Scholarship Reconsidered: Boyer's Four Modes and the Reform of Australian Research Assessment

John H. Howard, April 2026

Australian research and innovation policy is again debating what universities are for. The Strategic Examination of Research and Development has placed translation, impact, and engagement at the centre of the conversation, while university leaders defend traditional research strengths against shifting funding signals. Beneath these debates sits a more fundamental question. What counts as scholarship, and how should it be assessed? Ernest Boyer asked that question in 1990, and his answer is more relevant to Australian conditions in 2026 than it was when he first posed it.

This Insight argues that Boyer's framework of four scholarly modes offers a more useful organising principle for Australian research assessment and university reward systems than the dominant model focused on disciplinary publication. The argument has implications for the Excellence in Research for Australia exercise, the Engagement and Impact Assessment, the design of academic careers, and the way universities respond to the Ambitious Australia agenda. Taking Boyer seriously would not require new categories: these already exist. What is needed is the institutional courage to assess them honestly.

Boyer's Four Modes of Scholarship

Ernest Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered, published by the Carnegie Foundation in 1990, made an argument that has not lost its force. The dominant model of academic scholarship, organised around original disciplinary research, captures only one of four legitimate modes of scholarly work. Each mode contributes something distinct, and each can be assessed on its own terms. The narrowing of academic life to a single mode has consequences for what universities produce, who succeeds within them, and how knowledge connects with the wider society.

• The Scholarship of Discovery produces new empirical or theoretical knowledge within a discipline. This is the canonical form, expressed in peer-reviewed journal articles, monographs, and competitive research grants.

• The Scholarship of Integration draws connections across disciplines, places specialised findings in larger contexts, and synthesises bodies of work into accessible frameworks.

• The Scholarship of Application brings disciplinary expertise to bear on practical problems, policy questions, and the work of professions.

• The Scholarship of Teaching transforms expert knowledge into forms that students and broader audiences can engage with as living material.

Boyer's argument was that the four modes should be treated as complementary rather than hierarchical. The discoverer of new knowledge depends on integrators to place that knowledge in context, on appliers to test it against practical problems, and on teachers to transmit it to the next generation.

A university that rewards only Discovery produces a narrowing of intellectual life that ultimately weakens Discovery itself, because the knowledge produced has fewer pathways to the audiences and applications that give it meaning.

The Australian Settlement

Australian research assessment has gestured at Boyer's wider framework without fully embracing it. The Excellence in Research for Australia exercise, conducted from 2010, assessed research quality through publication metrics and peer review, with disciplinary panels making judgements within established field-of-research codes. The framework was a Discovery framework with limited capacity to recognise integrative or applied scholarship.

The Engagement and Impact Assessment, introduced later, attempted to fill the gap by assessing how research connected with end-users and produced verifiable outcomes.

ERA, EI and the Limits of the Current Approach

The two assessment exercises ran in parallel rather than as a unified framework. ERA rewarded publication in high-status journals; EI required case studies of research impact.

The bifurcation produced its own distortions. Researchers learned to publish for ERA and to construct case studies for EI, with limited integration between the two activities. Integrative scholarship, which by its nature works across disciplinary boundaries, fitted awkwardly into ERA's discipline-bounded panels. Applied scholarship that did not produce a publishable output struggled to register in either exercise.

The 2026 Strategic Examination of Research and Development reasserts the importance of translation and impact, but the report concentrates on inputs, outputs, and high-level institutional architecture rather than on the assessment frameworks that shape what academics actually do.

The report's recommendations for a National Innovation Council and revised funding arrangements may have a limited effect if the underlying systems for assessing scholarly contribution continue to reward Discovery alone. Reform of the architecture without reform of the assessment is unlikely to shift behaviour.

Promotion and Recruitment Inside Universities

Within universities, the picture is similar. Academic promotion criteria typically privilege peer-reviewed publication in indexed journals, competitive grant capture, and citation metrics. These signals fit the Scholarship of Discovery and reward those who produce it.

The Scholarship of Integration is harder to evidence in these terms. A book that synthesises a literature, a framework that cuts across disciplines, or a sustained programme of policy commentary may be intellectually substantial but score poorly on metrics designed for disciplinary articles.

The Scholarship of Application faces similar difficulties. A scholar who advises governments, contributes to policy reviews, or works with industry on applied problems may produce work of high quality and consequence, but the outputs do not always take a form that promotion committees can easily assess.

The Scholarship of Teaching has long struggled for institutional recognition, despite occasional rhetoric about teaching-and-research universities. Teaching contributions tend to be assessed for adequacy rather than excellence, and rarely carry the weight of research outputs in promotion decisions.

The result is predictable. Mid-career and senior academics whose work falls into the integrative, applied, or teaching modes either reframe their work to fit Discovery criteria, accept slower career progression, or move out of academic life into think tanks, consultancies, and independent research roles.

The migration is a loss to universities, because the four modes are complementary, and a university populated only by discoverers loses the integrative and applied capacity that connects research to society.

What a Boyer-Informed Reform Might Look Like

Recognising Four Modes in Assessment

A research assessment framework that took Boyer seriously would assess all four modes on their own terms rather than measuring all scholarly work against criteria designed for Discovery. Discovery would continue to be assessed through peer-reviewed publication and citation, with the existing disciplinary apparatus largely intact.

Integration would be assessed through synthetic work, including books, frameworks, and trade-publishing contributions that demonstrate the capacity to work across disciplinary boundaries.

Application would be assessed through documented engagement with policy, industry, and professional practice, with attention to outcomes as well as outputs and Teaching would be assessed through evidence of pedagogical innovation, curriculum development, and the cultivation of public understanding.

Each mode would have its own evaluative apparatus, with peer review undertaken by people qualified to assess that mode. Integrative scholarship would be assessed by integrators, applied scholarship by those with experience of policy and practice, and teaching by those with serious commitment to pedagogy.

The current ERA model, in which disciplinary panels assess all research within field-of-research codes, would give way to a more pluralistic structure in which different kinds of contribution are judged against criteria that fit them.

Implications for Promotion and Recruitment

Universities adopting a Boyer-informed framework would offer multiple pathways to promotion, with each pathway tailored to one or more of the scholarly modes. A scholar might progress predominantly through Discovery, predominantly through Integration, predominantly through Application, or through some combination weighted to individual strengths.

The current single-track model, in which everyone is assessed against a uniform research-and-teaching standard, would be replaced by a more honest acknowledgement that academic work takes several forms and that institutional health requires all of them.

Recruitment would also shift. Universities would advertise positions in particular modes when they needed particular contributions. A school of public policy might recruit explicitly for Application and Integration. A research institute might recruit explicitly for Discovery. A teaching-focused programme might recruit explicitly for Teaching, with the recognition that this is a serious scholarly contribution rather than a default for those who fail at research.

The hybrid scholar who works across modes would be valued, but no scholar would be required to perform all four to be considered fully academic.

HASS and the Four Modes

The HASS disciplines bear a particular burden in the current assessment regime. Much HASS scholarship is integrative or applied by its nature. Historians draw together evidence across periods and sources. Policy scholars apply disciplinary frameworks to live questions. Public-facing humanities work cultivates broader cultural understanding.

The dominant assessment framework, designed around the publication patterns of laboratory science, fits this work poorly. A Boyer-informed framework would not solve every HASS difficulty, but it would create institutional space for the kinds of contribution that HASS disciplines characteristically make.

The current neglect of HASS in Australian innovation policy would be partly mitigated by an assessment regime that recognised what HASS scholars actually do.

Connections to the Innovation Policy Agenda

The argument here connects to broader themes in innovation policy. Innovation systems depend on flows of knowledge across institutional boundaries, and those flows depend on people whose scholarly work crosses boundaries.

The Scholarship of Integration produces the synthetic frameworks that allow specialists in different fields to communicate. The Scholarship of Application produces the working knowledge that allows research to inform practice. A research and innovation system that rewards only Discovery underinvests in the connective tissue on which innovation actually depends.

The complementarity argument developed in earlier work in this series applies here. The productive effects of new technologies depend on rate-limiting complements rather than on the technologies themselves. The same logic applies to research outputs. A research finding has limited productive effect without integrators who connect it to other findings, appliers who test it against practical problems, and teachers who transmit it to those who will use it.

Boyer's four modes are the four kinds of work that, taken together, allow research to deliver on its promise. Reducing the institutional footprint of three of the four reduces the productive return on the fourth.

Practical Considerations

A Boyer-informed reform would not require new institutional architecture. The existing universities, research councils, and assessment exercises could be retained, with their criteria and panels reorganised to recognise the four modes.

The Australian Research Council, for example, could maintain its competitive grant schemes while introducing programs that explicitly fund integrative and applied work, assessed by panels qualified to judge those modes. Universities could revise their promotion criteria to offer multiple pathways without abandoning the standards that academic life requires.

The reform would, however, require institutional courage. The current settlement protects existing patterns of prestige and resource allocation, and any move that creates legitimate alternatives to Discovery threatens those patterns.

Senior academics whose careers were built on Discovery may resist a framework that values other modes equally. Universities competing for international rankings, which heavily weight Discovery metrics, may be reluctant to invest visibly in modes that the rankings do not recognise. The reform must be argued for on its merits, with patience for the institutional adjustments it would require.

The argument is not that Discovery should be devalued. Discovery remains central to the academic enterprise, and the standards that govern it should be maintained. The argument is that Discovery should be one of several legitimate scholarly modes rather than the implicit default against which all other contributions are judged and found wanting. Boyer's framework offers a way of holding all four modes in productive tension, and the Australian research and innovation system would benefit from adopting it.

Conclusion

Australian research assessment and university reward systems were designed for a model of scholarship that captures only part of what universities actually do. Ernest Boyer's framework of four modes, set out in 1990, offers a more honest account of scholarly contribution and a more useful basis for assessment.

Recognising Discovery, Integration, Application, and Teaching as distinct but complementary modes would allow Australian universities to assess what their scholars actually produce, support multiple pathways to academic success, and connect research more effectively to the policy and practice settings that the innovation agenda depends on.

The reform is available. It would not require dismantling existing institutions, and it would not lower scholarly standards. It would require treating scholarship in its full range rather than its narrowest form. The translation deficit in Australian innovation policy, the underrepresentation of HASS in the SERD framework, and the difficulty of converting research into impact all point to the same underlying problem.

The dominant assessment regime rewards one mode and undervalues three. A Boyer-informed reform would put that right by building on a framework that has been hiding in plain sight for thirty-five years.

References

Australian Research Council. (2018). State of Australian University Research 2018-19: ERA National Report. Commonwealth of Australia.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brew, A. (2010). Imperatives and challenges in integrating teaching and research. Higher Education Research and Development, 29(2), 139-150.

Department of Industry, Science and Resources. (2026). Ambitious Australia: Strategic Examination of Research and Development. Commonwealth of Australia.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. SAGE.

Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. Jossey-Bass.

Howard, J. H. (2025). The Handbook of Innovation Ecosystems. Acton Institute Publishing.

Howard, J. H. (2026). Making Sense of AI in 2026: A Framework for Policy and Practice. Acton Institute Publishing.

Hugo, G. (2008). The demographic outlook for Australian universities' academic staff. CHASS Occasional Paper No. 6. Council for Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences.

Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia. Cambridge University Press.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Polity Press.

O'Connell, J., MacKinnon, P., & Jones, S. (2014). Boyer revisited: assessing scholarly engagement and the multidimensional university. Higher Education Research and Development, 33(4), 769-783.

Productivity Commission. (2007). Public Support for Science and Innovation. Research Report. Commonwealth of Australia.

About the author

John H. Howard is Director of the Acton Institute for Policy Research and Innovation and Honorary Visiting Professor at the University of Technology Sydney. He brings more than four decades of cross-sector experience across universities, management consulting, and public administration, including roles as Pro Vice-Chancellor (Engagement) at the University of Canberra and as a partner at Ernst & Young and Coopers & Lybrand (now PwC).

His recent books include The Handbook of Innovation Ecosystems (2025), Thinking in Public: Australia's missing innovation policy, will it ever be found? (2025), and Making Sense of AI in 2026: A Framework for Policy and Practice (2026), all published by the Acton Institute Institute for Policy Research and Innovation.