A Laboratory for Public Scholarship and Democracy,
R. A. Eberly, & J. Cohen,
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 105: Jossey-Bass 2006.
Reviewed by Barbara J. Millis, Director, Excellence in Teaching Center, University of Nevada, Reno

In a collection of essays focused, except for the concluding one, on public scholarship at Penn State, several authors broadly define "public scholarship" as reflective scholarly work brought to be bear on the issues of democracy. Some defining characteristics are: 

(1) Unity: Public scholarship combines research, teaching, and service;

(2) Integration:  It is interdisciplinary and collaborative, bringing to bear on public problems a scholarship that looks beyond narrow disciplinary silos and beyond limited research agendas embracing only randomized, controlled studies;

(3) Democratic Engagement: The end result of public scholarship is not "good will" or service alone, but rather a broader focus where faculty serve as committed mentors and role models to deliver a "curriculum of consequence that connects learning to the common problems of a shared democracy" (Eberly, p. 34);

(4) Action-Orientation:  Public scholarship is action-oriented, serving democracy by "nurturing certain habits, dispositions and skills in younger generations" (Flanagan, p. 46) and challenging them to become more engaged with their communities (Yapa, p. 75);

(5) Constructivism/Post-modernism: "Public scholarship does not tell students what the truth is, but inculcates in them the capacity to determine, with fellow members of the public, where the truth lies and what a just resolution might be" (Flanagan, p. 46). Further, it challenges them to construct meaning through "mediating concepts" (Yapa, p. 77), encouraging critical thinking and global perspectives by telling human stories that transcend national boundaries.

I approached this book with skepticism. I was  prepared to dismiss its premises as hopelessly utopian, as too narrowly focused on a single institution, and as promoting (cynically) yet another academic ‘flavor of the month,' creating, as well as fulfilling, a need for multiple publications and presentations. I also found daunting some of the more erudite chapters with sentences such as, "Local knowledge and fallibilistic theories allow for a ground-up deliberate democratization of knowledge rather than a top-down epistemological tyranny" (Eberly, p. 32). . . . Huh!? 

However, I persevered, even rereading several chapters, until I understood—I think!—the authors' viewpoints. Gold for me was the final chapter by Judith Ramaley, a scientist who now serves as the president of Winona State. I know her—and her humanity—through mutual work on The Association of American Colleges and Universities' (AAC&U's) Greater Expectations report (I served as the liaison from my former institution to the Greater Expectations Consortium). Dr. Ramaley's informed reflections enabled me to see beyond my own preconceptions.

In her chapter, Ramaley successfully expands public scholarship beyond the borders of Penn State. Public scholarship, she asserts, is in the best tradition of Boyer's four views of scholarship, discovery, integration, application, and teaching. To these she adds a fifth, the scholarship of interpretation. Using as a further lens the work of Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, Ramaley examines student experiences and student learning. Public scholarship, she suggests, may offer valuable insights for integrative education in the 21^st Century, citing AAC&U's ground-breaking Greater Expectations. In fulfillment of these goals, public scholarship may provide a context for students to become empowered, informed and "responsible for their personal actions and civic values" (p. xi). After summarizing the previous seven chapters, she poses a key question: "Is there a way to put all this together and see public scholarship as a common element across stages of education and phases of development of a professional life as well as an essential instrument in approaching a twenty-first century education?"

Ramaley then shares her "emerging ideas about what it means to be a professional, how an expert learns and applies his or her expertise, and what a person needs to know to act responsibly in today's world" (p. 90). Facts and figures cannot be the emphasis; instead, students need to be actively involved in a "spiral curriculum" that starts with what students already know and think and gets them studying in "engaging and adaptive ways" (p. 92-94). She cites How People Learn, reviewed earlier in NTLF, as a model for fostering learning through lenses that are learner-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered, and community-centered.

Despite my initial reservations, I recommend this book to anyone wishing to place student learning in the 21^st Century. It caused me to recast my views, for example, on what it means to be a teacher/scholar at a land-grant institution. It prompted me to appreciate broader ways of knowing, including civic engagement. Perhaps most importantly, it challenged me to think differently about this current generation of students—often bulleted, categorized, and thus diminished as "Millenials."  I now see many of them adrift in a world where authorities claim to hand down truths. They now seem more like postmoderns hungry for constructed, shared knowledge, meaningful commitments, and connections. Public scholarship can offer us—and them—a connecting lifeline.

References

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College. Washington, D. C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Eberly, R. A. (2006). Rhetorics of public scholarship: Democracy, Doxa, and the human barnyard. In R. A. Eberly, and J. Cohen (eds.), A laboratory for public scholarship and democracy, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 105, pp. 27-39. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Flanagan, C. (2006). Public scholarship and youth at the transition to adulthood. In R. A. Eberly, and J. Cohen (eds.), A laboratory for public scholarship and democracy, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 105, pp. 41-50. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ramaley, J. A. (2006). Public scholarship: Making sense of an emerging synthesis. In R. A. Eberly, and J. Cohen (eds.), A laboratory for public scholarship and democracy, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 105, pp. 85-97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yapa, Lakshman. (2006). Public scholarship in the postmodern university. In R. A. Eberly, and J. Cohen (eds.), A laboratory for public scholarship and democracy, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 105, pp. 73-83. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.