Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
THE BROADENING OF SCHOLARSHIP BEYOND
THE TRADITIONAL RESEARCH APPROACH –
AN INDUSTRY-SCHOLARSHIP ADVANCE FOR USE
IN TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY HIGHER EDUCATION
Edmund Goh1, Dominic Szambowski2, Stephen Craig-Smith3 and Jim Hopwood4
1,4
The Blue Mountains International Hotel Management School, Australia
(1Edmund.goh@bluemountains.edu.au, 4Jim.hopwood@bluemountains.edu.au)
2
INTI International College Subang, Malaysia (Dominic.Szambowski@newinti.edu.my)
3
University of Queensland, Australia (s.craigsmith@uq.edu.au)
ABSTRACT
The traditional view of research publications as the only form of scholarship in universities was challenged by
Ernest Boyer in 1990. This traditional scholarship view of sole research publications may not be true for
disciplines that are of a practical / applied nature such as Tourism and Hospitality studies that place stronger
emphasis on applied learning in scholarship of teaching and learning. In this paper, we propose that scholarship
need not be limited through peer reviewed journals only but can be achieved through less formal means of
communication such as collaboration with industry partners through industry visits, career expos, attending
professional industry conferences, and fieldtrips. In this paper, we seek to explore merits and strategies to
recognise scholarship initiatives involving industry.
KEYWORDS
Industry scholarship, Boyer’s scholarship, Scholarly activities
1
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
LITERATURE REVIEW
What is Scholarship?
In 1990, Ernest Boyer suggested the need to reconsider the traditional scholarship of teaching
to be recognized from multi-aspects of academic work and shift away from total dependence
on research and publications as the only acceptable recognized form of scholarship. Boyer
(p.16) mentioned that “all faculty work must be valued to honour the broad spectrum of work
done by the professoriate”.
His definition included four interrelated and overlapping scholarships (See Table 1):
1) Scholarship of Discovery – this is often referred to as traditional research by academics
and viewed as the “advancement of knowledge” (p. 17);
2) Scholarship of Integration – this involves putting facts together to come to a new
understanding about “making connections across the disciplines, placing the specialties
in larger context, illuminating data in a revealing way, often educating non specialists,
too” p. 18);
3) Scholarship of Application – this is about applying knowledge to solve problems and
inform others through the “new intellectual understandings from the very act of
application” (p. 23); and
4) Scholarship of Teaching – this is about “transforming and extending knowledge
acquired through research, synthesis, practice and teaching” (p. 24).
Table 1 - Boyer’s Interrelated and Overlapping Forms of Scholarship
SCHOLARSHIP OF:
1 DISCOVERY
2 INTEGRATION
3 APPLICATION
4 TEACHING








traditional research by academics
viewed as the “advancement of knowledge”
putting facts together to come to a new understanding
a Big Picture approach
used to educate non-specialists
applying knowledge to solve problems
informing others through the act of application
transformation and extension of knowledge acquired
through research, synthesis, practice and teaching
Rice (1992) included these four Boyer’s definitions and refers to these common features with
three distinct elements. First, scholarship must have the capacity to draw information together
in such a way that it provides coherence and meaning for connections to be made between the
knower and known. Second, the scholarship capacity must represent a subject in ways that
transcend the split between intellectual substance and teaching process. Third, the scholarship
must demonstrate capacity for scholarly inquiry into how students “make meaning” out of
what the teacher says and does. Schon (1995, p. 31) moved beyond the traditional view of
scholarship and suggested that a way to acquire new knowledge in teaching is through the
practice of teaching as a reflection-in-action and need not be through research publications.
These scholarly inquiries must be well informed from a position of someone having a
pedagogy position of the discipline and needs to be critically reflective. Similarly, Cross and
Steadman (1996, p. 28) included all four of Boyer’s (1990) definition in their view of
“multiple scholarships of teaching” with the advantages of encompassing all different kinds
2
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
of academic work as scholarship - that is, it emphasizes their common features and purpose
of scholarship. Glassick et al. (1997, p. 10) took a broad scholarship view and argue that
“whatever the scholarly emphasis, the approach deserves dignity and respect, insofar as it is
performed with distinction. Excellence must be the only yardstick”. Six key areas were used
as key crucial outcomes when performing scholarship: 1) the scholar must have clear goals
such as knowing the objectives; 2) the scholar must have adequate preparation to show an
understanding of existing scholarship in the field; 3) the scholar must use appropriate
methods to meet objectives; 4) the scholar must achieve significant results and outcomes; 5)
the scholar must be able to effectively present and communicate the findings; and 6) the
scholar must reflectively critique his/her own work (p. 36).
As can be seen, there is a common theme of scholarship evolving that seeks to improve
student learning experiences and outcomes (Kreber, 2003, 2005; Nicholls, 2005; Posser,
2008) but it is a theme with not one exact definition. This scholarship process of improving
student learning involves communication of understandings (Trigwell, 2000; Kreber, 2003;
Grum et al., 2008) and thus need not be done through traditional research and peer reviewed
publications (Boyer, 1990).
Australia’s Traditional View of Scholarship
The traditional view of scholarship has been recognised by most western-oriented academics
and institutions as the main and only yardstick of exemplary research. We examine the
practice at the University of Queensland (A Group of Eight or Go8 university – akin to
Australia’s Ivy League). Faculty members are awarded DEST (Australia Department of
Education, Science and Technology) points for publications in textbooks and journals (A*, A,
and B rated). Examples of A* journals in the hospitality field are publications such as
Tourism Management and Journal of Travel Research. All other forms of publications (such
as industry magazines) and scholarly activities (such as industry visits) are not recognized as
scholarship and do not earn DEST points. DEST points impact directly an academic’s
propensity for attaining promotion and tenure. Cloistering research dissemination to these
journals effectively could block popular communication of tenets and impacts ground-level
connectivity with the industry. Most Australian universities adopt a similar scholarship model
which is recognized and rewarded by the Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations (DEEWR, p. 7). This is known as the Higher Education Research Data
Collection (HERDC) process, which consists of peer reviewed publications: 1) books
(authors / co-authors); 2) book chapters; 3) journal articles; and 4) conference proceedings.
Any other types of scholarship are perceived as not “true” scholarship and may not gain
similar respect and recognition as traditional scholarship (Schroeder, 2007, p. 1).
Boshier (2009, p. 4) describes the mainstream mentality as “scholarship of teaching and
learning is dominated by a preoccupation with peer review and politics of publishing....If it
gets past peers, it must be scholarship. If rejected, it wasn’t scholarship”. This traditional
scholarship view of sole research publications may not be the most appropriate for disciplines
that need to be of a practical / applied nature such as Hospitality studies. These studies need
to place stronger emphasis on applied learning in scholarship of teaching and learning before
introducing managerial theory later on over the course of a degree. Williams (2005, p. 71) has
also emphasized that hospitality programs “differ widely and lack the standardization that
characterizes many traditional fields of study”. Hospitality educators and academics are also
faced with challenges in ensuring industry relevance in their teaching and curriculum design
(Gursoy & Swanger, 2005). In the 1970’s and early 1980’s Australian Hospitality degrees
3
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
were strongly focused on practical skills and experience in addition to the more strategic
management elements (Craig-Smith & Ruhanen, 2005; King & Craig-Smith, 2005). For
example, Griffith University used to provide restaurant and kitchen training as part of their
degree programs but have removed practical components of their program completely due to
a focus on theoretical aspects of the course. However, some universities are recognising the
importance of practical exposure and have started to reintroduced industry exposure and
immersion elements back into its hospitality programs. Therefore, for these connected
programs, we propose the involvement of industry for academics through fieldtrips, industry
visits, career expos, and professional conferences as part of scholarship.
DISCUSSION: SCHOLARSHIP BEYOND DESK RESEARCH
A more practical scholarly approach in hospitality education is important as a reflection of
the practical – theory balanced curriculum in hospitality education such as offered by hotel
schools. Powers and Riegel (1993) recommend that hospitality degree programs should
provide a well balanced theory and practical curriculum to prepare graduates to be good
managers. The proposed practical industry scholarship approach still recognizes the
importance of traditional research publications to contribute to the body of hospitality
knowledge (See Figure 1). As described by Marshall (1995), ideally, industry executives
should be working towards PhDs and academics with PhDs should participate in scholarly
activities to maintain industry currency and relevance.
Figure 1: Proposed practical industry scholarship approach
Career Expos
The first scholarship activity involving industry for educators is career expos. Understanding
and addressing industry needs is important and can be demonstrated through scholarships by
attending career expos. This is a good scholarship exercise for educators to bridge the gap
between employers’ expectations and graduates’ employability skills (Lee et al., 2009). For
example, in the past 10 years, the Association of Australian Hotel Schools has been
organizing annual national hospitality careers expo to provide students the opportunity to
meet industry representatives. By attending career expos, educators can better understand
industry needs and make necessary changes to the subject’s curriculum to ensure that future
graduates are equipped with the necessary skills that meet the needs of the industry. This
industry relevance is important especially in the hospitality sector (Lefever & Withiam,
4
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
1998). Educators who attend career expos can demonstrate Boyer’s scholarship elements
through discovery of new information where the educator collects information from career
expo booths to discover latest trends and best industry practices. Educators must then
integrate and apply these new knowledge through formal or informal workshops to explore
topics arising from the career expo such as “what are the latest technology tools in hotels?”
Next, educators should summarize and a write a literature review about topics from the career
expo and disseminate this information through internal newsletters or professional magazines
such as E-Hotelier. Lastly, teaching scholarship can be demonstrated by updating and
introducing new teaching materials to ensure that the educator’s new improved curriculum
meets industry needs and specific student learning outcomes.
Fieldtrips to Industry
Second, we propose organising fieldtrips for staff and students to industry as a form of
industry scholarship. Several researchers have reported that the use of fieldtrips in hospitality
education can enhance student and staff learning through experiential learning (Weiler &
Kalinowski, 1990; Stainfield, 2000; Ritchie, 2003; Xie, 2004; Do, 2006; Gretzel et al., 2008;
Goh, 2011; Goh & Ritchie, 2011). Fieldtrips to industry involve students and educators in
visiting industry places with the objective of bringing the classroom learning experience to an
external environment. Porth (1997) has commented that fieldtrips to industry is a useful
professional development opportunity for faculty members to gain valuable professional
development experience especially for younger tourism educators (Peace, 2007). It is
important that educators who conduct fieldtrips to industry to embrace Boyer’s (1990)
scholarship elements. First, educators should conduct a literature review on the fieldtrip topic
before designing the fieldtrip program as a form of discovery scholarship. The discovery of
new knowledge must be shared with other colleagues and peers through formal or informal
discussions to refine the fieldtrip topic. These new knowledge must be integrated by
presenting post fieldtrip summaries to faculty staff and industry professionals in the form of
an oral presentation or summary handouts. Educators can demonstrate traits of application
scholarship by engaging a Question and Answer session before, during and after the fieldtrip
for students to apply, reflect, and discuss key concepts related to their practical experience.
Lastly, educators can include fieldtrip topics during lectures as a form of case study
assessment to demonstrate teaching scholarship.
Industry Visits
Third, we propose having educators to engage in industry visits as part of their industry
scholarship. It is important for educators to update their knowledge with latest trends and
practical dealings in the commercial environment through industry visits. Industry visits are
professional visits by educators to the respective companies and businesses. Szambowski et
al. (2002) referred to this as the ‘reality’ approach to touch base with industry needs (Casado,
1992) that can be injected directly into higher education curriculum whilst working directly
with the industry. This can be seen as a form of experiential learning where knowledge is
created through the transformation of experience (Kolb, 1984, p. 41). Educators can ensure
Boyer’s scholarship elements are demonstrated by ensuring discovery through extensive
review of possible industry partners before industry visits. During this evaluation of
alternatives process, educators can engage in formal or informal discussions with fellow
peers to select potential industry partners and possible industry visit learning objectives.
Alternatively, educators can share their industry visit experience through oral communication
or summary handouts to faculty members. This is a form of integration scholarship. As part
5
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
of application scholarship, the educator can then reflect on the post industry visit to
recommend strategies to improve or solve some of the faculty’s problems; for example, the
absence of green marketing in the school’s curriculum. Most importantly, the educator must
demonstrate teaching scholarship by sharing their industry visit experience with students to
add value to their learning outcomes. This can be achieved by examples in their lecture
content or a short discussion during tutorials.
Attending Professional Conferences
Lastly, we propose that educators attend professional conferences as part of their industry
scholarship. Professional conferences are a good platform for knowledge sharing,
disseminating latest research results, hearing industry leaders speak, learning new skills,
advancing education, and networking opportunities (Rogers, 2003; Severt et al., 2007; Yoo &
Zhao, 2010). These generate scholarship opportunities, which are important motivating
factors for educators. Oppermann and Chon (1997) found these motivational factors
encompass personal and professional development, career enhancement, desire to learn,
updating information, and keeping up with changes in the profession. Similarly, Yoo and
Chon (2008) found that conference attendees are interested in increasing their knowledge by
listening to speakers and gathering information that they can use. Educators can capture
Boyer’s scholarship elements at professional conferences through exposure to new theories
and trends to enhance knowledge in relevant fields as discovery research. Newly acquired
knowledge must then be shared with colleagues and industry professionals through formal or
informal presentations and handouts. This can be seen as integration scholarship. These new
information must be applied in the curriculum to reflect necessary changes acquired from the
conference. Lastly, the educator should demonstrate teaching scholarship by having a
discussion session during class to add value to students’ learning outcomes and strengthen
graduate attributes.
CONCLUSION
This paper has demonstrated that the purpose of scholarship is about improving a teacher’s
teaching and learning process. These new understandings need not be demonstrated solely
through desk research via peer reviewed journals but through practical means, which could
include industry visits, fieldtrips, career expos and attending professional conferences. We
also propose methods to ensure that these industry scholarships retain Boyer’s (1990)
scholarship elements of discovery; integration; application; and teaching. Although Boyer’s
scholarship model is a relatively new idea (Prosser, 2008) and has received stiff resistance
from most institutions (Schroeder, 2007), we propose that hospitality educators embrace
industry scholarship along with traditional research to ensure that educators are aware of
industry needs and make necessary curriculum changes to maintain currency and address
industry needs.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank The International Centre of Excellence in Tourism and Hospitality Education
(THE-ICE) for funding this follow up research. In addition, the authors would like to thank the review
committee for their valuable time.
6
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
REFERENCES
Boshier, R. (2009). Why is the scholarship of teaching and learning such a hard sell? Higher
Education Research and Development, 28(1), 1-15.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Revisited. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Casado, M. (1992). Student expectations of hospitality jobs. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 33(4), 80-82.
Craig-Smith, S. & Ruhanen, L. (2005). Graduate and Postgraduate Degree Programmes in
Australia. A report to the CAUTHE executive. School of Tourism and Leisure Management,
University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Cross, K. & Steadman, M. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of
teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Do, K. (2006). Experiential education: Beyond the classroom. Perth, Western Australia:
Curtin University of Technology. Retrieved Dec 21, 2009, from
http://lsh.curtin.edu.au/eac2006/abstracts.html
Glassick, C., Huber, M. & Maeroff, G. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the
professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goh, E. (2011). The value and benefits of fieldtrips in Tourism and Hospitality education.
Higher Learning Research Communications, 1(1), 62-72.
Goh, E. & Ritchie, B. (2011). Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand student
attitudes and constraints toward attending fieldtrips. Journal of Teaching in Travel and
Tourism, 11(2), 179-194.
Gretzel, U., Jamal, T., Stronza, A. & Nepal, S. (2008). Teaching international tourism: An
interdisciplinary, field based course. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 8(2-3), 261282.
Grum, B. (2008). The definition of scholarship. 2008 Celebration of Research and
Scholarship, April 3, 2008, Surrey BC: Kwantlen Polytechnic University.
Gursoy, D. & Swanger, N. (2005). An industry-driven model of hospitality curriculum for
programs housed in accredited colleges of business: Part 2. Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Education, 17(2), 46-56.
King, B. & Craig-Smith, S. (2005). Australasia. In D. Airey and J. Tribe (eds.) An
International Handbook of Tourism Education. Advances in Tourism Research. San Diego,
CA: Elsevier.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Kreber, B. (2003). The scholarship of teaching: A comparison of conceptions held by experts
and regular academic staff. Higher Education, 46, 93-121.
Lee, J., Lee, M. & Gupta, M. (2009). The effect of internship location and compensation on
merchandising intern’s performance: An exploratory study. Proceedings of American
Collegiate Retailing Association, Las Vegas, NV, May 16-18, p. 71-72.
Lefever, M. & Withiam, G. (1998). Curriculum review: How industry views hospitality
education. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(4), 70-78.
Marshall, A. (1995). Hotel schools need fewer doctors, more hoteliers. Hotel and Motel
Management, 210(15), 11.
Nicholls, G. (2004). Scholarship in teaching as a core professional value: What does this
mean to the academic? Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 29-42.
Oppermann, M. & Chon, K.-S. (1997). Convention Participation Decision-making Process.
Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 178-191.
Pearce, P. (2007). Asian tourism educators: Views of their employment and possibilities for
interaction with industry. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 7(1), 63-76.
Porth, S. (1997). Management education goes international: A model for designing and
teaching a study tour course. Journal of Management Education, 21, 190-199.
Powers, T. & Riegel, C. (1993). A bright future for hospitality education: Providing value in
the 21st century. Hospitality Research Journal, 17(1), 295-308.
Prosser, M. (2008). The scholarship of teaching and learning: What is it? A personal view.
International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1-4.
Ritchie, B. (2003). Managing educational tourism. Clevedon, UK: Channel View
Publications.
Rogers, T. (2003). Conferences and Conventions: A Global Industry. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
Schroeder, C. (2007). Countering SoTL marginalization: A model integrating SoTL with
institutional initiatives. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
1(1), 1-9.
Schon, D. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change (November/
December), 27-34.
Severt, D., Wang, Y., Chen, P.-J. & Breiter, D. (2007). Examining the motivation, perceived
performance, and behavioral intentions of convention attendees: Evidence from a regional
conference. Tourism Management, 28(2), 399-408.
8
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Stainfield, J. (2000). Fields of dreams. Times Higher Education Supplement. Retrieved Nov
11, 2009, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26
Szambowski, D., Szambowski, L. & Samenfink, W. (2002). The reality approach to
educating hospitality managers: An Australian model. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Education, 14(2), 53-58.
Trigwell, K., Martin, E., Benjamin, J. & Posser, M. (2000). Scholarship of teaching: A
model. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(2), 155-168.
Weiler, B. & Kalinowski, K. (1990). Participants of educational travel: A Canadian case
study. Journal of Tourism Studies, 1(2), 43-50.
Williams, D. (2005). Contemporary approaches to hospitality curriculum design. Consortium
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 9(2), 69-83.
Xie, P. (2004). Tourism field trip: Students’ view of experiential learning. Tourism Review
International, 8(2), 101-111.
Yoo, J.J.-E. & Chon, K. (2008). Factors affecting convention participation decision making:
Developing a measurement scale. Journal of Travel Research, 47(1), 113-122.
Yoo, J.J.-E. & Chon, K. (2010). Temporal changes in factors affecting convention
participation decision. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
22(1), 103-120.
9