Redefining Scholarship in Academic Radiology

The definitions of the traditional missions of academic departments of radiology (ie, teaching, research, and clinical service) are in a rapid state of flux. To support their academic missions, such medical centers have found it necessary to hire more physicians who focus on the delivery of clinical care and less on traditional scholarly activity (1). In many large academic medical centers, the number of medical school faculty members in the clinicianeducator track overshadows the entire remaining academic faculty of the university itself. Criteria for appointment and promotion have been questioned, as well. We are now facing a crisis in the definition of “medical faculty” and in the relationship of academic medical center faculty to the university community as a whole. The value placed by universities and individual departments on teaching, practical application of knowledge, interdisciplinary research, and the creation of new knowledge affects an individual’s career choices and his or her job satisfaction. Recent changes in the roles of physicians may have saved academic medical centers in terms of their clinical practice mission, but they also may have reduced the extent to which the the medical center faculty identify with the university and its values of scholarship and teaching. These shifts in focus may leave faculty members confused and unclear as to what exactly is expected of them. Individual faculty members must sort out the roles of teaching, practical application of knowledge, interdisciplinary research, and the creation of new knowledge when allocating efforts toward personal goals, departmental priorities, and promotion. As mentioned, the value placed by universities and departments on each of these endeavors critically affects an individual’s academic career and job satisfaction. Ambiguity, misunderstanding, and inconsistent emphasis are among the most important causes of faculty discontent. In 1990, Ernest L. Boyer, PhD, of Princeton University studied the changing roles of scholarship in American universities and the effects of these changes on faculty members. Both Dr Boyer and, subsequently, his colleague, Charles E. Glassick, PhD, concluded that a new vision of scholarship was required to clarify the academic missions of American universities and to develop reward systems that truly reflected the realities of contemporary academic life (2,3). Boyer’s monograph, “Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professorate” (4), was sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement in Teaching and has become the outline for discussion of the changing concept of scholarship in the American university system. Using Carnegie Foundation survey data obtained over several years from faculties of major universities, Dr Boyer defined four general areas of scholarly activity: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. Participation in these areas of endeavor, however, does not equate with scholarship. Boyer and, subsequently, Glassick, another Carnegie Foundation scholar, defined fairly strict conditions for translating activity in these “scholarly” areas into “scholarship” worthy of consideration for promotion at universities. Faculty members may display scholarship in all these areas during their professional careers, or they may excel in one or two. Faculty members also are likely to function in one area and then, subsequently, in another during the course of their careers. Acad Radiol 2001; 8:919–921