0.3 Evolution of a department as a community of learners  (Page 2/7)

In 1869 the image of the scholar as teacher was evoked by Charles W. Eliot who…declared that“the prime business of American professors…must be regular and assiduous class teaching”(p.4).

To the idea of teaching, the Morrill Act (1862) and Hatch Act (1887) advanced the task of service as amission for IHEs. Once again, according to Boyer, Eliot of Harvard spoke:“At bottom most of the American institutions of higher education are filled with the modern democratic spirit ofserviceableness. Teachers and students alike are profoundly moved by the desire to serve the democratic community”(Boyer, p.5).

Boyer made the case for the university’s role in basic research both inside and outside the halls and walls ofacademe (pp. 6-13). The reciprocal ideas of basic and action research were“energized”by the faculty and student“determined efforts to apply knowledge to practical problems”(p.7).

[R]esearch and graduate education increasinglyformed the model for the modern university. Academics…were moving inevitably from faith in authority to reliance on scientificrationality…this view of scholarship called for a new kind of university, one based on the conviction that knowledge was mostattainable through research and experimentation (p. 9).

The dichotomy here is apparent:…“while young faculty were hired as teachers, they were evaluated primarily asresearchers (Boyer, p. 11. Emphasis in original). Publish or perish. Yet, the mission of service and the idea of research as“ivory tower,”along with the move from“elite”to“mass”in the IHE mission (note the impact of the GI Bill of Rights) left thingsincomplete. Research generated on campus and taught to students needed to be applied and used properly. Inquiry requiredapplication to social improvement. Thus, from Boyer (2002, p. 16)“…the work of the professoriate might be thought of as having four separate, yet overlapping, functions. They are the scholarship ofdiscovery; the scholarship ofintegration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching.”(Emphasis in original). Education administration (EdAd) requires all four typesof scholarship!

The ideas that Boyer (1990) expressed formed a basis for considerable similar discussion (e.g., Achilles, 1994) ofissues related to EdAd’s knowledge base: To the degree that EdAd is a profession, not just a discipline, the tasks of EdAd professorsand of the education field must include“Discovery”(research) and such things as“Integration”and“Application”(use, service), as well as“Teaching.”The basic logic for this position, which supports all four of Boyer’s“Scholarships,”appears in Achilles (1994, pp. 166-168) and also provides a rationale for the COL toinclude practitioners as well as professorial colleagues and present students. A fairly long quote, patched with minor editing form Achilles (1994, p.167) encompasses the Boyer (1990) and COL ideas.

Interestingly, practitioners explain that they get their useful information while at work—that is, while they are on the job and not in university classrooms.“It is difficult to ignore the testimony of school administrators that their trainingprograms are far from adequate in preparing them to resolve the problems they face: (Pitner, 1988, p. 368).“Fewer than 2 percent of elementary school principals credit their success as schooladministrators to their graduate course work”(Pitner, p. 376). Pitner noted that among practitioner complaints of preparationprograms is that“programs do not provide the opportunity for applying theoretical knowledge to actual situations (p. 378).Indeed, by 1988 there had been developed the Handbook of Research in Education Administration (Boyan, 1988), but there still was nocorresponding Handbook of Practice in Education Administration, suggesting a valuing—at least by those who write in the field—of writing about theory and research rather than about practice.Perhaps professors of EdAd felt absolved by Pitner’s [other] finding:“The denigration of professional training by practitioners is by no means confined to the field of school administration”(p. 378).1Note that by 2006 there still is no Handbook of Practice inEducation Administration. Maybe soon?