In this keynote address, the author explores the role that scholarship plays in shaping and advancing qualitative research. The focus is on the dynamic relationship that exists between scholarship, qualitative research, qualitative researchers, and the research imperatives that form part of the context in which they operate. Neither scholarship nor qualitative research exists in a contextual vacuum. Changing thoughts and emphases in educational institutions and society at large influence, and are in turn influenced by, understandings of scholarship and research. Boyer’s (1990) work on scholarship provides a vehicle for much of the discussion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andresen, L. W. (2000). A useable, trans-disciplinary conception of scholarship. Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 137-153.
2.
Ashenden, D. , & Milligan, S. (2001). The Good Universities guide to universities, TAFE and private colleges in 2002 (11th ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Hobsons.
3.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San Francisco: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
4.
Caelleigh, A. S. (2000). Community of scholars. Academic Medicine, 75, 912.
5.
Dauphinée, D. , & Martin, J. B. (2000). Breaking down the walls: Thoughts on the scholarship of integration. Academic Medicine, 75, 881-886.
6.
Glassick, C. E. (2000). Boyer’s expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Academic Medicine, 75, 877-880.
7.
Glassick, C. E. , Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship assessed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Hutchinson, S. A. (2001). The development of qualitative health research: Taking stock. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 505-521.
9.
Johnson, R. (1979). Really useful knowledge: Radical education and working class culture 1790-1848. In J. Clarke, C. Critcher, & R. Johnson (Eds.), Working-class culture studies in history and theory (pp. 75-102). London: Hutchinson.
10.
Morse, J. M. (2000). The downside of dissemination. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 291-292.
11.
Morse, J. M. (2001a). Editorial: Are there risks in qualitative research?Qualitative Health Research, 11, 3-4.
12.
Morse, J. M. (2001b). Editorial: Steps and strategies. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 147-148.
13.
Morse, J. M. (2001c). Editorial: Using shadowed data. Qualitative Health Research, 11, 291-292.
14.
Morse, J. M. (2002). Editorial: A comment on commentsQualitative Health Research, 12, 3-4.
15.
Qualitative Solutions and Research (2002). N6 (NUD*IST 2002—Computer Program). QSR International. Retrieved February 21, 2002, from http://www.qsr.com.au
16.
Rubin, A. M. (2000). Is Boyer misguided or misused? The scholarship of confusion. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 29, 260-264.
17.
Shapiro, E. D. , & Coleman, D. L. (2000). The scholarship of application. Academic Medicine, 75, 895-898.
18.
Street, A. (2001). Editorial: How can we argue for evidence in nursing?Contemporary Nurse, 11, 5-8.
19.
Traynor, M. , & Rafferty, A. M. (2001). Editorial: Bibliometrics and a culture of measurement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36, 167-168.
20.
Trent, J. (2000). Scholarship reconsidered: What Boyer’s proposal means for communication: A response. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 29, 257-259.
