Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cardoso S, Carvalho T, Videira P. Is it still worth working in academia? The views from Portuguese academics. High Educ Pol. 2019;32(4):663–79. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0123-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hanak, D. Why being an academic is more tempting than Cinnabon? 2020. https://motivatedacademic.com/benefits-academic-career/.

  3. Koprowski, E. Pros and cons of continuing into an academic career. 2015. https://www.phdstudies.com/article/Pros-and-Cons-of-Continuing-into-an-Academic-Career/.

  4. Kruger P. You are not a failed scientist. Nature (London). 2018;560(7716):133–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05838-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stewart M. Exploring perceptions of the transition from health science practitioner to academic. Research in Post-Compulsory Education. 2020;25(3):359–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2020.1802946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mendez SL, Tygret JA, Johanson K, et al. Navigating a career in academia: insights from Emeriti engineering faculty. Journal for STEM Education Research. 2019;3(2):217–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00026-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hartnett E, Arant-Kaspar W, vanDuinkerken W. Scope of work, roles, and responsibilities for academic librarians: tenure-track vs. non-tenure-track professionals. Libr Trends. 2019;68(2):269–94. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2019.0039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tippins, S. Tenure track vs non-tenure track jobs. 2022. https://www.beyondphdcoaching.com/academic-career/tenure-track-vs-non-tenure-track-jobs/.

  9. American Association of University Professors. Issues: Tenure. 2006. https://www.aaup.org/issues/tenure.

  10. Ashcraft A, Andersen JS, Rogge MM, et al. Academic tenure: perceptual variations among tenured, tenure-seeking and non-tenure faculty. J Prof Nurs. 2021;37(3):578–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2021.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Drake A, Struve L, Meghani SA, et al. Invisible labor, visible change: non-tenure-track faculty agency in a research university. Review of Higher Education. 2019;42(4):1635–64. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Register SJ, King KM. Promotion and tenure: application of scholarship of teaching and learning, and scholarship of engagement criteria to health professions education. Health Professions Education. 2018;4(1):39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2017.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schimanski LA, Alperin JP. The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure processes past present and future. F1000 Res. 2018;7:1605. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16493.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Snider A, Hight K, Brunson A, et al. Analysis of research and scholarship criteria within promotion and tenure documents of US pharmacy schools. Am J Pharm Educ. 2021;85(3):196–207. 10.5688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Balogun JA, Sloan PE, Germain M. Determinants of tenure in allied health and nursing education. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56(5):532–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wilkins S, Hazzam J, Lean J. Doctoral publishing as professional development for an academic career in higher education. Int J Manag Educ. 2021;19(1):100459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Peters L, Long B, Eddy E. Identifying and evaluating gaps in knowledge, skills, and qualities necessary for a career in academia. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2019;11(11):1111–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2019.07.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Allen JL, Huggins-Hoyt KY, Holosko MJ, et al. African American social work faculty: overcoming existing barriers and achieving research productivity. Res Soc Work Pract. 2018;28(3):309–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517701578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hegmann TE, Axelson RD. Benchmarking the scholarly productivity of physician assistant educators: an update. J Physician Assist Educ. 2012;23(2):16–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/01367895-201223020-00004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Karni KR, Waller KV. A two-decades-long study of scholarship by clinical laboratory science faculty. J Allied Health. 2011;40(2):72–7.

    Google Scholar 

  21. LeLacheur SF, Bester V, Oxendine LH, et al. Minority physician assistant faculty: a phenomenological assessment of factors leading to retention in the faculty role. J Physician Assist Educ. 2019;30(2):79–85. https://doi.org/10.1097/JPA.0000000000000257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith L, Hande K, Kennedy B. Mentoring nursing faculty: an inclusive scholarship support group. Nurse Educ. 2019;45(4):185–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas A, Bossers A, Lee M, et al. Occupational therapy education research: results of a national survey. Am J Occup Ther. 2016;70(5):7005230010p1–9. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2016.018259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Volkert D. Development and implementation of a strong mentoring program to increase scholarly productivity and support nurse faculty retention. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2021;42(6):E77–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Austin Z, Sutton J. Qualitative research: getting started. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2024;67(6):436–40. 10.4212

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moustakas CE. Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.; 1994.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Neubauer BE, Witkop CT, Varpio L. How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspect Med Educ. 2019;8(2):90–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sargeant J. Qualitative research part II: participants, analysis, and quality assurance. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-00307.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 3rd ed. SAGE Publications Inc.; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  32. LeVan D. The development of a portfolio for academic promotion and tenure for occupational therapy educators. Open J Occup Ther. 2020;8(4):1–8. https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. de Saxe ZL, Ilinitch TL, Carlston R, et al. Social work faculty development: an exploratory study of non-tenure-track women faculty. J Soc Work Educ. 2015;51(4):738–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2015.1076284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Falzarano M, Zipp GP. Perceptions of mentoring of full-time occupational therapy faculty in the United States. Occup Ther Int. 2012;19(3):117–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Smesny AL, Williams JS, Brazeau GA, et al. Barriers to scholarship in dentistry, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy practice faculty. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(5):91. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj710591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tschannen D, Anderson C, Strobbe S, et al. Scholarly productivity for nursing clinical track faculty. Nurs Outlook. 2014;62(6):475–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2014.05.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. O’Connor LG, Yanni CK. Promotion and tenure in nursing education: lessons learned. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2013;3(5):10.5430.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dhakal K, Tornwall J. The scholarship circle: an introduction to writing for publication for nursing faculty. J Med Libr Assoc. 2020;108(1):98–105. 10.5195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Garand L, Matthews JT, Courtney KL, et al. Development and use of a tool to guide junior faculty in their progression toward promotion and tenure. J Prof Nurs. 2010;26(4):207–13. 10.1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Smeltzer SC, Sharts-Hopko NC, Cantrell MA, et al. Nursing doctoral faculty perceptions related to the effect of increasing enrollments on productivity. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2017;38(4):201–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000000145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. University of Georgia. Guidelines for appointment, promotion & tenure of academic faculty rank. 2017. https://provost.uga.edu/policies/appointment-promotion-and-tenure/.

  42. Song, A. Discipline-specific guidelines for promotion and tenure department of music, Linfield university. 2021. https://inside.linfield.edu/_files/academic-affairs/MUSC-Approved-Guidelines.pdf.

  43. University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Guidelines on reappointment, tenure, and promotion - department of history. 2018. https://his.uncg.edu/documents/Tenure-Promotion-Guidelines.pdf.

  44. Fusch P, Ness L. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qual Rep. 2015;20(9):1408. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Namey E, Guest G, McKenna K, Chen M. Evaluating bang for the buck: a cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and focus groups based on thematic saturation levels. Am J Eval. 2016;37(3):425–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214016630406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Polkinghorne DE. Language and meaning: data collection in qualitative research. J Couns Psychol. 2005;52(2):137–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project received grant funding from the Black Race and Ethnic Studies Initiative (BRESI) at the City University of New York (CUNY). The content does not necessarily represent the views of BRESI.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Physician Assistant Program, Department of Health Professions, School of Health Sciences and Professional Programs, York College/CUNY, Jamaica, NY, 11451, USA

    Harrynauth Persaud

Authors
  1. Harrynauth Persaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harrynauth Persaud.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Disclosure

This paper is part of a Ph.D. thesis completed at Liberty University, entitled “A Transcendental Phenomenological Study Exploring the Perception of Scholarship Requirements for Tenure and Promotion in Health Professions Programs” (2022).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Persaud, H. Barriers to Scholarship Among Health Profession Faculty at a Public Institution of Higher Learning. Med.Sci.Educ. 34, 413–420 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-024-01996-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-024-01996-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation