Faculty Self-assessment As a Tool for Strategic Planning Toward Promotion and Tenure

1
Faculty Self-assessmentAs a Tool forStrategic
Planning Toward Promotion and Tenure

• Yvonne Bronner, ScD, RD
• Professor
• Morgan State University
• School of Public Health Policy

2
The Problem

• The small number of minority faculty in schools
  of Public Health
• The even smaller number of minority faculty in
  schools of Public health who achieve the rank of
  full professor
• The fact that there is not a single accredited
  school of Public Health among Historically Black
  Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)

3
Minority Public Health Degree Graduates
from Schools of Public Health, 2000
Number of Graduates
n 1,527 (31.9)
4
Minority Public Health Degree Graduates as
Percentage of Total Graduates From Schools of
Public Health, 2000
Minority Percentage
5
MPH Graduates

• 4 Asian
• 3.2 AA
• 1.7 Hispanic
• 0.002 Native American

6
DrPH Graduates

• .0001 Asian
• .001 AA
• .0005 Hispanic
• Native American no percentage calculated

7
SPH Faculty by Race
8

• Minorities are
• three times more likely to indicate that they
  plan to practice in under-served area
• More likely to consider access to healthcare to
  be a problem.
• More likely to believe that everyone is entitled
  to receive adequate care.
• Association of Medical Colleges, 1998

9
The Problem

• Eliminating health disparities is a primary
  initiative for the US driven by healthy people
  2010
• Populations with health disparities are
  disproportionately minority

10
Compelling InterestIOM Report-2004, page 1

• Increasing racial and ethnic diversity among
  health professionals is important because
  evidence indicates that diversity is associated
  with improved access to care for racial and
  ethnic minority patients, greater patient choice
  and satisfaction, and better educational
  experiences for health professions students,
  among many other benefits.

11
Commitment to Eliminating Racial and Ethnic
Health Disparities (Percent, N22P, 20 SPH)
12
Courses Devoted to Eliminating Racial and
Ethnic Health Disparities (Numbers, N21 P, 19
SPH)
13
Centers Devoted to Eliminating Racial and
Ethnic Health Disparities (Numbers, N20 P, 20
SPH)
14
Degrees/Certificates Devoted to Eliminating
Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (Numbers,
N20 P, 17 SPH)
15
Research Devoted to Eliminating Racial and
Ethnic Health Disparities (Numbers, N18 P, 18
SPH)
16
Office for Recruiting Minority Faculty or
Students (Numbers, N19 P, 19 SPH)
17
Faculty Self-AssessmentAs a Tool for Strategic
Planning

• HBCUs - Only Junior Faculty reporting

18
Methodology

• This survey is part of a multi-phased process
• Phase I, (1980-1990) under the direction of Dr.
  L. Perez, was designed to increase research
  productivity among health care practitioners in
  HBCUs
• A toolkit was produced

19
Methodology

• Phase II, (2001 2003), under the direction of
  Dr. L. Perez, was designed to identify policies
  necessary for infrastructure development in HBCUs
  to enhance their capacity to provide additional
  national leadership in the elimination of racial
  health disparities.
• Methods.
• Focus groups.
• Roundtable discussions.

20
Methodology

• Phase II among the findings was a directive to
  learn more about factors in health related
  programs at HBCUs associated with timely
  promotion and tenure of minority faculty

21
Methodology

• Phase III Faculty Self-assessment survey
• Survey goal To determine what junior faculty in
  health related HBCU training programs know about
  elements of faculty development determined to be
  associated with promotion and tenure.

22
Methodology

• Small work group (SWG)under the leadership of Dr.
  Y. Bronner was formed to oversee the work of
  developing and implementing the survey.
• 18 month project funded by SAMHSA HRSA-OMH
  (2004 2005)
• SWG business was conducted by one face-to-face
  meeting and monthly conference calls

23
Methodology

• Survey development
• Conduct literature review to determine list of
  elements that might impact faculty promotion and
  tenure
• Draft survey instrument
• Establish face and content validity by subjecting
  the draft survey instrument to
• Review by the SWG
• The Delphi process using three experts
• Pilot test with narrative comments for each
  section (20)
• In-depth interviews (5)

24
Methodology

• The final instrument reflected findings from each
  of these processes
• The sample (N65 Analysis based on 60)
• Eligible programs were those offering training in
  medicine, dentistry, nursing, allied health,
  pharmacy, and public health
• List of all eligible programs was formed from the
  list of HBCUs in consultation with the national
  association for equal opportunity in higher
  education (NAFEO)

25
VIII. Demographics and Background Data
Race/Ethnicity

white
african american/black
asian
10.2
33.9
55.9
26
VIII. Demographics and Background Data

Faculty Degrees
27
VIII. Demographics and Background Data
28
VIII. Demographics and Background Data
29
VIII. Demographics and Background Data
30
VIII. Demographics and Background Data
31
VIII. Demographics and Background Data
32
VIII. Demographics and Background Data
Areas of Faculty Research
Areas of Faculty Research

33
Findings

• Rated using a five (5) point Likert scale
• 0 inadequate
• 1 somewhat adequate
• 2 adequate
• 3 more than adequate
• 4 exceptional
• SPH and PH Program findings are grouped estimates

34
I. Teaching

• Domains
• Knowledge of current information in core area of
  teaching (3.07time spent reviewing scientific
  journals, books and websites
• Time spent enhancing teaching skills/knowledge by
  attending conferences, technical workshops
  (2.07), seminars or accumulating CEUs
• HBCUs 3.0
• ASPH 4.0

35
I. Teaching
How would you rate yourself on your use of
- Blackboard (an online tool)
- Mapping devices - Powerpoint
- VHS/DVD -
Teleconferences
- Distance learning technology
4
3
Mean Adequacy Rating
2
1
0
DVD
Teleconfer.
Blackboard
Distance learning
GIS
Powerpoint

36
I. Teaching

• Time spent developing students
• Critical thinking (2.76)
• Scientific writing (1.78)
• Scientific presentation
• Team building skills
• HBCU Range 1.78 - 2.76
• SPH Range 2.71 3.42

37
I. Teaching

• Use of the following teaching methods
• Problem based learning
• Competency based learning
• Group process
• Seminars
• Active learning
• HBCU Range 2.57 2.98
• SPH Range 3.64 3.96

38
I. Teaching

• Use of student evaluation to improve teaching
• Student advisement
• Assessment of strengths and weaknesses
• Strategic planning
• Career planning
• Networking
• HBCU range 2.47 - 2.78
• SPH range 3.29 - 3.62

39
I. Teaching
On average, how many students do you advise per
academic year? Mean 25.47 (SD29.76)
(Minimum-Maximum 0-150)
40
I. Teaching
How many courses are you solely responsible for
teaching, on average, each academic year? Mean
3.07 (SD2.8) (Minimum-Maximum 0- 12)


41
I. Teaching

• Are you involved in team-teaching for any of your
  courses?

no (n21) 35
yes (n38) 65
42
I. Teaching Conclusions

• On a scale from inadequate to exceptional, most
  Junior faculty respondents rated themselves as
• Adequate in teaching skill and advising
• Advising about 10 students per year
• Teaching 2 4 courses per year
• As would be expected for junior faculty, there is
  room for growth to achieve excellence in
  teaching.

43
II. Research

How would you rate your ability to develop a
research focus area? strategic plan for funding?

 
44
II. Research

• How would you rate your ability to develop a
  viable research network with local organizations?
  
• State? National? Foundations? Private donors ?

45
II. Research
How would you rate your tenacity in ? -
Submitting proposals
- Achieving research funding
- Resubmitting proposals
- Obtaining peer reviews of
proposals - Accepting constructive feedback
46
II. Research

• How would your rate your skills to write research
  protocols for
• campus/internal funds
• foundation funds
• - national funds

How would you rate your grant writing skills?
your grant management skills?
N Mean SD Minimum Maximum
grant writing skills 59 1.54 3.35 S 1.088 0-4
grant management 59 1.73 3.47 S 1.215 0-4

47
II. Research
How would you rate your publication productivity
in peer-reviewed journals? Mean 1.25
(SD1.12), Minimum/Maximum 0- 4 (N57)
Please
provide details on the following productivity for
the past year - number of articles
published - number of articles
submitted
- number of articles in draft stage
- number of articles in planning stage
N Mean SD Minimum Maximum
published articles 59 2.36 3.45 S 6.805 0-41
submitted articles 58 1.95 5.172 0-30
articles in draft 58 1.19 1.191 0-4
articles in planning stage 58 1.45 1.340 0- 5
48
II. Research
How would you rate your productivity in
submitting abstracts for scientific conferences?
Mean1.75 (SD1.44) (Minimum/Maximum 0-4)
(N56) Please provide details regarding
abstracts for the past year - number
accepted - number of submitted
- number in preparation stage
N Mean SD Minimum Maximum
accepted 59 1.64 3.112 0 - 20
submitted 59 1.49 2.996 0 - 22
in preparation stage 59 .64 .924 0 - 3
49
II. Research
How would you rate your effort to involve
students in - publications - abstract
submission - posters - oral
presentations
50
II. Research
How would you rate your effort to involve
community partners in - publication
- abstract submission - posters
- oral presentations

51
II. Research Conclusions

• More help is needed for
• Developing a research focus
• Strategic planning
• Developing a supportive network at all levels
• Writing and submitting proposals
• Publishing
• Involving students and community
• Strengthening research capability and
  productivity are important needs

52
III. Service
Please provide the number of school/university
committees you serve on have leadership on


N Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Serve on 60 3.28 2.076 0- 12
Leadership role 60 .82 .873 0- 3
53
IV. Career Development
How would you rate your networking
capabilities? How would you rate your
knowledge about promotion? knowledge about
tenure? progress on your timeline?
54
IV. Career Development
Do you have a strategic plan for your career?
55
IV. Career Development
How would you rate your involvement with
professional associations?
How would you rate your
involvement with conferences? seminars? grant
review? manuscript review?
56
IV. Career Development
How would you rate your professional activities
at the national level? State level? local
level? How would you rate your level of activity
with regard to expert testimony? Advocacy? policy
forums?
57
IV. Career DevelopmentConclusions

• This is an areas where most junior faculty felt
  inadequate.
• Could it be that we do not place enough emphasis
  on this aspect during training.
• We need to plan for ways to strengthen this area.

58
V. Mentoring
Is mentoring a critical part of faculty
development? Do you have a mentor?
Do you have a mentor? Do you have a mentor? Do you have a mentor?
no yes Total
Is mentoring critical? no 8 4 12 (20)
yes 22 25 47 (80)
Total Total 30(50) 29(50) 59
Type of mentoring relationship formal or
informal?
n
informal 37 78.7
formal 10 21.3
Total 47
59
V. Mentoring
Rate the effectiveness of mentors within your
department? institution? other HBCU? majority
white institution? Rate the effectiveness of
mentors among peer group? senior faculty? retired
faculty? professional organization?
N Mean SD Minimum Maximum
department 42 1.98 1.440 0-4
institution 37 1.70 1.309 0-4
another HBCU 34 1.18 1.359 0-4
predominantly white institution 32 1.25 1.391 0-4
peer group 32 1.72 1.464 0-4
senior faculty 38 2.11 1.391 0-4
retired person 28 1.00 1.540 0-4
professional organization 28 1.29 1.357 0-4
60
V. Mentoring Conclusions

• While mentoring was perceived to be important,
  only half of the respondents had mentors and the
  relationship was informal.
• Strategies to increase the effectiveness of
  mentors need to be developed.
• Carefully selected mentors may be instrumental
  for research and career development.

61
VI. Time Management
Do you have a time management plan? Is it formal
or informal?
62
VI. Time Management
Do you allocate time for critical reflection?
Search and review of literature? In-depth
reading of literature? Manuscript writing? Is
your time management plan producing the desired
effects for tenure and promotion progress?
63
VI. Time Management
64
VI. Time Management
N Mean SD Minimum Maximum
teaching - course work 58 40.10 31.579 0- 100
research- grant 55 15.00 22.174 0 80
research - papers 53 5.17 11.680 0- 70
Research - abstracts 52 2.67 5.533 0- 30
Research - presentations 51 5.02 8.894 0- 44
service - institutional 49 17.29 23.124 0- 100
service - departmental 52 11.68 19.426 0- 100
service - community 49 7.16 13.834 0- 70
service - professional 50 2.75 4.284 0- 15
service - other 44 3.43 13.872 0- 75

65
VI. Time Management Conclusions

• Strategic time management to accomplish timely
  tenure and promotion outcomes is an area
  requiring immediate attention.
• This is a skill that should be mastered during
  training.
• There are few role models too many of us are
  driven by demands versus using our time to
  accomplish preconceived objectives.

66
VII. Contextual Issues


How would you rate your institutions support for
the expanding role of research in these selected
areas?
67
VII. Contextual Issues
Does your institution have a Faculty Development
Program?
68
Recommendations

• There is a need for additional training and
  practice in the areas of
• Strategic planning for developing and
  implementing research.
• Our current didactic methods and dissertations
  are not sufficient.
• Even post doctoral training is not yielding the
  expected results.

69
Recommendations

• At the dissertation level, maybe we need to
  construct the learning environment to better
  match the real research world and train students
  to manage in that setting.

70
Recommendations

• Require students to fund their research
• Even if the amount is minimal
• Even if departmental funds are used
• This process would allow students to get
  experience in
• Writing and possibly resubmitting a proposal
• Reviewing proposals thus learning from what
  others have written
• Managing grant money

71
Recommendations

• Require students to publish
• The current dissertation has minimal value. Why
  do we continue to invest in documents that never
  see the light of day?
• Why do we tolerate the fact that our research is
  having minimal impact on HP 2010 objectives. In
  fact many are changing in the wrong direction.
• This may greatly increase faculty participation
  in publishing and their productivity in this area.

72
Recommendations

• Can we formalize mentoring?
• Since Professors tend to work much later into
  their careers, do we need to construct mentoring
  as part of the formal contribution that they make
  to their institutions?
• Can we set goals and measurable objectives for
  mentoring?

73
Recommendations

• There needs to be more structure around career
  development during training.
• Now that we are defining what PH practice is, do
  we need to further develop the construct relative
  to how it should be done? Identify
• The necessary skill set
• Management principles
• Measurable outcomes
• Monitoring devices