Chemical Education Today
Editorial
Research, Discovery, and Education Predominantly undergraduate institutions play an important role in educating chemists for the future. Their small scale, nurturing faculty, and dedication to undergraduate education attract good students to become chemists and encourage many to continue into graduate programs. More students who obtain chemistry Ph.D. degrees graduate from predominantly undergraduate institutions than enrollments in those institutions would predict, and a highly selective subset of that group contributes a far, far greater proportion of Ph.D.s. There is no doubt that the vigor of predominantly undergraduate institutions is important to our discipline. A recent publication, Academic Excellence, indicates that a major focus of programs in many such institutions, undergraduate research, may not be as vigorous as it could be (1, p 42). During the past 15 years there have been significant federal and private grant programs aimed at predominantly undergraduate institutions and their faculty who are involved in research. Nevertheless, the number of research publications from such institutions has not increased, nor has the number of proposal submissions and funded grants. At a time when research in universities has become far more collaborative and multidisciplinary, the number of undergraduate institutions with research programs involving two or more faculty has not increased. It is possible that research at undergraduate institutions is no longer as healthy as it once was. If so, this is a major problem. Many of us were attracted to a career in chemistry by undergraduate research. It provides a fascinating introduction to chemical facts and principles, and more importantly to what science is all about. The myriad lessons learned include practicality, recognition that few things work well the first time, perseverance, attention to detail, application of principles to practice, how to use literature, libraries, and data bases, ability to communicate both orally and in writing, and the joy of discovery. Close working relationships with mentors often last far beyond the undergraduate years, and they also set the intellectual and ethical foundations for productive careers in science. The importance of research and discovery is also recognized by many successful attempts to extend them to a broader audience. Examples are discovery or inquiry-based laboratories, cooperative and collaborative approaches within more structured learning environments, and problem-based learning. Despite the documented pedagogical advantages of research, many reasons are given for not participating. There is the misconception that research and teaching are mutually exclusive. They appear to compete for a faculty member’s time—a commodity that is arguably the most valuable in academe. It is true that doing research well takes time, and that teaching well takes time, but these activities are far from mutually exclusive. Ideally each builds on the other with a synergy that empowers both. Another excuse is that “the administration” does not support research. But most administrations are not so despotic that a reasoned argument for change by a significant number of faculty will be ignored. Often an administration’s lack of support results from insuf-
ficient enthusiasm and It is true that doing initiative on the part of faculty. Administraresearch well takes time, tors do not have unlimited resources, so and that teaching well we often need to try more than once to convince them to take takes time, but they are far action. from mutually exclusive. To me the fundamental issue is scholIdeally each builds on the arship—an activity in which every academic other with a synergy that should participate. It is not sufficient to empowers both. teach well year after year. It is necessary that we continually develop and improve the content of our courses, the pedagogy we employ, and our own professional abilities throughout our careers. Scholarship can be applied to research, teaching, and many other activities (2). It must involve clear goals and important questions, adequate background and preparation on the part of the scholar, and appropriate methods that are modified as circumstances dictate. A scholar must also achieve significant goals, open additional areas for exploration, organize the results and present them clearly in appropriate venues, and make use of evaluation and reflection to improve the quality of future work (3). Scholarship can and should be evaluated by our peers, through review of written and other materials that result from research and scholarly work. If funding beyond the normal resources of an institution is needed, then we should apply for grants to increase the scope of our scholarly work. In the introduction to Academic Excellence (1), Research Corporation president John P. Schaefer says, “The pursuit of excellence requires a champion who will demonstrate through personal example and commitment how important goals can be articulated, how the necessary resources can be assembled, and how true scholarship enhances the educational experiences of students and faculty alike.” We need many champions at all levels of chemical education who pursue scholarship with zeal and intelligence. I encourage you to increase your personal involvement in scholarship, within the broad definition adopted by the American Chemical Society (2), and support as strongly as possible others’ efforts to do the same. Literature Cited 1. Academic Excellence: The Role of Research in the Physical Sciences at Undergraduate Institutions; Doyle, M. P., Ed.; Research Corporation: Tucson, AZ, 2000. 2. Moore, J. W. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1383. 3. Glassick, C. E.; Huber, M. T.; Maeroff, G. I. Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate; Jossey Bass: San Francisco, 1997.
JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 78 No. 4 April 2001 • Journal of Chemical Education
431
