Assessing Scholarship, by E. L. Boyer, ASEE PRISM, March 1995, pp. 22-26.

Summarized by J. T. P. Yao, 6/3/00

"In Scholarship Reconsidered, we propose a new paradigm of scholarship, one with four separate yet interlocking parts: the discovery of knowledge, the integration of knowledge, the application of knowledge, and the scholarship of teaching. … As people read Scholarship Reconsidered, they started calling us and write letters, saying in effect: 'It's one thing to give scholarship a larger, more inclusive meaning, but the really critical question is, how can all forms of scholarship be properly assessed? We like the new typology, but it won't go far without agreed upon standards by which faculty performance can be measured.' This encouraged and even compelled us to begin work on a companion volume, entitled Scholarship Assessed, and thus far, in the preparation of that report, we've identified four principles related to faculty evaluation."

"QUALITY OF A SCHOLAR

… I suggest that scholarship relate, in the first instance, not to a catalog of accomplishments but to qualities of character. Standards and procedures are, of course, critically important. But even more important are persistence, creativity, humility, and integrity, all of which are at the very heart of academic life. … I'm suggesting that in defining scholarship we must consider first characteristics that are at the very heart of professional performance, even though such virtues may be difficult to measure."

"STANDARDS OF SCHOLARLY WORK

As a second principle, we concluded that the evaluation of scholarly work also requires agreed upon standards of performance. This led us to ask: In judging a faculty member's performance, what the criteria to be used? … We repeatedly found references to six dimensions of good scholarship that were used to judge teaching, research, and service - leading us to conclude that all scholarly work, regardless of the form, can be held to common standards.

First, scholarly work, to be successful, must reflect a thorough knowledge of the field. … In summary, all sources we examined agreed that the most basic and most important standard for scholarly work is the 'knowledge it reflects.'

Beyond a knowledge base, scholarly work must show clarity of goals. … Our conclusion, then, is that in measuring the effectiveness of scholarship, these questions should be asked: 'Has the scholar defined, with clarity, his or her objectives?' 'Is the purpose of the project stated in a clear and useful way?'

As a third standard, scholars also must use appropriate methods and procedures, a yardstick that can and should be used in all aspects of academic work. … To put it simply, in evaluating scholarship we must ask: 'Were the methods and procedures appropriate to the project?'

… When the word 'resources' is mentioned, we're tempted to think primarily of money - grants, fellowships, and the like. But in evaluation we also must consider other dimensions such as human and intellectual resources. Evaluators need to ask, for example if the scholar drew upon the right literature, interviewed the right people, visited the right places, and used the right facilities and equipment. … Using resources creatively is a standard of excellence for all scholars, regardless of the work."

As a fifth standard, all scholarship requires good communication. … I suggest that scholarship in every form is a public act, and while some work is quite specialized, it must, in the end, be known and understood by many others. … Scholars, quite simply, must communicate well.

This leads to one final standard. In our new report, we conclude that any act of scholarship ultimately must be judged by the significance of its results. …

The six yardsticks of excellence I've described apply to all forms of scholarship. … Within these common criteria are endless variations as to the standards are applied in different ways to various disciplines and various types of scholarship. …"

"DOCUMENTING SCHOLARSHIP

… Today, interest in documentation is focused most intently on the 'portfolio,' which has become a kind of metaphor for the dissatisfaction we all feel with the current system. … Indeed, what should be the content for assessment and who should provide it?

In summary, the documentation of scholarship should include evidence from a variety of sources. But let me underscore the point that the documentation of scholarship should be a 'moving picture,' not a 'snapshot.' Evidence should be gathered over time."

"THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PROCESS

… As a fourth principle in Scholarship Assessed, we conclude that the success of faculty evaluation depends most profoundly on the credibility of the process. … I worry that scholarly assessment could become rigid and mechanical, reduced to formulas, and that in developing standards and procedures, we might forget that professional careers are on the line and that the lives of real people are at stake."

"… We must clarify the standards and more effectively document the performance. … For this to be accomplished, the evaluation of the professoriate requires rich experience, great wisdom, and even, perhaps, compassion."

[Readers who are interested in this article are encouraged to read the original paper in its entirety. Other summary notes on faculty reward systems are available on the Internet at http://lohman.tamu.edu under the heading "Summaries of Papers ..."]

Return to the Lohman homepage