Learning Objectives

• What is the history of the university in the U.S.?
• What is the history of faculty scholarship in the U.S.?
• What are the four categories and definitions of Ernest Boyer’s model?

Ernest Boyer and His Model of Scholarship

When colleges began in Colonial America, they were influenced by English colleges in terms of their purpose. Their central purpose was to train men in character and service for the ministry or other professions, and faculty would engage primarily in teaching. Teaching in the college was perceived as a “high calling,” but the classroom was intended to preserve, not reconstruct, society, and scholarship was not conducted inside the university. Teaching and learning consisted of lecture and recitation, with a focus on memorization rather than critical thinking or knowing. 

Eventually, leaders such as John Henry Newman—a prominent Catholic—came along and argued the university should be a place for questioning, critical thinking, and debate between faculty and students (Tierney, 2015). Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the university continued to focus on teaching and learning as scientific research was considered in contradiction to religion and therefore mostly conducted outside of the university.

During the late 1800s through the early 1900s, the university added service to faculty duties, with the goal to not only serve society but also to reshape it. In the early 20th century, the university was greatly influenced by the German university model, which included strong research (Brubacher & Rudy, 1958). In the German university, faculty had the freedom to investigate, conduct research, specialize in a specific discipline, and be individuals. Faculty training in Germany and returning to the US greatly liked this freedom and “the search for truth.”

From here, faculty focus shifted to research, with service and teaching falling by the wayside. A common university catch-phrase was “publish or perish,” because faculty were not able to get promoted or recognized unless they conducted research and published. While great research came from this movement, there was often a disconnect between faculty and teaching.

In 1990, Ernest Boyer published a short book that read like a manifesto. In this he called for colleges and faculty to re-examine the concept of faculty duties. He challenged administrators to evaluate faculty and their time on the job based equally on all areas of faculty responsibility—teaching, research, and service—rather than focusing on only research/publishing. His urging also included advising faculty to make connections between research, teaching, and service so that knowledge could be shared and applied both within academia and to the real world (Boyer, 1990).

Boyer’s book changed universities across America and is mentioned by many administrators and faculty as one of the most significant catalysts for institutional change (O’Meara, 2005).

Boyer’s Model

Boyer’s framework includes four overlapping domains of faculty scholarship:

• The Scholarship of Discovery. Discovery is traditional scholarship such as original empirical research.
• The Scholarship of Integration. Integration is making connections across disciplines, interpreting and bringing new insight on original research.
• The Scholarship of Application. Application is applying knowledge to problems and individuals; using social problems to define agenda for scholarly investigation.
• The Scholarship of Teaching (later renamed the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning [SoTL]). Teaching and Learning is faculty as continual learners in field knowledge and pedagogy.

Figure 1 is a Venn diagram of the Boyer model, showing how the four domains overlap and integrate:

Figure 1. Venn diagram of Boyer’s model of scholarship. The diagram includes the four overlapping domains of scholarship: discovery, integration, application, and teaching and learning. Adapted from “Boyer Model,” by Dr. Scott Greenberger, 2016, Retrieved from: https://cirt.gcu.edu/sotl/boyer. Copyright 2016 by the Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching, Grand Canyon University.

Today, most colleges and universities use the Boyer domains to evaluate full-time faculty. Faculty should strive to have a balance between these areas while working in their positions. Doing such allows for better teaching, learning, the creating of new knowledge, and making a difference in the world outside of the college.

References and Suggested Readings

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville, NJ: Jossey-Bass.  

Boyer, E., Moser, D., Ream, T. C., & Braxton, J. M. (2015). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate, Expanded Edition. San Francisco, CA: Princeton University Press.

Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1958). Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities, 1636–1976. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

De Saxe Zerden, L., Ilinitch, T. L., Carlston, R., Knutson, D., Blesdoe, B. E., & Howard, M. O. (2015). Social work faculty development: An exploratory study of non-tenure-track women faculty. Journal of Social Work Education, 51(4), 738–753.

Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professorate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kezar, A., Maxey, D., & Holcombe, E. (2015). The professoriate reconsidered: A study of new faculty models. Pullias Center for Higher Education: University of Southern California. Retrieved from http://www.uscrossier.org/pullias/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Professoriate-Reconsidered-final.pdf

O’Meara, K. A. (2005). Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Does it make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 46(5), 479–510. 

Tierney, W. G. (2015). Portrait of higher education in the twenty-first century: John Henry Newman’s ‘The idea of a university.’ International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(1), 5–16.