Faculty Development and Infrastructure to Support Educational Scholarship: A Scoping Review on Author Development

The Role of Faculty Development in Advancing Change at the Organizational Level

ABSTRACT

Although the traditional goal of faculty development (FD) has been to enhance individual growth and development, this goal may no longer suffice to address the compelling challenges faculty members are facing, such as increasing workloads, emotional well-being, and institutional support for education. Addressing these challenges will require change at the organizational level. The purpose of this perspective is to articulate a vision for FD programming that describes ways in which FD leaders, together with other educational leaders, can bring about change at the organizational level to support excellence and innovation in health professions education. To impact the organization at large, the authors propose a model that includes 4 major goals: (1) promoting individual and group development, through educational and leadership development programs, coaching and mentoring, and advanced degrees; (2) advocating for infrastructure and resources, including academies of medical educators, educational scholarship units, educational awards, and intramural funding for educational innovation and scholarship; (3) influencing policies and procedures, by engaging educators on key committees, reviewing appointment and promotion criteria, defining educator roles and portfolios, and valuing diversity, equity, and inclusion; and (4) contributing to organization-wide initiatives, such as addressing "hot button" issues, identifying value factors that support investments in FD and medical education, and enhancing the visibility of educators. In this model, the 4 goals are dynamically interconnected and can impact the culture of the organization. For each goal, the authors offer evidence-informed actions that FD leaders, along with other educational leaders, can adopt to improve the organizational culture and inspire institutionally relevant actions. Because each institution is unique, the options are illustrative and not prescriptive. The intent is to provide examples of how FD leaders and programs can enhance the educational mission through broader engagement with their institutions.

What makes an article a must read in medical education?

BACKGROUND

The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one's attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article.

METHODS

Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify "Must Read" articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3-4 articles were chosen by consensus as "Must Read" articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection.

RESULTS

Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23-1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20-1.70)) having the highest odds ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship.