The current nurse faculty shortage (Snavely, 2016) creates a demand for new approaches for effectively retaining and coaching new faculty members. Previous models of mentoring and support by senior faculty involve intense time commitments from current faculty members (J. B. Martin & Douglas, 2018), and the models may not meet the needs of newly recruited faculty. Different mentoring foci, such as teamwork (Agger et al., 2017), creating collaborative cultures (Heinrich, 2017), and new faculty mentoring for increased retention (J. B. Martin & Douglas, 2018), have been proposed. A group mentoring model details a long-term process with faculty members at different stages of development (Heinrich & Oberleitner, 2012). Suggestions for increasing faculty productivity include collaborative research involving faculty volunteers with varied research backgrounds (C. T. Martin & Hodge, 2011) and hosting peer review writing workshops (Kulage & Larson, 2016; Gibson et al., 2015). Supporting research infrastructure has also been proposed (Banks, 2012).
Building on these previous ideas, this article suggests an approach for retaining faculty through a two-part strategy that supports manuscript development and increases publication rates while simultaneously conserving senior faculty time and efficiently meeting the needs of newer faculty. We describe a successful manuscript development process involving teamwork, coaching, and setting a targeted date for manuscript submission. The process was used with two different university nurse faculty groups. One university is deemed research intensive; the other, despite having a research mission, is teaching intensive, with limited research/publication time for faculty.
TEAMWORK AND COACHING PROCESS
The teamwork and coaching process involved the administrator, the coach/leader, and the team members, with faculty working in large and small teams throughout the process. Interactions between individual members and the coach also took place between team meetings through consultation sessions or via sharing documents.
Prior to the meetings, the administrator of each faculty group and the coach/leader discussed membership for the group. The administrators were encouraged to offer the volunteer opportunity to faculty members and encourage others, if needed. A deadline for finishing at least one manuscript was selected by the administrator and shared with all participants throughout the process. The coach and the administrator were also in communication during the process.
The coach/group leader role involved challenging members and providing support through education, suggestions, and consultation during and between meetings. The coach identified and developed the content and the process documents used. The coach also shared resources, such as Broome (2017), Morin (2017), and Stichler and Nielsen (2014). The coach led discussions and met with team members or small teams and, if requested, reviewed manuscripts (roles are outlined in detail in Supplementary Content, available at http://links.lww.com/NEP/A228). The teamwork and coaching included interactions with large teams and small, two-person teams. The large teams met three times for approximately two hours each time to learn about the publication process and provide support to meet the publication deadline. Difficulties encountered were discussed during meetings, and achievements were celebrated. The small, self-selected teams met for mutual support and encouragement in continuing the writing process. The coach suggested that the small teams meet for less than one hour to save time for working on the publication.
The research-intensive and teaching-intensive large teams were composed of seven and nine members, respectively. Over both institutions, these teams included two clinically focused faculty, two tenured faculty, and 12 tenure-track faculty. The tenured faculty participants were at various stages of their careers as faculty: six faculty, early career, 1-3 years; four faculty, midcareer, 4 years; two faculty, late career, 5-6 years. Some tenure-track faculty had prior publishing and teaching experiences.
MANUSCRIPT DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES
Participation and Evaluation
The large team meetings were interactive and involved reports from the small teams on the progress/difficulties encountered by all members. Most members attended meetings regularly and sent notes if unable to attend. Often, they gave their own perspectives on questions directed to the coach. Unsolicited communication often focused on the value of the assistance. Examples include "Both of us [on a small team] are feeling that this process is truly keeping us on track and helping prioritize our scholarship. Thank you!" and "Oh YES this was so helpful and encouraging."
Manuscripts Submitted/Accepted for Publication
The most important outcomes for this process are, of course, the completion and/or submission of publishable manuscripts. Differences were noted in submissions and publications between the research-intensive and teaching-intensive groups, even though each group met for about eight months; the research-intensive group was involved from September to May, and the teaching-intensive group was involved from January to August. The outcomes were reported through feedback during the following fall semester for both groups.
The seven faculty in the research-intensive group included one clinical faculty member, one tenured researcher available for methodological/analytical consultation, and five tenure-track members. All tenure-track faculty (three early, one mid, one late) were successful in submitting publications. Of the three in the early group, one submitted three manuscripts with two accepted for publication; one submitted two manuscripts, both accepted for publication; the third submitted three manuscripts, all accepted for publication. The late-tenure member had five manuscripts accepted for publication.
The nine faculty in the teaching-intensive group included one clinical faculty member, one tenured faculty member, and seven tenure-track members. Most of the tenure-track faculty submitted a manuscript; all regular attendees submitted evidence of working on a manuscript. The mid-tenure group was most successful with submissions that resulted in acceptance of manuscripts and suggestions from editors for resubmission.
Future Process Changes
Other outcomes of the meetings included ideas for future replications of the manuscript development process. Some suggested changes are holding four large team meetings instead of three, having a longer timeline for the manuscript deadline, and involving a seasoned researcher/faculty member within the institution as a regular member of all future groups. One such senior member was involved in the research-intensive group, and the role took shape as the manuscript development process evolved. In addition, future team members will be encouraged to work on an article or a section of an article that is not contingent upon other research team members for completion so the publication deadline can be met. A more systematic evaluation process is also planned for the next phase of publication/mentoring groups at each university.
In conclusion, this teamwork and coaching manuscript development approach has potential for retaining faculty through meeting publication review criteria while also conserving senior faculty mentoring time. Many members were successful in meeting the publication deadline, and plans for future teams were made through reflection and feedback on the process used with the teamwork and coaching approach.
REFERENCES