This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Phaneuf, M.-R. Articles by Wilson, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Square Pegs in Round Holes

The Relative Importance of Traditional and Nontraditional Scholarship in Canadian Universities

University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Jonathan Lomas

Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Ottawa, Canada

Chris McCutcheon

Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Ottawa, Canada, chris.mccutcheon{at}chsrf.ca

John Church

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Douglas Wilson

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

In May 2003 all university faculties of medicine, health sciences, nursing, business, and public administration in Canada were surveyed to document whether their promotion practices gave equal treatment to researchers with traditional disciplinary-based scholarly outputs versus those with nontraditional outputs flowing from an applied interest in interdisciplinary research, collaboration with nonacademics, and knowledge transfer. Forty-seven deans (response rate = 67 percent) and thirty-two promotion committee members (response rate = 51 percent) consistently rated research as more important than teaching and community service in promotion proceedings. Furthermore, in their considerations of research they accorded significantly more value in promotion to traditional than to nontraditional scholarly outputs. Among the deans, for example, the top ten ranked activities included seven traditional research outputs, two teaching-related outputs, and only one nontraditional research output. Scholars with nontraditional outputs were slightly less disadvantaged in health-related faculties compared to the nonhealth faculties. Despite broader acceptance of an evolving research landscape in Canadian universities, current reward structures may create barriers for academics interested in conducting nontraditional research characteristic of the emerging paradigm of applied scholarship.

Key Words: faculty rewards • survey • scholarship • applied research

Science Communication, Vol. 28, No. 4, 501-518 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1075547007302213


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. Ward, P. Howdle, and S. Hamer You & Your Body: A Case Study of Bioscience Communication at the University of Leeds Science Communication, December 1, 2008; 30(2): 177 - 208. [Abstract] [PDF]