What do you think?
Rate this book
Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
Ernest L. Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered offers a new paradigm that recognizes the full range of scholarly activity by college and university faculty and questions the existence of a reward system that pushed faculty toward research and publication and away from teaching.
Ernest L. Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered offers a new paradigm that recognizes the full range of scholarly activity by college and university faculty and questions the existence of a reward system that pushed faculty toward research and publication and away from teaching.
147 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1991
24 people are currently reading
135 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
August 11, 2017
Boyer's original text is almost 30 years old, and this 2015 reprint begins with essays on how his argument has impacted higher education in those decades.
Boyer argues that scholarship should be redefined to consist of discovery, integration, application and teaching. Scholarship of discovery is what we traditionally think of as scholarship: original research. Scholarship of integration is interdisciplinary and collaborative; Boyer doesn't really offer specific examples of any of these types of scholarship, and so scholarship of integration reads to me like traditional, original research, just done in an interdisciplinary setting. Scholarship of application (now called engagement) is about serving the community, about solving local (and national and global problems). Scholarship of teaching is pedagogical research.
Boyer also argues that since most faculty are already engaged in at least one of these four kinds of scholarship, they should all be rewarded, specifically in the promotion and tenure processes. He believes that multiple pathways (tracks) to promotion and tenure should exist and envisions a set-up in which faculty might switch focus from time. For example, a professor might agree to be evaluated on a traditional research + teaching track for a period of years and then switch to a scholarship of teaching track for another period of years.
For Boyer, broadening the definition of scholarship will help higher education solve what he sees as its identity crisis. Too many institutions of higher education model themselves after Ivy League schools without trying to develop a distinctive identity that's based on the kinds of scholarship the faculty and students actually complete.
Clearly, Boyer's ideas have had a tremendous influence on higher education as many of his suggestions are now par for the course at many colleges and universities. However, this book also clearly demonstrates that some of the current tensions in higher education stretch back far into the past:
How do we reconcile our teaching mission with the necessity of participating in other activities (like publishing) that draw our focus from teaching?
Does the academy still place too much emphasis on publishing?
How do we reward the tedious activities that take up so much of professors' time (like advising, mentoring, etc.)?
This book also left me with some questions. I hadn't realized that pedagogical research was once considered Not Real Research, and now I'm wondering if that viewpoint is still alive and well and I just haven't encountered it. It also made me wonder how my institution regards textbook writing.
Boyer argues that scholarship should be redefined to consist of discovery, integration, application and teaching. Scholarship of discovery is what we traditionally think of as scholarship: original research. Scholarship of integration is interdisciplinary and collaborative; Boyer doesn't really offer specific examples of any of these types of scholarship, and so scholarship of integration reads to me like traditional, original research, just done in an interdisciplinary setting. Scholarship of application (now called engagement) is about serving the community, about solving local (and national and global problems). Scholarship of teaching is pedagogical research.
Boyer also argues that since most faculty are already engaged in at least one of these four kinds of scholarship, they should all be rewarded, specifically in the promotion and tenure processes. He believes that multiple pathways (tracks) to promotion and tenure should exist and envisions a set-up in which faculty might switch focus from time. For example, a professor might agree to be evaluated on a traditional research + teaching track for a period of years and then switch to a scholarship of teaching track for another period of years.
For Boyer, broadening the definition of scholarship will help higher education solve what he sees as its identity crisis. Too many institutions of higher education model themselves after Ivy League schools without trying to develop a distinctive identity that's based on the kinds of scholarship the faculty and students actually complete.
Clearly, Boyer's ideas have had a tremendous influence on higher education as many of his suggestions are now par for the course at many colleges and universities. However, this book also clearly demonstrates that some of the current tensions in higher education stretch back far into the past:
How do we reconcile our teaching mission with the necessity of participating in other activities (like publishing) that draw our focus from teaching?
Does the academy still place too much emphasis on publishing?
How do we reward the tedious activities that take up so much of professors' time (like advising, mentoring, etc.)?
This book also left me with some questions. I hadn't realized that pedagogical research was once considered Not Real Research, and now I'm wondering if that viewpoint is still alive and well and I just haven't encountered it. It also made me wonder how my institution regards textbook writing.
October 31, 2019
This book was required for my doctoral-level course "Higher Education Leadership".
Overall, I think that these are some great ideas put forward on how to change the priorities of the professoriate. Change is very slow in higher education but I hope we can move toward to more broad understanding of what scholarship is and how it is reviewed.
I also want to point out that Boyer totally stole this idea from Eugene Rice and has continually gotten all the credit. I do not know how/why we hold this book/author in such high esteem if it goes against the very strict rules of higher education.
Overall, I think that these are some great ideas put forward on how to change the priorities of the professoriate. Change is very slow in higher education but I hope we can move toward to more broad understanding of what scholarship is and how it is reviewed.
I also want to point out that Boyer totally stole this idea from Eugene Rice and has continually gotten all the credit. I do not know how/why we hold this book/author in such high esteem if it goes against the very strict rules of higher education.
July 31, 2025
Eternal curses on the Carnegie Report on American professors, the hired gun of Ernest Boyer, and his call for "Everybody into the classroom except the walking wounded!" Sounds like a great idea, right? Wrong. When Ph.D.s were forced to teach what Nabokov called "the great wave of the American undergraduates" they started teaching to the student evaluations, giving easy As (grade inflation has skyrocketed since this report came out) and colleges went a-hiring part-time faculty whose only job is to teach and grade, grade and teach. A national disgrace.
June 26, 2024
A thought-provoking book addresses the proper balance needed to ensure that professors balance research, teaching, and scholarship by recognizing that scholarship implies different activities for different disciplines and that universities must realize this when granting tenure—a must-read for university faculty who are trying to figure out the meaning of academic work.
April 30, 2019
Read for a module fo my PGCPHE. It's US-centric overview of academia is both dated and geographically limited, but this is a useful look at different aspects of scholarship, particularly in the interplay of research and learning in HE.
May 10, 2022
This book is 30 years old and feels like it was written yesterday. Highly relevant, if not even more relevant with today’s hyper competition within and outside the academy. There were a couple of ideas that would have benefited from a more specific example but overall a great read.
April 17, 2015
What exactly do we mean when we say scholarship? On some level, it's simply whatever scholars do when they're not teaching or in meetings or preparing for class. It is, in the popular conception, research: spending time in laboratories, pouring through sources, writing out one's thoughts-- communicating creative ideas based on original research, meaningfully reviewed by one's peers, and communicated with one's field. It is the production of knowledge.
Yet (at my institution at least) there has long been discussion of other "models” of scholarship: the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of discovery. (My institution being a Christian university, the scholarship of "faith integration" is often tacked onto this list as well.) I never quite understood what these distinctions were about, despite the fact that my own PhD was in an integrated history/philosophy program, and when discussion of the "scholarship of integration" came up in a talk with a colleague about a new university program, I realized it was probably time I familiarize myself with the work in which Ernest Boyer first lays out this model.
Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate was published by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a "special report" in 1990, the result of an extensive survey of American professors. The work itself is quite slender, with a large appendix containing data from the survey. Being twenty-five years old now I suppose qualifies the book as a "classic" in the field of higher education, but the things Boyer has to say still seem very relevant (though in parts depressingly unobtained).
Boyer's study is local, an attempt to quantify and qualify the history and character of American higher education. This localism in his approach appeals to me, especially his emphasis on the need for small colleges to remain distinct and committed to their own unique missions, resisting the pressure of accrediting bodies or the example of larger research universities to conform to a undifferentiated approach to education. Different colleges and universities exist for different and complementary missions, Boyer implies; this tapestry should remain rich and diverse.
From Boyer's overview of the history of higher education in America (which, though cursory feels composed of fairly safe generalizations), he claims the purpose and structure of higher education has changed over time. Boyer argues that scholarship at these institutions has always been broader than research alone (“scholarship of discovery” in his parlance). Early Colonial colleges were focused on character formation, land-grant schools of the mid-1800s were focused on application, and research colleges proliferated at the conclusion of World War II in response to the burgeoning of the large-scale scientific enterprise. To focus solely on the scholarship of discovery, he argues, at the expense of teaching, integration, and application or to prioritize pure research alone is to disproportionately skew what has traditionally been a much richer heritage of scholarship.
Many of Boyer's claims made sense to me, especially having spent most of my career thus far working at a "teaching-based" university that purports to value quality instructional practices and evaluation. In such an environment it seems reasonable that a major portion of what scholars do is to reflect on developing and evaluating their own teaching techniques, ideally with the help of a scholarly community. Its identity as a liberal arts university (and my own scholarly background at the intersection between science and the humanities) makes me resonate even more strongly with Boyer's "scholarship of integration," the idea that active research can involve synthesizing and forming connections between various and even seemingly disparate disciplines.
The book is at its heart though a recommendation and call to action. Though it has many good things to say, and backs this up with frequent quotations from professors as well as the data of the survey itself, there isn't much practical explanation of what these things look like on the ground. How is scholarship of integration evaluated by one's peers when it crosses disciplinary boundaries, for instance? What is the relationship between scholarship of application and the commercial or economic pressures increasingly shaping the educational landscape? Boyer doesn't have a lot to say about this, and I'm not sure where to go next. Who has taken up this model and written about how it does or does not work in particular institutional settings?
Yet (at my institution at least) there has long been discussion of other "models” of scholarship: the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of discovery. (My institution being a Christian university, the scholarship of "faith integration" is often tacked onto this list as well.) I never quite understood what these distinctions were about, despite the fact that my own PhD was in an integrated history/philosophy program, and when discussion of the "scholarship of integration" came up in a talk with a colleague about a new university program, I realized it was probably time I familiarize myself with the work in which Ernest Boyer first lays out this model.
Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate was published by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as a "special report" in 1990, the result of an extensive survey of American professors. The work itself is quite slender, with a large appendix containing data from the survey. Being twenty-five years old now I suppose qualifies the book as a "classic" in the field of higher education, but the things Boyer has to say still seem very relevant (though in parts depressingly unobtained).
Boyer's study is local, an attempt to quantify and qualify the history and character of American higher education. This localism in his approach appeals to me, especially his emphasis on the need for small colleges to remain distinct and committed to their own unique missions, resisting the pressure of accrediting bodies or the example of larger research universities to conform to a undifferentiated approach to education. Different colleges and universities exist for different and complementary missions, Boyer implies; this tapestry should remain rich and diverse.
From Boyer's overview of the history of higher education in America (which, though cursory feels composed of fairly safe generalizations), he claims the purpose and structure of higher education has changed over time. Boyer argues that scholarship at these institutions has always been broader than research alone (“scholarship of discovery” in his parlance). Early Colonial colleges were focused on character formation, land-grant schools of the mid-1800s were focused on application, and research colleges proliferated at the conclusion of World War II in response to the burgeoning of the large-scale scientific enterprise. To focus solely on the scholarship of discovery, he argues, at the expense of teaching, integration, and application or to prioritize pure research alone is to disproportionately skew what has traditionally been a much richer heritage of scholarship.
Many of Boyer's claims made sense to me, especially having spent most of my career thus far working at a "teaching-based" university that purports to value quality instructional practices and evaluation. In such an environment it seems reasonable that a major portion of what scholars do is to reflect on developing and evaluating their own teaching techniques, ideally with the help of a scholarly community. Its identity as a liberal arts university (and my own scholarly background at the intersection between science and the humanities) makes me resonate even more strongly with Boyer's "scholarship of integration," the idea that active research can involve synthesizing and forming connections between various and even seemingly disparate disciplines.
The book is at its heart though a recommendation and call to action. Though it has many good things to say, and backs this up with frequent quotations from professors as well as the data of the survey itself, there isn't much practical explanation of what these things look like on the ground. How is scholarship of integration evaluated by one's peers when it crosses disciplinary boundaries, for instance? What is the relationship between scholarship of application and the commercial or economic pressures increasingly shaping the educational landscape? Boyer doesn't have a lot to say about this, and I'm not sure where to go next. Who has taken up this model and written about how it does or does not work in particular institutional settings?
January 22, 2016
This is an important book in the academic world. Boyer provided new insights on what kind of scholarship faculty members should be engaged in. Today the most enduring idea is scholarship of teaching (and learning). The book, in my opinion, makes two basic arguments:
1. Boyer argues that there are four types of scholarship and they are all valued. The four types of scholarship are: DISCOVERY, INTEGRATION, APPLICATION, and TEACHING.
2. Boyer also argues, strongly, that different types of institutions (research university, liberal arts, comprehensive etc), and different disciplines, as well as different faculty members should do different types of scholarship. He argues that "diversity, not uniformity, be the goal."
For liberal arts colleges the main type of scholarship, in Boyer opinion, ought to be the scholarship of teaching.
Note that Boyer is careful to note the importance of assessment to ensure that all types of scholarship is of high quality.
1. Boyer argues that there are four types of scholarship and they are all valued. The four types of scholarship are: DISCOVERY, INTEGRATION, APPLICATION, and TEACHING.
2. Boyer also argues, strongly, that different types of institutions (research university, liberal arts, comprehensive etc), and different disciplines, as well as different faculty members should do different types of scholarship. He argues that "diversity, not uniformity, be the goal."
For liberal arts colleges the main type of scholarship, in Boyer opinion, ought to be the scholarship of teaching.
Note that Boyer is careful to note the importance of assessment to ensure that all types of scholarship is of high quality.
October 14, 2011
This is a short and informal report, so there's not a whole lot to say about it; I did find the guidelines to be reasonable and a good jumping-off point for new ideas. This came out twenty years ago but never seemed terribly dated, except when it talked about steadily improving job prospects for college graduates.
October 3, 2012
This book is really a report based on a survey of faculties in 1989. While the academic job market is much tighter than then, the issues addressed have not substantially changed in the past 20+ years. I read it as part of new faculty orientation, and hope it means that my college has a broader perspective on what constitutes scholarship.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews