Nursing Doctoral Faculty Perceptions of Factors That Affect Their Continued Scholarship

��

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.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2014.03.008

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2014.03.008

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


Mary Ann Cantrell, PhD, RN, CNE

Professor


Mary Ann Heverly, PhD

Adjunct Associate Professor


Nancy Wise, MSN, RN

Research Assistant


Amanda Jenkinson, MSN, RN, OCN

Research Assistant


Serah Nthenge, MSN, RN

Research Assistant


ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


Corresponding Author: Suzanne C. Smeltzer, EdD, RN, FAAN

800 Lancaster Avenue

Villanova PA 19085

Tel. 610-519-6828

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ACC

EPTE

D M

ANU

SCR

IPT


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


―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


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


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


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


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


―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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Documents

Nursing Doctoral Faculty Perceptions of Factors That Affect Their Continued Scholarship