“Scholarship in the chemical sciences and engineering may include discovery of chemical principles, integration of chemical knowledge within both formal academic and informal public arenas, application of chemical knowledge to new problems and situation, and the study of teaching and learning of chemistry and related sciences.”

American Chemical Society

Opportunities for Collaborations Among Scholars

The Board of Directors of the American Chemical Society has recently approved a revised statement on scholarship. A portion of that statement appears at the beginning of this essay. The revision recognizes a broader scope of scholarship, provides more detailed information about and more examples of scholarship, and reiterates the importance of the work of Ernest Boyer. I have commented previously about both the ACS statement and Boyer’s work (1997, 1998, 2000) as have others. ACS’s approval of this revised document provides an opportunity to revisit the statement’s implications and to suggest ways we can act to advance and improve scholarship—both traditional and as envisioned by Boyer.

In 1990 Ernest Boyer called for an expansion of the definition of scholarship to include discovery of new knowledge (research), integration of knowledge through connections across disciplines, application of knowledge to consequential problems, and teaching and transmission of knowledge. The new ACS statement explicitly recognizes these four scholarships and states that all of them require “originality, creativity, a thorough grounding in the previous accomplishments of other scholars, and effective communication of new contributions, making them available for analysis, critical review, refinement and elaboration by other scholars.”

But not everyone accepts this broader definition of scholarship, nor does everyone ascribe the same importance to each of the four scholarships. That is unfortunate, because it inhibits both faculty and students from participating more enthusiastically and effectively in those aspects of scholarship that generate less kudos. Are there things we can do about this short of brainwashing recalcitrant colleagues? I think so.

One approach is to be more proactive about collaborating with colleagues who are involved in traditional research. Successful collaborations on projects that are important to those colleagues are far more likely to generate acceptance for non-traditional scholarship than are exhortation or castigation. The impetus for such collaborations has recently become much greater, because federal funding agencies have begun to require that successful proposals must include a clear statement of the broader impacts of the studies being conducted. Most of us are in excellent positions to collaborate on many types of activities that involve broader impacts, and many of our colleagues who have less knowledge of outreach, pre-college education, or chemical education research can make effective use of our knowledge in these areas.

Here are some activities listed by the NSF as examples of broader impact. Participate in the recruitment, training, and/or professional development of K-12 science and math teachers. Develop, adopt, adapt or disseminate effective models and pedagogic approaches to science, mathematics and engineering teaching. Establish research and education collaborations with students and/or faculty who are members of underrepresented groups. Participate in developing new approaches (e.g., use of information technology and connectivity) to engage underserved individuals, groups, and communities in science and engineering. Partner with museums, nature centers, science centers, and similar institutions to develop exhibits in science, math, and engineering. Make data available in a timely manner by means of data bases, digital libraries, or other venues such as CD-ROMs. Integrate research with education activities in order to communicate in a broader context. Analyze, interpret, and synthesize research and education results in formats understandable and useful for non-scientists. There are many more items on NSF’s list, and I expect that readers could easily expand the list significantly.

Here is a real opportunity for collaborations to develop between those in traditional research and those in chemical education. I have personally been involved in several such collaborations, and they are useful both for me and for the other (usually much younger) faculty with whom I work. In some cases graduate students are working on projects that combine traditional research with chemical education activities. These students have an opportunity to follow their interest in chemical education as well as in traditional research. In the future they will be much more likely to participate in such collaborations themselves. I encourage you to offer to collaborate (on an equal basis) with colleagues who are looking for good ways to incorporate broader impacts into their professional efforts. This is a win-win situation. Let’s take advantage of it.

Valuing the scholarship of integration