View
213
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
�������� ����� ��
Nursing Doctoral Faculty Perceptions of Factors that Affect Their ContinuedScholarship Faculty Perceptions of Factors that Affect Their ContinuedScholarship
Suzanne C. Smeltzer, Nancy C. Sharts-Hopko, Mary Ann Cantrell, Mary AnnHeverly, Nancy Wise, Amanda Jenkinson, Serah Nthenge
PII: S8755-7223(14)00066-0DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2014.03.008Reference: YJPNU 826
To appear in: Journal of Professional Nursing
Received date: 14 July 2013
Please cite this article as: Smeltzer, S.C., Sharts-Hopko, N.C., Cantrell, M.A., Hev-erly, M.A., Wise, N., Jenkinson, A. & Nthenge, S., Nursing Doctoral Faculty Percep-tions of Factors that Affect Their Continued Scholarship Faculty Perceptions of Factorsthat Affect Their Continued Scholarship, Journal of Professional Nursing (2014), doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2014.03.008
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proofbefore it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production processerrors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers thatapply to the journal pertain.
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 1
Nursing Doctoral Faculty Perceptions of Factors that Affect Their Continued Scholarship
Faculty Perceptions of Factors that Affect Their Continued Scholarship
Suzanne C. Smeltzer, EdD, RN, FAAN
Professor & Director, Nursing Research
Villanova University College of Nursing
Nancy C. Sharts-Hopko, PhD, RN, FAAN
Professor & Director, PhD Program
Villanova University College of Nursing
Mary Ann Cantrell, PhD, RN, CNE
Professor
Villanova University College of Nursing
Mary Ann Heverly, PhD
Adjunct Associate Professor
Villanova University College of Nursing
Nancy Wise, MSN, RN
Research Assistant
Villanova University College of Nursing
Amanda Jenkinson, MSN, RN, OCN
Research Assistant
Villanova University College of Nursing
Serah Nthenge, MSN, RN
Research Assistant
Villanova University College of Nursing
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 2
Corresponding Author: Suzanne C. Smeltzer, EdD, RN, FAAN
800 Lancaster Avenue
Villanova PA 19085
Tel. 610-519-6828
suzanne.smeltzer@villanova.edu
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 4
Abstract
This focus group study was undertaken as part of a larger investigation of how the
demand for increased production of nurses with doctorates affects doctoral faculty’s scholarly
productivity. This study provided a basis for development of the national survey questionnaire.
Two focus groups that included 29 faculty teaching in PhD and/or DNP programs took place at
one of two national conferences. The focus group interviews were transcribed and content
analyzed for the identification of themes; all members of the research team reached consensus.
The three major themes were: the demands of teaching, the importance of institutional structure
and climate, and the sustainability of one’s self, the institution, and the discipline. Participants
identified strategies for enhancing scholarly productivity. Findings are limited by the small
sample size and the voluntary participation of conference attendees. The strength of emotion
that participants revealed underscores the need for nursing leaders to address the increasing
academic expectations for faculty. If the profession does not address the needs of its current and
future faculty, goals explicated by the Institute of Medicine in The Future of Nursing cannot be
achieved and the health of the nation will suffer.
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 5
Nursing Doctoral Faculty Perceptions of Factors that Affect Their Continued Scholarship
An anticipated increase in population needs for health care as the baby boomer
generation ages will coincide with the implementation of federal policies and laws intended to
transform the health care system to one that is increasingly attentive to disease prevention.
These events ensure that the demand for registered nurses in the United States will continue into
the 2020s. In order to provide delivery of safe and competent nursing care in an increasingly
complex and technologically mediated health care system, the 2010 Institute of Medicine (IOM)
report, The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health, has called for changes in the
labor force by 2020 including preparation of 80 percent of nurses at the bachelor’s (BSN) degree
level, schools’ increased production of nurses prepared for advanced clinical practice roles, and
for doubling the population of nurses with doctorates, many of whom are needed to teach future
generations of nurses and to conduct research (National Research Council, 2005).
Implementation of the latter recommendation has led to an increase in the number of schools of
nursing offering doctoral degrees, including both research doctorates, typically Doctor of
Philosophy (PhDs), as well as Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNPs) degrees. Implementation of all
three recommendations places heightened demands on nursing faculty to be more productive in
teaching nursing students at all levels as they simultaneously carry out the discipline’s scientific
mission.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (2007), the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics (2008), and a number of experts in the area of workforce issues (Buerhaus,
Staiger & Auerbach, 2009) have projected a nationwide shortage of almost 1 million nurses by
2020. The need for increased numbers of BSN nurses and those with graduate degrees will
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 6
require concerted efforts to prepare more nursing faculty who are qualified for faculty positions
in colleges and universities. The challenge to achieve these goals in the face of a growing
shortage of nursing faculty is the need for them to be tackled simultaneously. To be eligible for
faculty employment, promotion and tenure in today’s academic environment, these faculty need
to be prepared at the doctoral level (Hinshaw, 2001). Simultaneously, national organizations and
agencies and nurse leaders have identified the urgent need for preparation of nurse scientists with
doctorates to conduct research that increases the scientific base of nursing practice (Hinshaw;
IOM, 2010).
The shortage of nursing faculty is very likely to result in heavier teaching loads for
nursing faculty members and less time for them to devote to research and scholarship (Brady,
2010; Hinshaw, 2010). As part of a larger project in which faculty who teach in doctoral
programs in nursing were surveyed to study how the demand for increased production of nurses
with doctorates affects their scholarly productivity, a focus group study was conducted to
identify the domains that need to be examined to address the question.
Background
The IOM’s 2010 report pointed out that the development of DNP programs is too recent
to be able to discern how their emergence will affect the nursing shortage or the nursing faculty
shortage. Described by the IOM as a promising opportunity, the introduction of the DNP into
practice and the impact of the terminal evidence-based practice projects on the quality of patient
care and the scientific base of nursing practice have also yet to be thoroughly evaluated. What is
clear, however, is that DNP students will likely require instruction and mentoring as do students
in research-focused doctoral programs.
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 7
Although there have been repeated calls in the past and recently for research training for
nurses and nurse scientists to be conducted within schools of nursing situated in research-
intensive universities with cadres of interdisciplinary researchers, the reality is that these
programs 1) are relatively few in number, 2) admit and graduate a small number of students each
year, and 3) focus heavily on the conduct of research with relatively little time devoted to other
roles and expectations of nursing faculty (AACN, 2005; National Research Council, 2005).
Because a relatively small proportion of schools are research-intensive, graduates of their
doctoral programs are likely to employed by schools of nursing that are not research intensive,
and are likely to find themselves in academic positions that have very different expectations for
them than the schools in which they were prepared (Lewallen & Kohlenberg, 2011). Further, the
research and scholarship productivity of such faculty members may suffer because of their
inability to balance the expectations related to teaching, research and service to the university or
college, profession, and community.
Little research exists regarding factors associated with scholarly productivity among
nursing faculty, and none has been found that addresses faculty research productivity in
association with doctoral teaching responsibilities. Hinshaw (2001) observed that expectations
related to scholarly productivity persist despite increasing demands associated with teaching
responsibilities. A shrinking cadré of senior faculty who are often more likely to engage in
doctoral education will be expected to provide leadership and mentorship to growing numbers of
junior faculty. Factors that have been observed to enhance the scholarly productivity of nursing
faculty include organizational climate, perceived support, job satisfaction, mentorship and
organizational efforts to facilitate research (Cooke & Green, 2000; Greenwood & Gray, 1998;
Gutierrez, Candela, & Carver, 2012; Li Gui et al., 2008; Roberts, 1997; Roberts & Turnbull,
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 8
2005; Turnbull & Roberts, 2005). McNeal (2000) observed that research productivity among
African American nursing faculty is greater at research-oriented doctoral degree granting
institutions, reflecting the likelihood that those schools have more resources with which to
support faculty research. In 1995 Bailey observed that faculty who engaged in practice were
more satisfied with their academic role and more likely to engage in research than those who did
not, however the generalizability of her findings to the present day may be limited due to marked
change in nearly 20 years in the economics of higher education and role expectations that faculty
experience.
The literature suggests that a strong determinant of overall success in the nurse faculty
role is a positive work environment in which administrative support is evident and ongoing
(Candela, Gutierrez, & Keating, 2012; Gormley & Kennerly, 2010; Rudy, 2001). Rudy discussed
faculty and leadership factors that contribute to a positive academic work environment. Faculty
factors included: 1) a faculty structure that values those faculty who practice as well as those
who conduct research; 2) communication by the administration with faculty and staff in multiple
ways, which involves providing information when individuals are ready to hear and act on it; 3)
the celebration and recognition of faculty accomplishments; 4) administrative support for faculty
decisions ranging from curriculum revisions to student grades; and 5) the leadership role of the
dean.
Studies that examined factors associated with research productivity among health
professions faculty outside of nursing revealed a gender gap, with women, and particularly
mothers, tending to be less productive in research (Carr, Friedman, Moskowitz, Kazis & Weed,
1992; Carr et al., 1998; Deshpande & Deshpande, 2011; Kaufman & Chevan, 2011; Kaplan et
al., 1996; Pagel & Hudetz, 2011; Palepu et al., 1998; Schroen, Brownstein & Sheldon, 2004).
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 9
This gap in productivity was typically associated with gender differences in salary and rank.
Faculty who experienced formal or informal mentorship were more likely to be productive in
research, and conversely, faculty with inadequate research training lacked the confidence and
skill to succeed (Burkhardt, Kowalenko & Meurer, 2011; Lee, El-Ibiary & Hudmon, 2010; Reid
et al., 2012). In contrast with Bailey’s (1995) observation, described above, clinical practice
demands were identified as a barrier to the conduct of research (Brocato & Mavis, 2005;
Crawford & Seehusen, 2011). Hegmann and Axelson (2012) reported that it is difficult to
motivate physician’s assistant program faculty to engage in scholarship because they do not
know the system of academia, and they often enter their positions with little experience in
research and writing. Schroen and associates (2012) observed that cash incentives and intra-
institutional recognition stimulated research productivity among clinical surgery faculty and
were popular strategies. Two studies (Dankoski, Palmer, Nelson Laird, Ribera & Bogdewic,
2011; Schindler et al., 2006) demonstrated a high degree of stress and low degree of career
satisfaction among academic health science center faculty, associated with financial insecurity,
job strain, and departmental climate and leadership. Benavides et al. (2010) found no relationship
between student/faculty ratio and faculty productivity, but they did observe that public university
faculty are more productive than private university faculty, reflecting different academic
infrastructures; and that increased use of non-tenure track faculty increased the scholarly output
of tenure track and tenured faculty.
No research was found that specifically addressed the effect of the national mandate to
increase production of nurses with doctorates on the scholarly productivity of the doctoral
faculty.
Methods
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 10
After the Institutional Review Board of the investigators’ university approved this study,
two focus groups were conducted to elicit responses from PhD and DNP faculty members about
topics, questions and items relevant for inclusion in an on-line survey to be administered to
faculty about the effect of teaching and mentoring doctoral students on faculty members’
research and scholarship productivity. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study
and the nature of their participation, and they were asked to provide written consent. To obtain
information needed to develop the on-line survey, faculty members in the focus groups were
informed that they would be asked about the following: their own experiences related to their
involvement in doctoral education and its effect on their research and scholarship, their
perceptions about barriers and benefits of involvement in doctoral education related to their
research and scholarship, characteristics of faculty members associated with success in
maintaining research, work life balance of faculty and strategies they used to achieve work life
balance (Krueger & Casey, 2009).
Both focus groups were conducted at national nursing conferences in the fall of 2012.
Notices about the focus groups were posted on the conference websites of both meetings with a
request to e-mail the first author of their interest in participating. Additionally, flyers were
developed and posted on-site at both meetings. The first author had the opportunity at one of the
conferences to announce that a focus group would be conducted later in the day on the topics
identified above.
To be eligible for the study, participants were required to be full-time faculty members
with doctorates who work closely with either PhD or DNP students through teaching courses in a
doctoral program, serving on doctoral students’ dissertation or capstone projects, or serving as
mentors for doctoral students. Further, faculty members were required to have worked with PhD
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 11
or DNP students for at least 3 years. A stipend of $50 was provided for faculty who participated
in the focus groups.
Sample. Although a total of 29 people participated in the focus groups, demographic
data were obtained from only 24 of the focus group participants, including 11 (45.8%) who
attended the focus group at the Council for the Advancement of Nursing Science (CANS)
conference and 13 (54.2%) who participated at the Fifth National DNP Conference sponsored by
Doctors of Nursing Practice Professional Development, Inc. Nineteen (95%) participants
reported that they are currently in full-time faculty positions. Although full-time employment in
a faculty position was a criterion for inclusion in the study, several participants failed to indicate
their faculty status. Most participants (43.5%) were age 51-60, followed by over 60 (30.4%),
and then 41-50 (26.1%). The most common doctoral degree earned by participants was the PhD
(11, 47.8%) followed by DNP (10, 43.5%), Doctor of Education (EdD) (2, 8.7%) and Doctor of
Nursing Science (DNS) (1, 4.3%). Most participants teach in a DNP program (18, 75%) while
11 (45.8%) teach in a PhD program and some teach in both programs. The PhD program faculty
had an average of nine years’ more teaching experience than the DNP faculty (t = 4.151, DF 26,
p = .0003).
Data Analysis. The two focus groups were audiotaped and interviews were transcribed
verbatim. Two of the research team members validated the accuracy of the transcripts by
reviewing the audiotapes while reading the transcripts as well as notes taken during the focus
groups. The first three authors used content analysis independently to identify themes in each
focus group and used the themes identified to reanalyze the two focus group transcripts. During
several research team meetings, all members of the research team reached consensus on these
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 12
major themes: the demands of teaching, the importance of institutional structure and climate,
and the sustainability of self, institutional, and discipline sustainability.
Results
The three major themes that emerged from the content analysis of the focus groups had
several components: 1) the demands of teaching theme includes the quantity and nature of
“invisible” work, and faster rhythms of academic life in recent years; 2) the importance of
institutional structure and climate theme addresses the mission of the school, expectations
related to boundary-setting, and roles of junior versus senior faculty; and 3) the self, institutional,
and disciplinary sustainability theme includes the cost/benefit ratio to faculty in teaching doctoral
students, issues related to work life balance, characteristics of successful and unsuccessful
faculty, strategies related to success, and issues related to scholarship and stewardship of the
discipline. These themes were not mutually exclusive. The following discussion describes these
themes and their subcomponents and descriptive data are provided that explicate these findings.
Demands of teaching. The theme, demands of teaching, reflects study participants’
experiences with the increasing workload of teaching online courses due to the high enrollment
in these courses, the use of learner-centered teaching strategies such as unfolding case studies,
teaching across program levels (BSN, MS, DNP, and/or PhD), preparation to teach new courses
in new programs, and the amount of guidance students require with writing assignments. This
work was viewed as invisible work by study participants because it was not formalized or
recognized according to the amount of time credited for their assigned teaching responsibilities.
Aspects of invisible workload appear to be multifactorial and interactive. For example, the
digital access that large numbers of students in various programs have to faculty and the
accompanying expectation that faculty respond to emails sent to them quickly places a
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 13
tremendous demand on faculty that is not captured in their documented workload. Faculty appear
to sense that they work at a much faster pace with no “downtime”. A quote from one study
participant explicates this phenomenon:
―I had a course this summer with 200 undergraduate students. There were other faculty
assigned but I was the course manager with two new faculty from the hospital also
teaching in the course. One faculty has been around for a while but didn‘t have the
capability---I was supposed to be in a classroom but we had an online resource for them-
they [students] expected both… in addition, I had a student who just defended her
dissertation, one[student] in proposal development; I was also running a pre-doc
program. I mean I ran the entire summer---I had no break, no time off. And you feel
guilty on weekends when you‘re not working, which is ridiculous to feel guilty about not
working.‖
The demands of teaching have implications for these study participants’ research and scholarship
productivity. As one study participant described:
―…over the last 3 years, the demands of teaching across all levels, not just PhD have
increased; I find this to be problematic in terms of writing grants- because of the
decreased funding that requires you to write a number of grants to score. Also, many of
the activities with our PhD students are not reflected in our workload.‖
For some participants the workload for doctoral faculty associated with their teaching
undergraduate students was seen as being linked to the issue of invisible work:.
―The work that I was doing with the undergraduate (UG) students-that was contact hours
and widely recognized as part of my workload. But the PhD work is so invisible. The
multiple times that you are reading dissertation proposals… I am feeling guilty now that I
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 14
have two manuscripts from two recent grads that I haven‘t had a chance to touch-trying
to keep up with that---trying to get students‘ work back in two weeks has been impossible.
I think the other thing that has happened for us as faculty---I‘ve been teaching online for
a long, long time—is that online teaching seems to give the impression that we are
available 24/7. And I‘ve noticed since I‘ve been at this meeting (and I don‘t have my iPad
with me so I‘m feeling a little nervous) that many of us at this meeting are all checking
our courses. PhD students tend to understand that I am at a meeting, but yet the other
students are very demanding and don‘t understand that. So that‘s one of the ‗bad‘ things
about teaching across programs. PhD students understand ‗she‘s at a meeting-she‘s
doing some policy work‘---the UG students don‘t understand that. So that‘s the problem.
I‘ve been teaching across programs. I love both levels of students but I think the big thing
we struggle with is the ‗invisible workload‘ that has taken me away from my research
and scholarship‖
Institutional structure and climate. The second theme that emerged from the data
analysis was the importance of institutional structure and climate, which includes the
expectations among faculty related to the mission of the school, and role differences between
PhD and DNP faculty. Despite the overall mission and structure of the university and SON,
study participants who held a PhD, as compared to those who had earned a DNP degree, voiced a
more positive experience relative to the institutional structure and climate supporting their
research and scholarship. The following passage was shared by a focus group participant with a
PhD:
“And I also think it‘s the structure of the university...or it‘s not just the mission; it‘s more
the philosophy. That‘s why I keep coming back to the individuals involved. And the size
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 15
of the university does make a difference. If you come from a university that has a
philosophy that you have several research teams and the doctoral students join their
team, that facilitates your own research or trajectory. If you‘re from a smaller university
where you have several students doing all different things you‘re much more scattered.
So, I think it‘s more than just mission. It‘s something within that other structure and how
that department actually decides what doctoral students you admit and how many. All of
those things make a huge difference.‖
While study participants with PhDs experienced challenges related to competing
demands associated with work that supports the institutional mission and their research and
scholarship productivity, their challenges do not seem to be as daunting to those faced by the
participants with DNPs. Faculty with DNPs are often required to maintain their certification
related to clinical practice, a requirement that necessitates that substantial time be spent in
clinical practice. Historically this requirement has not been recognized in the role of faculty with
doctorates across higher education institutions. Most faculty with DNPs have a clinical practice
that they value and that is integral to their role in educating future DNPs. Yet, according to the
study participants with DNPs, clinical practice is not viewed as work that supports the
institutional mission, nor research and scholarship, nor service to the university and/or school of
nursing. This is source of concern and frustration for those study participants in this role as
evidenced by the following passages:
―One thing, at my university, is they really don‘t recognize clinical practice as
scholarship…[and] I have contributed to publications and peer-reviewed journals, I‘ve
kept it up… I don‘t know how much longer I can keep going at the pace, you see.‖
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 16
―I think those of us who are in clinical practice and have been teaching perhaps at the
clinical level and now we‘ve gone on and gotten the DNP, our focus is on the student and
on the patient, and that‘s not valued in the university. The bottom line is, how many
publications have you gotten out, how much money have you brought into the university
for promotion. Being an excellent teacher, being an excellent clinician doesn‘t count for
…, that to me is where the real problem is, is that the university does not value the kinds
of strengths that most of us [DNP-prepared faculty] bring to the table.‖
Role differences between junior (untenured or tenure track) and senior faculty (tenured)
are an important element operating within the theme of institutional structure and climate and its
implications for faculty research and scholarship productivity. Workload disparities between
tenure track versus non-tenure track exist, whether or not faculty are eligible for tenure. The
academic system does not account for the demands of practice, as the system is geared toward
traditional academics, whether or not there is a union, financial constraints on the institution, the
mission of the institution, infrastructural supports including the technology infrastructure, the
practice orientation (or lack thereof) of the dean and chair, and/or college support for practice.
These disparities are experienced by faculty with PhDs who maintain a clinical practice but are
more significant for faculty with DNPs, for whom part of their scholarship involves clinical
practice.
―The reality is that the people on the tenure track have half, or less of the credit load to
teach than we have, and NO clinical practice.‖
―This is just a system that is set up in every way to help the research scholar which is
very appropriate, but on the other hand, it shouldn‘t be so disproportionate to the person
who is the practice scholar. A maximum teaching load according to the AAUP for our
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 17
chapter is 21 credits per academic year, so because I have a 20% clinical appointment, if
you can do the arithmetic-it comes out to 16 credits. So I teach 16 credits a year. Most of
that is in the DNP program-some of it is in the neonatal program and I have a 20%…and
I have nothing for scholarship, nothing for service, and there‘s a beautiful grid where the
people who are tenured, or tenure track, have a maximum, and this is in writing, of 40%,
excuse me, 40% teaching, 50% scholarship, 10% service and 0% clinical practice. I
wish I was making this up, but I‘m not.‖
Sustainability. The third and final theme that emerged from the data was sustainability
of self, the institution and the discipline. Within this theme were subcategories focused on the
costs and benefits to faculty of teaching doctoral students, issues related to work life balance,
factors identified in association with faculty success, particularly in the area of scholarship,
institutional needs, and stewardship of the discipline.
Participants in both groups addressed the time commitment that their doctoral faculty role
demands. Reports of working weekends and beyond the months of the academic contract were
common, with concomitant encroachment on personal and family time. Participants identified
strategies that help them sustain themselves, including boundary setting; attending to their
spiritual practice; scheduling family time; maintaining a sense of humor; having a sense of
passion for their work; building congruence among one’s courses, doctoral students’ research,
practice area, and research; collaboration; learning to speak the language of business; and feeling
energized by students.
Effective boundary setting relative to reflecting the mission of the institution and
conforming with the institutional and SON structure and climate was identified as an active
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 18
strategy to maintain scholarly productivity. Participants reported the following related to
boundaries:
―Learning how to set boundaries is critically important and I see in myself a maturity over
the years…that I can be much more strategic and see the potential in students much more
quickly and make a plan for who I will focus on, who‘s likely to be successful and who is
really willing to put in the effort.‖
Another participant reported the effectiveness of boundary-setting:
―Having good boundaries-knowing what your priorities are, and not being afraid of being
rejected.‖
Additional comments related to sustainability of self include:
―I was the most successful when my research and my teaching and my practice were all the
same….Then if you add your own clinical practice into it, lots of pieces…fit together.‖
―My philosophy is, don‘t go to any meeting without solutions. I like to do the arithmetic as
well and say, ‗Let‘s make it clear here what we are talking about---what would it cost you
to release me from this so I can be successful with this research grant?‘‖
―I came to [my institution] five years ago, there was no interdisciplinary activity…we
created faculty learning communities where people across campus who have different ideas
of things…get together…and every semester we have a project, and how we have divided it
up, we have gotten 15 or 16 articles…each semester, one of us takes the lead and when we
take the lead, we are the first authorship and we rotate.‖
―If you‘re not willing to work 60+ hours a week, then there is no hope….I made the
decision to take that path and I love it. That‘s what floats my boat….‖
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 19
Issues that relate to institutional sustainability include financial constraints and the
sufficiency of resources; institutional understanding of differentiated faculty roles and the need
for careful consideration of expectations and workloads in relation to them; the danger of
overloading faculty to the extent that they soon leave the academic institution; a balance between
profitability and feasibility of various programs in terms of enrollment; the demands of on-line
teaching and the need for technology support; and matching students with faculty based on their
areas of expertise. It was particularly striking that several DNP faculty reported heavy teaching
loads along with, in some instances, expectations of scholarship required for tenure equivalent to
those of PhD faculty, along with their practice obligations. One participant reported:
“For the past 3 years I have taught between 56 and 59 credit hours per year…while I had
secured an over 1 million dollar grant for the university, contributed as the primary or
secondary author for several other grants, maintained publications over the years…I think
there comes a point in time where we have to say, enough is enough…the conversation as
to whether or not DNP faculty can, or cannot become tenured faculty, did not take place or
become rectified in a timely manner. So, I think we‘re still struggling with that right now.‖
Another participant reported:
“The kicker is the DNP project and advising the DNP project, so we‘re looking at a
situation where there are two of us on faculty in the CRNA program- I‘m the program
director, and you know on paper I get 10% to do scholarship which is kind of a joke. 20%
clinical practice…and then we‘ve got these DNP projects, and last year I completed 7
projects-and by the time they were finished, I couldn‘t even tell you whose name was
attached to which project…the university said, well, if you advise 6 projects, we‘ll give you
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 20
10% workload credit…But who‘s going to teach the nurse anesthesia stuff---you know---
it‘s a joke.‖
Another participant in the PhD focus group reported:
While the mission of the university – we are a very research intensive university – but
within our unit…the expectation is increase the number of students, teach more…we
went from 700 students to over 2000 students. The demands in terms of the sheer
numbers---that‘s in every program load…I am teaching a course with 240 master‘s
students online…I am the course manager. You know while I agree with what the mission
of the university may dictate, it‘s also the unit and the administration, and what the
expectations of the larger administration are for this unit.‖
Sustainability of the discipline emerged in at least two ways. One observation was that it
is increasingly difficult to attract full-time doctoral students who can immerse as research
assistants because of economic conditions and the fact that master’s prepared nurses can earn
significant salaries while studying part-time. This phenomenon bodes ill for building nursing’s
research capacity and science. A second set of observation related to faculty members'
contributions of time and expertise to the profession:
―I have been in leadership positions within our region…Southern Nursing Research
Society…it is becoming more and more difficult to engage senior researchers in those types
of experiences because they no longer have the time. That has to do with critiquing grants,
asking to run for positions, manuscript reviews…I have had an editor tell me she has to ask
10-12 people to get 3. So I think it‘s not only within our institutions but how we are going
to impact the discipline.‖
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 21
―Service and professional organizations is a big component and you do want to, those
things are enjoyable. They are some of the benefits we get from the work, and yet you
hardly have time, so you have to give up the fun part.‖
Discussion
Findings of this study were not surprising in light of the literature on research productivity
across health professions faculty, and they provided a fuller understanding of factors that
facilitate or impede scholarship among doctoral faculty in nursing. Consistent with earlier studies
(Cooke & Green, 2000; Greenwood & Gray, 1998; Gutierrez et al., 2012; Li Gui et al., 2008;
Roberts, 1997; Roberts & Turnbull, 2005; Turnbull & Roberts, 2005), faculty in this study
associated their scholarly productivity with the overall climate of their institution as well as
perceived support, job satisfaction, mentorship, and organizational efforts to facilitate their
research. In contrast to Bailey’s (1995) observation that clinical practice facilitated scholarly
productivity, participants in this study found it to be a barrier; this finding was consistent with
results of studies of health professions faculty outside of nursing (Brocato & Mavis, 2005;
Crawford & Seehusen, 2011). Most of the participants in these focus groups were women, and
while work-life balance was an issue that they discussed, there was no opportunity in this study
to assess the extent to which their gender influenced their experience.
The disparity that participants reported related to expectations of PhD versus DNP faculty
is a particular concern that the discipline as a whole, as well as individual institutions, need to
address if the nursing profession is to succeed in achieving the goal of doubling the production of
nurses with doctorates by 2020.
Strategies for promoting faculty scholarship in particular and success as a whole were
elucidated by study participants. Most importantly, doctoral faculty need to clearly understand
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 22
the mission of the institution at which they teach, as well as the specific expectations associated
with their role and their contract. A non-administrative mentor within the nursing unit or even
outside the discipline can help new faculty members grasp the differences between academic and
practice cultures. DNP faculty who are advanced practice nurses need to negotiate sufficient time
to fulfill practice requirements related to certification. Promotion criteria for both DNP and PhD
faculty should be differentiated to reflect expectations, and the issue of whether or not a given
institution’s criteria for tenure can appropriately be applied to DNP faculty must be addressed. If
DNP faculty are expected to engage in scholarship, the parameters of acceptability need to be
explicated. The enterprise of DNP education is focused on evidence-based practice, rather than
the theory development and knowledge building that is an expectation of PhD education (Sharts-
Hopko, 2013).
Administrators may be tempted or even mandated to enhance revenue streams by
aggressively expanding DNP programs, particularly post-master’s on-line offerings. Data
revealed that terminal DNP projects may require greater intensity of effort by faculty because of
the expectation that they be completed in a far shorter period of time than a PhD dissertation.
Administrators cannot afford to risk either poor quality of projects or the burnout of DNP faculty
by requiring that faculty mentor large numbers of students. Administrators cannot assume that
new faculty in PhD or DNP programs are skilled at directing student scholarship. Mentorship of
faculty in this endeavor is essential for the success of educational programs of quality.
Faculty can implement strategies individually that can serve to promote their scholarly
productivity. People need to identify their passions, goals, and priorities related to their work,
and they need to apply that insight to their choice of employment. In the interest of achieving
goals related to one’s priorities, other activities need to be deferred. In an academic role in
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 23
which scholarship is an expectation, collaboration in research and writing was identified by
several participants as an extremely valuable approach, and it can be congruent with the current
emphasis on interprofessional education to promote safe health care of high quality (IOM, 2013).
The more faculty members are able to maintain congruence among their teaching, their students’
work, their practice and their own scholarship, the more each activity will nourish the others; in
other words, they can gain the benefit of efficiency. A number of participants emphasized the
importance of establishing boundaries, and that can relate to identifying protected periods of
time, limiting accessibility to students, establishing their turn-around time for evaluation of
student work, and limiting participation in service activities within the nursing unit, the
institution, and the profession. Other participants emphasized the value of honing time-
management skills and learning to multitask. Maintaining clear and open communications about
work expectations and current obligations with peers and administrators was deemed important.
There are times when work increases in intensity, as when a grant deadline nears. Faculty
members need to communicate about this with administrators and peers, and plan accordingly to
modify their work flow. In general, though, faculty members need to plan time for recreational
pursuits. Participants indicated that personal spiritual practices and a sense of humor are assets.
While these are valuable insights about personal strategies, participants in both groups,
including seasoned faculty with administrative experience, acknowledged the increase in
institutions’ expectations for productivity as they react to adverse economic circumstances such
as reductions in federal and state funding during the recent recession. Nursing units must
advocate within their institutions for open discussion of what is reasonable. At the same time
they need to confront the disparity that arises when faculty may choose to markedly reduce their
productivity after tenure. Moreover, the discipline of nursing needs to promote open and frank
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 24
dialogue about how multiple mandates for increased production of scholars, teachers and
practitioners with BSN or higher degrees can be fulfilled while also building our science.
Conclusions
This focus group study provided a depth of understanding of how various factors might
interact to promote or impede faculty scholarship, and is the basis for construction of a survey
that will be administered to a national sample of deans, doctoral program directors and doctoral
faculty. Findings of this study are limited by its small sample size, as well as the fact that
participants were self-selected volunteers who attended one of two professional conferences.
Further study is needed to understand how institutional and personal factors in relation to
doctoral teaching and mentoring affect faculty scholarly productivity. The strength of emotion
that participants revealed underscores the need for nursing leaders to promote open and frank
discussion of increasing academic expectations for faculty. If the profession does not address the
needs of its current and future faculty, the goals explicated by the IOM (2010) cannot be
achieved. It is the position of the Institute of Medicine that the health of the public will suffer as
a result.
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 25
References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). (2005). Degree completion
programs for registered nurses: RN to master‘s degree and RN to baccalaureate
programs. AACN fact sheet, February 2005.
Bailey, B.I. (1995). Faculty practice in an academic nursing care center model: autonomy, job
satisfaction, and productivity. Journal of Nursing Education, 34 (2), 84-85.
Benavides, S., Garcia, A.S., Caballero, J. & Wolowich, W.R. (2010). The impact of student
-faculty ratio on pharmacy faculty scholarship. American Journal of Pharmacy Education,
74(8), 138.
Brady, M. (2010). Healthy nursing academic work environments. Online Journal of Issues in
Nursing, 15(1), manuscript 6.
Brocato, J.J. & Mavis, B. (2005). The research productivity of faculty in family medicine
departments at U.S. medical schools: a national study. Academic Medicine, 80(3), 244-252.
Buerhaus, P., Staiger, D.O. & Auerbach, D.I. (2009). The future of the nursing
workforce in the United States: Data, trends and implications. Sudbury, MA: Jones &
Barlett.
Burkhardt, J., Kowalenko, T. & Meurer, W. (2011). Academic career selection in American
emergency medicine residents. Academic Emergency Medicine, 19(Suppl. 2), S48-S53.
Candela, L., Gutierrez, A. & Keating, S. (2012). A national survey examining the professional
work life of today’s nursing faculty. Nurse Education Today. Advance online publication.
doi: 10.1016.
Carr, P., Friedman, R.H., Moskowitz, M.A., Kazis, L.E. & Weed, H.G. (1992). Research,
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 26
academic rank, and compensation of women and men faculty in academic general internal
medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 7(4), 418-423.
Carr, P.L., Ash, A.S., Friedman, R.H., Scaramucci, A., Barnett, R.C., Szalacha, L., Palepu, A. et
al. (1998). Relation of family responsibilities and gender to the productivity and career
satisfaction of medical faculty. Annals of Internal Medicine, 129(7), 532-538.
Cooke, A. & Green, B. (2000). Developing the research capacity of departments of nursing and
midwifery based in higher education: a review of the literature. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 32(1), 57-65.
Crawford, P. & Seehusen, D., (2011). Scholarly activity in family medicine residency programs:
a national survey. Family Medicine, 43(5), 311-317.
Dankoski, M.E., Palmer, M.M., Nelson Laird, T.F., Ribera, A.K. & Bogdewic, S.P. (2011). An
expanded model of faculty vitality in academic medicine. Advances in Health Sciences
Education, Theory, Practice (17(5), 633-649.
Deshpande, S.S. & Deshpande, S.P. (2011). An empirical investigation of the differences
between male and female medical school physicians. Health Care Management, 30(4), 334-
341.
Gormley, D.K. & Kennerly, S. (2010). Influence of work role and perceptions of climate on
faculty organizational commitment. Journal of Professional Nursing, 26(2), 108-115.
Greenwood, J. & Gray, G. (1998). Developing a nursing research culture in the university and
health sectors in Western Sydney, Australia. Nursing Education Today, 18(8), 642-648.
Gutierrez, A.P., Candela, L.L. & Carver, L. (2012). The structural relationships between
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 27
organizational commitment, global job satisfaction, developmental experiences, work values,
organizational support, and person-organization fit among nursing faculty. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 68(7), 1601-1614.
Health Resources and Services Administration (2007). Toward a method for identifying facilities
and communities with shortages of nurses. USDHHS Bureau of Health Professions, Division
of Nursing, February 2007
Hegmann, T.E. & Axelson, R.D. (2012). Benchmarking the scholarly productivity of physician
assistant educators: an update. Journal of Physician Assistant Education, 23(2), 16-23.
Hinshaw, A. S. (2001). A continuing challenge: the shortage of educationally prepared nursing
faculty. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 6(1), Manuscript 3.
Institute of Medicine. (2010). The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing
health. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Institute of Medicine 2013 Interprofessional Education for Collaboration: Learning how to
Improve Health from Interprofessional Models Across the Continuum of Education to
Practice – Workshop Summary. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
Kaplan, S.H., Sullivan, L.M., Dukes, K.A., Phillips, C.F., Kelch, R.P. & Schaller, J.G. (1996).
Sex differences in academic advancement. Results of a national study of pediatricians. New
England Journal of Medicine, 335(17), 1282-1289.
Kaufman, R.R. & Chevan, J. (2011). The gender gap in peer-reviewed publications by physical
therapy faculty members: a productivity puzzle. Physical Therapy, 91(1), 122-131.
Krueger, R.A. & Casey, M.A. (2009). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research (4th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee, K.C., El-Ibiary, S.Y. & Hudmon, K.S. (2010). Evaluation of research training and
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 28
productivity among junior pharmacy practice faculty in the United States. Journal of
Pharmacy Practice, 23(6), 553-559.
Lewallen LP & Kohlenberg E (2011). Preparing the nurse scientist for academia and
industry. Nursing Education Perspectives, 32(1), 22-25.
Li Gui, K., Barriball, A. & White, A.E. (2008). Job satisfaction of nurse teachers: a literature
review. Part II: Effects and related factors. Nurse Education Today, 29(5), 477-467.
McNeal, G.J. (2000). Organizational culture and African American nurse faculty productivity: a
comparative study. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 7(4), 114-127.
National Research Council. (2005). Advancing the nation‘s health needs. Washington
DC: National Academies Press.
Pagel, P.S. & Hudetz, J.A. (2011). An analysis of scholarly productivity in United States
academic anaesthesiologists by citation bibliometrics. Anaesthesia, 66(10), 873-878.
Palepu, A., Friedman, R.H., Barnett, R.C., Carr, P.L., Ash, A.S., Szalacha, L. & Moskowitz,
M.A. (1998). Junior faculty members’ mentoring relationships and their professional
development in U.S. medical schools. Academic Medicine, 73(3), 318-323.
Reid, M.B., Misky, G.J., Harrison, R.A., Sharpe, B., Auerbach, A. & Glasheen, J.J. (2012).
Mentorship, productivity, and promotion among academic hospitalists. Journal of General
Internal Medicine, 27(1), 23-27.
Roberts, K. (1997). Nursing academics’ scholarly productivity: framed by the system, facilitated
by mentoring. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 14(3), 5-14.
Roberts, K. & Turnbull, B.J. (2005). A millennial benchmark of nurse-academics’ scholarly
productivity. Contemprary Nursing, 19(1-2), 52-62.
Rudy, E.B. (2001). Supportive work environments for nursing faculty. AACN Clinical Issues,
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 29
12(3), 401-410.
Schindler, B.A., Novack, D.H., Cohen, D.G., Yager, J., Wang, D., Shaheen, N.J., Guze, P. et al.
(2006). The impact of the changing health care environment on the health and well-being of
faculty at four medical schools. Academic Medicine, 81(1), 27-34.
Schroen, A.T., Brownstein, M.R. & Sheldon, G.F. (2004). Women in academic general surgery.
Academic Medicine, 79(4), 310-318.
Schroen, A.T., Thielen, M.J., Turrentine, F.E., Kron, I.L., & Slingluff, C.L. (2012). Research
incentive program for clinical surgical faculty associated with increases in research
productivity. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 144(5), 1003-1009.
Sharts-Hopko, N.C. (2013). Tackling complex problems, building evidence for practice, and
educating doctoral nursing students to manage the tension. Nursing Outlook, 61(2), 102-108.
Turnbull, B.J. & Roberts, K. (2005). Nurse-academics’ mentorship: rhetoric or reality?
Collegian, 12(2), 33-38.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Employment by industry, occupation, and percent distribution,
2008 and projected 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
ACC
EPTE
D M
ANU
SCR
IPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTNursing Doctoral Faculty Scholarship 30
Acknowledgement
Support for this work was provided to Dr. Suzanne Smeltzer and the Villanova University
College of Nursing in the form of a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s
Evaluating Innovations in Nursing Education National Program Office
Recommended