Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320009599956

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

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

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 RA JA ALI HA JI
TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU]

Date: 13 January 2016, At: 17:30

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:30 13 January 2016

The Future of Business School
Scholarship: An Empirical
Assessment of the Boyer
Framework by U.S. Deans
S. SRlNlVASAN
BRUCE KEMELGOR
SCOTT D. JOHNSON
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky

zyxw

zyxwvut

ABSTRACT. This study investigated

B

usiness schools are complex
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, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate (1990), Boyer reignited
the discussion of scholarship by recognizing three broad dimensions in it-the
scholarships of teaching, application,
and discovery. In this article, we consider 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 ambiguous and not consistent with the conventional classifications.

scholarship, as conceptualized within
the Boyer framework, in business education. 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.

ments in most business schools were
tightened and research began to outweigh 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 theoretical research output (Henninger, 1998).
Pure research was being favored and
rewarded over more practical or applied
research. The pendulum had perhaps
swung too far.

zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrqp

Historical Perspective
In 1881, Joseph Wharton donated a
substantial sum of money to establish a
business school to promote the study of

entrepreneurship and business ethics. At
that time, the effort faced some opposition within academe because the study
of business was not considered to be a
true academic discipline.While business
education grew, so did concerns surrounding 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 commissioned a study by Pierson (1959). These
so called Foundation Reports concluded
that educational quality, student capability, 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-

The Teaching Versus
Research Debate

zyxwvut
A traditional model for viewing faculty work is the teaching, research, and service triad (Weber & Russ, 1997). However, much of the debate about faculty
workload centers on the teaching-versusresearch tradeoff. Professors are viewed
primarily as teachers, and teaching

requires preparation, evaluation, and

NovemberDecember 2000

75

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:30 13 January 2016

keeping abreast of new developments in
the field. Rosenthal et al. (1994) suggested 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 situations, 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 prestige (Weber & 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 legislators 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 broader perspective, the public often experiences painful industry downsizing,
while faculty ostensibly enjoy job security and minimal teaching requirements

(Winkler, 1992).

with the aim of enlivening campus life
and stimulating an engagement between
the campus and the community. However, 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
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

zyxwv

zyxwvutsrqp
~

~~~~~~

TABLE 1. The Boyer Framework of Scholarship

Scholarship

Teaching

Definition
(all quotes are from Boyer, 1990)

Example

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

Professors encouraging critical
thinking and continuous
leaming
Pedagogical styles; Socratic
learning methods; case studies
Lecturing; encouraging application and testing of theories;
questioning accepted “truths”

“New intellectual understanding
can arise out of the very act of
application.” (p. 23)
“Scholarship has to prove its
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)

serving on university committees; consulting; faculty internships
working with the public
schools; applying economic
models
an accountant serving as an
auditor for a nonprofit organization

“Contributes not only to the
stock of human knowledge but
also to the intellectual climate
of a college or university.” (p.
17)
“Comes closest to what is
meant when academics speak
of ‘research”’ (p. 17)
“Scholarly investigation in the
pursuit of knowledge.” (p. 18)

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 constraints

zyxw

Application

zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvuts

Boyer’s Broadened Vision of
Faculty Scholarship

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

76

~

Journal of Education for Business

Discovery

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:30 13 January 2016

business school, the community, and the
university.
We also used a number of classification 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 3 11 usable responses, yielding a response rate of 46.6%.

Findings

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 categorizing institutions is the extent to
which they offer doctoral degrees. In
Table 4, we compare the business
schools that did not grant doctorates ( n
= 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 differences based on whether the institution was state supported (n = 187) or
private (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. Interestingly, 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.

zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvu
zyxwvu

A total of 11 items were used to
assess the perceived importance of the
scholarship of teaching, application,
and discovery. In Table 2, we display
the means for these 11 items. Five of
these items scored higher than the midpoint 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 indicated a significant difference between
AACSB-accredited business schools
and those not accredited by AACSB.
In Table 3, we note that four itemsscholarship of discovery, publishing in
top journals, scholarship of application,
and paid consulting-proved to be significantly more important for schools

Discussion

Reconsideration of the concept of
scholarship will continue, with debate
both within and outside academe. However, 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

Faculty focus

M

Perceived future importance
SD

n

Scholarship of teaching
Interacting with students
Classroom teaching
Scholarship of instruction

1.72
1.51
2.12

.95
.85
.19

311
311
310

Scholarship of application
Scholarship of application
Service to the business schoi01
Service to the community
Service to the university
Paid consulting
Faculty internships

1.95
2.36
2.83
3.00
3.75
3.46

.92
.12
.30
.27
.41
.64

310
311
3 10
310
310
3 10

Scholarshio of discoverv
Scholarihip of disco;ery
Publishing in top journals

3.26
3.42

1.57
1.67

310
311

zy
zyxw

Note. A 7-item importance response format was used ranging from 1 (extremely important) to 7
(extremely unimportant).

November/December 2000

77

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:30 13 January 2016

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.
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 uni-

versity and service to the business school
as more important than do AACSBaccredited 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, doctoraldegree-granting schools recognize the
importance of scholarship of discovery
and publishing in top journals. However, 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. Interaction with students, scholarship of
instruction, and classroom teaching are
significantly more important to schools
that do not grant doctoral degrees. Similarly, 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 traditionally 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 survival 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.
Smaller undergraduate enrollments
logically support greater interaction

zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwv
zy
zyxwv
zyxwvut
zy

TABLE 3. Significant Differences in the Importance of Future Work Focus: t Test for Equality of Means of AACSB
Accreditation Status

Mean scores

Work focus

I

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

AACSBaccredited
schoolsa

Schools with
no AACSB
accreditationb

t value

1.84 (n = 161)
2.16 (n = 161)
1.52 (n = 161)

1.56 (n = 147)c
2.08 (n = 146)
1.49 (n = 147)

2.690
0.63 1
0.264

.008d

1.84 (n =
2.50 (n =
2.90 (n =
3.19 (n =
3.59 (n =
3.33 (n =

2.18 (n =
2.71 (n =
2.76 (n =
3.93 (n =
3.57 (n =

2.06 (n = 146)
147)
147)
147)
147)
146)

-2.139
2.532
1.272
3.004
-2.106
-1.276

.033
.012
,204
.003

3.67 (n = 146)
4.05 (n = 147)

4.503
-6.784

.000
.000

161)
161)
160)
160)
160)
161)

2.89 (n = 161)
2.85 (n = 161)

Significance
(2-tailed)

.529
.792

.036

.203

zyxwvutsrqpo

%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 of Educationfor Business

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:30 13 January 2016

with students. A faculty-student ratio of
1:10 might be a strong attribute for a
school promoting itself as a place
where students can get to know faculty

z
zyxwv

members on a personal level. The
scholarship of discovery and publishing
in top journals are both significantly
correlated to larger enrollments. These

large enrollments are typical of
research universities.
Our study's findings offer insight into
a number of strategic issues for busi-

TABLE 4. Significant Differences in the importance of Future Work Focus: t Test for Equality of Means
of Non-Doctorate-Granting Versus Doctorate-Granting Schools

zyxwvu
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvuts
zyx
zy
zyxwvutsrq
Mean scores

Work focus

Non-doctorategranting
schoolsa

Doctorategranting
schoolsb

Scholarship of teaching
Interacting with students
Scholarship of instruction
Classroom teaching

1.60 (n = 247)
2.03 ( n = 246)
1.44 (n = 247)

2.23 (n = 57)"
2.51 (n = 57)
1.79 (n = 57)

4.608
-2.743
-2.915

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

1.94 (n = 246)
2.30 (n = 247)
2.69 (n = 247)
2.85 ( n = 246)
3.76 (n = 247)
3.41 (n = 246)

1.98 (n = 57)
2.68 (n = 57)
3.50 (n = 56)
3.60 (n = 57)
3.68 (n = 56)
3.60 (n = 57)

-0.324
-2.384
-4.381
-4.086
0.395
-0.757

Scholarship of discovery
Scholarship of discovery
Publishing in top journals

3.57 (n = 246)
3.72 ( n = 247)

2.21 (n = 57)
2.28 (n = 57)

6.031
6.210

t value

Significance
(Ztailed)

.oood

.006
.004

.747

.018

.000
.ooo

.693
.450

.000
,000

aImportanceof 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. bSamplesize 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. dItalicizedsignificance 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
Mean scores
Work focus

State
supporteda

Privateb

t value

Scholarship of teaching
Interacting with students
Scholarship of instruction
Classroom teaching

1.87 (n = 187)
2.09 (n = 186)
1.58 (n = 187)

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

3.254
-0.832
2.567

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

1.90 (n
2.40 (n
2.77 (n
3.18 (n
3.72 (n
3.29 (n

2.01 (n
2.33 (n
2.97 (n
2.78(n
3.82 (n
3.71 (n

= 118)
= 118)
= 117)
= 118)
= 117)

-0.977
0.534
1.345
2.713
-0.650
-2.184

Scholarship of discovery
Scholarship of discovery
Publishing in top journals

3.16 (n = 186)
3.25 (n = 187)

3.41 (n = 118)
3.70 (n = 118)

-1.338
-2.323

= 186)
= 187)

= 186)
= 187)

= 186)
= 187)

= 118)

Significance
(2-tailed)

.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. bSamplesize 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. dItalicizedsignificance levels indicate .05 or below. Equal variances assumed throughout.

November/December 2000

79

Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji], [UNIVERSITAS MARITIM RAJA ALI HAJI TANJUNGPINANG, KEPULAUAN RIAU] at 17:30 13 January 2016

zyxwvu
zyxwvu
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvut

TABLE 6. Correlations Between Enrollments (Undergraduate and Graduate) and Perceived Future Importance of Specific Work Focus Items

Work focus

Pearson correlations
Undergraduate
Graduate
enrollment
enrollment

Scholarship of teaching
Interacting with students
Scholarship of instruction
Classroom teaching

.I53 (p=.OOS)a
-.064 (p = .270)
.088 (p = .127)

.070 (p = .244)
-.054 (p = .369)
.021 (p = .654)

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

-.093 (p = .108)
.lo3 (p = .076)
.047 (p = .416)
,109 (p = .060)
-.I69 ( ~ = . 0 0 3 ) ~
-.I44 (p=.012)

-.072 (p = .234)
.064 (p = .288)
.021 (p = .734)
.I31 (p=.030)
-. 1 15 (p = .057)
,035 (p = S60)

Scholarship of discovery
Scholarship of discovery
Publishing in top journals

-.I84 (p=.OOI)
-.273 (p=.OOO)

-.I76 (p=.003)
,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 importance. 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, interactingwith students is significantly related to a low undergraduate enrollment.
Finally, an italicized correlation indicates a significant correlation. bAnegative 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.

80

Journal of Education for Business

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 sensenamely, 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). University 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: Implicationsfor changing faculty work. Journal of Education for Business,
73(3), 133-136.
Holden, C. (1998). Ruffled deans and tenured
drones. Science, 280(5364), 68 1. Krahenbuhl,
G. S. (1998). Faculty work Integrating responsibilities 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,
299-321.
Pierson, F. C. (1959). The education ofAmerican
businessmen. New York McGraw-Hill.
Porter, L.W., & Broesamle, W. (1996). Management education in North America. In the International Encyclopedia of Business and Management, 3. New York: International Thompson
Publishing.
Pratt, L. R. (1993). Quality or access. Academe,
JanuaryFebruary, 8-9.
Rosenthal, J. T.,Cogan, M. L.,Marshall, R., Meiland, J. W., Wion, P. K., & Molotsky I. F.
(1994). The work of faculty: Expectations, priorities, and rewards. Academe, JanuaryFebruary, 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 Education, A12-A 13.
Winkler, A. M. (1992). The faculty workload
question. Change, July/August, 36-41.

zyxw
zy