2012Research in higher education journalRequires access

Bound by Tradition? Peer Review and New Scholarship: An Institutional Case Study.

Barbara Jo White, Laura Cruz, Jill Ellern, George Ford, Hollye Moss

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

Peer review is by no means a routine process for traditional, or basic, research. Even so, peer review is even less routinized for other forms of scholarship. In 1990, Ernest Boyer called for a reconsideration of scholarship and extended the definition to be inclusive of non-traditional modes of scholarly production and delivery. However, peer review processes for non-traditional scholarship modes have proven difficult to assess and implement. An examination of promotion and tenure documents at a regional comprehensive university reveals the various strategies departments use to provide peer review for work faculty consider to be non-traditional. The study found five models for peer review of non-traditional scholarship that have implications for other institutions seeking to recognize and reward non-traditional scholarship.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Peer review is by no means a routine process for traditional, or basic, research. Even so, peer review is even less routinized for other forms of scholarship. In 1990, Ernest Boyer called for a reconsideration of scholarship and extended the definition to be inclusive of non-traditional modes of scholarly production and delivery. However, peer review processes for non-traditional scholarship modes have proven difficult to assess and implement. An examination of promotion and tenure documents at a regional comprehensive university reveals the various strategies departments use to provide peer review for work faculty consider to be non-traditional. The study found five models for peer review of non-traditional scholarship that have implications for other institutions seeking to recognize and reward non-traditional scholarship.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Peer review is by no means a routine process for traditional, or basic, research. Even so, peer review is even less routinized for other forms of scholarship. In 1990, Ernest Boyer called for a reconsideration of scholarship and extended the definition to be inclusive of non-traditional modes of scholarly production and delivery. However, peer review processes for non-traditional scholarship modes have proven difficult to assess and implement. An examination of promotion and tenure documents at a regional comprehensive university reveals the various strategies departments use to provide peer review for work faculty consider to be non-traditional. The study found five models for peer review of non-traditional scholarship that have implications for other institutions seeking to recognize and reward non-traditional scholarship.

Key concepts: Scholarship, Promotion (chess), Sociology, Peer review, Peer evaluation, Public relations, Psychology, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source