↓ Skip to main content

Valuing the scholarship of integration and the scholarship of application in the academy for health sciences scholars: recommended methods

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Valuing the scholarship of integration and the scholarship of application in the academy for health sciences scholars: recommended methods
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2007
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-5-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Hofmeyer, Mandi Newton, Cathie Scott

Abstract

In the landmark 1990 publication Scholarship Reconsidered, Boyer challenged the 'teaching verses research debates' by advocating for the scholarship of discovery, teaching, integration, and application. The scholarship of discovery considers publications and research as the yardstick in the merit, promotion and tenure system the world over. But this narrow view of scholarship does not fully support the obligations of universities to serve global societies and to improve health and health equity. Mechanisms to report the scholarship of teaching have been developed and adopted by some universities. In this article, we contribute to the less developed areas of scholarship, i.e. integration and application. We firstly situate the scholarship of discovery, teaching, integration and application within the interprofessional and knowledge exchange debates. Second, we propose a means for health science scholars to report the process and outcomes of the scholarship of integration and application with other disciplines, decision-makers and communities. We conclude with recommendations for structural and process change in faculty merit, tenure, and promotion systems so that health science scholars with varied academic portfolios are valued and many forms of academic scholarship are sustained. It is vital academic institutions remain relevant in an era when the production of knowledge is increasingly recognized as a social collaborative activity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Student > Master 8 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 17%
Social Sciences 9 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 17 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,072,220
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#710
of 1,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,835
of 71,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 71,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.