forms of scholarship. | |
Scholarship alignment with context of mission | No alignment of scholarship forms with institutional mission. | Early stages in appropriately aligning scholarship forms with institutional mission. | Partial alignment of forms of scholarship most appropriate for institutional mission. | Full emphasis in aligning the forms of scholarship most appropriate for the institutional mission. | |
Definition of scholarship | Neither articulation nor adoption of a scholarship definition for institutional recognition. | Early stages of articulating and adopting a definition of scholarship recognized by the institution. | Definition of scholarship is partially defined/recognized by institutional units/departments. | An articulated/operationalized definition of scholarship fully adopted by the institution. | |
Relative weight of scholarship forms | No achievement of institutional balance nor consideration of relative scholarship weights for each form of scholarship (pertaining to various units/departments). | Beginning stages of achieving institutional balance and/or consideration of relative weight(s) for each of the forms of scholarship (pertaining to various units/departments). | Incomplete institutional balance and/or establishment of relative weight(s) attributed to each of the forms of scholarship (pertaining to various units/departments). | Institutional balance is achieved and relative weight(s) attributed to all forms of scholarship (pertaining to various units/departments). | |
Leadership by administration | No administrative understanding or support for multiple forms of scholarship. | Beginning stages of campus leadership/administration understanding of and support for multiple forms of scholarship. | Limited understanding and support for multiple forms of scholarship on the part of campus leadership and administration. | Campus leadership and administration understands and supports multiple forms of scholarship. |
Dimension 2: Institutional Support
Pre-Stage No Integration (0) | Stage One Initial Integration (1) | Stage Two Partial Integration (2) | Stage Three Full Integration (3) | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Introduction to multiple forms of scholarship | No seminars, grants or other opportunities for introduction of the four domains of scholarship for faculty and graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). | General lack of seminars, grants or other opportunities for introduction of the four domains of scholarship for faculty and graduate teaching assistants. | Incomplete/fragmented offerings of seminars, grants and other opportunities for introducing the four domains of scholarship for faculty and GTAs. | Seminars, grants and other opportunities are provided to GTAs and faculty that introduce the four domains of scholarship. | |
Development of standard documents | No articulation of the four domains of scholarship in departmental collegial review documents. | Rudimentary articulation of the four domains of scholarship in departmental collegial review documents. | Partial/incomplete articulation regarding the four domains of scholarship appearing in departmental collegial review documents. | Each of the four domains of scholarship are distinguished and clearly articulated in departmental collegial review documents. | |
Examples of the domains of boyer scholarship | No illustrious examples of the four domains of scholarship are provided. | Illustrative examples of the four domains of scholarship are beginning to be formulated. | Illustrative examples of some, but not all, of the four domains of scholarship are provided. | Illustrative examples are provided for each of the four domains of scholarship. | |
Committee guidelines | No guidelines crafted for assessing the impact of scholarship for multiple constituencies crafted for committees or department heads. | Rudimentary guidelines for committees and department heads for assessing the impact of scholarship for multiple constituencies. | Incomplete or partial guidelines created and provided to committees and department heads for assessing the impact of scholarship on multiple constituencies. | Guidelines for committees and department heads are created and provided to assess the impact of scholarship on multiple constituencies. | |
Evaluation and assessment | No organized, campus-wide system implemented to account for the number and forms of scholarship activities. | Rudimentary system implemented to account for and validate Eliminthe number and forms of scholarship. | Partial system implemented to account for and validate the number and forms of scholarship. | A complete system is in place to account for and validate the number and forms of scholarship. | |
Coordinating entities | No official campus support unit designated for assisting faculty in implementing, advancing, or institutionalizing multiple forms of scholarship. | Informal (non-institutionalized) support unit/entity existing for assisting faculty in implementing and advancing multiple forms of scholarship. | Formal, yet not institutionalized, support unit/entity existing for assisting faculty in implementing and advancing multiple forms of scholarship. | Campus has formally designated a support unit for assisting faculty in the implementation, advancement, and institutionalization of the multiple forms of scholarship. |
Dimension 3: Faculty Support
Pre-Stage No Integration (0) | Stage One Initial Integration (1) | Stage Two Partial Integration (2) | Stage Three Full Integration (3) | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Redefining scholarship | No redefined concept of scholarship for guiding annual faculty evaluations. | Rudimentarily redefined concept of scholarship for guiding annual faculty evaluations. | Incomplete/partial redefinition of scholarship as it relates to faculty for evaluation purposes. | A redefined definition of scholarship is provided and considered in all faculty evaluations. | |
Understanding the definition of scholarship | Faculty are unaware of the institutional conceptualization of the four forms of scholarship. | Rudimentary understanding by faculty of the institutional conceptualization of the four forms of scholarship. | Limited understanding on the part of faculty of the institutional conceptualization of the four forms of scholarship. | Faculty understand the institutional conceptualization of the four forms of scholarship. | |
Establishment of clear expectations for scholarship | No guidelines provided to faculty that specify/articulate each of the four domains of scholarship. | Rudimentary guidelines provided to faculty that specify/articulate each of the four domains of scholarship. | Incomplete/rudimentary guidelines are provided to faculty that specify/articulate each of the four domains of scholarship. | Guidelines are provided to faculty that specify/articulate each of the four domains of scholarship. | |
Faculty workload | No expectations stated regarding amount of scholarship within each domain. | Rudimentary expectations are at the beginning stage of development regarding amount of scholarship for each domain. | Expectations are ambiguous for faculty regarding amount of scholarship within each domain. | Expectations are clearly stated regarding the amount of scholarship to be completed in each domain. | |
Feedback | Feedback mechanisms are not yet in place to provide guidance for faculty during evaluation periods. | Incomplete mechanisms established for providing feedback during annual review of faculty. | Informal mechanisms established for providing feedback during annual review of faculty. | Formal mechanisms are established that provide feedback during annual review and mini-tenure for faculty. | |
Peer-to-peer recognition | No peer acceptance of scholarly activity in the four domains. | Minor peer acceptance of scholarly activity in the four domains. | Moderate integration of peer acceptance across campus regarding scholarly activity in the four domains. | Pervasive campus-wide cultural shift favoring acceptance of scholarly activity in the four domains. |
Appendix B: Survey Instrument
Demographic Items | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Choose your college from the list. | ||||||
Choose your department from the list. | ||||||
Choose your academic rank from the list. | ||||||
How many years have you been at WCU? (Choose the appropriate range) | ||||||
Have you been a faculty member at any other institution? | ||||||
If yes, choose the number of years from the list. | ||||||
Philosophy and Mission: How would you rate the integration of the evolving definitions of scholarship (Boyer) into WCU’s philosophy and mission with regard to: | ||||||
Formal changes to the reward system at the University? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Scholarship alignment with context of the Univ. mission? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
The definition of scholarship at the University? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
The relative weights of scholarship forms accepted? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Leadership by administration? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Institutional Support: How would you rate WCU’s institutional support of the evolving definition s of scholarship (Boyer) with regard to: | ||||||
An introduction to multiple forms of scholarship? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Development of standard tenure documents? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Examples of the domains of scholarship available? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Tenure committee guidelines? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Faculty evaluation and assessment? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Coordinating entities/departments on campus? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Faculty Support: How would you rate WCU’s faculty support of the evolving definition s of scholarship (Boyer) with regard to: | ||||||
Redefining scholarship at the University? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
An understanding the definition of scholarship? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Establishment of clear expectations for scholarship? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Faculty workload? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Feedback to faculty about their scholarship? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Peer-to-peer recognition? | less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | more |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Crow, R., Cruz, L., Ellern, J. et al. Boyer in the Middle: Second Generation Challenges to Emerging Scholarship. Innov High Educ 43, 107–123 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9409-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-017-9409-8