Paper Authors

Abstract

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

Session 2248

Redefining Scholarship: A Win-Win Proposition for Engineering & Technology

Anthony L. Brizendine, Laora D. Brizendine Fairmont State College, WV

Abstract

What is scholarship? And what is the difference between research and scholarly activity? Scholarship is defined by Webster as "the methods, discipline, and achievements of a scholar" and as "knowledge resulting from study and research in a field." Given these definitions, it is not surprising that while traditional promotion and tenure criteria include evaluation in the areas of research, teaching and service, the favored path to gaining promotion and tenure at many institutions is the research component of the triumvirate. This paper reviews faculty and administration views on scholarship, tenure and promotion and scholarly work by Diamond, Boyer, Karabell, Miller, Schön, ASCE, ASEE, and others; indeed, most of this paper serves as a review of some of the significant writings in this area in the 1990s. While the authors apologize to those already familiar with the literature, readers unfamiliar with these works should find this background helpful.

Scholarship as redefined by E. L. Boyer is discussed extensively. Boyer broadens the definition of scholarship to embrace the scholarship of teaching. Does Boyer’s model of scholarship, as presented in Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, represent the correct model for engineering and/or engineering technology? It can be argued that it is this broader definition of scholarship that best serves students, faculty, academe, and society; indeed, scholarship at its highest level involves the process of creative endeavor, integration, application and dissemination. And while we typically think of this process as relating to research, the same process relates to teaching and service as well.

The view of academia held by many of its critics, as well as its apparent failings, evidenced by unacceptable attrition, public discontent, and recently, legislative intrusions attempting to "fix the problem" are presented herein. Also, recognition of the need for not only traditional research and quality teaching, but also public service is addressed.

ASCE’s (1998) Task Force Report on Redefining Scholarly Work is reviewed. In fact, the ASCE report was released during the time this paper was being developed, causing the authors to reconsider and rewrite portions of this document to parallel the models in the ASCE report.

The authors belief that a broader view of scholarship is in the best interests of academe in general, and engineering and engineering technology in particular, is manifested through the proposal of models to define scholarly work of engineering technology faculty. The authors

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Brizendine, A., & Dauberman-Brizendine, L. E. (1999, June), Redefining Scholarship: A Win Win Situation For Engineering & Technology Paper presented at 1999 Annual Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina. 10.18260/1-2--7916