“Scholarship Reconsidered” – along with the 2009 COM P&T Guidelines

Jan ShoreyAssociate Dean for CME & Faculty Affairs

Objectives: At the conclusion of this activity, the participant will be able to:Better understand the 2009 COM Guidelines for

Faculty Appointments, Promotion and Tenure

Better understand the broad scope of scholarly contributions that is needed in contemporary academic medicine – and how these varied contributions are considered by the College P&T Committee

Better understand how to explain to the College P&T Committee the peer-review process(es) by which your scholarly contributions are assessed.

P&T Guidelines – state the criteria for academic advancementServe as a faculty development tool

For individual faculty membersFor mentorsFor department chairs and division directorsFor departmental faculty development programs

Serve as an assessment toolFor individual faculty members, mentors, dept and

div directors, departmental P&T Committees, andFor the College Promotion and Tenure Committee

P&T Committee’s job:Study evidence presented in a candidate’s

P&T Packet Compare the evidence to the P&T criteriaFairly determine whether or not the

candidate has fulfilled the criteriaQuantity of contributions and Quality of

contributions are assessed What is the evidence that the contributions

have achieved excellence? What comparative measures were available/used/presented?

P&T Committee’s sense of the “new” Guidelines:2009 P&T Guidelines more clearly articulate

the criteria than did the 1997 GuidelinesMade the Committee members’ job easierNevertheless - their work remains

challengingHigh stakesA LOT to studySome candidates make the Committee

members’ jobs easy….

Why is a candidate’s request(s) denied?Incomprehensible P&T packet – cannot

determine whether the P&T criteria were fulfilled

Comprehensible P&T packet - the candidate did not fulfill the P&T criteria

8 lessons from 2010 P&T Retreat1. Use a standard format for your Curriculum

Vitae2. Annotate your bibliography (copy/paste from CV then

annotate)

3. Annotate your leadership/administrative service roles (copy/paste from “committees “ noted on CV – then annotate)

4. Attend to your Time & Effort distribution – if atypical, provide explanation

1. By candidate within packet materials2. By chair within Chair’s letter

Lessons, continued5. Present best possible evaluation of your

work in each domain – metrics, peers (local, national, international), learners

6. Spell out abbreviations and acronyms (at least once!)

7. Paper “accepted” for publication – include notification from publisher

8. 3 letter of recommendation REQUIRED (from experts outside of UAMS an all but Clinical Attending pathway – wherein letters from UAMS experts are acceptable – from ACROSS UAMS – not just your own department)

Important “local” reference

http://www.uams.edu/facultyaffairs/Promotionandtenure/default.asp

Candidate’s Companion Guide

“Scholarship Reconsidered”Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the

Professoriate. EL Boyer. Princeton University Press 1990

Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. CE Glassick, MT Huber. Jossey-Bass. 1997

Broadened the consideration of what constitutes scholarship-

of Discoveryof Integrationof Applicationof Education

Scholarly Work In Academic Medicine

creates new knowledge in any of 4 domains

Clinical CareEducation/TeachingResearch (bench to bedside to

community)

Administration

Useful referencesSpecial issue of Academic Medicine Vol. 75, No. 9,

2000Expanding the View of Scholarship: Introduction.

Diana Beattie

Breaking Down the Walls: Thoughts on the Scholarship of Integration. Dale Dauphinee & Joseph Martin.

The Scholarship of Application. Eugene Shapiro & David Coleman.

Advancing Educators and Education: Defining the Components and Evidence of Educational Scholarship. Summary Report and Findings from the AAMC Group of Educational Affairs Consensus Conference on Educational Scholarship. AAMC 2007

Characteristics of Scholarly Work:(CE Glassick)1. Clear goals2. Adequate preparation3. Appropriate methods4. Significant results5. Effective presentation6. Reflective critique

Work vs. ScholarshipScholarly work requires:

High level of discipline & related expertise Innovation “Product” can be replicated or elaborated Can be peer-reviewed

Scholarship Assessed, Glassick, Huber, Maeroff (1997)

Work vs. Scholarship“work” becomes scholarship when it is:

Made public

Available for peer review and critique according to accepted standards

Able to be reproduced and built upon by others

[the 3 P’s: product, peer-reviewed, published]

Lee S. Shulman Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

Scholarship Made Public: “Publication”Examples of “Tried and True” Methods:

Peer-reviewed journal articles about original contributions

Peer-reviewed “review” articles

Textbooks and chapters; monographs

Peer-reviewed poster presentations and abstracts

Scholarship Made Public: “Publication”Examples of Newer Methods:

Peer-reviewed web-based materials

CDs and other forms for enduring materials

Educational syllabi and curriculum documents

Patient education materials

Quality improvement projects

Clinical Practice Guidelines

Scholarship of activityScholarship of activity

Public, peer review, platformPublic, peer review, platform

Scholarly approach to activityScholarly approach to activity

Evidence of professional developmentEvidence of professional development

Quality in activityQuality in activity

Data collectionData collection

Pathway to Scholarship Reward

Pathway to Scholarship Reward

2006 GEA Consensus Development Conference2006 GEA Consensus Development ConferenceCP1220953-2

Involvement in activity (Quantity)Involvement in activity (Quantity)InstructorInstructor

AssistantAssistant

AssociateAssociate

ProfessorProfessor

Collecting and Storing “your evidence of contribution”Continuously update your Curriculum VitaeEducator’s portfolio (AAMC Group of Educational

Affairs; American Pediatrics Association)

Quality Improver’s portfolio (Society of General Internal Medicine, Institute for Healthcare Improvement)

Thank you!

QUESTIONS???