Learning Objectives

• What is the definition of Boyer’s (1990) domain, discovery?
• What is an example of a discovery activity versus discovery scholarship?

The Scholarship of Discovery

One of Boyer’s (1990) domains is discovery, defined as: new knowledge that is created and contributes to the larger body of knowledge. Discovery is often known as original or empirical research; presented in a public realm. 

During the mid-20th century, discovery (or research) was emphasized at most colleges and amongst the majority of faculty as the most important part of the faculty profession. Faculty members were rewarded and promoted based on their level of research and publications. The catchphrase among many faculty became “publish or perish” since faculty could not be given rank and tenure without publications. Still, the US led the world in this domain, especially in the sciences, through discoveries and awards such as Nobel Prizes (Boyer, 1990).

In 1990, Boyer’s proposed model argued that all parts of faculty duties should be equally emphasized and rewarded as such. Still, a critical part of the profession that remains today is research. Many colleges and administrators will not promote without research as part of the faculty member’s portfolio. Boyer (1990) said Discovery is “intellectual excitement” that “fuels” and “enlivens” faculty and is vital to academia and to the world (p. 18). These characteristics reflect what we saw in Module 3 where studies show that faculty who are successful in this area are passionate about their discipline topics and create goals to stay abreast in this area. Not only does Discovery benefit the faculty member, but it also benefits the college, the academy, and the world.

Research can be conducted using different forms of methodology (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods), and within each of those methods there are various forms of designs (i.e., quasi experimental, causal comparative, case study, and so forth). 

A faculty member newer to academic research, may choose to collaborate for his or her first project to be mentored and to learn. A faculty member should also consider learning about writing for and publishing in a journal by starting out writing on a teaching method, a literature review, or a reflection. These types of write-ups and publications are traditionally less time-consuming than a full research project and are a great way to “break into” academic publishing.
  

There are numerous ways to engage in The Scholarship of Discovery. Following, is a list of practical examples for faculty to engage in discovery activities and discovery scholarship. (Any of the activities can be turned into scholarship via dissemination).

As you can see from the suggestions above, there are many ways to engage in scholarly activity. However, those activities are not defined as scholarship unless they are publicly disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal or at an academic conference. If you are a faculty member who is new to the academy and/or research and do not know where to start, consider these options:

• Collaborating with colleagues who are more experienced so that you can be mentored, learn the process, and have a scholarly output

• Writing a paper on or presenting at a conference on a teaching method you have conducted

• Writing a current literature review on a unique topic within your discipline. (You can use this literature review as a basis for future research.) 

• Reflecting on a process (your doctoral journey, a collaborative process, a teaching method, and so forth), then writing a reflection and publishing it

It is also a good idea to research journals in your academic field to see what types of articles they publish. Read the articles to get a sense of what is expected. From there, review the journal guidelines and look to see what types of papers they are currently seeking.

References and Suggested Readings

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press.  

 Braxton, J., Luckey, W., & Helland, P. (2002). Institutionalizing a broader view of scholarship in colleges and universities through Boyer’s four domains. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

 Diamond, R. M., & Adam, B. E. (1995). Describing the work of faculty: Disciplinary perspectives. In R. M. Diamond & B. E. Adam, The disciplines speak: Rewarding the scholarly, professional, and creative work of faculty (pp. 1–14). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

 Hyman, D., Gurgevich, E., Alter, T., Ayers, J., Cash, E., Fahnline, D., … & Wright, H. (2001). Beyond Boyer: The UniSCOPE Model of Scholarship for the 21st century. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 7(1), 41–65.

 Martinez, R., Floyd, R., & Erichsen, L. (2011). Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity. Journal of School Psychology, 49(6), 691–720. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.003