Analysis of Research and Scholarship Criteria Within Promotion and Tenure Documents of US Pharmacy Schools

Could coping with your inner critic be the key to unlocking your scholarly writing?

INTRODUCTION

Though various barriers to productive writing habits exist in academia, scholarship is a critical part of faculty expectations. One barrier that has not been well addressed in the literature is the presence and interference of a negative inner critic, an internal voice or dialogue that criticizes work, halts creativity, and paralyzes writing.

COMMENTARY

The purpose of this commentary is to describe the limited evidence-base and anecdotal strategies shown to support increased writing productivity by acknowledging and navigating the inner critic. With strategies such as proper identification, acknowledgment, strong mentor-mentee relationships, personifying the inner critic, embracing a growth mindset, and considering the distinct phases of writing, faculty can cope with their critical inner voice and reclaim control of their scholarly writing productivity.

IMPLICATIONS

With such a heavy emphasis on writing productivity for faculty, faculty are encouraged to more formally explore and implement professional development strategies to help navigate their inner critic and bolster writing productivity.

Barriers to Scholarship Among Health Profession Faculty at a Public Institution of Higher Learning

Like any other career, pursuing a career in academia comes with positives and negatives. Faculty members teaching in higher education come from various backgrounds, with different skill sets and training. While barriers to scholarly production exist at many levels, and for various reasons, not much is known about faculty members teaching in clinical and health professions programs mainly due to the limited availability of data on this topic. This research aimed to explore the barriers to scholarly productivity faced by faculty members teaching in health professions programs at a public academic institution. A qualitative inductive approach using thematic analysis was used for this research. Participants from the Physician Assistant, Nursing, Clinical Laboratory Science, Occupational Therapy, and Social Work programs were recruited to share their experiences through an in-depth, one-on-one interview. Four main themes emerged from the data regarding barriers to scholarship among health profession faculty members. These are the need for mentorship, resource availability, time constraints, and the lack of discipline-specific guidance. Navigating the reappointment, tenure, and promotion grid can be challenging for many in academia, particularly those new to the profession. It is important for academic institutions to provide faculty members with the flexibility, tools, resources, and appropriate mentorship to boost their buy-in, morale, productivity, and self-esteem, all of which are expected to create a positive environment within the institution.

A Mixed Methods Study of Resources Available for the Professional Development of Mid-Career Faculty

OBJECTIVE

To determine what resources are available and useful for the professional development of mid-career faculty (MCF) in pharmacy education to foster career advancement.

METHODS

A 37-question survey was sent to 7236 members of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, an estimated 4640 of whom represented the target population of associate professors, full professors, and administrators. Semi-structured focus groups involving these 3 groups of faculty were held to provide additional insight.

RESULTS

Of 4640 targeted pharmacy faculty, 825 completed the survey (18% response rate). At least one response was received from 98% of colleges and schools of pharmacy. Over 75% of MCF indicated a goal to advance to full professor, of whom only 55% were very or extremely confident they would be promoted. Clarity in expectations for advancement was identified as the most important factor for advancement; however, only 57% of MCF respondents agreed that their department/division has clearly delineated expectations for promotion. Protected time for research/scholarship was perceived by MCF as another important factor for advancement but was not provided as a resource to 61% of faculty. Thematic analysis of 7 focus groups including 31 faculty revealed 10 themes reinforcing the survey results.

CONCLUSION

This study identified misalignment between the needs of MCF and the resources available to facilitate development/advancement.

A Survey Evaluation of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy New Investigator Award Program

OBJECTIVE

Sponsored by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the New Investigator Award (NIA) provides start-up funding for the independent research programs of early-career faculty. However, there is limited information on outcomes. Thus, the objective was to determine the impact of the NIA program on the stimulation of recipient research programs and AACP involvement.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 2012-2022 NIA Award recipients and current pharmacy Department Chairs was conducted. The instruments (NIA Recipient:28-items, Chair:15-items) were administered via Qualtrics with data reported descriptively.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 96 NIA recipients and 157 Chairs (60%, 49% response rate). From the NIA recipients, most respondents received the award within their first 2 years of appointment (59%), received it on the first submission (61%), remained in academia (96%) at the same institution (90%), and were AACP members (80%) with a variety of involvement. Projects were typically completed (81%) and utilized for another grant (51%). Two-thirds of faculty had received external funding post-NIA (64%), and most felt the grant was valuable or very valuable. From the Department Chair survey, 40% had NIA recipients and 13% had served as a mentor. Departments did not have an NIA development/review process (77%) but had a mentoring program (59%). Most perceived the NIA program to be valuable/very valuable.

CONCLUSION

Overall, chairs and NIA recipients have positive perceptions of the value of the NIA and recipients reported evidence of scholarly success.

Qualitative Analysis of Pre and Postpromotion/Tenure Review Processes Employed by US Pharmacy Schools

OBJECTIVE

Policies related to prepromotion/tenure reviews and postpromotion/tenure reviews are critical to faculty advancement and retention. The objective of this study is to describe the utilization, timing, and application of such policies as described within promotion and/or tenure documents from US colleges/schools of pharmacy.

METHODS

PT documents were collected from internet searches and/or contact with administrators at each institution. Qualitative content analysis was used to systematically review policies related to pre and postpromotion/tenure reviews. Policies were reviewed for required vs optional status, timing, possible outcomes, and other characteristics.

RESULTS

PT documents were analyzed from 121 (85%) colleges/schools. Of these, 26% included policies for prepromotion review of nontenure-track faculty, while 45% included pretenure reviews for tenure-track faculty. The majority of prereviews were required (65% and 91%, respectively) and conducted after 3 years in rank on average. Only 22 (18%) included postpromotion/tenure reviews, with most (17, 77%) conducting reviews after a prespecified time in advanced rank (mean 3.9 years). Potential negative consequences of postpromotion/tenure reviews were more frequently described than potential rewards.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of promotion and/or tenure documents revealed that pre/posttenure reviews were more commonly employed than pre/postpromotion reviews. Documents most frequently described potential negative consequences that may result from unsatisfactory postpromotion/tenure reviews. Academic leaders should consider the implications of these trends within their own institutions and how their own policies may be improved to create clearly articulated, fair, and parallel processes for both tenure-track and nontenure-track faculty.

A Mixed-Methods Analysis of the Promotion and Tenure Process for Experiential Education Faculty

OBJECTIVE

To understand the process of the promotion and tenure (P&T) as experienced by faculty members in experiential education (EE).

METHODS

A quantitative survey of EE faculty at any academic rank investigated the general landscape of experiences in P&T. Phenomenological qualitative interviews with faculty who currently work in EE and who achieved promotion to full professor while working within EE provided additional context. Analysis was completed using a mixed-methods approach. Incomplete survey responses were excluded.

RESULTS

Survey respondents indicated feeling different from other clinical faculty, particularly in the need to justify their work to the P&T committee (26/38; 68%). Respondents noted how challenging the P&T process was and perceived a lack of understanding of EE work among P&T committee members, chairs, and/or colleagues. In qualitative interviews, 3 themes emerged, which were characterizing a misunderstood role; navigating an unclear process with creativity and courage; and seeking outside-of-the-box mentoring.

CONCLUSION

Experiential education faculty may require specific guidance and a thoughtful approach in tailoring their dossier for the P&T process, especially in accounting for administrative work and other unique aspects of the role. To promote inclusivity and retention of EE faculty, greater understanding of the EE role is needed as it applies to guidelines for P&T. Furthermore, EE faculty and others with unique roles should receive guidance to meaningfully apply P&T guidelines in a manner that best represents their role.

Reviewing Promotion Dossiers as a Professional Responsibility

Promotion is accompanied by additional responsibility, few more important than serving as a formal external reviewer of promotion dossiers. Promotion and tenure committees rely on external peer review to provide an outside perspective regarding the impact of the candidate's work and how they compare to peers with the same or higher academic rank. What the external reviewer writes and opines impacts the promotion and/or tenure decision. When presented with this opportunity, a faculty member needs to respond to the request, familiarize themselves with the candidate and their promotion and/or tenure criteria, conduct a critical read of the dossier, and write an evaluative letter. This commentary serves as a call for faculty members at the rank of associate and full professor to engage as a reviewer when called upon, provides advice about how to approach an external review and write the letter, and discusses how schools and professional organizations can participate in this process.

A Call to Action for the Professional Development of Mid-Career Faculty

Despite taking on heavier teaching and service loads, an expanding research program, and serving as mentors to junior faculty, mid-career faculty often feel unsupported. Providing a solid foundation through resource allocation and sharing between and within institutions can facilitate establishment or improvement of faculty development initiatives, workload equity, transparent policies, routine performance evaluation, a process for faculty recognition, and a system of mentoring to create an environment where this essential group of faculty can continue to grow. The following discussion, which includes suggested methods to achieve these goals with a focus on mid-career faculty, serves as a call to action for pharmacy school administrators to assess the state of mid-career faculty at their institution, and if indicated, implement systems that promote success among this group.

Viewing research assessment, the academic reward system, and academic publishing through the power/knowledge lens of Foucault

The academic research assessment system, the academic reward system, and the academic publishing system are interrelated mechanisms that facilitate the scholarly production of knowledge. This article considers these systems using a Foucauldian lens to examine the power/knowledge relationships found within and through these systems. A brief description of the various systems is introduced followed by examples of instances where Foucault's power, knowledge, discourse, and power/knowledge concepts are useful to provide a broader understanding of the norms and rules associated with each system, how these systems form a network of power relationships that reinforce and shape one another.

Analysis of Teaching-Related Criteria Within Promotion and Tenure Documents from US Pharmacy Schools

OBJECTIVE

To describe teaching-related criteria within promotion and tenure (PT) guidance documents from US-based colleges/schools of pharmacy.

METHODS

PT guidance documents were retrieved from college/school websites or via electronic mail. Institutional characteristics were compiled using available online data. Using qualitative content analysis, a systematic review of PT guidance documents was conducted to identify how teaching and teaching excellence were considered in decision of promotion and/or tenure at each institution.

RESULTS

PT guidance documents were analyzed from 121 (85%) colleges/schools of pharmacy. Of these, 40% included a requirement that faculty must achieve excellence in teaching for promotion and/or tenure, though excellence was infrequently defined (14% of colleges/schools). Criteria specific to didactic teaching were most frequently included (94% of institutions). Criteria specific to experiential (50%), graduate student (48%), postgraduate (41%), and interprofessional (13%) teaching were less frequently included. Institutions frequently required student (58%) and peer (50%) evaluations of teaching to be considered in PT decisions. Most institutions acknowledged many teaching accomplishments as examples indicating teaching success rather than strictly requiring specific criteria to be fulfilled.

CONCLUSION

Teaching-related criteria within PT criteria of colleges/schools of pharmacy often lack clear guidance regarding quantitative or qualitative requirements for advancement. This lack of clearly specified requirements may result in faculty members' inability to self-assess for readiness for promotion and inconsistent application of criteria in PT decisions by review committees and administrators.

Interrogating Our Views on the Impact of Education-Related Scholarship

From junior faculty members to seasoned full professors, pharmacy educators have likely all felt pressure to focus on peer-reviewed publication. Although publication is an important part of an academician's work, have we missed something critical by not focusing greater attention on a more inclusive conceptualization of education-related scholarship's impact? How can we describe the full impact of our education-related scholarship beyond traditional metrics (ie, publications, presentations, and grant funding) if the issue is not critically examined? With the growing expectations for scholarly teaching and interest in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in academic pharmacy in both the United States and Canada, this commentary examines and questions the current, often narrow, views on pharmacy educators' scholarly impact. In addition, it provides a new definition of education-related impact to encourage a more expansive view.

Pragmatic Model and Faculty Toolkit for PharmD Student Engagement in Social and Administrative Pharmacy Research

OBJECTIVE

We aim to describe the development of a pharmacy student workgroup as an experiential education model to provide social and administrative pharmacy research opportunities and provide a toolkit for faculty seeking to increase student research engagement via this model.

METHODS

Three pharmacy faculty with diverse training backgrounds but a common interest in opioid medications established a workgroup named the Opioid Research Workgroup. The workgroup consisted of first-year pharmacy students, research interns, and advanced graduate trainees. A hierarchical leadership model of supervision was implemented, whereby students reported progress on research tasks directly to an advanced graduate trainee leading a project team. To understand students' perspectives on the research experience and educational outcomes, students were asked to complete an anonymous voluntary survey after a year of participation.

RESULTS

Since its establishment, the workgroup has published multiple conference abstracts, manuscripts, and grants. Students' overall satisfaction with the Workgroup on a scale of 1-5, 5 being very high, was 4.69. The successful scalability and longevity of this model are dependent on administrative support that protects faculty resources. The toolkit provided offers resources for those interested in adapting this model.

CONCLUSION

Our experience with the pragmatic model of pharmacy student engagement in research proved successful in terms of research output and student training experience. Although the model can be applied across a variety of health science clinical and research topics, and faculty can leverage this approach to increase productivity in research output, faculty must ensure that resources are available to support this effort.

Family Supportive Supervisor Behaviors Moderate Associations between Work Stress and Exhaustion: Testing the Job Demands-Resources Model in Academic Staff at an Austrian Medical University

The time-intensive work of publishing in scientific journals is an important indicator of job performance that is given much weight during promotion procedures for academic positions. The current study applied the job demands–resources model and analyzed whether family supportive supervisor behaviors (FSSB) moderated associations between work stress and feelings of exhaustion as a job resource and whether feelings of exhaustion ultimately mediated the link between work stress and academic employees’ publication activity. The current online cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted in 133 academic employees (65.4% women, 34.6% men; M_age = 41.9, SD = 10.1) at an Austrian medical university and assessed employees’ numbers of publications, H-index, work stress, feelings of exhaustion, FSSB, and work–family services used. Manifest path models revealed that FSSB moderated the link between experiencing high levels of work stress and strong feelings of exhaustion, especially in employees who had at least one child below the age of 18. Part-time employment was most strongly linked with lower numbers of publications and lower H-index levels. The finding that FSSB acted as a job resource mostly for employees with at least one child below 18 underlines the fact that FSSB is different from other forms of supervisor support. The current study supports recommendations to increase the amount of work–family services and to change organizational norms to be supportive of the successful management of family and work obligations.

The impact of failure on faculty development

INTRODUCTION

Failure is an inevitable outcome in life. Even though this is a commonly accepted fact, the environment in academic pharmacy has stigmatized failure. This stigmatization potentially stunts faculty development if inappropriate coping strategies evolve and skills such as creativity and problem solving do not flourish.

COMMENTARY

There is an opportunity for pharmacy academia, especially faculty, to assume a new lens when examining failure. The authors will examine the impact of failure on active learning and scholarship.

IMPLICATION

Despite the many challenges and apprehensions that surround the concept of failure, it is important that academia reframes failure. This new perspective can positively view failure as a progressive mechanism by creating novel solutions to challenges in academia and demonstrating to pharmacy students that failure is something to embrace as a learning tool.

How faculty define quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals

Despite the calls for change, there is significant consensus that when it comes to evaluating publications, review, promotion, and tenure processes should aim to reward research that is of high "quality," is published in "prestigious" journals, and has an "impact." Nevertheless, such terms are highly subjective and present challenges to ascertain precisely what such research looks like. Accordingly, this article responds to the question: how do faculty from universities in the United States and Canada define the terms quality, prestige, and impact of academic journals? We address this question by surveying 338 faculty members from 55 different institutions in the U.S. and Canada. While relying on self-reported definitions that are not linked to their behavior, this study’s findings highlight that faculty often describe these distinct terms in overlapping ways. Additionally, results show that marked variance in definitions across faculty does not correspond to demographic characteristics. This study’s results highlight the subjectivity of common research terms and the importance of implementing evaluation regimes that do not rely on ill-defined concepts and may be context specific.