It is the process, not just the product that is the yardstick of scholarship: the reflection, the preparation, the critique, and value placed on the creative or intellectual work by one's peers or intended audience (see for example the definitions of scholarship from Glassick et al, 1997 and Shulman, 1999). Shulman points out in a later article:
We are expected to share our knowledge by making it public, whether via publication, correspondence, presentations, or pedagogy. The new technologies make such exchange event more widely possible than before (2000: 49-50).
Richlin's model was adapted for another paper that went on to suggest that the distinction was not so much about the difference between scholarly teaching and the scholarship of teaching, but between the process and the product of scholarship. In other words, the outer ring is the process and the inner is the product, and scholarship is as much about the mesh of the net as it is about the haul (Herteis, 2002).
Interestingly, several scholars, notably Cynthia Fukami (1997), herself a Carnegie Scholar, have pointed out that, if putting one's research findings into the public realm is a primary goal of scholarship, then teaching is a much better way of achieving that. Some research may make an impact, she argues, but most does not (5-6). Andrew Page (1998), from the University of Western Australia, agrees:
Teaching is a fundamentally important activity that scholars undertake. Without teaching, future scholarship would wither and die.
His full statement can be found in the Issues of Teaching and Learning