3.2 Pillars of Scholarship and Clinical Scholarship
3.2.2 Essential Standards to Adjudicate on Scholarly Work
Following Boyer, Glassick et al. (1997) focused on evaluating the work of scholars.
Their six standards of scholarly activity for review are: clear goals; adequate prepa- ration; appropriate methods; significant results; effective presentation and reflective critique. One outstanding characteristic critical to the assessment of all areas of scholarship is the importance of presentation to others. Discovery of new knowl- edge or integration of previously published information into a novel synthesis does not contribute to scholarship unless it is communicated to others. Experimental results from scientific experiments that remain forever in a lab notebook have no intrinsic value (Beattie 2000, p. 874). To be considered scholarship, every scholarly accomplishment needs to be shared with and judged by other scholars (Huber 2016).
Each standard is pertinent to making visible the work of the advanced practice nurs- ing practitioner, and especially highlighted in the purpose of scholarship illustrated in the category of ‘effective presentation’:
Scholarship, however brilliant, lacks fulfilment without someone on the receiv- ing end. The discovery should be made known to more than the discoverer; teaching is not teaching without students; integration makes scant contribution unless it is communicated so that people can benefit from it; and application becomes
3.2 Pillars of Scholarship and Clinical Scholarship
36
application by addressing others’ needs (Glassick et al. 1997, p. 31). The aforemen- tioned authors query whether scholars are using ‘appropriate forums’ for their intended audiences: ‘Does the scholar present his or her message with clarity and integrity?’ (p. 32). They state that as ‘a public act’, which needs ‘a sense of audi- ence’, scholarship benefits from using new technologies and media. Certainly, more than presentation, it requires the capability to listen to and interact with one’s audiences:
Effective presentation … may require the scholar to do more listening than speak- ing, recognising that what the audience says is part of communication (Glassick et al.
1997, p. 32). There is an important emphasis here on the principle of multi-way com- munication, which enables scholars to engage productively with different communi- ties and cultures, whether academic, professional or public (Fung 2017).
Furthermore, Glassick et al. (1997) identified that their set of six standards be widely used across disciplines to evaluate basic research, applied work, interdisci- plinary projects, and teaching. Together, these standards map a common arc of intel- lectual endeavour. With appropriate adjustments Huber (2016) argued that these six standards could be applied well to the four kinds of scholarship identified in Scholarship Reconsidered and provide a framework for uniformity in the evaluation of scholarship (p. xiii). Whatever the scholarly emphasis, the approach deserves dignity and respect, insofar as it is performed with distinction. Accordingly, excel- lence must be the only yardstick (Glassick et al. 1997).
Clearly, evaluation that uses different standards for research, teaching, and pro- fessional service has outlived its day (Glassick et al. 1997, p. 23). The paradox is this: in order to recognise discovery, integration, application, and teaching as legiti- mate forms of scholarship, the academy must evaluate them by a set of standards that capture and acknowledge what they share as scholarly acts (Glassick et al.
1997). All works of scholarship, be they discovery, integration, application, or teaching, involve a continuous sequence of unfolding stages and when people praise a work of scholarship, they usually mean that the project in question shows that it has been guided by these six qualitative standards (p. 24):
1. Clear goals
2. Adequate preparation 3. Appropriate methods 4. Significant results 5. Effective presentation 6. Reflective critique
According to Glassick et al. (1997) there is a common language in which to discuss the standards for scholarly work of all kinds, a language that enables scholars and asses- sors to see clearly what discovery, integration, application, and teaching share as schol- arly activities. They acknowledge that the six standards define phases of an intellectual process that are in reality not so neatly categorised (Glassick et al. 1997). The questions directed towards each of the six standards (see Fig. 3.1) could become a significant prompt for the advanced practice nursing practitioner/aspirant throughout the design of their career legacy portfolio and in particular during the iterative phases of creating their career legacy map (see Chap. 6) that hones in on their scholarly activities.
3 Transforming Advanced Practice Nursing into Clinical Scholarship
37
Clear goals
Does the scholar state the basic purposes of his or her work clearly?
Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable?
Does the scholar identify important questions in the field?
Adequate preparation
Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the field?
Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to his or her work?
Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the project forward?
Appropriate methods
Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals?
Does the scholar apply effectively the methods selected?
Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances?
Significant results
Does the scholar achieve the goals?
Does the scholar’s work add consequentially to the field?
Does the scholar’s work open additional areas for further exploration?
Effective presentation
Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organisation to present his or her work?
Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating work to its intended audience?
Does the scholar present his or her message with clarity and integrity?
Reflective critique
Does the scholar critically evaluate his or her own work?
Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to his or her critique?
Does the scholar use evaluation to improve the quality of future work?
(Glassick et al. 1997, p.36).
Source: C.E. Glassick, M.T. Huber, and G.I. Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Fig. 3.1 Summary of standards
3.2 Pillars of Scholarship and Clinical Scholarship
38