Merging Research With Service And Teaching In An Engineering Technology Department

When asked for a definition of research, engineering and engineering technology faculty usually respond with definitions that describe the technical and scientific projects they have been involved with. This type of research usually falls under the scholarship of discovery. Consequently, research activities are segregated from the other activities faculty are called upon to do, namely service and teaching. Engineering and technology faculty are often unaware of the broader definition of research offered by Ernest L. Boyer in his text, Scholarship Reconsidered. Many universities are adopting this expanded view of research. At The University of Memphis, teaching-faculty are encouraged to share their experience in the classroom through the scholarship of teaching. Technology faculty are joining in the research arena by sharing their technical experience through the scholarship of application and the scholarship of integration. This paper presents, as an example of the expanded definition of research, one engineering technology faculty member’s efforts to develop a research plan based upon teaching and service. INTRODUCTION: In his book, Scholarship Reconsidered, Ernest Boyer examines the history of scholarship in American Universities, as well as proposing an expanded definition of scholarship. 1 An understanding of the historical development of the academic profession is valuable to educators and administrators as they attempt to deal with many of the dilemmas facing higher education today. There is much discussion about the research and publication requirements for tenure and promotion and how they appear to be diametrically opposed to teaching and service. Boyer claims that it is time for America’s colleges and universities to clarify their missions and to relate the work of the academy more directly to the realities of contemporary life. To accomplish this, a new vision of scholarship must be developed. This new vision of scholarship will strengthen diversity within the university by enabling the faculty to more effectively utilize their individual talents and bring renewed energy to the classroom. The history of scholarship in American academia can be divided into three phases. The first phase begins around 1636 with Harvard College which followed the colonial college tradition whereby the mission was to provide a continuous supply of learned clergy who would bring redemptive light to all mankind. Teaching was considered a calling, much like the ministry, and according to Theodore Benditt, “professors were hired not for their scholarly ability or achievement but for their religious commitment. Scholarly achievement was not a high priority, either for professors or students.” 2 The second phase corresponded with the industrial revolution. Applied research was born when it was realized that professors could spread knowledge that would improve agriculture P ge 292.1 and manufacturing. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute was established in 1824 and according to Frederick Rudolf was a “constant reminder that the United States needed railroad-builders, bridge-builders, and builders of all kinds, and was prepared to create them even if the old institutions were not.” 3 In 1846 Yale University established the professorship of “agricultural chemistry and animal and vegetable physiology.” The movement was further strengthened by the Land Grant College Act of 1862 whereby the federal government gave land to each state in support of both education in liberal arts and training in the skills that ultimately would support the emerging agricultural and mechanical revolutions. The Hatch Act of 1887 added fuel to the effort by providing federal funds to create university-sponsored agricultural experiment stations that brought knowledge to the farmer. American higher education which was once devoted primarily to the intellectual and moral development of students, added service as a mission, and the public university was born. Gradually the mission of the university changed from serving the religious needs of society to attempting to reshape it. The idea of higher education as a democratic function to serve the common good was embodied in the university system. It was believed that graduates would ultimately fill the legislature, staff newspapers, municipal and court boards and corruption would come to an end. While professors were called upon to apply knowledge to solve practical problems, today’s version of scientific research had not yet taken hold. Dael Wolfle wrote, “Professors were hired to teach the science that was already known to add to that knowledge was not expected...” 4 Most of the scientific research was being done by private individuals such as Nathaniel Bowditch in mathematics, John and William Bartram in botany, and Maria Mitchell in astronomy. It was not until the late nineteenth century that the model for the modern university developed. The modern university was modeled after the German approach to scholarship. 5 The advancement of knowledge through research was beginning to take hold and graduate education was emphasized at schools such as, Harvard’s Lawrence Scientific School, Yale’s Sheffield Scientific School, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Princeton, the University of Chicago, and Johns Hopkins University. Academics were moving from faith in authority to reliance on scientific rationality. The third phase of scholarship in America began in the 1940’s when many of these research universities volunteered to join forces with the government to fight the war. The Office of Scientific Research and Development was formed in 1940 and monetary support began to flow from the government to universities. 6 Higher education and government had, through scientific collaboration, changed the course of history and the marriage has matured with time. In 1947 Harry S. Truman appointed a President’s Commission on Higher Education and almost overnight the mission of higher education in the nation was dramatically redefined. The commission stated, “America’s colleges and universities should no longer be merely the instrument for producing an intellectual elite. Higher education must become the means by which every citizen, youth, and adult is enabled and encouraged to carry his education, formal and informal, as far as his native capacities permit.” 7 At the same time that scientific research was being emphasized and undergraduate teaching de-emphasized in the nation’s universities, the student population shifted from a small privileged group to the general populace. This shift was fueled by the GI Bill of Rights in 1944. Higher education which was once viewed as a privilege was now viewed as a right. Just as America’s higher education institutions were becoming more inclusive, the P ge 292.2 culture of the professoriate was becoming more confining. To be tenured or promoted, faculty began to feel that teaching and research had to be treated as totally separate entities with research and publications acquiring the emphasis. There are some that now claim that universities have lost sight of their mission. To this end many universities are beginning to examine faculty roles and rewards with respect to teaching, research and service. Many faculty and administrators are beginning to adopt an expanded definition of scholarship, such as the one proposed by Ernest Boyer. It is time to identify higher education’s true customer, (business, industry and government) and product, (graduates and research) and find a way to allocate resources (time and money) efficiently and appropriately. RESEARCH + TEACHING + SERVICE = SCHOLARSHIP Traditionally, university professors have been characterized as scholars. This characterization has also held true for religious leaders, lawyers and medical doctors. A scholar is considered a learned individual who passes on his/her knowledge to others through teaching, and works for the betterment of mankind. Unfortunately, since 1940, many university professors have become more closely identified with the more narrow characterization of researcher. It may describe a learned person, or one who seeks knowledge, but does not include the teaching or service component. As a profession we need to ask what value is knowledge, new or otherwise, if it is not passed on to future generations through teaching, or utilized for the betterment of mankind. It is time to put scholarship back into academia. Ernest L. Boyer concludes that the work of the professoriate has four separate yet overlapping functions. These are: the scholarship of discovery; the scholarship of integration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching. The scholarship of discovery refers to research which leads to new knowledge. Universities have been placing increased emphasis on this form of research, and as a result the phrase, publish or perish, has become a cliche. “If we take as our measure of accomplishment the number of Nobel Prizes awarded since 1945, United States scientists received 56 percent of the awards in physics, 42 percent in chemistry, and 60 percent in medicine. Prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, American scientists, including those who fled Hitler’s Europe, had received only 18 of the 129 prizes in these three areas.” 9 While this form of research is vital to engineering, science, and medicine, it is not always compatible with the mission of other departments within a university such as engineering technology. The expanded definition of scholarship, as proposed by Ernest Boyer, provides an avenue for faculty in departments such as engineering technology to pursue their interests and communicate their ideas. While the scholarship of discovery asks the question, “What is to be known, what is yet to be found?”, the scholarship of integration asks the question, “What do the findings mean?” A person engaged in the scholarship of integration may not be