Authors

  1. Quill, Beth E.

Abstract

"Academic Perspectives" is a column within the Journal of Public Health Management and Practice that examines the linkages between academic public health and practice. There are two columns in this issue; Beth Quill, MPH, contributes the second column of this feature.

 

THE CONTROVERSY regarding tenure is not new. For the century that it has been a central part of academic life, challenges have been periodically leveled at this reward system for faculty in higher education. With the tremendous growth of higher education in the 20th century, the debate over the role and social responsibilities of higher education in the 21st century took center stage in the 1990s.1 A core argument to eliminating tenure has been the changing environment in which higher education functions.2,3 The world, it is argued, is not the same as when tenure was developed. Therefore, the question arises: Is tenure viable and relevant in the 21st century? Presently, legislators, trustees, and administrators are seeking ways to economize on public expenditures; they claim market forces demand a new analysis of the tenure process, with attendant justification for continuation of this academic tradition.4 Just as vigorously, faculty advance the argument for retention of tenure, citing employment stability, career advancement, and protection of academic freedom. Schools of public health, seeking to develop academic career paths for multidisciplinary faculty, are not immune from this controversy.

 

In 1992, the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE) entered the debate and established the Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards. Through a series of working papers, AAHE provides useful information about tenure trends in higher education. In her report of tenure practices among 1,200 four-year colleges, Trower4 noted that 15% of the institutions did not have a tenure process, 31% reported no change to traditional tenure review processes, and 2 percent reported they "changed the tenure criteria." What is most insightful in her summary is that colleges and universities may not have changed specific tenure criteria, but they did report a variety of changes such as early retirement proposals, performance criteria, financial incentives, tenure quotas, and long-term nontenure contracts that influence the tenure discussion. Gappa5 elucidates this by profiling faculty employment. Two thirds of faculty are full-time employees, with 74% of the full-time faculty tenured or on the tenure-track. Only 64% of faculty hired in the past five years have tenure or are on the tenure-track. Further, there is tremendous variability in tenure appointments by disciplines. Medical schools, for example, employ the most full-time nontenurable faculty.5 It is clear that increasingly universities are employing nontenure, part-time and adjunct faculty to get the job of education done.2 More universities are exploring contractual relationships as an alternative to tenure.6

 

For over a decade, following the release in 1988 of The Future of Public Health,7 schools of public health have responded to the charge for an interdisciplinary curriculum that is related to community needs and advances solutions for public health problems. Subsequently, students and faculty have engaged in complementing the curriculum and community practice experiences to develop educational programs that respond to both the need for specialists and generalists in the field. Appointment of faculty with experience in the field of public health ("practice") in schools of public health has been one mechanism to develop faculty capacity in practice teaching, research, and service. An overview of schools of public health reveals faculty with diverse backgrounds and disciplinary preparation have been recruited and appointed at all levels and tenure status: tenure-track, nontenure-track and contractual employment. The Practice Coordinators of the Association of Schools of Public Health (a designated person for each school of public health), for example, come from a variety of experiences and disciplinary preparation in public health. These faculties are employed in school and university settings with highly diverse tenure procedures and incentive systems for academic performance, as articulated in the association's 2000 report: "The challenge to schools of public health is to create a learning and teaching environment, supported by an incentives system that advances the scholarship, addresses the needs of public health practice, and maintains rigorous standards of scholarship that are both applicable and discerning across traditional disciplinary boundaries."8(p.9)

 

Central to the discussion of tenure is the examination scholarship, since this forms the foundation on which many promotion and tenure processes rely, Boyer9 and his colleague Glassick10 have enlightened the field by describing a scholarship continuum that encourages a full range of scholarship activity. The continuum of scholarship encourages the assessment of faculty work in four domains: 1) scholarship of discovery, 2) scholarship of integration, 3) scholarship of application, and 4) scholarship of teaching. What is attractive about this model is that it offers the following:

 

* offers individual faculty the opportunity to concentrate in any combination of scholarship areas

 

* focuses the assessment of faculty contributions on scholarship that respects all disciplines

 

* supports the diversification of scholarship portfolios

 

 

Informed by the work of Boyer and Glassick, the Practice Coordinators Council of the Association of Schools of Public Health developed the following definition of academic public health practice: "the applied, interdisciplinary pursuit of scholarship in the field of public health."8(p.9) Given this definition, the designation of faculty as "practice faculty," becomes unnecessary. All faculties, irrespective of discipline or experience, bear the burden of demonstrating scholarship. Rather, the question framing the accomplishments of faculty become: "Which domain(s) of scholarship are evidenced? How can these be rewarded in a tenure process?"

 

Aday and Quill11 elucidate the criteria that permit the examination of the scholarship for faculty in public health whose domains may be more concentrated in the scholarship of application and integration and argues the merits of this process in the context of tenure systems. In addition, the work of the AAHE and Community Campus Partnerships for Health, for example, has been instrumental in providing employment models and recommendations on how faculty with largely applied backgrounds fit in current academic environments and can be rewarded through the tenure process. Disciplines, other than public health for example, have formulated criteria for portfolio preparation that include understanding the contribution of community teaching, service, and research.12 If the scholarship can be identified and assessed, and if the academic preparation and the public health need are evident, then proceeding to the question of whether tenure is an appropriate reward naturally follows.

 

The barriers and challenges to academic progress through tenure process for faculty engaged in public health practice have been well articulated by Rowitz (see the other Academic Perspectives column in this issue titled "Practice Rewards in Academia"). The obstacles are both real and perceived. Most important, the lack of examination of the issues poses risks to all faculty who desire the merits of their contributions to be rewarded based on an assessment that values the full range of scholarly contributions.

 

For at least two reasons, schools of public health could provide a leadership role in this discourse about the assessment of scholarship and the appropriate balance of faculty assets in schools of public health. First, with more than a decade of experience with a variety of models of scholarship, evaluation of the best academic reward systems in schools of public health would be a significant contribution to the discourse. Second, the very multidisciplinary nature of the public health field demands an appreciation of differing disciplines and a flexible yardstick in measuring the contribution of practice faculty to the academic preparation of public health professionals. This is a milieu that provides the natural environment for development and evaluation of tenure processes that are respectful and yet demanding of nontraditional professional and academic portfolios. Thus, schools of public health can model educational programs and faculty development that manifest reward systems cognizant of the contributions of generalists and specialists among faculty ranks. The leadership role of faculty in guiding the undergraduate curriculum, preparing health professionals in schools of public health, and contributing to the development of the public health workforce cannot be understated.

 

To extend the discourse initiated by Rowitz, three recommendations are offered:

 

1. Assessment of tenure processes. Leadership in the tenure dilemma by schools of public health and faculty within their respective institutions is contingent on an analysis of current practices and procedures. A survey of schools of public health to elicit evolving tenure processes and successful models is an essential platform. This would be a significant contribution to the evaluation of "best practices" of recruitment, retention, and rewards in schools of public health. To date, there is no report on schools of public health that informs the field regarding tenure for faculty with portfolios of community work and scholarship of application/integration in schools of public health. Such a report would advance promotion and tenure processes in all schools.

 

2. Scholarship revisited. A discussion of scholarship focused on the scholarly contributions of faculty with portfolios of experience and academic preparation reveals the underlying questions regarding what products best represent the scholarship of faculty in schools of public health. This goes well beyond the initial query about "practice faculty" but indeed relates to all faculties. Along the continuum of scholarship (scholarship of discovery, integration, application, and teaching), how does one value the contributions of individual disciplines as well as the interdisciplinary package? With this as the rubric, faculty engaged in academic public health practice can evidence the traditional as well as unique products of their work for examination. This underscores the importance of not separating or labeling faculty as "practice" faculty'a distinction that limits rather than enhances academic contributions. An evaluation of tenure processes in schools of public health with a special reflection by faculty on how all faculty contributions can best be measured is the most promising outcome. This dialogue, although not easy, is essential.

 

3. Funding. As Rowitz points out, the poor funding bases of most practice activities contributes to a low value of these contributions in many schools of public health. Indeed, the more applied sciences have often suffered from inadequate funding when compared with the basic sciences. Recent imperatives from Congress and the president that demand relevant, applicable research are hopeful. Yet, it is difficult to transform the funding streams of long-standing research agencies into a ready source of funds for practice research. Diligence in pressing for researchable, applicable questions and funding support will permit faculty to advance teaching, research, and service activities relevant to public health issues and meritorious of reward in a tenure system.

 

 

The demand for a public health workforce able to integrate the merits of theory and practice into competent, scientific decision makers is likely to intensify. The cry for new ways of application of scientific expertise in the area of bioterrorism, for example, suggests that the faculty mix in schools of public health must continue to include faculty with public health practice experience if students are to be prepared as leaders in practicing public health for the 21st century.13 More than a decade after Boyer9 and five years after Glassick,10 tools to address the measurement of scholarship by faculty in schools of public health have been advanced,11 although not widely adopted.12 To evaluate and develop more responsive tenure systems in schools of public health will not be easy, but the template is ready. Faculty can be evaluated and considered eligible for tenure in schools of public health if comprehensive, scholarship-based assessments are initiated. In these processes, the academic environments of schools will continue to be enriched and keep pace with the demands of the field.