need for a broadened definition of faculty scholarship and creativity, The

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, Spring 2002 by Popovich, Nicholas G, Abel, Steven R

Statements

The intent of this manuscript is to demonstrate the continued need for an expanded view of the various forms of scholarship (ie., application, integration, teaching) among faculty and administrators within the academy beyond the traditional form (ie., discovery) of scholarship. The Commission to Implement Change in Pharmaceutical Education espoused this several years ago and to date the issue remains unresolved. This manuscript defines the various forms of scholarship espoused by the late Ernest Boyer and embraced by the Commission, and provides a historical perspective of postsecondary education and how it has influenced current thinking associated with promotion and tenure decisions. It also provides recommendations to promote a cultural change among faculties and administrators to recognize other forms of scholarship beyond discovery, and how to enhance and facilitate the promotion and tenure process for newly appointed, junior faculty.

INTRODUCTION

Research, education, and service, the three-legged stool, traditionally, defines the activities of university faculty. Today, these have been recast as discovery, learning, and engagement. Regardless of terminology, however, in professional schools, e.g., pharmacy, medicine, there is a fourth leg, that being clinical service. This fourth leg places inordinate pressure upon clinically educated and trained individuals when they are appointed to faculty within tenure tracks. Thus, a solution has been to appoint these individuals into nontenure, clinical tracks and recognize the positive contribution that they provide in terms of clinical teaching and service (e.g., patient care, in-service presentations, drug information and evaluation), and in most instances, the limitations this places on their ability/opportunity to conduct scholarship/creativity.

The emergence and acceptance of the clinical track faculty has changed the composition of professional schools in that these individuals now contribute integrally to the education and training of the pharmacy student. Indeed, they are full partners in the education of the student, and contribute substantially to satisfying the guidelines for accreditation established by the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education. However, there is a view among some tenure-track faculty that these clinical track faculty are not scholarly enough in the traditional view. Consistent with this, too, among some faculty is a narrow view of what scholarship is and how it should be rewarded. Another contentious issue is that the use of clinical track faculty has been accompanied by a proportional decrease in tenured faculty(1). This dilemma has emerged in the academic medical literature and is consistent with that experienced in pharmaceutical education.

It is not uncommon for clinical faculty to be hired into tenure track positions as well. This is necessary because some universities do not recognize nontenure, clinical tracks as options for its faculty appointments. Some faculty at these universities believe that hiring nontenure types dilutes the scholarly nature of the academy. Further, these faculty are concerned that if a school has an inordinately high number of nontenure track faculty, these faculty could have influence on faculty matters, most notably the professional curriculum. Again, while this has been reported in the academic medical literature, one could extrapolate this to pharmaceutical education as well(2).

Suffice to say, whether in a tenure track or a nontenure track, one must be scholarly and creative. Indeed, the AACP Commission to Implement Change in Pharmaceutical Education made this quite clear in its last position paper(3). It also indicated that there must be a re-focus of what constitutes scholarship from the current, traditional, narrow view of it to a broader view espoused by the late Ernest Boyer(4). The Commission wrote, "as they assess faculty competence, pharmacy schools and their faculties must individually recognize and place a value on the various ways of advancing and disseminating knowledge"(3).

To understand how this thinking and view of which type of scholarship (i.e., discovery) is to be rewarded has taken over within universities and understand the current context of scholarship, it is necessary to review the development and growth of American universities and colleges through the years since colonial times.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The focus of the academy has evolved throughout the history of the United States resulting in the current emphasis on research. Dr. Boyer traced how the focus of the academy has evolved since colonial times(5). The first American universities and colleges founded in that period were largely concerned with teaching and focused on educating their students for future civic and religious leadership. Student learning was the goal of the university. This emphasis changed in the 19th century as the U.S. developed from a collection of weak individual states to a strong nation. Then, the emphasis needed a change in focus toward technical training and education. This importance was further emphasized by the Morrill Act, 1862, which donated federal land to each state for support of education in both liberal arts and practical training for the emerging agricultural and industrial revolutions that the country was experiencing. At this point in time, the focus of the university also included service. To this day, examples of this continues with the extension services provided by many institutions of higher learning.