Now, let’s see how scholarship in nursing may be defined based on the redefinitions provided in the preceding text. Scholarliness has been described by many writers, with some slight variations in the definition. The common themes are that a scholar is a person who has a high intellectual ability, is an independent thinker and an independent actor, has ideas that stand apart from others, is persistent in her quest for developing knowledge, is systematic, has unconditional integrity, has intellectual honesty, has some convictions, and stands alone to support these convictions. A scholar is a person who is flexible and who respects all divergent opinions (Armiger, 1974; Diers, 1995; Meleis, Wilson, and Chater, 1980; Parse, 1994; Roe, 1951). In addition, of course, a scholar is a person who is deeply engaged in the development of knowledge in the field (Johnson, Moorhead, and Daly, 1992). Not all scientists are scholars, and not all scholars are scientists.
Scholarliness concerns having a sense of history about a discipline and knowing how one’s work fits within the larger framework and goals of the discipline.
The definition of scholarship has changed. Rules once were clear. Scholarship meant research, and research meant one type of research. As discussed previously in the chapter, Boyer changed how scholars are viewed. Scholars were defined as:
academics who conduct research, publish and then perhaps convey their knowledge to students or apply what they have learned. (Boyer, 1990, p. 15, Carnegie Foundation)
Let’s now revisit Boyer’s different classifications from a nursing perspective. Scholar- ship was confined only to those involved in the discovery of knowledge and was limited to innovative discoveries that made contributions to knowledge development and progress.
Scholarship in nursing, within this prevailing framework, was defined as having an academic
LWBK821_c02_p007-022 07/01/11 6:06 PM Page 17
rank and as being engaged in basic research and in publication (Hofmeyer, Newton, and Scott, 2007). Furthermore, the sentiment prevailed that those who applied knowledge were not scholars; rather, they were practice-oriented folks who must leave scholarship aside and focus on their own practice.
Nurses who value practice as the essence of the discipline have always known something is missing in this definition. It robbed nurses of their rich clinical heritage, and it stifled the processes needed to integrate knowledge and relate it to practice. And practice, we suspected, was the heart and the soul of the discipline. As nurses, we were, however, afraid to rock the
“ivory towers” in an attempt to change these definitions. After all, we were just the new kids on the block, with no clout and with a lot of vulnerability. Beginning rumblings were manifested in the writings of many nurses who questioned this status quo. But these rumblings became louder in the Carnegie Foundation report described previously (Boyer, 1990), which urged that schol- arship be redefined. The proposal of this document was the acceptance of other types of schol- arship, such as the scholarship of integration, as well as the scholarship of application.
Scholars who excel more at the integration of knowledge rather than at the discovery of knowl- edge tend to focus on conceptualizing and theorizing; they not only describe findings, but also interpret and ascribe meanings to these findings within the context of the discipline. Their scholarship is thus manifested in presenting thoughtful analyses of profound, philosophical, and theoretical changes in the discipline. This form of scholarship is manifested but continues to be overshadowed by the scholarship of discovery. The language of integration increasingly penetrated academia and practice, and there are indications that it is being accepted and valued as an acceptable form of scholarship (Hofmeyer, Newton, and Scott, 2007). Scholarship of application, on the other hand, has gained more support. Scholarship of application is defined by Palmer (1986) as:
a complex activity and synthesis of observations of clients and patients . . . a complex activity that has as its purpose, the discovery, organization, analysis, synthesis, and transmission of knowledge resulting from client-centered nursing practice. (p. 318)
Diers (1995) also defines clinical scholarship (or scholarship of application in Boyer’s report) as:
certain habits of mind. Clinical scholarship modifies the noun only by focusing on observa- tions in and of the work, including the perception of one’s own participation in it. To these observations are applied disciplined habits of analysis (including careful attention to sources) and analogy, that are carefully described and even more carefully edited so that, when written, the activity produces new understanding, new knowledge. (p. 25)
Clinical scholarship is reflected in the careful analyses of situations and critical assessment of responses; it requires a certain intellectual maturity that comes from expertise and repeated expe- riences. The explanations and reflections offered by the clinical scholar are contexted in her per- sonal history and are enhanced by her well-supported interpretations. Scholarship of application is honored in institutions of higher education through professional appointments in the clinical and practice ladders.
The Carnegie report also acknowledged an area of scholarship that nurses long suspected should be included. That is the scholarship of teaching. Teaching was traditionally set aside as an application of knowledge, and accepted as secondary to knowledge discovery. We all spent hours developing innovative curricula, creative teaching strategies, and learning modules, and we dis- covered new ways to help students understand their practice roles, defined ways by which we could create synthesis and integration in student’s knowledge, and watched with admiration how seasoned clinicians assisted the inexperienced to become transformed. We wished there were some ways in which we could articulate how productive researchers managed to inspire and guide beginning researchers. But we were reluctant to consider all this as scholarship.
I believe that what began in nursing decades ago, what nurses have attempted to demonstrate as scholarship, is now acknowledged as such. The question before us today is: In what ways will these redefinitions of scholarship reshape scholarship in nursing?
CHAPTER 2 On Being and Becoming a Scholar 19 These redefinitions of scholarship, which are more friendly to the nature of the discipline, the practice of nursing, and the mission of nursing, have affirmed what nurses believed was essential to a human science but reluctantly ignored for many decades. These new acknowledged approaches to nursing as a discipline value the need for nurses to have a “group of fields” that are related to nursing but are outside of nursing (Diers, 1995).
Our discipline is scholarly if members of the discipline engage in the development of knowl- edge that has some significance to humanity and to human beings, if they open doors for those who have the most difficulty in accessing the health care system, and if they encompass and include the underserved population. Nursing scholars deal with human beings, and they not only pursue explanation and prediction, they also address an understanding of clinical phenomena that may result from clinical as well as theoretical knowledge.
Unlike other disciplines that may have promoted competition and distancing as hallmarks of their scientific development, the nature of nursing, with its gender orientation, respect, and use of feminist approaches in viewing the discipline (see Chapters 4 and 8), necessitates the promotion of cooperation and collaboration over competition and separation. Scholarliness in the discipline means flexibility regarding its theoretical base. Finally, a scholarly discipline is predicated on the soundness of its theoretical base.
Scholarliness in nursing includes the collaborative efforts of all the resources within nursing, working together to develop critical and reflective thinking in students, academicians, and clini- cians. According to Dewey (1922), critical thinking is defined as the ability to suspend judgment on matters of interest. Critical thinking should be fostered by cognitive and affective approaches in the educational and clinical arenas. The cognitive approach is enhanced by the provision of frameworks for teaching, discussion, and clinical practice. The affective approach is enhanced by providing frameworks that allow for dialogue, analysis, and reflection on experience.
Examples of critical thinking in nursing include the awareness and inclusion of a focus on systems of patriarchy and domination and their influence on knowledge development (Thompson, 1987). Scholarship in nursing must reflect the type of critical thinking that generates awareness of unequal resources, of relationships that are distorted because of domination, and of the influence of marginalization on members of the discipline and on those who are the recipients of care (Hall, Stevens, and Meleis, 1994; Thompson, 1987). A scholar in nursing demonstrates a passion for making a difference, for dismantling old patterns that are based on unequal power and reconstruct- ing patterns that are based on equity, resources, shared power, and on collaboration in decision making.
A balance should be struck between providing a framework that enhances critical thinking and one that may lead to other created frameworks. If only one framework is provided, it could be a stifling act that prevents a person from seeing other potential avenues to understanding the situa- tion. Critical thinking lies in the balance between framework thinking and the flexible viewing of a situation. Critical thinking can also be enhanced by using effective approaches—for example, through the creation of dialogues about patient care situations that are open to debates and cri- tiques. Critiquing existing theories or research is also appropriate for developing critical thinking.
Scholarship includes the creativity needed to consider ways to develop knowledge in a human sci- ence, ways that do not stifle the richness of its phenomena.
Scholarliness necessitates the use of local models of excellence and the promotion of spon- sorship of novices by experts or mentors and mentorees as essential. To preach scholarship with- out demonstrating it in a close working relationship between mentor and mentoree leaves a lot to the imagination of the mentoree that may not be tangible and attainable (Meleis, Hall, and Stevens, 1994). Participation in a mentoring relationship with a person who is pursuing scholar- ship in practice, theory, or research tends to promote the potential development of the same char- acteristics in the mentorees. Scholarliness in a discipline not only depends on the definition of the discipline by those who are inside it; it also depends on how the discipline is viewed by those out- side it. We need to make our discipline more public—demonstrate its significance to the health and care of the public. We also need to become involved in the political and policy-making processes and to make a point of speaking to the public directly.
LWBK821_c02_p007-022 07/01/11 6:06 PM Page 19