Many of the doctoral students in our program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have engaged for several years in clinical and educational service delivery before entering doctoral study. In most cases, they have completed undergraduate and graduate programs with the primary goal of becoming clinicians and educators. For them to enroll in a doctoral program reflects a significant change in their career goals, as well as their view of themselves.

        I have found it particularly useful to introduce new doctoral students to the "New American Scholar" written by Boyers and Rice (1990). These authors introduce a framework in which they specify four distinctive, but overlapping, roles of scholarship: the advancement of knowledge, the application of knowledge, the integration of knowledge, and the representation (dissemination of knowledge). For them, scholarship is a multidimensional activity.

        This framework allows beginning doctoral students to review the scholarship role(s) that they have assumed prior to their entry into a doctoral program and to consider their future roles. Prior to doctoral study, most have focused primarily in the area of application of knowledge with very little emphasis in other areas. As advisor and student, we review the reasons for entering a doctoral program, we discuss the scholarship profile that individual students would like to achieve during their doctoral program and, as importantly, that they would like to achieve 10 years after leaving their doctoral program. However, before going further, let me introduce the various roles of scholarship.

Advancement of Knowledge

        All research focuses on the advancement of knowledge. Learning that which has never been known before is an important contribution to the knowledge base of a field. In many clinical fields, the advancement of knowledge takes several forms. The AAC field has received extensive contribution of individualized or episodic knowledge. This is reflected largely through case studies that describe the experiences of a specific individual or specific family, or small-n reports that document the learning or the behavior change of a given individual. Engineers have designed "one of a kind systems" and described them in such a way that individualized knowledge has been advanced. In fact, some of these earlier technical efforts have emerged as technologies that are used widely in the field today.

        Advancement of knowledge also occurs through traditional empirical research that involves multiple participants and that attempts to "look past" the uniqueness of the individual in an effort to identify and describe the contributions and influences of other variables. To do this, participants are randomly assigned to experimental tasks or are assigned in such a way that the experiences of individual participants are minimized.

Integration of Knowledge

        Boyers and Rice (1990) consider the integration of knowledge as a scholarship role. They suggest that "the integration of knowledge requires a divergent approach to knowing—a different kind of scholarship—one that reaches across the disciplinary boundaries and pulls disparate views and information together in creative ways" (p. 2). Typically, persons involved in the integration of knowledge are widely read and are adept at seeing relationships and influences that cross disciplinary boundaries and fields of study. This is particularly important in fields where neurology, neurophysiology, speech production, technology, and social context all converge to impact our understanding of the performance of a given individual.

Application of Knowledge

        Professionals in the communication disorders field are very familiar with the application of knowledge. Much of our clinical work and our technical innovation are applications of knowledge to the experience to a given individual with a communication disorder or to a group of individuals with such disorders. Those who apply knowledge on a day-to-day basis do so with the best information and technology that is available to them at the moment. Typically, they cannot tell their clients, learners, or patients to wait for another time. It is understandable why those who apply, integrate advance knowledge sometimes become impatient with each other, especially when they do not understand or honor the timeframes under which of them works.

Representation of Knowledge

        The representation of knowledge refers to the presentation of information so that it can be understood by others such that they can benefit from it. Those who write textbooks for students or other professionals, those who write for the popular press, and those who prepare video media, are all involved in the representation of knowledge. Particularly in the areas of public policy, consumer education, and public opinion, the representation of knowledge such that lay persons can understand complicated concepts is very important.

Advising Doctoral Students

        The New American Scholar framework is useful in advising doctoral students. As was mentioned earlier in this article, the evaluation of their scholarship status at the beginning of their program can be documented and described using this framework. Given that many students enter doctoral study from a clinical/applied background, this framework reflects and honors that background as a form of scholarship.

        During annual reviews of student performance, the framework again can be used to guide the discussion regarding their maturation as scholars and to indicate areas in which there has and has not been growth and development. Following the completion of their doctoral studies, a number of my former students have indicated that they occasionally turned to this framework to evaluate their progress as young professionals.

        Boyers and Rice (1990) have provided the framework as a way of discussing the multiple roles of scholarship. They do not imply that one should be equally mature in each of these areas. Through the years, I have observed some patterns that are worth mentioning. Several of our students have been particularly gifted at integrating knowledge, that is they read widely, thought in an integrative manner, and utilized information and models from one area of study, to impact areas in which they were interested. These individuals tended to be very aware of the multiple influences that impact individuals and their behavior. At times, those who enjoy integrating knowledge, struggle with traditional research methods in which the influence of individual and their social context is controlled and minimized so that the affect the primary variables can be studied. They are particularly concerned about studying people in decontextualized situations while doing artificial tasks and activities. Some manage this discomfort by realizing that the various types of scholarship require different types of methods and strategies. Recently, I have found that many of these individuals are more comfortable doing multidimensional research in which they use methods that involve qualitative, as well as quantitative procedures. Allowing their subjects to explain why they perform in a certain ways by debriefing them thoroughly allows these integrative scholars to provide a more balanced contextualization of their findings. It is now uncommon to find that those who integrate knowledge well also represent knowledge quite effectively. Perhaps their sensitivity to the contributions of scholars from many different fields, allows them to inteprete information for readers with a variety of backgrounds and expertise.

        Other students are very comfortable with the role of advancing knowledge using traditional quantitative research methods. They are adept at analyzing complex situations and planning a series of investigations to study the multiple dimensions of them. Because there is so much tradition behind this approach to scholarship, these students usually are taught effectively in most doctoral programs. Research design and statistical analysis courses are usually designed with these students in mind. Students who focus primarily on advancement of knowledge often demonstrate a range of other areas of scholarship. Some apply their scholarship to clinical issues, and others to more basic science.

        Finally, some doctoral students remain primarily committed to applied scholarship involving clinical services or administration of service delivery. Following the completion of their doctoral study, these individuals take a variety of different directions. Some return to clinical service, of their doctorate while others shift into administrative roles. Still others accept teaching positions in post-secondary institutions where they combine the roles involving the dissemination and application of knowledge.

*Boyers, E. & Rice, R. (1990). The New American Scholar. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Foundation.