Expanding the view of scholarship: introduction.

The Association of American Medical Colleges' Council of Academic Societies (CAS) has a long-standing interest in scholarship as it relates to research, education, and service, the traditional definition of the activities of medical school. The work of Ernest Boyer and Charles Glassick is highly respected for redefining scholarship and conceiving how scholarship as thus defined can be assessed. Because their ideas have been applied in other areas of the academy but not widely in medical faculties, the CAS Task Force on Scholarship collected a special set of papers on Boyer's four areas of scholarship as applied to medical school, including case studies and the perspective from the university. The four areas of scholarship defined by Boyer and Glassick are the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching. The scholarship of discovery-research-has for decades been the primary focus for promotion and tenure for medical school faculty, even though the faculty also had major and critical activities in the other areas of scholarship. The CAS hopes that the ideas put forth in this special theme issue will produce a continuing dialogue as faculty and administrators at medical schools reflect on the value of these different forms of scholarship, their application by medical school faculty, and their contributions to the individual missions of each medical school and teaching hospital. In addition, these articles will stimulate continuing discussions that will definite equitable methods for the continued assessment of the scholarly accomplishments of medical school faculty.     

Revising appointment, promotion, and tenure procedures to incorporate an expanded definition of scholarship: the University of Kentucky College of Medicine experience.

Scholarly activity and scholarly productivity are key features of the academic health center (AHC) and the work of college of medicine faculty. Recent changes in the academic environment of the University of Kentucky (UK) College of Medicine led to an examination of its appointment, promotion, and tenure procedures. This, in turn, led to a re-examination of the college's definition of scholarship. This article describes three of UK's scholarship-related challenges, particularly those related to clinical departments. The authors describe some of the new procedures being implemented to address these challenges; these include new faculty designations, clearer articulation of promotion procedures, explicit recognition of multiple forms of scholarship, expectations for investment in junior faculty, and mandatory discussion of faculty success in chairs' annual reviews. Faculty reactions, positive and negative, to these changes in procedures are also presented.     

Evidence-based appointment and promotion of academic faculty at the University of Chicago.

The authors report how one academic medical center (AMC) and associated nonclinical departments implemented evidence-based academic criteria and an evidence-based academic vetting process, which may be models for other institutions.In 2004-2005, The University of Chicago Division of the Biological Sciences and Pritzker School of Medicine reconceptualized its appointment, promotion, and tenure criteria to recognize all forms of scholarship as equally legitimate bases for academic tenure. The revised criteria also accommodate differences in academic effort consistent with varying clinical demands. Implementation of these criteria, however, necessitated revised practices in providing objective evidence and analysis of their satisfaction.Three complementary mechanisms now yield excellent evidence and analysis. The first, electronic forms (e-forms) comprise highly specific response items with embedded instructions, advice, and rationale. The e-forms encourage candidates and departments to provide the evidence that subsequent review needs to evaluate appointment or promotion proposals. Unexpectedly, the e-forms have been coopted as effective mechanisms for faculty development. Second, a faculty dean of academic affairs, a regular faculty member, was appointed to provide robust academic authority and perspective to the process. Third, the promotion and tenure advisory committee was restricted to evaluating academic criteria, and from considerations of institutional value. This change interposed a "firewall" between academic and institutional review. These changes have attenuated dissatisfaction with the appointments and promotions process both within and outside the AMC.     

The continued evolution of faculty appointment and tenure policies at U.S. medical schools.

For the past several decades, financial uncertainty, changes in health care delivery and reimbursement, and changing workforce needs have prompted medical schools to continually refine their appointment and tenure policies. Studies during the past 30 years have examined the nature of these faculty appointment and tenure policies in U.S. medical schools, and in this article the authors present data from a 2005 survey on faculty personnel policies to extend this analysis.For both basic science and clinical faculty in U.S. medical schools, the authors describe tenure systems, trends in the number and percentage of full-time faculty on tenure-eligible tracks, the financial guarantee of tenure, and probationary period lengths. They review the status of flexible policies and highlight two current faculty policy changes that many institutions have made or are actively contemplating: the recognition of interdisciplinary and team science, and a broadening view of scholarship.Results show that although tenure systems remain well established in medical schools, the proportion of faculty on tenured or tenure-eligible tracks has continued to decline over time. Changes in the financial guarantee associated with tenure have transformed the fundamental concept of tenure at many medical schools, and the percentage of schools that have lengthened the probationary period for tenure-track faculty has steadily increased during the past 25 years. Tenure-clock-stopping policies and part-time tenure policies continue to exist at medical schools, though results indicate low faculty use of the policies, suggesting a disconnect between policy and practice.     

Community-engaged scholarship: is faculty work in communities a true academic enterprise?

Since Ernest Boyer's landmark 1990 report, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, leaders in higher education, including academic medicine, have advocated that faculty members apply their expertise in new and creative ways in partnership with communities. Such community engagement can take many forms, including community-based teaching, research, clinical care, and service. There continues to be a gap, however, between the rhetoric of this idea and the reality of how promotion and tenure actually work in health professions schools. The Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions was established in October 2003 with funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to take a leadership role in creating a more supportive culture and reward system for community-engaged faculty in the nation's health professions schools. The authors prepared this article to inform the commission's deliberations and to stimulate discussion among educators in the health professions. The authors define the work that faculty engage in with communities, consider whether all work by faculty in community-based settings is actually scholarship, and propose a framework for documenting and assessing community-engaged scholarship for promotion and tenure decisions. They conclude with recommendations for change in academic health centers and health professions schools.     

Obstacles to promotion? Values of women faculty about career success and recognition. Committee on the Status of Women and Minorities, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of Virginia Campus.

PURPOSE: To assess attitudes of female faculty about career progress, resources for career development, and values related to academic success and recognition. METHOD: In 1997, the authors surveyed all faculty at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and its associated Veterans Affairs Medical Center. RESULTS: Of 918 faculty, 567 (62%) responded to the survey; 33% of the respondents were women. Compared with men, women faculty were less likely to be tenured or at the level of professor, spent more time in clinical activities, had less time for scholarly activity, and reported slower career progress. Women were more likely to report that promotion and tenure criteria had not been reviewed with them. Significant differences were found between female physicians and non-physician faculty; female physicians reported the least time for scholarly activities and poorest understanding of promotion and tenure criteria. When the authors asked faculty how they valued certain indicators of career success, women were less likely to value leadership than were men. Female physicians were less likely to value scholarship and national recognition as indicators of their career success. CONCLUSION: This survey found important differences in career progress of male and female faculty, with women reporting less time for career development. In addition, there were differences in values related to career success and recognition, which were most pronounced for female physicians. These differences may have an important impact on promotion for women in general and particularly for female physicians.     

Scholarship in teaching: an imperative for the 21st century.

At some medical schools broader definitions of scholarship have emerged along with corresponding changes in their academic reward systems. Such situations are not common, however. The definition of scholarship generally applied by medical schools is unnecessarily narrow and excludes areas of legitimate academic activity and productivity that are vital to the fulfillment of the school's educational mission. The authors maintain that creative teaching with effectiveness that is rigorously substantiated, educational leadership with results that are demonstrable and broadly felt, and educational methods that advance learners' knowledge are consistent with the traditional definition of scholarship. Faculty whose educational activities fulfill the criteria above are scholars and must be recognized by promotion. The authors specifically address scholarship in education, focusing on teaching and other learning-related activities rather than on educational research, which may be assessed and rewarded using the same forms of evidence as basic science or clinical research. They build on Boyer's work, which provides a vocabulary for discussing the assumptions and values that underlie the roles of faculty as academicians. Next, they apply Glassick et al.'s criteria for judging scholarly work to faculty members' educational activities to establish a basis for recognition and reward consistent with those given for other forms of scholarship. Finally, the authors outline the organizational infrastructure needed to support scholars in education.     

The present and future of appointment, tenure, and compensation policies for medical school clinical faculty.

The authors present data and information about appointment, tenure, and compensation policies to describe how medical schools are redefining the terms under which they relate to their full-time clinical faculties. First, the authors note the increasing differentiation of clinical faculty members into two groups, researchers and clinicians. The present-day competitive realities of both research and clinical enterprises have prompted this change and the principles of mission-based management are reinforcing it. Second, they document the long-term tendency of schools to appoint new clinical faculty members to contract-term (as opposed to tenure) appointments, as special non-tenure-eligible tracks for clinically oriented faculty proliferate. Third, they report on the policies of schools to limit the financial guarantees provided to clinical faculty members who are awarded tenure. For schools that have yet to address this issue, they discuss the various employment and pay arrangements that inform or confuse the question. Fourth, they describe historic problems with clinical faculty compensation arrangements and illustrate, with examples from ten schools, the characteristics of recently implemented performance- and risk-based compensation plans. While these trends in institutional policies and practices may initially concern faculty advocate groups, the authors argue that they may serve the long-term interests of those groups. The terms of relationships between medical schools and their clinical faculties are tied closely to the specifics of organizational structure, which are currently undergoing review and change. The challenge all schools face is to define these terms in ways that allow them to continue to attract high-quality clinical faculty while avoiding an insupportable financial liability.     

The changing faces of promotion and tenure at U.S. medical schools

Faced with many potentially divisive questions related to tenure and promotion, leaders at medical schools have lacked an overview of examples of how other medical schools are adapting their faculty policies to reflect changing realities. This article reports results of a survey of U.S. medical school deans and of interviews with faculty affairs administrators regarding areas of change in faculty appointment, promotion, and tenure policies. Examples of adaptations are reported under the following headings: use of tenure; financial guarantees of tenure; criteria for award of tenure; probationary period; post-tenure review; advising faculty; clinician-educator tracks; and recruting women and minority faculty. Of these, the adaptation entailing the most activity and about which the most information was obtained concerns establishing a clinician-educator track. Numerous examples are provided of schools' evolutions of policies with regard to modifying titles of clinical-educators, defining promotion criteria, monitoring transfer between tracks, and defining contract periods, benefits, and privileges. The primary challenge for medical school administrators is to build sufficient flexibility into their promotion policies to show that the institution values the many different types of faculty needed, and at the same time to provide adequate security to essential faculty.     

Adoption and failure of the "Boyer model" at the University of Louisville.

In the 1990s two factors had a major impact on the promotion and tenure process at the University of Louisville (UL) School of Medicine. Clinical reimbursements declined, and as they did, faculty hired as income-generating clinicians continued to be evaluated as researchers. In addition, with legislation ending mandatory retirement, accountability and the requirement for demonstrations of continued competency increased. In part because of the need to recognize service and the need to evaluate post-tenure faculty, the Board of Trustees launched several ambitious initiatives that were collectively entitled "Redefinition of Faculty." The eventual acceptance of the policies under this umbrella included the adoption of the four kinds of scholarship defined by Ernest Boyer. However, because of faculty unrest regarding other facets of this initiative, compromises in the way that the Boyer model was adopted rendered the governance documents untenable. The difficulties with how the UL School of Medicine adopted the Boyer model are detailed, as are some of the lessons learned. Despite the difficulties, the concepts in Boyer's treatise have not been abandoned; the UL School of Medicine has embraced the need for a broadened view of scholarship in its newly emerging governance documents in which, for example, clinical service, formerly unrecognized as a promotable activity, is now recognized as such.     

PhD faculty in clinical departments of U.S. medical schools, 1981-1999: their widening presence and roles in research.

PURPOSE: To analyze the growth, research activities, and academic status of PhD faculty in U. S. medical school clinical departments between 1981 and 1999. METHOD: Full-time U.S. medical school faculty who had PhDs and appointments in clinical departments in 1981 and 1999 and junior PhD faculty who became assistant professors between 1981 and 1990 were selected from the Faculty Roster System of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Their research activities and academic statuses were compared with those of MD or MD/PhD faculty in clinical departments or PhD faculty in basic science departments in the same years. RESULTS: The number of PhD faculty in clinical departments now exceeds the number of PhD faculty in basic science departments. PhD faculty in clinical departments come from diverse research backgrounds, contribute substantially to the research intensity of their institutions, and are more likely than their counterparts in basic science departments to become involved in research involving human participants or human tissues. PhD faculty in clinical departments are less likely than their counterparts in basic science departments, but are as likely as physicians in clinical departments, to be rewarded with academic promotion. They are less likely than their physician colleagues to be promoted in research-intensive departments such as departments of medicine and at top 20 research-intensive schools. CONCLUSIONS: The burgeoning career opportunities for PhD faculty in clinical departments should be reflected in the course work, mentorship, and potential thesis topics of PhD training programs. In lieu of tenure, research-intensive medical schools should develop alternative career tracks providing somewhat greater job stability for these faculty.     

The Academy at Harvard Medical School: nurturing teaching and stimulating innovation.

The Academy at Harvard Medical School, established in 2001, was formed at a critical moment for medical schools in this country. Several decades of enormous growth in the biomedical research and clinical care activities of medical school faculty have resulted in great societal benefit. The unintended consequence has been a decline in faculty time and reward for the educational mission that is unique to a medical school. The impact of this decline is particularly felt now because the explosive growth in the science and technology relevant to medical practice, coupled with dramatic changes in the health care delivery system, calls for new models for the education of the next generation of physicians. The mission of the academy is to renew and reinvigorate the educational mission of Harvard Medical School (HMS). By bringing together a select group of some of the school's most talented and dedicated faculty and providing direct support for their work related to education, the academy has created a unique mechanism for increasing the recognition of teaching contributions of both academy members and the teaching faculty at large, fostering educational innovation, and providing a forum for the exchange of ideas related to medical education that cross departmental and institutional lines. The authors describe the academy's membership criteria, structure, governance, activities, institutional impact, and plans for long-term evaluation, and indicate challenges the academy will face in the future.     

The UCSF Academy of Medical Educators.

The Academy of Medical Educators at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), was established in 2000 to (1) foster excellence in teaching, (2) support teachers of medicine, and (3) promote curricular innovation. A membership organization, it recognizes five categories of educational activity: direct teaching, curriculum development and assessment of learner performance, advising and mentoring, educational administration and leadership, and educational research. Excellent medical student teaching and outstanding accomplishment in one or more areas of educational activity qualify a teacher for membership. Candidates prepare a portfolio that is reviewed internally and by national experts in medical education. Currently 37 faculty members, 3% of the entire school of medicine faculty, belong to the academy. The academy's innovations funding program disburses one-year grants to support curricular development and comparisons of pedagogical approaches; through this mechanism, the academy has funded 20 projects at a total cost of $442,300. Three fourths of expended funds support faculty release time. Faculty development efforts include promotion of the use of an educator's portfolio and the establishment of a mentoring program for junior faculty members built around observation of teaching. The Academy of Medical Educators vigorously supports expanded scholarship in education; the academy-sponsored Education Day is an opportunity for educators to present their work locally. Recipients of innovations-funding program grants are expected to present their work in an appropriate national forum and are assisted in doing this through quarterly scholarship clinics. The Academy of Medical Educators has been well received at UCSF and is enhancing the status of medical education and teachers.     

An initiative in mentoring to promote residents' and faculty members' careers.

Internal medicine trainees and faculty recognize the value of effective mentoring to help meet the personal and professional needs of residents. However, the paradigm of the mentor-trainee relationship is seriously threatened by increased clinical, research, and administrative demands on both faculty and housestaff. Moreover, the current criteria for promotion in most teaching hospitals emphasize scholarship, rather than citizenship, so activities such as mentoring devolve to a lower priority. In 2000, the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women's/Faulkner Hospital initiated a program to improve the effectiveness of housestaff mentoring and recognize faculty contributions to resident career development. The authors report the feedback received from a survey of the 2002-03 medical housestaff (74% response rate) and describe their experiences with the initiation of this program. Over 90% of the housestaff respondents thought it important that the Department assigns an individual faculty mentor. In practice, time-consuming professional responsibilities made meetings difficult, but most pairs supplemented their interactions with e-mail. Discussions primarily focused on career advice and support. Housestaff thought mentors were helpful and available when needed. The department has established new metrics for recognizing faculty mentoring and now publicly rewards mentoring excellence. Of note, unassigned mentoring has increased since the initiation of this program. The authors conclude that the formal mentoring program has ensured that all trainees are provided with a mentor, which has facilitated faculty-housestaff interactions and increased recognition of faculty contributions to mentoring.     

Making a case for the teaching scholar.

Medical schools are increasingly cognizant of their inability to critically evaluate faculty who support the core mission of education. To address this need, the Project on Scholarship was initiated by the Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Building on and expanding previous definitions of scholarship and the associated criteria emerging in higher education, the project developed a set of "teacher as scholar" scenarios. These scenarios contained varied types of evidence for teaching scholarship and were discussed at the 1999 GEA regional meetings. Two major conclusions/recommendations emerged from these discussions: (1) the use of commonly accepted scholarship criteria (clear goals, appropriate methods, significant results, effective communication) provides a framework for identifying the types of evidence needed to document teaching scholarship, and (2) medical schools must create an infrastructure for promoting educational scholarship. This infrastructure must support the reliable and valid collection of evidence of educational scholarship and the continuous development of faculty as teaching scholars.     

Are we doing any good by doing really well? (Where's the Bacon?)

Francis Bacon, who with Rene Decartes laid the intellectual foundations for Western science in the seventeenth century, asserted that the purpose of all knowledge is "action in the production of works for ... the relief of man's estate." We assess briefly several aspects of a few of the current efforts directed to the production of such "works" with respect to such "relief" as they may provide: cancer mortality, the medical literature, evidence-based medicine, clinical trials, observational databases and criteria for the promotion and tenure of the medical faculty. We suggest why each of these efforts appears to have failed to some degree and then propose some measures that may possibly serve as correctives.     

A new model for recognizing and rewarding the educational accomplishments of surgery faculty.

Faculty members' educational endeavors have generally not received adequate recognition. The Association for Surgical Education in 1993 established a task force to determine the magnitude of this problem and to create a model to address the challenges and opportunities identified. To obtain baseline information, the task force reviewed information from national sources and the literature on recognizing and rewarding faculty members for educational accomplishments. The group also developed and mailed to surgery departments at all U.S. and Canadian medical schools a questionnaire asking about the educational endeavors of the surgery faculty and their recognition for such activities. The response rate after two mailings was only 56%, but the responses reaffirmed the inadequacy of systems for rewarding and recognizing surgeon-teachers and surgeon-educators, and confirmed that the distinction between the roles of teacher and educator was rarely made. The task force created a four-tier hierarchical model based on the designations teacher, master teacher, educator, and master educator as a framework to offer appropriate recognition and rewards to the faculty, and endorsed a broad definition of educational scholarship. Criteria for various levels of achievement, ways to demonstrate and document educational contributions, appropriate support and recognition, and suggested faculty ranks were defined for these levels. The task force recommended that each surgery department have within its faculty ranks a cadre of trained teachers, a few master teachers, and at least one educator. Departments with a major commitment to education should consider supporting a master educator to serve as a resource not only for the department but also for the department's medical school and other medical schools. Although this model was created for surgery departments, it is generalizable to other disciplines.