Participation in faculty scholarship is increasingly emphasized in health science academic settings. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) defines scholarship as "the generation, synthesis, translation, application, and dissemination of knowledge that aims to improve health and transform health care."1 Scholarship activities can provide opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration; expand knowledge; solve scientific, educational, and clinical practice challenges; and contribute to health care transformation.2
In nursing education, scholarship is an expectation, regardless of terminal degree or track (research, educator, or clinical line, tenure or nontenure line). Although the expectations of productivity may vary in each pathway, the only opportunity at many academic institutions for increased compensation is through promotion of rank, which requires scholarly productivity. If barriers to faculty scholarship exist, identification of specific institutional barriers is important when implementing practices supportive of faculty productivity.
Published literature from 2000 to 2020 was reviewed to find research articles that identified barriers to faculty scholarship productivity. Search of the following terms was carried out in the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PubMed: "faculty," "nursing," "barriers," "scholarship," "tenure," "productivity," and "academic rank." These were evaluated for relevance to scholarship productivity, and 23 articles were used for faculty survey development. Although barriers to scholarship have been reported, none were studied among nontenure track nursing faculty.
Methods
This cross-sectional, descriptive study employed an investigator-developed survey designed to explore sample demographics and responsibilities and identify barriers to scholarship productivity among nursing faculty in a research-intensive (Carnegie class R1) university with 15 programs, tracks, or graduate certificates. The survey is provided in Supplemental Digital Content (available at: http://links.lww.com/NE/B338). The inclusion criteria were nontenure track full-time (FT) and part-time (PT)/adjunct nursing faculty. The barriers within the survey tool were developed on the basis of the literature review. Tenure track faculty were excluded because their scholarly activities have more university support. Face validity was evaluated by higher rank faculty, and internal reliability was demonstrated for the 23 questions related to potential barriers (Cronbach's [alpha] = 0.92). The study was approved via expedited review by the university institutional review board. The survey was distributed electronically to 36 FT (>75% full-time equivalent [FTE]) and 188 PT/adjunct (<74% FTE) nontenure track nursing faculty members.
Results
Fifty faculty members completed the online survey (22% response rate), including 24 FT and 24 adjunct faculty members (2 did not identify role). Of the FT faculty respondents, 71% had doctoral and 21% had master's degrees, whereas 38% of adjunct faculty had doctoral and 58% had master's degrees (4% did not respond). Faculty estimated the amount of time spent in academic-related activities each week, with the highest percentage as teaching activities, followed by practice, administration, scholarship, and service.
Faculty were asked to rank potential barriers. The Table indicates the top 5 and lowest 5 ranked barriers and their associated barrier category. The highest ranked barriers were categorized as workload and time barriers. The lowest ranked barriers were categorized as intrapersonal barriers. Comparing the means of the top 5 rated barriers with the means of the lowest 5 rated barriers demonstrated a significant difference (paired t test: t48 = 11.87, P < .001).
Discussion
We expected faculty would identify a need for mentoring related to building scholarly writing skills, confidence, and motivation, because one-fifth of FT and one-half of PT/adjunct faculty respondents were not doctorally prepared and therefore less experienced in scholarly writing; however, these were not identified as highly ranked barriers. This may be a reflection of strong departmental and school support of faculty development. Instead, availability of time was the barrier that received the highest ranking, and time, mental energy, and funding were the 3 broad areas deemed most significant.
The barrier of time is congruent with previous findings,3,4 although our survey uniquely focused on nontenure track faculty in a research-intensive university. Creating protected scholarship time is challenging on many levels, including clinical practice expectations, 9-month versus 12-month contracts, and limited budgets, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic. All FT faculty respondents held 12-month contracts. Although the easiest solution to addressing time as a barrier may be to request protected time, this recommendation seems unlikely to be implemented. The barrier of time may also be addressed through mentoring guidance that highlights improved time and energy management to realign workloads and assist with promoting healthier work environments.2,4 A time management workshop that focuses on work-life balance may also be beneficial. Although one might assume that faculty with more experience are better able to manage their time, our findings indicated that faculty with 6 or more years in an academic setting were still challenged in dedicating time to scholarship. Therefore, both novice and mid-career faculty may benefit from guidance on work-life balance and how to create protected time.
Once barriers are identified within an institution, support can be developed to respond accordingly. Our institution leadership responded with the expansion of additional 2-hour writing accountability groups (offered several times a week at varying times of the day), which has been reported as an effective approach to assist faculty in making small steps forward in their efforts.2 In addition, a 1-year temporary 0.5 FTE position was developed to support FT and PT/adjunct faculty's scholarship efforts, with reevaluation at the end of the year.
Limitations
This exploratory study has several limitations. The sample was limited to one university and nontenure track faculty. The survey tool was investigator-developed, with limited metrics. As a research-intensive university, expectations for scholarship on all faculty tracks may be higher than those in other settings. The overall response rate appears low because the adjunct faculty group is much larger than the FT faculty group; however, 66% of FT faculty responded. FT and PT faculty were equally represented in the sample.
Conclusion
Nontenure track nursing faculty at a research-intensive university identified available time to engage in scholarly activities as the highest ranked barrier to productivity, whereas intrapersonal factors including scholarly writing skills, confidence, and motivation were not found to be significant barriers. This may be reflective of institutional support of faculty development. Although the findings are largely supported by previous research, they contribute to the body of knowledge regarding nontenure track faculty perceptions of scholarly productivity barriers in a research-intensive university.
References