Scholarship, revisited.

Last night, I dug out the table of contents that I developed when I first started my textbook project, and compared it to the current table of contents. The big ideas are largely the same, but:

• Many--very many--of the things I had indicated I would cover in each chapter have been discarded and replaced with better things.
• I have discarded a chapter or two altogether, and have added about five.

My book is a much better book for those changes. And those changes are the result of hours and hours and hours of thought that occurred both while I was sitting at the keyboard and also during the hours between writing sessions. Those hours of thought, hours that would never have existed had I not been writing, revealed that some of the ideas I began with were silly. They also showed me that to establish a unified thesis for the entire text, I needed to cover topics I hadn't considered at the outset. 

I had been teaching the topics covered in the textbook for years before a single word was ever committed to paper. And if I'd never written a word, the course would have been good enough. But putting pen to paper has made my course and my teaching better: sharper analysis, greater rigor, better examples and deeper ideas. Those hours have clarified my thoughts and made me a better professor. And that, to my mind, is the importance of scholarship. Scholarship and teaching are not necessarily substitutes, wherein more of one means less of the other. They can be complements, in which more and better scholarship results in better teaching.