Managing interdisciplinarity: a discussion of the contextual review in design research

"Although the debate about disciplinary status has not interrupted the production of innovative design research, as a relatively recent member of academia's 'tribes and territories' (Becher 1989) design is still establishing its disciplinary characteristics as a general research field and a set of specialist sub-fields. There is, for instance, some debate about whether design scholarship should include creative practice and reflection (for a sample of contrasting positions see Bayazit 2004; Downton 2001; Durling 2002; Roth 1999). Since a majority of design issues originate in everyday life individual design research questions are unlikely to fit specific disciplinary boundaries, the idea that design research definitively engages with multiple fields and literatures being widely acknowledged (Poggenpohl et al 2004). These considerations have contributed to the debate as to whether design research should conform to established models from the sciences and humanities or develop its own integral approaches. We suggest, however, that a greater focus on design's applied nature and inherent interdisciplinarity could profitably overtake the quest for disciplinary clarity."

(Carolyn Barnes and Gavin Melles, 2007)

1). Proceedings of 'Emerging Trends in Design Research', the International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR) Conference, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, 12-15 November 2007

1

The new definition of scholarship: how will it change the professoriate?

"Several scholars have begun to see change in the definition of scholarship as demanding a change in our understanding of epistemology. Eugene Rice constructs a matrix of knowledge based on dichotomies of active practice vs. reflective observation, and concrete, connected knowing vs. abstract, analytic knowing. He points out that the push for a more concrete, connected way of knowing requires a multidimensional pedagogy. He quotes Cornell West as saying, 'To put it crudely, ideas, words, and language are not mirrors which copy the 'real' or 'objective' world but rather tools with which we cope with 'our' world' (Rice, 1996, p. 16). The stuff of scholarship is all intertwined within itself and connected to real life, not separate from it. The faculty who would engage this pedagogy must have grounding in a rich model of scholarship in order to become what Rice calls a complete scholar:

The complete scholar would have a sense of the way in which different forms of scholarly work interrelate and enrich one another, and would be capable of moving with ease from one scholarly task to another. The tensions between connected knowing and analytical capabilities, on the one hand, and reflection and active practice, on the other, would be nurtured and built upon rather than resisted and minimized (p. 22)."

(Arthur L. Dirks, 4 December 1998)

Rice, R. E. (1996. ). Making a place for the new American scholar (Working paper No. 1). Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education. In Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards).

Dirks, Arthur L. (1998). The new definition of scholarship: How will it change the professoriate? Published on-line by author (http://webhost.bridgew.edu/adirks/ald/papers/skolar.htm). Bridgewater, Mass. Boston.

Fig.1 A Community Concern, 'Bronx Youth Forum to End School Overcrowding'.

1

Ernest Boyer's Model of Scholarship

"Boyer (1997) proposed an expanded definition of “scholarship” within the professorate based on four functions that underlie the Profile of a Quality Faculty Member (1.2.4): discovery, integration, application, and teaching. He argues that, within this framework, all forms of scholarship should be recognized and rewarded, and that this will lead to more personalized and flexible criteria for gaining tenure. He feels that, too often faculty members wrestle with conflicting obligations that leave little time to focus on their teaching role. Boyer proposes using “creativity contracts” that emphasize quality teaching and individualized professional development. He recommends that this model be based upon the life patterns of individuals and their passions.

The first element of Boyer’s model, discovery, is the one most closely aligned with traditional research. Discovery contributes not only to the stock of human knowledge but also to the intellectual climate of a college or university. He stresses that new research contributions are critical to the vitality of the academic environment, and that his model does not diminish the value of discovery scholarship.

The second element, integration, focuses on making connections across disciplines. One interprets one’s own research so that it is useful beyond one’s own disciplinary boundaries and can be integrated into a larger body of knowledge. He stresses that the rapid pace of societal change within a global economy have elevated the importance of this form of scholarship.

The third element, application, focuses on using research findings and innovations to remedy societal problems. Included in this category are service activities that are specifically tied to one’s field of knowledge and professional activities. Beneficiaries of these activities include commercial entities, non-profit organizations, and professional associations.

Finally, Boyer considers teaching as a central element of scholarship. Too often teaching is viewed as a routine function and is often not the focus of professional development. Many professors state that they are primarily interested in teaching, but they feel that their institutions do not value or reward excellence in teaching (Borra, 2001). The academic community continues to emphasize and assign high value to faculty members’ involvement in activities other than teaching (Royeen, 1999)."

Boyer, E. L. (1997). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Royeen, C. B. (1999). Scholarship revisited: Expanding horizons and guidelines for evaluation of the scholarship of teaching. In P. A. Crist (Ed.), Innovations in occupational therapy education. Bethesda, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.

1

2

Ernest Boyers: Priorities Of The Professoriate

Eileen Herteis
Ernest Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (1990) was written, in part, to put an end to the false polarity between teaching and research in the academy and to recognise and reward the vast array of faculty responsibilities. Boyer offered a new paradigm of scholarship. He sought to overturn the dominant view that "to be a scholar is to be a researcher and publication is the primary yardstick by which scholarly productivity is measured."

Many have embraced Boyer's work, calling it seminal, and crediting him with rejuvenating the concept of scholarship by validating teaching and service as scholarly activities. Their endorsement, especially with respect to the scholarship of teaching, is reflected internationally in university mission statements, the movement towards certification in university teaching, and the ever-growing interest in teaching portfolios.

Boyer uses the following categories to describe the responsibilities of being an academic:

• Scholarship of discovery;
• Scholarship of integration;
• Scholarship of application;
• Scholarship of teaching.

The Word Research Is Only 100 Years Old In American Higher Education

"Today, when we speak of being 'scholarly,' it usually means having academic rank in a college or university and being engaged in research and publication. But we should remind ourselves just how recently the word 'research' actually entered the vocabulary of higher education. The term was first used in England in the 1870s by reformers who wished to make Cambridge and Oxford 'not only a place of teaching, but a place of learning,' and it was later introduced to American higher education in 1906 by Daniel Coit Gilman. [1] But scholarship in earlier times referred to a variety of creative work carried on in a variety of places, and its integrity was measured by the ability to think, communicate, and learn. What we now have is a more restricted view of scholarship, one that limits it to a hierarchy of functions. Basic research has come to be viewed as the first and most essential form of scholarly activity, with other functions flowing from it. Scholars are academics who conduct research, publish, and then perhaps convey their knowledge to students or apply what they have learned. The latter functions grow out of scholarship, they are not to be considered a part of it. But knowledge is not necessarily developed in such a linear manner. The arrow of causality can, and frequently does, point in both directions. Theory surely leads to practice. But practice also leads to theory. And teaching, at its best, shapes both research and practice. Viewed from this perspective, a more comprehensive, more dynamic understanding of scholarship can be considered, one in which the rigid categories of teaching, research, and service are broadened and more flexibly defined."
(Ernest L. Boyer p.15-16)

[1] Charles Wegener, Liberal Education and the Modern University (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978), 9-12; citing Daniel C. Gilman, The Launching of a University and Other Papers (New York: Dodd Mead & Co., 1906), 238-39 and 242-43.

[Interestingly according to Boyer (1990 p.8) the first Doctorate of Philosophy in America was only conferred at Yale in 1861. It appears that there is a hierarchy of legitimacy that operates in higher education that attempts to place 'sandstone' universities above the ex-polytechnics and technical colleges in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Australia (including ATN), Hong Kong, Singapore and the United Kingdom (the new universities ), and 'land-grant' colleges in America. This is particularly strange given the brief hold that the sandstone universities have had on higher research activity.]

1