| ID | post_title | author | post_excerpt | layout | permalink | published | post_date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1400 |
Boyer’s Model of Scholarship |
Colin Madland |
page |
true |
2017-11-25 04:43:15 -0800 |
The Master of Arts in Leadership’s guidelines for LDRS 697/698 draws in part from Boyer’s four-part Model of Scholarship. Boyer’s typology identifies four domains of scholarship: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. The model is discussed by Marta Nibert (n.d.) in her paper titled Boyer’s Model of Scholarship. In the section titled Application" she notes that the "scholarship of application focuses on using research findings and innovations to remedy societal problems."
Following is a chart that depicts the four domains of scholarship in Boyer’s typology. Application is highlighted because the Master of Arts in Leadership was designed to focus primarily on the scholarship of application, although your work in LDRS 697/698 will likely include one or more of the other domains.
Boyer’s Scholarship of** Discovery** is the type of scholarship associated with traditional scholarly research. “Research is a systematic process of collecting, analyzing and interpreting information (data) in order to increase our understanding of a phenomenon abut which we are interested or concerned” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010, p. 2). Boyer’s Scholarship of Discovery is often referred to as primary research. Primary research is narrowly focused, and contributes to the body of knowledge by helping us to understand one isolated part of reality in detail in the hopes that this understanding can by generalized to some degree to a broader part of reality.
The Scholarship of Discovery (traditional research) falls into two distinct genres: quantitative research and qualitative research. Each of these genres manifest in numerous variations, including hybrid models involving both quantitative and qualitative elements, designed for and suited to differing research questions.
Boyer’s Scholarship of** Integration** is “the attempt to arrange relevant bits of knowledge and insight from different disciplines into broader patterns that reflect the actual interconnectedness of the world” (Boyer as cited in Jacobsen & Jacobsen, 2004, p. 51). Scholarship of Integration often demands interdisciplinary collaboration and requires that the critical analysis and review of knowledge be followed by the creative synthesis of views and insights in such a way that what is known speaks to specific topics or issues.
Boyer's Scholarship of Application is “the scholarship of engagement; seeking to close the gap between values in the academy and the needs of the larger world” (Boyer cited in Jacobsen & Jacobsen, 2004, p. 51). In the Scholarship of Application, knowledge is applied to the solution of societal needs and practice. In most cases, knowledge stemming from the Scholarship of Discovery and the Scholarship of Integration informs the solutions to particular problems. The Scholarships of Discovery and Integration are often associated with the context of formal education (Bosher 2009, p. 6).
Finally, Boyer's Scholarship of Teaching is “the scholarship of sharing knowledge” (Boyer cited in Jacobsen & Jacobsen, 2004, p. 51). The Scholarship of Teaching involves the reflective analysis of the knowledge about teaching and learning. This knowledge base itself is the product of the Scholarships of Discovery, Integration and Application combining as “active ingredients of a dynamic and iterative teaching process” (Bosher, 2009, p. 5).
Boyer’s typology originally identified as the Scholarship of Teaching has been expanded somewhat and is widely known today in the literature as the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (Bosher, 2009). You have undoubtedly already notice an ambiguity: If the entire model is called the Scholarship of Teaching, how is it that the last element depicted in the chart above is also called the Scholarship of Teaching? This ambiguity is evidence, Bosher contends , that Boyer’s four domains were conceived holistically as elements that overlap and interact, not as discrete elements, appearing in any predictable order, and are better viewed as an operating system than a list of elements (2009, pp. 4-5).
This course will provide the background necessary to critique empirical research studies, rather than to guide you in carrying out your own research (scholarship of discovery). Put another way, you will be learning about various research methods (e.g., quantitative research, qualitative research, and mixed methods) so that you can gain proficiency in becoming a critical consumer of research.