Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320009599956

(1)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20

Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI

TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] Date: 13 January 2016, At: 17:30

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

The Future of Business School Scholarship: An

Empirical Assessment of the Boyer Framework by

U.S. Deans

S. Srinivasan , Bruce Kemelgor & Scott D. Johnson

To cite this article: S. Srinivasan , Bruce Kemelgor & Scott D. Johnson (2000) The Future of Business School Scholarship: An Empirical Assessment of the Boyer Framework by U.S. Deans, Journal of Education for Business, 76:2, 75-80, DOI: 10.1080/08832320009599956

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320009599956

Published online: 31 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

(2)

The Future

of

Business School

Scholarship: An Empirical

Assessment

of the Boyer

Framework by

U.S.

Deans

S. SRlNlVASAN

BRUCE KEMELGOR

SCOTT D. JOHNSON

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

University of Louisville

Louisville, Kentucky

usiness schools are complex

B

organizations that employ highly trained individuals. Faculty members, like everyone else, must make decisions continually about where to focus their efforts. Similarly, academic administrators must decide how to allocate

resources. In his landmark book,

Schol-

arship Reconsidered: Priorities

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of the Professoriate (1 990), Boyer reignited

the discussion of scholarship by recog- nizing three broad dimensions in it-the

scholarships

of teaching, application,

and discovery. In this article, we consid- er two basic questions: (a) What is the future relative importance of these types of scholarship? and (b) How do different categories of business schools (as defined by accreditation or size) view these various types of scholarship? We invesigated empirically three broad dimensions of Boyer’s framework that correspond to the traditional teaching, research, and service categories. A fourth dimension discussed by Boyer, integration, was omitted from our study because we felt that it was too ambigu- ous and not consistent with the conven- tional classifications.

Historical Perspective

In 188 1, Joseph Wharton donated a substantial sum of money to establish a business school to promote the study of

ABSTRACT. This study investigated

scholarship, as conceptualized within the Boyer framework, in business edu-

cation.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

U.S. business school deans were surveyed on their perceptions of

the future importance of Boyer’s framework with regard to scholarship in teaching, application, and discovery. Significant differences were found among the deans’ perceptions of the importance of these various scholarships according to school AACSB accreditation, public or private status, size, and whether or not the institution granted doctoral degrees.

entrepreneurship and business ethics. At that time, the effort faced some opposi- tion within academe because the study of business was not considered to be a true academic discipline. While business education grew, so did concerns sur- rounding the emerging discipline. Bossard and Dewhurst (1931) criticized business education for its lack of clear objectives and overspecialized curricula. Later, the Ford Foundation sponsored a study by Gordon and Howell (1959), and the Carnegie Corporation commis- sioned a study by Pierson (1959). These so called Foundation Reports concluded that educational quality, student capabil- ity, faculty qualifications, course work, and research were all “sub-standard”

(Porter & Broesamle, 1996).

The two Foundation Reports had a significant impact on business education. As a result, admission require-

ments in most business schools were tightened and research began to out- weigh interaction with the business community (Porter & Broesamle, 1996). The focus on research also began to push business schools toward the growth of specialized functional areas of business such as accounting, finance, management, and marketing. The renewed interest in research, with a goal of legitimizing business disciplines within academe, encouraged theory development and a decidedly “pure research” orientation.

By 1988, an AACSB study concluded that business schools had reacted too strongly to the Foundation Reports by placing too much emphasis on theoreti- cal research output (Henninger, 1998). Pure research was being favored and rewarded over more practical or applied research. The pendulum had perhaps swung too far.

The Teaching Versus Research Debate

A traditional model for viewing facul-

ty work is the teaching, research, and service triad (Weber & Russ, 1997). How- ever, much of the debate about faculty workload centers on the teaching-versus- research tradeoff. Professors are viewed primarily as teachers, and teaching requires preparation, evaluation, and

NovemberDecember 2000 75

(3)

keeping abreast of new developments in the field. Rosenthal et al. (1994) suggest- ed that time spent on teaching should be measured at approximately three times the number of hours spent in the classroom. A number of studies indicate that a typical workweek for higher education faculty ranges from 45 to 55 hours.

Though teaching is the focus of most faculty work, leading research institutions are noted for emphasizing and rewarding research productivity over the teaching function (Krahenbuhl, 1998). Research institutions make up approximately 6% of colleges and universities, yet they also graduate about one third of the undergraduates in the country (Moore, 1998). In such situa- tions, there is a natural tension between the role of teaching and the role of research in the university. Such leading institutions often emphasize research that garners name recognition and pres-

tige (Weber &

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Russ, 1997).

The argument has been made that students are denied the opportunity to learn from leading researchers because the researchers focus less on teaching and more on research (Holden, 1998; Wilson, 1998). However, others have pointed to the value of research that helps professors bring new knowledge and teaching effectiveness to the classroom (Noser, Manakyan, & Tanner, 1996; Pratt, 1993). In a similar vein, some state legisla- tors who are concerned about the quality and quantity of teaching are enacting new regulations to mandate teaching loads (Weber & Russ, 1997; Winkler, 1992). Their view is that professors in such instances are underused in teaching and overpaid in research. In a broad- er perspective, the public often experi- ences painful industry downsizing, while faculty ostensibly enjoy job secu- rity and minimal teaching requirements

(Winkler, 1992).

Boyer’s Broadened Vision of Faculty Scholarship

Boyer advocated the New American College model, through which the college experience would be more fulfill- ing for both students and faculty. The model endorsed engagement in hands- on, service learning projects in the community for both students and faculty,

76

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Journal

of Education for

Business

with the aim of enlivening campus life and stimulating an engagement between the campus and the community. Howev- er, an obstacle for the New American College model is the presumption that faculty and institutional prestige comes only through published research (Coye, 1997). Consequently, Boyer (1990) broadly defined scholarship to include

teaching, research, and service. In Table

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

1, we summarize the Boyer framework and provide definitions and examples for the three types of scholarship.

Method and Data Collection

We developed a survey questionnaire based on the tripartite model of teach-

ing/research/service that is commonly used to classify faculty work. Consistent with language used by Boyer (1990), the research-centered questions were designed to capture different notions of scholarship, such as the scholarship of application and the scholarship of discovery. In addition, an item addressing the issue of “publishing in top journals” was incorporated, referring to the terms generally used to discuss a research emphasis. Teaching-related items were developed and measured through questions on interaction with students, classroom teaching, and the scholarship of instruction. The survey items designed to measure the service dimension of faculty work focused on services for the

~ ~ ~~~~~~

TABLE 1. The Boyer Framework of Scholarship

Definition

(all quotes are from Boyer, 1990) Scholarship

Teaching “Teaching both educates and entices future scholars.” (p. 23)

“Teaching is also a dynamic endeavor involving all the analogies, metaphors, and images that build bridges between the teacher’s understanding and the student’s learning.” (p. 23)

“Teaching means not only

transmitting knowledge, but

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

transfoming and extending it as well.” (p. 24)

Application “New intellectual understanding can arise out of the very act of application.” (p. 23)

worth not on its own terms but by service to the nation and the world.” (p. 23)

“To be considered scholarship, service activities must be tied directly to one’s special field of knowledge and relate to, and flow out of, this professional activity.” (p. 22)

“Scholarship has to prove its

Discovery “Contributes not only to the stock of human knowledge but also to the intellectual climate

of a college or university.” (p.

17)

meant when academics speak of ‘research”’ (p. 17) “Scholarly investigation in the pursuit of knowledge.” (p. 18) “Comes closest to what is

Example

Professors encouraging critical thinking and continuous leaming

Pedagogical styles; Socratic learning methods; case studies Lecturing; encouraging application and testing of theories; questioning accepted “truths” serving on university commit- tees; consulting; faculty internships

schools; applying economic models

an accountant serving as an auditor for a nonprofit organi- zation

working with the public

Cutting-edge financial models created in the academic world and applied in the business community

Peer reviewed academic journal articles; books

Independence of investigation, unfettered by financial con- straints

(4)

business school, the community, and the university.

We also used a number of classifica- tion variables, including types of degrees offered, AACSB accreditation status, whether the institution was public or private, and size of program. Finally, a prenotification letter, followed by the actual survey, was sent to 667 deans of business schools in the United

States. There were

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

3 11 usable respons-

es, yielding a response rate of 46.6%.

Findings

A total of 11 items were used to assess the perceived importance of the scholarship of teaching, application,

and discovery. In Table

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

2, we display

the means for these 11 items. Five of these items scored higher than the mid- point of the 5-item scale in terms of importance. Those items perceived as most important in the future were, in rank order, classroom teaching, interacting with students, scholarship of application, scholarship of instruction, and service to the business school. Overall, these aggregate figures point to the perceived importance of teaching. In addition, service to the business school was considered more important than service to the community, and service to the university ranked last in the three service options. Finally, according to the aggregate data, publishing in top journals and scholarship of discovery were rated as having less future importance than either the scholarship of teaching or the scholarship of application.

Accreditation status was also investigated to determine if AACSB-accredited business schools showed any significant differences compared with business schools not accredited by the AACSB. Future importance scores were used to test these differences because such scores were judged as most likely to reveal intentions and actual behavior in the foreseeable future. Seven items indi- cated a significant difference between AACSB-accredited business schools and those not accredited by AACSB.

In Table 3, we note that four items-

scholarship of discovery, publishing in top journals, scholarship of application, and paid consulting-proved to be significantly more important for schools

accredited by the AACSB than for those that were not. By contrast, three items were found to be significantly more important for business schools with no AACSB accreditation: interacting with students, service to the business school, and service to the university.

Another common technique for cate- gorizing institutions is the extent to which they offer doctoral degrees. In Table 4, we compare the business

schools that did not grant doctorates ( n

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

= 247) with those that did ( n = 57). Mean differences were tested on each item for perceived future importance by faculty. Two items, scholarship of discovery and publishing in top journals, were judged to be significantly more important by faculty members at doctoral-granting business schools than by the other faculty members. In contrast, six items were found to have significantly more future importance for the schools that did not grant doctoral degrees. These six items were interacting with students, scholarship of instruction, classroom teaching, service to the business school, service to the community, and service to the university.

In Table

5 , we present significant dif-

ferences based on whether the institution was state supported (n = 187) or

private

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

(n = 118). Faculty internships

and publishing in top journals were

found to be significantly more important for publicly supported business schools than for private ones. In contrast, we found that deans from private business schools judged interacting with students, classroom teaching, and service to the university to be significantly more important in the future compared with deans from public-supported business schools.

Finally, in Table 6 we present correlations based on the size of undergraduate enrollment and the size of graduate enrollment. Interacting with students and service to the university were both significantly correlated with a smaller enrollment in the undergraduate and graduate programs, respectively. Inter- estingly, paid consulting and faculty internships were significantly correlated with a larger undergraduate enrollment. Scholarship of discovery and publishing in top journals were significantly correlated to larger enrollments at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.

Discussion

Reconsideration of the concept of scholarship will continue, with debate both within and outside academe. How- ever, the traditional definitions of teaching, research, and service seem to be more durable and meaningful for the

TABLE 2. Perceived Future Importance for Faculty Focus

Perceived future importance Faculty focus M SD n

Scholarship of teaching Interacting with students Classroom teaching Scholarship of instruction Scholarship of application

Scholarship of application Service to the business schoi Service to the community Service to the university Paid consulting Faculty internships Scholarshio of discoverv

1.72 1.51 2.12 1.95

01 2.36 2.83 3.00 3.75 3.46

.95 311 .85 311 .19 310 .92 310 .12 311 .30 3 10 .27 310 .4 1 310 .64 3 10 Scholarihip of disco;ery 3.26 1.57 310

Publishing in top journals 3.42 1.67 311

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Note. A 7-item importance response format was used ranging

from 1 (extremely important) to 7

(extremely unimportant).

November/December 2000

77

[image:4.612.227.566.474.706.2]

(5)

professoriate. In this study, we described business school deans’ views regarding the aspects of teaching, research, and service that will be most important for their faculty.

The findings reveal some predictable relationships, as well as some more subtle ones. Classroom teaching, for example, was perceived universally as an extremely important focus of faculty work in the future. This centrality of classroom teaching remained constant regardless of AACSB accreditation status, doctoral-degree-granting status, or whether or not the school was state supported. However, despite that common agreement, teaching was considered to be relatively more important by deans at private institutions and schools that did not grant doctoral degrees. The findings should therefore be interpreted with

some care.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

AACSB accreditation appears to carry

with it a greater emphasis on the traditional measures of research. Research support and rewards based on research output are expected at accredited business schools. In contrast, it is interesting to note that schools not accredited by the

AACSB tend to view service to the

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

uni-

versity and service to the business school as more important than do AACSB- accredited schools. It may be that faculty at non-AACSB-accredited schools are expected to perform service activities that commonly may be performed by specialized personnel at AACSB-accredited schools. This may be a question of AACSB-accredited schools’ having more resources.

As may be expected, doctoral- degree-granting schools recognize the importance of scholarship of discovery

and publishing in top journals. Howev- er, there are also a large number of items that form a more complete contrast between institutions that grant doctoral degrees and those that do not. Interac- tion with students, scholarship of instruction, and classroom teaching are significantly more important to schools

that do not grant doctoral degrees.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Sim-

ilarly, service to the business school, the business community, and the university are all significantly more important at those institutions. Given that the doctoral degree is a research degree, and that significant resources must be allocated to teaching doctoral students, this emphasis naturally competes with

undergraduate teaching and service. Though one might argue that all types of scholarship are important, the relative differences between institutions that grant doctoral degrees and those that do not suggests that trade-offs may exist.

The private schools’ greater focus on service to the university, compared with state-supported schools, is an interesting phenomenon. Perhaps private schools promote greater identification with the school because of a traditional- ly greater reliance on tuition dollars and alumni benevolence. In such a context, faculty and administrators seem to know more instinctively than those at state-supported schools that their sur- vival depends on supporting and enhancing the image of the university overall. Finally, interacting with students and classroom teaching are significantly more important at private schools, compared with state-supported schools. Assuming tuition dollars are the main revenue resource for private schools, the relative emphasis on classroom teaching and interacting with students is quite consistent.

[image:5.612.55.564.452.689.2]

Smaller undergraduate enrollments logically support greater interaction

TABLE 3. Significant Differences in the Importance of Future Work Focus: t

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Test for Equality of Means of AACSB Accreditation Status

Work focus

Mean scores

AACSB- Schools with

accredited no AACSB Significance

schoolsa accreditationb

t value (2-tailed)

I

Scholarship of teaching Interacting with students Scholarship of instruction Classroom teaching

1.84 (n

= 161) 1.56 (n = 147)c 2.690

.

008d

2.16 (n = 161) 2.08 (n = 146) 0.63 1 .529 1.52 (n = 161) 1.49 (n = 147) 0.264 .792

Scholarship of application

Scholarship of application 1.84 (n = 161) 2.06 (n = 146) -2.139 .033 Service to the business school 2.50 (n = 161) 2.18 (n = 147) 2.532 .012 Service to the community 2.90 (n = 160) 2.71 (n = 147) 1.272 ,204 Service to the university 3.19 (n = 160) 2.76 (n = 147) 3.004 .003

Paid consulting 3.59 (n = 160) 3.93 (n = 147) -2.106 .036

Faculty internships 3.33 (n = 161) 3.57 (n = 146) -1.276 .203

Scholarship of discovery Scholarship of discovery Publishing in top journals

2.89 (n = 161) 3.67 (n = 146) 4.503

.

000

2.85 (n = 161) 4.05 (n = 147) -6.784

.

000

%nportance of each item was measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely important) to 7 (extremely unimportant); therefore, a lower mean score represents greater perceived importance. Sample size for AACSB-accredited schools is noted in parentheses following the mean score. bSample size for schools not accredited by the AACSB is noted in parentheses following the mean score. ‘Italicized mean values indicate significant importance of the item relative to the other mean comparison value. dItalicized significance levels indicate .05 or below. Equal variances assumed throughout.

78 Journal

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of Education for Business

(6)

with students. A faculty-student ratio of members on a personal level. The large enrollments are typical of 1: 10 might be a strong attribute for a scholarship of discovery and publishing research universities.

school promoting itself as a place in top journals are both significantly Our study's findings offer insight into

where students can get to know faculty correlated to larger enrollments. These a number of strategic issues for busi-

TABLE 4. Significant Differences in the importance of Future Work Focus:

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

t Test for Equality of Means of Non-Doctorate-Granting Versus Doctorate-Granting Schools

Mean scores

Non-doctorate- Doctorate-

granting granting Significance

Work focus schoolsa schoolsb

t value (Ztailed) Scholarship of teaching

Interacting with students 1.60 (n

=

247) 2.23 (n = 57)" 4 . 6 0 8

.

oood

Scholarship of instruction 2.03 ( n = 246) 2.51 (n = 57) -2.743

.006

Classroom teaching 1.44 (n = 247) 1.79 (n = 57) -2.915 .004

Scholarship of application 1.94 (n = 246) 1.98 (n = 57) -0.324

Service to the community 2.69 (n = 247) 3.50 (n = 56) -4.381

Service to the university 2.85

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

( n = 246) 3.60 (n = 57) -4.086

Paid consulting 3.76 (n = 247) 3.68 (n = 56) 0.395

Service to the business school 2.30 (n = 247) 2.68 (n = 57) -2.384

Faculty internships 3.41 (n = 246) 3.60 (n = 57) -0.757

.747

.018

.

000

.ooo

.693 .450

Scholarship of discovery

Scholarship of discovery 3.57 (n = 246) 2.21 (n = 57) 6.03 1 . 000

Publishing in top journals 3.72 ( n = 247) 2.28 (n = 57) 6.210 ,000

[image:6.612.57.559.122.367.2]

aImportance of each item was measured on a ?'-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely important) to 7 (extremely unimportant); therefore, a lower mean score represents greater perceived importance. Sample size for schools not offering a doctoral degree in business is noted in parentheses following the mean score. bSample size for schools offering a doctoral degree in business is noted in parentheses following the mean score. "Italicized mean values indicate significant importance of the item relative to the other mean comparison value. dItalicized significance levels indicate .05 or below. Equal variances assumed throughout.

TABLE 5. Significant Differences in the importance of Future Work Focus: t Test for Equality of Means for Public Versus Private lnstltutlons

Work focus

Mean scores

State Significance (2-tailed) supporteda Privateb t value

Scholarship of teaching Interacting with students Scholarship of instruction Classroom teaching Scholarship of application

Scholarship of application

Service to the business school Service to the community Service to the university Paid consulting Faculty internships Scholarship of discovery

Scholarship of discovery Publishing in top journals

1.87 (n = 187) 2.09 (n = 186) 1.58 (n = 187) 1.90 (n = 186) 2.40 (n = 187) 2.77 (n = 186) 3.18 (n = 187) 3.72 (n = 186)

3.29 (n = 187)

3.16 (n = 186)

3.25 (n = 187)

1.51 (n = 118)c 2.20 (n = 118)

1.34(n = 118)

2.01 (n = 118) 2.33 (n = 118)

2.97 (n = 118)

2 . 7 8 ( n = 117)

3.82 (n = 118) 3.71 (n = 117) 3.41 (n = 118) 3.70 (n = 118)

3.254 -0.832 2.567 -0.977 0.534 1.345 2.713 -0.650 -2.184 -1.338 -2.323

.00P

.406

.011

.330 .594

.180

.007

,516

,030

,182

.021

%nportance of each item was measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely important) to 7 (extremely unimportant); therefore, a lower mean score represents greater perceived importance. Sample size for public institutions is noted in parentheses following the mean score. bSample size for private institutions is noted in parentheses following the mean score. 'Italicized mean values indicate significant importance of the item relative to the other mean comparison value. dItalicized significance levels indicate .05 or below. Equal variances assumed throughout.

November/December 2000

79

[image:6.612.56.560.473.693.2]

(7)

TABLE 6. Correlations Between Enrollments (Undergraduate and Gradu-

ate) and Perceived Future Importance of Specific Work Focus Items

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Work focus

Pearson correlations Undergraduate Graduate

enrollment enrollment Scholarship of teaching

Interacting with students

.I53 (p=.OOS)a

.070 (p

= .244)

Classroom teaching .088 (p = .127) .021 (p = .654)

Scholarship of instruction -.064 (p = .270) -.054 (p = .369)

Scholarship of application -.093 (p = .108) -.072 (p = .234)

Service to the business school

Service to the university ,109 (p = .060) .I31 (p=.030)

Faculty internships -.I44 (p=.012) ,035 (p = S60)

.lo3 (p = .076) .064 (p = .288)

Service to the community .047 (p = .416) .021 (p = .734)

Paid consulting -.I69 ( ~ = . 0 0 3 ) ~

-.

1 15 (p = .057)

Scholarship of discovery

Scholarship of discovery -.I84 (p=.OOI) -.I76 (p=.003)

Publishing in top journals -.273

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

(p=.OOO) ,164 (p=.006)

“Importance of each item was measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely important) to 7 (extremely unimportant); therefore, a lower mean score represents greater perceived impor-

tance. Total enrollment size for each business was measured in five categories: 1 = less than 500, 2 = 501-1,000, 3 = 1,001-1,500,4 = 1,501-2,000, and 5 > 2,000; therefore, a higher score represents greater enrollment. The proper interpretation for this correlation would be that, because the sign is positive, interacting with students is significantly related to a low undergraduate enrollment. Finally, an italicized correlation indicates a significant correlation. bA negative correlation suggests that the item is positively related to enrollment size. The proper interpretation of this correlation would be that paid consulting is considered more important as the size of undergraduate enrollment increases.

ness education. Existing faculty and aspiring faculty members may use these findings to identify schools, in a broad sense, that conform to their career expectations regarding the proper mix of teaching, research, and service. In addition, academic leaders might use these findings to recognize how schools may evolve to value particular work efforts as their school identity changes. All schools, for example, may espouse the importance of classroom teaching, yet there are subtle distinctions regarding it. Business schools may want to become larger, gain accreditation, or start a new doctoral program. Each avenue seems to carry with it a certain perspective regarding what type of work is valued as most important.

Future Research

Corporate universities are increasingly involved in business-related education. Their focus is likely to be on the scholarship of teaching in a very narrow sense- namely, content delivery. The role of technical specialists/faculty within such institutions is not yet clearly established. Would they simply deliver a course developed by the company? Would they discover new knowledge? Assessing the role of such individuals versus that of traditional university faculty members would be a useful investigation.

As technology evolves, the content

delivery mechanisms in higher education are undergoing dramatic change. Computer-mediated learning, in the

classroom or for distance learning, may change what we now understand to be teaching. As such, the scholarship of teaching may need to be re-evaluated. Though our research did shed light on it, the concept continues to evolve quickly. The “classroom” of new distance learning pedagogies, for example, is quite different from the traditional classroom.

REFERENCES

Bossard, J. H. S., & Dewhurst, J. F. (1931). Uni-

versity education for business. Philadelphia,

PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered:

Priorities of the professorate. Princeton: The

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Coye, D. (1997). Ernest Boyer and the New American College. Change, May/June, 20-29. Gordon, R. A,, & Howell, J. E. (1959). Higher

education for business. New York Columbia

University Press.

Henninger, E. A. (1998). The American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business under the new standards: Implications for changing facul- ty work. Journal of Education for Business,

Holden, C. (1998). Ruffled deans and tenured drones. Science, 280(5364), 68 1. Krahenbuhl,

G. S. (1998). Faculty work Integrating respon- sibilities and institutional needs. Change, NovemberlDecember, 18-25,

Moore, J. W. (1998). The Boyer Report. Journal

of Chemical Education, 75(8), 935+.

Noser, T. C., Manakyan, H., & Tanner, J. R. (1996). Research productivity and perceived teaching effectiveness: A survey of economics faculty. Research in Higher Education, 37,

Pierson, F. C. (1959). The education ofAmerican

businessmen. New York McGraw-Hill.

Porter, L.W., & Broesamle, W. (1996). Manage- ment education in North America. In the Inter-

national Encyclopedia of Business and Man- agement, 3. New York: International Thompson

Publishing.

Pratt,

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

L. R. (1993). Quality or access. Academe,

JanuaryFebruary, 8-9.

Rosenthal, J. T., Cogan, M. L., Marshall, R., Mei- land, J. W., Wion, P. K., & Molotsky I. F. (1994). The work of faculty: Expectations, pri-

orities, and rewards. Academe, JanuaryFebru-

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

ary, 35-48.

Weber, M. J., & Russ, R. R. (1997). Scholarship assessment: Perceptions of human sciences administrators and faculty in higher education.

Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences,

89(4), 2-7.

Wilson, R. (1998, April 24). Report blasts research universities for poor teaching of undergraduates. The Chronicle of Higher Edu-

cation, A1 2-A 13.

Winkler, A. M. (1992). The faculty workload question. Change, July/August, 36-41.

73(3), 133-136.

299-321.

80 Journal of Education for Business

[image:7.612.58.378.73.309.2]