Conflict and Change 245
teaching and scholarship can be disconnected. Scholarship in some form, whether
published or otherwise, is essential to the currency and vitality of teaching and
student learning. Almost all academicians also will argue that a professor’s
scholarship or creative activity must eventually be made available in some public
arena so that its significance can be assessed through peer review.
When the value of scholarship becomes defined by the originality, volume, and
influence of publications (and their equivalents), its relationship to teaching and
learning becomes more problematic. The conflict is not over the importance of
scholarship to good teaching, which is a given, but over the type and quantity
of scholarship that a particular institution will value. The conflict has several
dimensions, but among them are the time of the faculty member and the resources
of the institution that are available for research. It seems to follow, for instance,
that original and influential scholarship is essential for professors in universities
with missions in doctoral and advanced professional education. Reflecting this,
graduate professors may only teach several courses a year, often with the help of
teaching assistants, and they can rely on an extensive research infrastructure. Yet
college professors who teach only undergraduates in three or four large classes
each semester will be hard pressed to find the time and the resources to do a large
amount of research and publication on a regular basis, whether or not they are
inclined to do so.
If institutional missions regarding scholarship and teaching have not been dif-
ferentiated and translated into appropriate resources, policies, and expectations,
a vicious circle develops. The dominant model of the profession and the prestige
of research turn the circle toward a commitment to publication, leaving less time
and energy for teaching and the enhancement of student learning, which may
suffer as a result. But so does scholarship, because ordinarily, little that has wide
influence can be achieved when it is sandwiched in among other exhausting
duties, and when it lacks time, resources, and rewards. Most importantly, the forms
of scholarship that might enrich teaching and contribute most to the develop-
ment of the professor are frustrated by the prevailing model.
The possibilities for reversing the vicious circle can be found in a clear concep-
tual analysis that is differentiated strategically in terms of institutional mission
and context. The first step in doing so is to clear away the models about teaching
and scholarship that have been imported unconsciously from other institutions.
The next is to draw out the most fruitful connections between them suggested in
the institution’s distinctive strategic profile.
The benefit of removing faulty assumptions through clear and cogent concep-
tual analysis is illustrated in Scholarship Reconsidered, the well-known study by
Ernest Boyer (1990b) that appeared some years ago. By sorting out the different
forms of scholarship and affirming them in terms of various institutional missions,
Boyer struck a vibrantly responsive chord among faculty members. As he differ-
entiated the dominant model of the scholarship of discovery from applied schol-
arship, the scholarship of integration, and the scholarship of teaching, he also
opened the imagination of many academics to see new patterns of relationship