In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

71 Ernest Boyer and the Scholarship of Engagement John M. Braxton and William Luckey In his influential work in 1990, Ernest Boyer introduced us to his four domains of scholarship—the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching. After a three-year battle with cancer just fifty-eight days before his death, Boyer delivered a compelling speech to a room full of educators at the Induction Ceremony of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his parting words of wisdom, Boyer stated his firm belief in our colleges and universities as our greatest hope for intellectual and civic progress for this nation. He believed that in order for this potential to be fulfilled, “the academy must become a more vigorous partner in the search for answers to our most pressing social, civic, economic , and moral problems, and must reaffirm its historic commitment to what I call the scholarship of engagement” (Boyer, 1996, p. 11). Why just two months before his death did Boyer, who had previously advocated for the scholarship of application in his words and writings, instead campaign for the scholarship of engagement? What is the difference, if any, between the scholarship of engagement and the scholarship of application? In order to best respond to these questions, one must first return to Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered, where he states “the application of knowledge moves toward engagement” (Boyer, 1990, p. 21) as the scholar asks how knowledge can be helpful to individuals as well as institutions. This application of knowledge moves toward engagement as the scholar asks, “How can knowledge be responsibly applied to consequential problems?” (Boyer, 1990, p. 21). Boyer points out the gap between the values of the academy, research, and the needs of the larger world. In fact, he notes that service in the academy is routinely praised but often ignored in tenure decisions. Consequently, scholars tend to invest their time and talents in J O H N M . B R A X T O N A N D W I L L I A M L U C K E Y 72 ways that are most beneficial to the individual researcher rather than improving the human condition. In Boyer’s mind, the scholarship of application is a dynamic process where theory and practice interact and renew each other. He felt this scholarly service that both applies and contributes to human knowledge was “particularly needed in a world in which huge, almost intractable problems call for the skills and insights only the academy can provide” (Boyer, 1990, p. 23). Boyer made sure to distinguish between doing good and doing scholarship. He appropriately drew a sharp distinction between citizenship activities related to various social and civic organizations such as Rotary, Kiwanis, town councils, and youth clubs and the professional service activities tied directly to one’s special field of knowledge. In his speech just months before his death, Boyer mentioned that“for more than 350 years, higher learning and the larger purposes of American society have been inextricably interlocked ” (Boyer, 1996, p. 11). He cited the colonial colleges and the preparation of civic and religious leaders; the impact of the historic Land Grant Act, passed during our nation’s darkest hour in the CivilWar, which linked higher learning to our country’s agricultural, technological, and industrial revolutions; and the development of radar and penicillin as examples to demonstrate how our scholars had provided practical service to the nation (Boyer, 1996). Less than one hundred years ago, the mission of higher education was the scholarship of engagement as described by Boyer. Colleges and universities were relevant and had a seat at the table when the great issues of the day were being discussed, debated, and decided. As a forty-year-old Princeton professor, Woodrow Wilson insisted that colleges and universities must continue their spirit of service to maintain their place in the public annals of the nation. “We dare not keep aloof and closet ourselves while a nation comes to its maturity” (Boyer, 1996, p. 12). In fact, it is Boyer’s contention that, with the emphasis on the work of individual scholars as researchers, as well as the increasing value given to teaching, the historic commitment to the scholarship of engagement has dramatically declined, to our nation’s peril. Higher education, which has historically been viewed as a partner during turbulent times, is often seen today as part of the problem rather than the solution...

Share