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.