One Schoolʼs Strategy to Assess and Improve the Vitality of Its Faculty

Abstract

The authors report how one medical school took an evidence-based, collaborative approach to assessing and improving faculty vitality by building on previous research and including important shareholders (e.g., faculty and administrators). In 1999, the dean and faculty senate asked all full-time faculty (615) at the University of Minnesota Medical School-Twin Cities to complete a survey to (1) identify vitality areas (individual, institutional, or leadership) in which the school was strong and ones that needed improvement, (2) identify strategies for addressing weak areas, and (3) provide a baseline against which to measure the impact of any vitality efforts initiated. The survey was based on features that research studies have found to be associated with academic productivity. Seventy-six percent responded. Summaries of the survey findings were prepared for use at the school level, department level, and special group level (e.g., women, clinical-scholar-track faculty). Three key school-level findings were that (1) there is a disconnect between the stated vision of the school and the departments' visions and actions, (2) there is not enough time for scholarly activity, particularly in the clinical departments, and (3) faculty lack the support of a collegial atmosphere and appreciation for the work they do. In response to the survey's findings every department identified priority faculty needs and initiated tailored development strategies. School-wide strategies were also initiated to address faculty needs common across departments and needs unique to special groups. Together these strategies provide a multi-level, systematic approach to maintaining faculty vitality.

Faculty Promotion and Attrition: The Importance of Coauthor Network Reach at an Academic Medical Center

“…6,7 A network of productive colleagues is among the strongest predictors of research publications, productivity, retention and advancement of academic faculty and of career satisfaction among medical school faculty. [8][9][10][11][12] A survey of academic physician educators indicated that their association with people including mentors and peers was an essential element for career fulfillment. 9 At the organizational level, connections are seen within organizational units that provide the context in which faculty work and train (e.g., labs, centers, divisions, departments).…”

Identifying and Weighting Teaching and Scholarship Activities Among Faculty Members

“…Approximately 2 weeks prior to the focused discussion, participants were given a list of readings to complete that dealt with methodological issues and the concept of units of production in academia; performance criteria for faculty promotion and reward; faculty vitality; and contemporary definitions of scholarship and faculty productivity. 7,10,[13][14][15][16] While regarded as essential to accomplishing the University's mission, service-related activities were not included in the project for 2 reasons. For one, service activities had not previously been studied in similar projects.…”

“…These processes are used in combination with other management methods to provide individual recognition and reward as well as to support the promotion and tenure process and to gauge the productivity of the School's Divisions collectively. In response to requests from School faculty members that they gain a better understanding of the activities valued and performed by colleagues, and in response to various internal and external forces demanding greater accountability among faculty members, 6,7 the investigators undertook a project aimed at identifying and weighting scholarly activities among its constituent members.…”

Individualized strategic planning for faculty development in medical schools

“…5 The reasons for such widespread discontent are diverse and include the perceived poor quality of life for faculty members, a lack of recognition for teaching in many medical schools, a lack of opportunities to participate in decisions which affect all faculty members, and a lack of opportunities for faculty development. 6 Turnover of faculty members in medical schools is very high and replacing faculty members is very expensive. Well planned faculty development programs that respond directly to faculty members' needs have been shown to improve satisfaction and retention.…”

“…Well planned faculty development programs that respond directly to faculty members' needs have been shown to improve satisfaction and retention. 6,7 Furthermore, the most powerful predictor of productivity for an individual faculty member is his or her institutional environment. 8 Faculty development is an important resource to support productivity.…”