Article Preview
TopIntroduction
Ethical scholarship requires exploration, reflection, and introspection. Likewise, a comprehensive, structured review of scholarly peer-reviewed studies is essential to improve scholar-practitionership (Asfeldt & Stonehouse, 2021). Scholar-practitionership is based on the articulated belief in one's ability to take the initiative required to accept an active role in one's learning environment, context, procedure, and engagement, yet with mentorship (Campbell & Peacock, 2021; Viera, 2021). In comparison, scholar-practitionership is like andragogy, the study of adult education where adults take leadership and responsibility for their learning, quality of scholarship, and engagement (Clegg et al., 2021). Converse to that of pedagogical approaches such as economics, sociology, business, political science, and law (Shapiro, 2005; Fillery-Travis & Robinson, 2018). As a result, scholar-practitionership applies to all who embark on intentional and ethical scholarship practices (Rigg et al., 2021).
Further, empirical scholarship involves scholars examining the objectives, procedures, of research studies (Rigg et al., 2021). To clarify the review of scholarly peer-reviewed studies procedure, a scholar must decide if they will approach the scholarship from an inductive or deductive angle. A scholar incorporates evidence of reflection, data, expertise, alliances, structure, and summary into reviewing scholarly peer-reviewed studies. Crucial to any review of scholarly peer-reviewed studies, organizing the study logically is fundamental to establishing the outcomes, goals, and patterns of phenomena. This article provides an extended survey of literature by presenting a systematic review approach to address best practices for developing scholar-practitioner effectiveness.
Additionally, as an overarching framework, Leuders et al. (2022) presented the concept of diagnostic thinking and practice. In doing so, the evaluation of research affords ways of learning inherent in the scholar-practitionership process, which is the central focus of this research study. Likewise, diagnostic thinking and practice allows researchers to structure comparative research viewpoints and postulate an extensive, yet systematic perspective of practical application. As an overarching framework, diagnostic thinking and practice focuses on interests, objectives, strategies, and hypothetical premises as four essential aspects of conducting research. The advantages of diagnostic thinking and practice involves investigating phenomena and organizing studies based on a foundational framework. Analysis of the quality and constraints of existing studies ferret out gaps and hypothetical premises that need clarification. Furthermore, drawing associations inside and between research viewpoints strengthens scholar-practitionership. As an overarching framework diagnostic thinking and practice provides a basis for systematizing research.