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

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.

Introduction

Deciding on a career path in academia can be a difficult choice for some, as with many jobs, there are agreements and disagreements regarding whether or not a specific career choice makes sense, particularly, in this case, a career in academia [1]. The literature highlighted the many reasons why people, both clinical and non-clinical faculty, choose academia. Popular benefits include flexibility and job satisfaction, work-life balance, financial benefits, job security, stability, academic freedom (if on a tenure track), mentoring students, contributing to society and helping to make the world a better place, national and international collaboration and networking, and professional development [2–4].

It was found that many clinical practitioners enter academia with minimal to no prior teaching experience since this is usually not an absolute prerequisite for these positions. For those planning to teach in the general sciences, including the health sciences, a Ph.D. is generally preferred, and for professional programs, the highest degree for that professional area of specialty is required [5]. Given these malleable prerequisites for entering academia, clinical practitioners could see these as attractive incentives. However, for faculty members who are early in their careers, navigating the academic pathways and keeping up with the profession’s demands is not only complicated but could be very confusing [6].

Potential academics generally have two options when applying for a position in academia, a non-tenure track appointment or a tenure-track appointment [7]. A non-tenure-track appointment is focused more on teaching and service, with little to no emphasis on scholarship or research. Although the research piece is encouraged, it usually has minimal impact on the reappointment decision [8]. Faculty in these positions typically have a higher teaching load. They are reappointed based on the contract agreed upon, which in most cases is between one and three years, with the possibility of unlimited renewals providing the ongoing criteria is met [8].

A tenure track appointment provides a sense of protection or job security as it relates to academic appointments. It generally means that once the tenured status has been achieved, a faculty member can only be terminated for legitimate reasons or causes, for example, if the institution is suffering from a significant financial loss and cannot fulfill its obligations of maintaining such faculty. It could also apply in cases where the program for which the faculty was hired to teach was discontinued, and there were no other areas to move that faculty member to [9]. In other words, academic tenure can be viewed as having a continuous appointment, or a relatively permanent appointment, after having undergone a period of probation and proving themselves worthy by the academic institution by fulfilling the requirements for such appointment, of which research or scholarship is a required component [10]. Reappointment is done annually during this probationary period, generally for 5 to 7 years, depending on the institution’s policies, although most institutions have a 7-year probationary period [10].

For those appointed on a tenure track, the institution has specific criteria that must be met annually for reappointment to be successful. Therefore, before deciding to accept a tenure track position, one must carefully evaluate all the available options and whether they can meet those requirements. The generally accepted norm for tenure and promotion is usually referred to as the three pillars of academia, which are scholarship (research), teaching, and service [7, 10–14]. Teaching refers to demonstrating excellence in the classroom, which is usually the primary function of most faculty members. Service refers to the engagement of activities that would benefit the department and the institution in general, in addition to community organizations and governmental agencies [15].

Among the three variables, scholarship, teaching, and service, it is strongly believed that excellence in the scholarship component, encompassing research and publications, is the most important and crucial piece of the three, which cannot be substituted for either of the other two components [13, 14]. In this current landscape, peer-reviewed publications are crucial indicators of a faculty member’s excellence and competence in research, thereby underscoring their academic success [16]. Guidance on the successful achievement of these three areas is institution-specific and may be different for each institution. Documents pertaining to the requirements for tenure and promotion are not plentiful in the literature, and most of what is available was published at least 10 years ago. As such, there needs to be consensus across institutions as to what constitutes scholarship [14].

Faculty members teaching in Health Profession Programs (HPP) were found to experience a higher level of difficulty keeping up with the scholarship requirements set forth by their academic institutions [5, 17]. A literature review revealed that qualitative studies focusing on faculty members within the Physician Assistant (PA), Nursing, Clinical Laboratory Science (CLS), Occupational Therapy (OT), and Social Work (SW) programs are lacking. Among the few studies available, the barriers and challenges for faculty members across these five disciplines were somewhat similar. The most common barrier was identified as the lack of available time, followed by the lack of mentorship. Other common barriers include lack of funding, limited experience with research, higher faculty workloads, and limited institutional support [18–24]. This research aims to explore barriers faced by HPP faculty members at a public institution of higher learning. The specific research question for this study was, what are the perceptions of scholarship requirements for tenure and promotion among faculty members teaching in HPP?

Methods

A phenomenological approach was utilized to understand the perception of scholarship requirements for tenure and promotion among faculty members teaching in HPP. Phenomenology is mainly about the lived experiences or how people experience the world [25]. It is primarily geared towards understanding problems, ideas, and situations, using rich and thick descriptions from the perspective of shared understanding and experiences within the study population [25–27]. In its most simplistic form, phenomenology can be viewed as a methodology that aims to describe the fundamental nature of a phenomenon, using broader concepts in terms of “what” or “how” from the perception of those who have experienced that phenomenon [26, 28]. The phenomenological approach aligns very well with this intended study, as it is expected to understand the perspectives of this group of faculty members, using rich and thick descriptions to gain insight regarding “what” effects or “how” they were affected by the common practice of “publish or perish.”

A senior college within the City University of New York (CUNY) educational system, a public institution of higher learning located in a highly diverse area in the surrounding five boroughs of New York City (NYC), was selected for this research. After securing Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, participants were recruited from a convenience sample within the PA, Nursing, CLS, OT, and SW programs. All participants were clinical professionals, licensed or certified in their field of practice and almost equally represented in the study. The inclusion criteria include (1) current full-time faculty that are tenured—as it is believed that they would have valuable input regarding their experiences in navigating the tenure and promotion process. (2) Full-time faculty on a tenure track but have completed at least 1 year of service. This one-year time frame allows faculty to orient and adapt to the institution’s culture and policies, giving them ample time to make unbiased and informed decisions. (3) Tenured or tenure-track faculty members who have retired from their full-time status within the last 3 years but are still active in some form within the institution. This affiliation will allow these faculty to stay current with the policies and experiences within the institution, making them suitable candidates.

Potential participants were identified based on their publicly available profiles at the institution and were contacted via email. The introductory email contained a link to the study’s information sheet and informed consent which was hosted on the survey tool, Qualtrics. Those who completed the informed consent and were willing to participate were asked to complete a brief demographic survey, which also included the inclusion criteria. The demographic survey was manually reviewed to confirm eligibility. Eligible participants were contacted via email to schedule a mutually agreed-upon date and time to conduct an in-depth interview.

The interview was guided by a set of semi-structured open-ended questions, which allowed for uniformity of the questions asked. It also provided the opportunity for participants to elaborate on their answers while at the same time minimizing the possibility of leading participants to a specific answer. The specific questions asked regarding barriers to scholarship were as follows: (a) Please describe your understanding of the Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion process at this institution and include any specific written or unwritten requirements by the institution you are aware of. (b) What challenges have you faced thus far, if any, when navigating the Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion process? (c) Is there anything else you would like to share regarding this topic? Each interview lasted for 30–60 min, with an average of approximately 40 min. Approximately 2 days following the interview, participants were asked to complete a journal prompt response, which provided them an opportunity to share any additional information regarding the subject matter. Although data saturation was achieved at approximately 8–10 participants, several interviews were pre-scheduled, leading to a total of 13 participants, at which point recruitment was halted.

Data analysis for this research followed the process outlined by Moustakas [26] for analyzing phenomenological research. This process began with a verbatim transcription of the interview data. This was followed by a qualitative inductive approach using thematic analysis, after which an interpretive analysis was conducted in three stages: deconstruction, interpretation, and reconstruction [29], consistent with the common techniques as described in the literature [30]. Deconstruction is the descriptive phase that involves the iterative process of reading through the data line-by-line multiple times to identify common themes and sub-themes [29, 31]. As recommended by Saldaña [31], data coding was initially conducted separately for each participant, which allowed for new viewpoints when coding the data for subsequent participants.

Interpretation refers to making sense of the coded data rather than attributing meaning to it. This was achieved by applying both observational and manipulative methods, such as identifying repetitions, similarities and differences, keywords in context, and word co-occurrence [29]. The reconstructive stage, or the final stage, involves the process of repackaging the data in meaningful ways, such as major themes that represent the collective feedback from the participants. These themes and any evident codes were triangulated to identify meaningful relationships elicited in the interpretation phase. The identified relationships were used as the driving force for the results and discussion section of this research.

Results

A demographic profile of the 13 participants is displayed in Table 1. To provide additional anonymity for the participants, the following randomly assigned pseudonyms will be used throughout the results section for each participant: Gilbert, Jasmine, Michael, Ronald, Karen, Toby, Sheila, Ruby, Angela, Lauren, Brian, Ginger, and Victoria. 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.

Table 1.

Participants’ demographic

Gender	Female	8
	Male	5
Age	> 61 years	6
	41–60 year	6
	31–40 years	1
Race	White	9
	Black (African American)	3
	Asian	1
Job status	Full-time	12
	Part-time	1
Tenure status	Tenured	10
	On tenure track	3
Academic rank	Associate professor	8
	Assistant professor	4
	Full professor	1
Highest degree	Doctoral	10
	Masters	3
Peer-reviewed publications	> 8 articles	4
	5–8 articles	3
	0–4 articles	6
Served as a department chair at some point	Yes	7
	No	6

Mentorship

Having a mentor was viewed as an enormous asset, as discussed by six faculty members. Despite other challenges they may have faced, among the three participants who received the appropriate mentorship, it was viewed as most valuable in assisting them in navigating the reappointment and tenure process. Victoria discussed her positive experience stating that the reappointment and tenure process for her went smoothly because she had an excellent mentor who answered all her questions and guided her along the way. She recommended that everyone should “talk to a mentor,” and shared her experience by stating:

I tried to use my mentor as much as I could, and that was really, really helpful to me, to ask those questions exactly. What do I need to show, what kinds of numbers do I need to show on my teaching evaluations, and how many committees do I need to sit on?

Sheila concurred by adding, “trying to find reasonable guidance, trying to understand the roles, finding a mentor made a big difference.” Lauren also shared that she was able to seek out two mentors, one from her department and one from a different clinical department, for which she benefitted from the diverse skillsets and knowledge.

For three participants, there were difficulties in finding the right mentorship. Karen shared how she tried to find a mentor on her own since her supervisor was not very supportive, nor did they divulge any useful information. She eventually found a mentor who helped her “acclimate to the college, but not really about scholarship and research.” Due to her distasteful experience, she recommended that “the mentorship piece” should be discussed with all new faculty at the professor 101 workshop. Angela reflected on her experience, sharing the importance of having a mentor from the beginning, at the time of their initial appointment. Even though she struggled and was successfully able to navigate the reappointment and tenure process, she strongly recommended that junior faculty have a mentor. She shared, “the experience left me physically and mentally exhausted. I needed a mentor and an advisor to discuss the process with each in the beginning of my first appointment.” It was discussed that just having a mentor is not sufficient, rather having a mentor who supports and guides their mentee, is more important.

Availability of Resources

Four participants expressed frustration when attempting to obtain the appropriate resources to conduct scholarly work. Ronald discussed how the lack of resources had created a barrier for him to collect preliminary data which would limit his ability to publish scholarly articles. He discussed, “that is an obstacle, that is the kind of problem that I’m thinking that can generate research article.” Karen shared her negative experience with the grants’ office citing that there was only one person working in that office at the time; although the person was trying to help her with the grants process, there was breakdown in communication. She stated:

I said what do I do with the budget? I never had to do the budget before, what do I do with that? And there was no further information and at the end of the summer, I was told, oh you could have hired somebody to help you. I said I don’t know that because I asked and there was no answer and we never met again. Very discouraging process for me.

This frustration was also expressed by other participants, including Victoria, who was rejected twice for grants that she applied for due to the lack of guidance.

Other critical areas, such as accessing literary resources, posed a challenge. Conducting research means reading through tons of journal articles, and if these articles are not readily available, it creates an obstacle for faculty to produce high-quality research. At an academic institution, it is expected that these literary resources will be available and can be accessed free of charge to faculty and students. This, however, did not appeared to be the case, as Victoria explained, “resources was an issue in terms of the library, just not being able to access articles that I needed at moments, that was difficult.” Sheila also discussed her frustration with the institution when trying to find a statistician to help with her research. She explained, “I tried a couple of times to get someone to help me with statistics, because that was a real problem for me. I had a hard time finding anyone who would help.” She eventually found private help, but was very disappointed in the institution, stating, “many places have statisticians that will meet with you and help you figure out what you need and what you need to do, and we did not at least at the time I was struggling with it.”

Time Constraints

Eight participants voiced concerns about not having enough time to dedicate to scholarly work. It was discussed that one of the major misunderstandings across the institution is that not every program or department operates the same. As Angela explained, “the health professions are different from the academic departments, we operate differently, we function differently, we teach differently.” She continued to explain that in the clinical programs, much time is spent in lectures, labs, and preparing students for clinical practice. Because the end goal is to prepare “students to make the outcomes in the world outside of school, and so we need to make sure that they know what they’re doing,” faculty must go above and beyond, putting in extra time to make this happen. As a result, she explained, “it gives us less time to do some of these other things that they find so important to do, yet we find the time to do it. And then we’re criticized later about why the quantity, the quality.” She voiced her frustration regarding other departments not valuing the work clinical faculty put it.

In addition to the extra time spent training students to be excellent healthcare providers, clinical faculty also lose time to service commitments. Despite being given release from the union to engage in scholarly work, some claimed that the time is not protected at a department level, as they are being forced to engage in extra service work. Karen told her story of how she was teaching four to five different courses per semester and was on the same number of committees, leaving her with little to no time for scholarship. She explained that when she asked for her service commitment to be reduced, the chair of the department stated, “you can’t be off these committees because we don’t have enough people in [the department] to represent on all these different committees.” Sheila echoed Karen’s comments by explaining that when a faculty member takes on extra service it is “not a surprise, they have trouble keeping up with their scholarship. But that’s not recognized at all.”

Brian shared an interesting point of view that in addition to their academic responsibilities, as clinicians and healthcare providers, they also have clinical responsibilities, and are therefore drawn in different directions, doing different things, thus leaving little time for scholarly work. When asked about challenges he faced, he replied, “the challenge would be, time.” Others, including Brian, discussed how various aspects of their program, such as preparation for accreditation or reaccreditation, limited the amount of time they can allot to scholarship. He recalled being told that his focus should be on the accreditation process if he “want to even have a job, to go for tenure.” The need for more time and lack of time management was vocalized by all eight participants. Toby summed it up perfectly by saying:

When you’re in the middle of it and you’re working late at night, and you need to submit the paper, and you go to a meeting in the morning, and then you have a class to teach. When you’re in the middle of it, it’s really hard, and that’s a real challenge.

Discipline-Specific Guidance

The concept of discipline-specific guidance was discussed by nine participants. Particularly for those teaching in HPP and clinical programs, the development of a set of criteria as to what constitute scholarships in this field was recommended by most participants. They believed that such guidance would provide more structure for the P&B committee and faculty would be fairly evaluated based on what is considered meaningful work in their area of specialty. Michael eloquently explained that “scholarship, even though it’s broadly defined, it’s viewed by the perspective of those in different disciplines.” This concept, however, is often misunderstood, “there’s a disconnect because what might be important within a discipline or profession, may not be perceived the same way as outsides,” he further explained. Therefore, he encouraged that the P&B committee members should have a different perspective and be open to discipline-specific scholarship. Gilbert added, “the members of the College P&B committee always seem to expect the same type of research from clinicians that they expect from other, more traditional departments.” His frustration was evident as he continued, “the differences are explained to them over and over, but they never quite understand. It makes going through the P&B process very frustrating for both the chair and the faculty member from the clinical department.”

Sheila also sounded frustrated as she commented about others evaluating a faculty members’ work, when they have no experience in the field. “I think it’s crazy that people in disciplines that know nothing of what our own disciplines should be evaluating our scholarship, it’s just not right,” she stated. She discussed that this really means, “each discipline says this is what we value,” and “should define what matters.” Karen also shared her frustration by stating, “others in non-health-related programs don't seem to understand or value the work we do as clinicians and paraprofessionals. They don’t seem to hold research, talks and workshops in the healthcare setting in high regard.” This call to action for a discipline-specific guidance was summed up nicely by Lauren, saying:

I think that a college like this, that’s really a true liberal arts college with professional programs, that it has to be kind of fluid, it really can’t be too prescriptive. Because they’re different disciplines that require different things. It could be discipline specific.

When asked for suggestions or what they would change about the reappointment and tenure process, overwhelmingly, participants opted for and agreed that some form of discipline-specific guidance would be helpful. “If I were writing the rules, I would say that there should be general guidelines and specific guidelines and the P&B should consider both,” Victoria stated. Ronald concurred that the importance of scholarship should be determined by each department, as he stated, “It should not be equally based criteria. Because different departments work different, so it will be different.” In addition, Brian echoed this by stating, “one’s experience, again, not to beat the same point over and over again, it’s vastly different.” On the other hand, there was a concern that too much flexibility may not be beneficial to the institution, as Ginger stated, “when you start to being very, very flexible, it’s very good to the individual, but it’s not good for the image of the college, then the college is going down.” This viewpoint was negated by Angela in her discussion whether every discipline should be treated the same, she stated that it was like, “asking me to compare apples and oranges.”

Discussion

Providing needed support to faculty members, particularly those that are new to the institution, and those on tenure-track lines, should not be an option, but mandatory, especially if the academic institution expects its employees to grow professionally and make meaningful contributions. Support comes in many forms, the most prominent in this research are providing mentorship, resources, and time so that faculty can be productive. Not surprisingly, as documented in the literature, mentorship was cited as the most common barrier [18, 32, 33]. Across the board among these clinical disciplines, mentorship was found to be an essential component of faculty success. Common positive effects of mentorship include someone to talk to, a stress reliever, and a source of information, among others [34]. On the other hand, the lack of mentorship was associated with lower levels of scholarly production [19] while facing higher levels of impediment in keeping up with the scholarship requirements [35].

Institutions should incorporate a system that fosters mentorship so that their employees, particularly new faculty, can solicit support, as needed. I believe that for these relationships to be successful, they must be welcoming and reciprocated by both parties, mentor and mentee. Additionally, it is imperative that mentors are recognized for their meaningful contributions and service, as this recognition may have the potential to promote sustainable relationships. Mentoring programs embedded within academic institutions have been shown to improve inclusiveness, diversity, intellectual enrichment, and professional development, fostering a positive organizational culture and environment for both employees and the institution [22].

The scarcity of resources, as documented in the literature, could create significant barriers for faculty members to engage in scholarly work [36]. To be successful, faculty members are urged to take the time to know where their institution and the department’s resources are located and how to access them [37]. From my vantage point, it is similar to asking skilled workers to do their jobs effectively without the proper tools. Educators are skilled workers, with specific expertise; however, for them to share their knowledge and improve on what they already know, the necessary resources must be readily accessible. The lack of resources, such as funds for travel or attending conferences and consultation with statisticians, which were found in this research, were also similar to other studies [36].

Academic institutions need to do a better job of managing the time faculty receives for scholarly work. At this institution, faculty receives approximately one year of workload to be used over the course of 5 to 7 years. Although it appears that these faculty members may have enough time allotted to engage in scholarly work, it must be viewed equally across all disciplines. As previously discussed, clinical faculty admitted to spending a lot more time, beyond their credit load, engaging in teaching, demonstrations, and coordinating clinical site experiences. Studies have shown that the lack of time and problems with time management were found to be major barriers to scholarly productivity [23, 37–39]. Additionally, when the allotted time for scholarly work is consumed by other institutional service work, it becomes counterintuitive, limiting the amount of time faculty members have to engage in scholarship. There is no surprise that those with higher teaching loads and service commitments were the ones with fewer scholarly productivity [22, 40]. Maintaining the right balance of teaching, scholarship, and service rests not only in the hands of the individual but those with managerial power, as well.

The criteria required to navigate the reappointment, tenure, and promotion maze vary by academic institutions and across disciplines in academia [14, 35]. However, this lack of standardization should not preclude individual institutions from making positive changes within their organization. It creates an environment of chaos when different departments or disciplines are operating in silos or when one is not aware of what the other is doing. Taking the initiative to correct this deficit could prove to be beneficial for both faculty and institution. The recommendations from this research embrace the idea of having guidance from each discipline, valuing each department’s input, and proving appropriate training for the P&B members. It is believed that implementing these recommendations could be of great value to everyone involved.

The concept of discipline-specific guidelines is not well documented in the literature but is one that was touted by a majority of participants. It was argued by the participants that each department and discipline have work that are more valuable to them, as these are the things that make meaningful contributions in that discipline. Therefore, it was suggested to have each department create a set of guidelines to guide the institution’s P&B, which would create some uniformity. This document would not serve as a replacement for the institution’s policies, but rather as a supplemental guide. Some academic institutions, including the University of Georgia, requires that each department create its own set of guidelines which must be provided to newly hired tenure-track faculty. Additionally, the institutional P&B committee must use both documents to guide their decisions when evaluating faculty members for reappointment, tenure, and promotion [41].

The uniqueness of each discipline creates the perfect condition for the implementation of discipline-specific guidance. Different departments at various institutions have already implemented this technique, including the music department at Linfield University, and the history department at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro [42, 43]. The rationale here is that faculty would be fairly evaluated based on what is considered meaningful work in their area of specialty. For this proposal to work, there must be buy-in at all levels within the institution. At this current institution, a few participants discussed that a similar initiative was started by several departments within the institution; however, that initiative did not appear to have succeeded for reasons unknown. Based on the research and the successful implementation of this initiative at other institutions, I concur with the participants that this could be a viable solution for faculty members employed on tenure-track lines.

Conclusions

Navigating the reappointment, tenure, and promotion maze can be challenging for many in academia, particularly those new to the profession. Several barriers and challenges were discussed, including the need for mentorship, resource availability, time constraints, and the lack of discipline-specific guidance, some of which are consistent with the current literature. There was consensus for an overhaul or modification to the current policies, which should include better guidance, and perhaps examples of scholarly work, to minimize the possibility of confusion and chaos. It is also important 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 research adds tremendous value to the body of literature available in this field but is not without its limitations. First, this research was conducted at a single institution with a sample size of 13. Despite being an appropriate sample size, as documented in the literature [44–46], and every effort to preserve trustworthiness, this sole institutional research limits the generalizability of the results. Second, due to the nature of convenience sampling, the potential to introduce selection bias is possible. Every effort was made to control for such bias, including clearly defined study protocols; triangulation, and reflexivity.

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.

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).