| Boyer's (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered touted the need to broaden the conceptions of scholarship to more fully capture the mosaic of faculty talents. Although Boyer suggested thinking of scholarship in four separate but interrelated dimensions (discovery, integration, application, teaching), many academics have tried to determine how to assess scholarly performance in these domains. However, most discussion has centered on debating the theoretical conceptions of the domains rather than measuring if any activity is actually taking place.;In response, this study examined the level of faculty engagement for each domain at Baccalaureate I and II institutions within four academic disciplines: biology, chemistry, sociology, and history. Ninety-three scholarly activities were assessed including publications, presentations, and activities for the four domains of scholarship. This study also considered the importance of several personal characteristics on level of faculty engagement by domain including race, gender, professional age, academic rank, quality of the graduate school, and level of interest in research.;The results indicated that virtually no activity is occurring in the narrow theoretical conception of the scholarship of teaching. When the various domains of scholarship include scholarly presentations and activities, then the faculty engagement in the four domains greatly increases. In fact, utilizing Boyer's (1990) broadened interpretation of scholarship, female academics were significantly more productive than men in teaching publications and teaching activities, while nonwhite academics were more actively engaged in integration presentations than their white colleagues.;The findings indicate that Baccalaureate I faculty are significantly more engaged in four of the nine dimensions of scholarship (application publications, discovery publications, integration publications, integration activities) whereas Baccalaureate II faculty outperform their Baccalaureate I colleagues in the area of application activities. The study did not reveal any difference by institutional type for scholarly engagement in teaching publications, teaching activities, teaching presentations, or integration presentations. Finally, the study revealed that academic sociologists were more active in application publications, application activities, teaching publications, and teaching presentations. On the other hand, academic chemists were significantly less engaged in teaching activities, integration publications, and integration presentations. |
