HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The dissemination of disciplinary knowledge to practitioner communities has long been regarded as a central function of American higher education. In his seminal work on engaged scholarship, Boyer (Reference Boyer1990) noted the long and storied history of engagement and synergy between American industry and the nation’s leading institutions of higher education. This tradition was not only affirmed in the stated missions of many academic institutions; it also was codified in legislation at the federal level. Most notably, the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 and the Hatch Act of 1887 provided substantial federal resources in an effort to promote linkages between the production of academic knowledge and the practice of industrial and agricultural professions. In the post-Depression era, similar linkages emerged between institutions of higher education and governmental agencies in an effort to address the nation’s most pressing policy concerns, such as achieving victory in World War II and winning the “space race” (Boyer Reference Boyer1990).

However, by the 1990s, historical and environmental forces had led to a significant shift in institutional priorities among most colleges and universities, including in the PA field (Boyer Reference Boyer1990; Coggburn and Neely Reference Coggburn and Neely2015). The traditional focus on knowledge sharing through the scholarly functions of teaching and service had been largely displaced by a heightened focus on knowledge production in the form of “basic research.” ^{Footnote 1} According to Boyer (Reference Boyer1990), the “priorities of the professoriate” were heavily influenced by these trends as guidelines for tenure and promotion increasingly reflected institutional desires for greater research productivity and “prestige-enhancing publications” (Backes-Gellner and Schlinghoff Reference Backes-Gellner and Schlinghoff2010, 27). Moreover, public confidence in the enterprise of higher education suffered as colleges and universities appeared to become increasingly detached from the nation’s most immediate needs and concerns (Boyer Reference Boyer1990; Holland Reference Holland2005).

Boudreau (Reference Boudreau2015) recently discussed the impact of these trends on the field of political science, arguing that prevailing tenure and promotion norms create disincentives for junior scholars to disseminate their research to nonacademic audiences. As one of political science’s most applied disciplines, these trends also raise significant concerns for PA, in which the dissemination of knowledge is an essential step toward achieving improved governance. How do PA scholars ensure that new and emerging knowledge makes its way into the world of practice? Which scholarly mechanisms are employed? To what degree do guidelines for tenure and promotion incentivize or discourage these efforts on the part of faculty members? These questions are the focus of this article.

DEFINING KNOWLEDGE SHARING

Boyer’s (Reference Boyer1990, 24) initial approach to engaged scholarship included four dimensions. The scholarship of discovery focused on basic research designed to produce new knowledge. The scholarship of integration called for an interdisciplinary approach to integrating research across disciplines in an effort to situate basic research findings in their broader context. The scholarship of application focused on the application of knowledge to practical problems, as well as to the establishment of basic research agendas around the pressing societal concerns of the day. Finally, the scholarship of teaching focused on classroom instruction as a scholarly activity, arguing that “teaching, at its best, means not only transmitting knowledge, but transforming and extending it as well.”

In a later formulation of his framework, Boyer (Reference Boyer1996) rebranded the scholarship of teaching as the scholarship of sharing knowledge. However, the idea of knowledge sharing was central to both the scholarship of teaching and the scholarship of application because each focused on the dissemination of knowledge to practitioner audiences. This overlap was made more explicit in a recent application of engaged scholarship to the PA field. In their follow-up article to the Minnowbrook III conference, Bushouse et al. (Reference Bushouse, Jacobson, Lambright, Llorens, Morse and Poochaaroen2011, 104) extended the idea of knowledge sharing beyond the classroom to include the practitioner community at large, arguing that regarding knowledge sharing, “we need to consider the methods and means we utilize to disseminate our research to the larger PA community.” Specifically, Bushouse et al. (Reference Bushouse, Jacobson, Lambright, Llorens, Morse and Poochaaroen2011) recommended the development of succinct research summaries for practitioner audiences; publication of research in more accessible journals (e.g., electronic and open-access outlets); greater emphasis on publication in practitioner-oriented outlets; and development of learning communities to bridge the academic–practitioner divide.

Although classroom instruction is invaluable in disseminating knowledge to both current and future practitioners, this article focuses exclusively on the dissemination of knowledge to practitioners outside of the academy. We believe that this distinction is significant because the scholarly functions involved in these different modes of knowledge sharing tend to fall under separate categories in the faculty-review process. Whereas classroom instruction is traditionally identified as a teaching function, the external dissemination of research and knowledge to practitioners is more likely to be classified as either research or service under most tenure and promotion guidelines. Therefore, knowledge sharing is defined in this study as “the dissemination of research findings and emerging knowledge to practitioner audiences through accessible, practitioner-oriented mediums.” The scholarly practices examined in this analysis were deliberately identified based on recent suggestions for bridging the theory–practice gap in PA scholarship (Bushouse et al. Reference Bushouse, Jacobson, Lambright, Llorens, Morse and Poochaaroen2011; Posner Reference Posner2009).

DATA AND METHODS

The data reported in this article are from a recent survey of PA academic program leaders (i.e., chairs, deans, and department heads). The survey was administered via a web-based platform using Dillman’s (Reference Dillman2007) tailored-design survey method. The initial sample included 273 NASPAA member institutions, from which 144 usable responses were obtained, for a total response rate of 53%. Whereas the survey addressed various topics associated with PA research, the data presented in this article focus solely on the value ascribed to specific scholarly outcomes in tenure and promotion decisions, with particular emphasis on the scholarship of knowledge sharing. To place the responses in context, we contrast these knowledge-sharing activities with more traditional scholarly products, such as peer-reviewed journal articles and scholarly books. We also compare responses across several institutional types. Table 1 summarizes survey respondents by institutional type.

Table 1

Survey Respondents by Institutional Characteristics (n = 144)

Institutional characteristic categories are not mutually exclusive; therefore, the percentages do not total 100%.

MAJOR FINDINGS

Table 2 reports survey responses to questions concerning the importance of several scholarly products in tenure and promotion decisions. As a whole, the results suggest that substantially more weight is given to traditional scholarly work than to knowledge-sharing efforts. For example, 56% of respondents indicated that publications in peer-reviewed PA journals were “very important” for positive tenure and promotion decisions, as opposed to less than 3% for PA-related articles published in the popular press (i.e., articles in magazines, newspapers, and other nonacademic outlets for general and practitioner audiences). Likewise, 36% of respondents stated that books published by university presses were “very important” as opposed to only 5.5% for books published in the popular (i.e., nonacademic and non-university) press. In addition to these disparities, less than 1% of respondents stated that scholarly efforts to disseminate new knowledge to practitioner communities in the form of web-based videos, succinct research summaries, and the development of innovative PA-related technologies designed for adoption by practitioners were “very important.”

Table 2

Importance of Scholarly Outcomes for Tenure and Promotion (n = 144)

To advocates of knowledge sharing, the results for these newer forms of scholarship may appear disappointing, but that picture changes when the “important” response category is included: 48% ascribe some degree of importance to the development of innovative PA-related technologies, 25.2% to written research summaries, and 22% to web-based videos. Although they trail in importance when compared to traditional scholarly activities, the fact that these newer forms of dissemination are afforded any measure of importance suggests that there may be a growing recognition of scholarly products directed to practitioner audiences. Prospectively, the results provide a baseline for assessing practitioner-oriented knowledge sharing vis-à-vis traditional scholarship.

To more clearly highlight the differences in value ascribed to these scholarly practices, we created an index of scores for each outcome. Each response was assigned a numeric value ranging from 0 through 4, with 4 indicating a response of “very important” and 0 indicating a response of “very unimportant.” The responses were summed for each scholarly outcome, which ranked them in order of overall importance for tenure and promotion decisions. To ensure a consistent scale, responses were removed for any institution that did not provide an answer for every scholarly outcome. This created a sample size of n = 127 for the purposes of this comparison, resulting in a possible “importance” scale ranging from 0 through 508. Table 3 presents the results, with each scholarly product ranked in order of importance.

Table 3

Ranked Importance of Scholarly Outcomes for Tenure and Promotion (n = 127)

Note: Possible response scale ranges from 0 to 508.

As noted previously, the data show that prevailing tenure and promotion norms apply significantly more weight to scholarly outcomes published in peer-reviewed journals and university presses than those produced for practitioner audiences. It is noteworthy that the second ranked item “an article reporting findings of an applied research design directly focused on the needs of PA practitioners,” indicates a level of commitment to practitioner relevance, which may be viewed positively by those who advocate greater commitment to practitioner-oriented research. However, the focus in this case is still on publication in peer-reviewed academic outlets, which suggests that the transmission of this knowledge to practitioner audiences remains an obstacle. Although this focus on peer-reviewed publications is to be expected given the prevailing trends in higher education discussed previously, it has been documented that practitioner audiences are unlikely to read or access these outlets for various reasons (Boudreau Reference Boudreau2015; Bushouse et al. Reference Bushouse, Jacobson, Lambright, Llorens, Morse and Poochaaroen2011; Posner Reference Posner2009). The four lowest-ranking items—web-based videos reporting research findings, succinct research summaries targeted to practitioner audiences, development of an innovative technology for practitioner application, and PA-related articles published in the popular press—represent some of the most commonly proposed methods for bridging the theory–practice gap (Bushouse et al. Reference Bushouse, Jacobson, Lambright, Llorens, Morse and Poochaaroen2011; Posner Reference Posner2009). This suggests that those scholarly practices that could most significantly improve knowledge sharing between PA scholars and practitioners are the least likely to be rewarded by faculty-incentive structures.

Whereas these data confirm much of what has been anecdotally reported, they also suggest that recent calls for greater connectivity with regard to bridging the theory–practice gap have not yet had a significant impact on PA tenure and promotion standards. As Boudreau (Reference Boudreau2015) suggested in the case of political science, these findings raise the question as to whether prevailing tenure and promotion standards are inadvertently diminishing the practical impact of PA research by creating disincentives for faculty who might be inclined to engage in knowledge-sharing practices that would carry the findings of their research forward into the world of practice. We believe that these concerns should be given consideration because previous studies indicate that faculty efforts are motivated primarily by institutional reward systems (Hardr’e and Cox Reference Hardr’e and Cox2009; Lagon Reference Lagon1995). In other words, given the high-stakes pressure to produce tenure-earning scholarship, faculty will be less inclined to engage in knowledge sharing unless it is more significantly and directly rewarded by institutional criteria for tenure and promotion.

INSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

Our analysis also examined how the importance ascribed to knowledge-sharing scholarship varied across major institutional categories. By creating cross-tabulations of the responses, we identified statistically significant relationships for a few scholarly outcomes across different institutional types. ^{Footnote 2} In particular, significant differences were identified for doctoral-granting and research-intensive universities as well as for land-grant institutions. We also found it notable that no significant differences were identified for institutions credentialed as Carnegie Community Engaged Campuses.

In the case of institutions identified as “doctoral-granting and research-intensive,” we found that significantly greater value was ascribed to scholarship that resulted in peer-reviewed publications, particularly basic- and applied-research articles published in PA-specific journals.

In contrast, when compared with non-doctoral-granting institutions, these programs ascribed significantly less value to knowledge-sharing practices, specifically the development of web-based videos and succinct research summaries for practitioner audiences. Although these results are not surprising given the institutional missions of doctoral-granting programs, we also found a similar pattern in the case of land-grant institutions. The development of these schools into research-intensive universities over time may partly explain these findings, but it is worth noting that the limited value ascribed to knowledge-sharing scholarship by these institutions seems to contradict their original purpose, as defined by the Morrill Acts.

Although significant associations were not present across other institutional categories, we found it particularly noteworthy that institutions classified as Carnegie Community Engaged Campuses did not demonstrate a greater statistical likelihood to reward faculty efforts at knowledge sharing in their tenure and promotion guidelines. Given the focus of these institutions on community engagement, it is surprising that they do not differ from their counterpart colleges and universities in promoting the scholarship of knowledge sharing, at least in the PA field.