|
Glassick, Charles E., Huber, Mary T. and Maeroff, Gene I.
(1997). Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the
Professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
ISBN 0-7879-1091-0 $15.95
Reviewed by Kelly Maxwell
Arizona State University
April 29, 1998
Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate is
an Ernest L. Boyer Project of The Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching. Boyer served as President of
the Foundation from 1979 until his death in 1995. This
project is a tribute to his legacy and a continuation of his
1990 book, Scholarship Reconsidered.
Boyer wrote and spoke widely about a crisis in higher
education. At the center of this crisis was what he
regarded as a movement in the latter half of this century
away from an emphasis on teaching in research universities.
In Scholarship Reconsidered, he proposed a strategy to
"define the work of faculty in ways that enrich, rather than
restrict, the quality of undergraduate education" (p. ix).
In the present work, Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff extend
Boyer’s vision to the evaluation of the academy. They
consider, for example, the standards of scholarly work, ways
of documenting scholarship, and qualities of a scholar as
they assess scholarship in contemporary Academe. They
propose to answer the question: "Is it possible to develop
criteria and procedures for assessing the scholarship of
integration, application, and teaching that would have
credibility not only across the departments on each
individual campus but across campus lines as well?" (p. ix)
The authors are well qualified to address this question.
Boyer acknowledged each in his 1990 book for their critiques
and suggestions. In addition, all have worked extensively
with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching. This book is the culmination of six years of the
authors research including an extensive review of the
literature, thorough examination of faculty handbooks and
policy statements from many universities, consideration of
scholarly discussion raised at conferences, and several
informal surveys asking university presses, for example,
about the criteria they use to evaluate manuscripts. The
authors hope that the account of this research through
Scholarship Assessed will create discussion about faculty
evaluation in American higher education. Instead of
stifling critique, this book should catalyze healthy and
constructive debate.
In Chapter One, Scholarship in Transition, the authors
give an historical overview of American higher education.
They suggest that an early emphasis on the British education
system as well as the development of the Land Grant
institutions in the late 1800s established teaching,
application, and integration as important tenets of American
higher education. The scholarship of discovery, or a focus
on research, was brought to American higher education
through the German tradition. But it was not until after
World War II that widespread emphasis was placed on
research. Universities began rewarding faculty for their
ability to secure research funding and higher education
institutions sought national recognition through their
research accomplishments. Ironically, the culture of the
faculty became increasingly focused on research at the same
time in American history when higher education expanded to
include many more individuals and when good teaching became
even more essential. Boyer, in his 1990 Scholarship
Reconsidered discussed the need for colleges and
universities to re-prioritize and address all four areas of
scholarship: discovery; teaching; integration, which seeks
to overcome the fragmentation of the disciplines; and
application where the university responds to current
societal issues.
Through their research, Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff
found that most faculty and academic administrators support
a wider definition of scholarship. However, there is
concern about the loss of scholarly rigor as attempts are
made to measure less quantifiable areas. The remaining
chapters address this issue and serve as a guideline for
colleges and universities as they consider changes to their
faculty reward systems.
The standards for scholarly work are discussed in Chapter
Two. For each of the four scholarly activities to be
equally influential, all must share common standards. Six
features emerged as the authors looked at guidelines on
hiring, tenure and promotion, granting agencies, and
publication in scholarly journals. The six characteristics
are: clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate
methods, significant results, effective presentation, and
reflective critique.
Documenting scholarship is the key to addressing these
six features. Documentation is discussed in Chapter Three.
The authors acknowledge that some forms of scholarship are
more easily supported than others. They suggest that
"documentation should provide evidence that enables the
scholar and his or her colleagues...to apply a set of
agreed-upon standards to a body of scholarly work" (p.39).
Such evidence should include a statement of responsibilities
that defines what the scholar had hoped or agreed to
accomplish. Next, he or she should demonstrate such
accomplishment through a biographical sketch. Finally, the
portfolio should include selected samples of scholarly work
along with a reflective essay addressing the "thinking
behind the work" (p.45).
There is a greater need to trust the process of faculty
evaluation in an institution if the proposed alternatives of
assessing faculty excellence are adopted. In Chapter Four
the authors address the importance of such trust and offer
the same six standards for evaluating faculty (goals,
preparation, methods, results, presentation, and critique)
as a way to assess the evaluation process itself.
Confidence in the procedure is critical for this new method
of evaluation to succeed and thrive.
In the final chapter, Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff
address the qualities of a scholar. They first acknowledge
the historical racial and gender bias that occurred by
looking at personal characteristics. However, they seek
others definitions of "scholar" to frame their discussion.
They consider classical and contemporary individuals who
define character, integrity, and intellectual honesty as
valuable scholarly attributes. They then identify three
characteristics of their own that inform scholarship and
strengthen academic activity. Integrity, perseverance, and
courage enhance the value of an individuals scholarly work;
although these qualities are difficult to evaluate, they are
not impossible to observe and judge. Including these three
ideals in evaluation assures that scholarship has a moral
component that is integrated into each of the dimensions
discussed in the text: discovery, teaching, integration,
and application.
As a work of scholarship itself, this book should be
judged by the same criteria its authors propose for academic
activity. Measuring these components against this book
should indicate whether the guidelines are an adequate approach
to evaluating scholarship within the academy. The first
standard is that of setting clear goals. The authors do,
indeed, present intelligible goals from the outset.
Scholarship Reconsidered launched a national discussion
about the faculty reward system in American higher
education. What it did not address was how to evaluate such
scholarship. Scholarship Assessed addresses just that
issue. This important question has plagued higher education
for decades. The authors propose standards to guide college
and university provosts and faculty groups in identifying
scholarship. In addition, these standards allow reasonable
flexibility so the uniqueness of each institution and its
needs can be incorporated into the framework.
The next standard is that of adequate preparation. There
are three leading questions that guide assessment in this
area. First, does the scholar show an understanding of
existing scholarship in the field? The authors have clearly
done their homework here. They have an impressive list of
references and weave these into the fabric of their own
work. The next question addresses whether or not the
scholar brings necessary skills to this work of scholarship.
As stated earlier, the authors are very experienced on this
topic and have worked with the Carnegie Foundation and
Earnest Boyer on a number of projects including Scholarship
Reconsidered. The final question is: Does the scholar
bring together the resources necessary to move the project
forward? The authors have tapped into a growing interest in
the faculty reward system and have done what few others have
attempted by trying to define how to assess faculty
scholarship. They have conducted an extensive national
survey on the re-examination of faculty roles and rewards and
have drawn from their own research a wide variety of
examples to make points in their favor.
Analyzing the methods is the next step they propose in
assessing works of scholarship. The authors use the survey
mentioned above and other forms of qualitative research to
assess the types of evaluation that are currently being used
in colleges and universities and in university presses as
well. They extrapolate relevant data to create a picture of
what is happening across the country. In addition they find
common themes among various sources that helped them to
develop their scholarship guidelines.
Significant results is the next standard. Three
important questions are addressed: Does the scholar achieve
the goals? Does the scholar's work add consequentially to
the field? Does the scholar's work open additional areas for
further exploration? Certainly this work presents a model
of assessing and evaluating faculty scholarship. The
authors present this model with the hope of creating
critical discussion among relevant players in higher
education. With that in mind, then, they do achieve their
goals. Faculty reward committees have been trying to
demonstrate ways to evaluate wide varieties of scholarship
for many years. This book presents a model that is easily
understood and can be adapted to many types of university
settings. This work has the potential to be a significant
contribution to the area of faculty evaluation and reward.
The authors admit that this is a first attempt. By
acknowledging that this work should create as much debate as
it should answer significant questions, they recognize the
need to remain open to other avenues of assessment.
Effective presentation is the fifth standard of
scholarship. Relevant questions are: Does the scholar use
a suitable style and effective organization to present his
or her work? Does the scholar use appropriate forums for
communicating work to its intended audiences? Does the
scholar present his or her message with clarity and
integrity? These authors present their material in an
effective and clear manner. They use a rather basic outline
format that works for this kind of publication. The volume
constitutes a handbook of how to evaluate and assess faculty
scholarship and is arranged in a way that is easy to
understand. This is probably the most suitable format for
this type of publication.
Reflective critique is the final standard to be
considered. Again there are three questions that prompt
this category: Does the scholar critically evaluate his or
her own work? Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth
of evidence to his or her critique? Does the scholar use
evaluation to improve the quality of future work? The
authors do not spend a great deal of effort critiquing their
own work, at least not in the text of this manuscript.
However, they allude to their want of critique by hoping
this work is a catalyst for many discussions and debates
about assessing faculty scholarship.
Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate
serves as a guide to college and university administrators
and faculty. The standards proposed here are clear and
simple, so much so that one wonders why evaluating faculty
scholarship has been so difficult for so long. The
guidelines applied uniformly to each of the four dimensions
(discovery, teaching, integration, and application) seem a
reasonable and logical suggestion. In addition, the moral
component of scholarship is addressed in a compelling and
non-threatening way. The inclusion of moral qualities into
faculty evaluation and reward systems is imperative to the
authors if American higher education is to remain effective.
The authors of Scholarship Assessed give the reader a
fresh perspective on faculty reward systems. They add a new
dimension to the national conversation and focus it on the
assessment of such systems. The book is an uncomplicated
representation of the complex and often political arena of
faculty evaluation. In fact, it so clearly outlines a
solution to faculty reward systems that one wonders why
faculty and university administrators have struggled for
decades to determine how to assess scholarship. Having said
that, this book should and will certainly add to the
national debate about this issue. It is an important guide
and has the potential to profoundly impact the direction of
evaluation and assessment of the professoriate. Any
individual involved in the faculty reward system would be
wise to consider the recommendations in Scholarship
Assessed.
Reference
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered:
Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Ivy Lane.
About the Reviewer
Kelly Maxwell is a doctoral student in the PhD program in
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at
Arizona State University.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment