- Email: [email protected]
Writing Group on scholarly pursuits by non-tenure track clinical faculty
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cptl
Experiences in Teaching and Learning
The impact of participation in a Research/Writing Group on scholarly pursuits by non-tenure track clinical faculty ⁎
Laurie W. Fleming , Scott S. Malinowski, Joshua W. Fleming, Meagan A. Brown, Courtney S. Davis, Shirley Hogan University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, 2500 North State Street, Jackson, MS 39216, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Accountability group Faculty Scholarship Research
Background and purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success of a faculty Research/Writing Group (RWG) by quantifying the amount of scholarly productivity from participants in the group compared with that of a matched cohort. Educational activity and setting: The RWG meets monthly to discuss current projects, providing an assessment of their scholarly activity. Participants offer ideas on improvement, resources and possible platforms for presentations and/or publications. Findings: To evaluate the success of this model, scholarly production from the participants in the RWG was compared to a matched group of clinical non-tenure track faculty not participating in the group over a three year period. Faculty perception of RWG participation was evaluated by data collected through a survey using Qualtrics. Summary: Participation in the RWG provided these junior faculty the support system to feel confident in their pursuit of scholarly activities; and therefore, they outpaced their counterparts in dissemination of their research.
Background and purpose The amplified interest on high-quality research and scholarship in recent years has placed an increased demand on the workforce of faculty in the health sciences. The research generated by these faculty is of utmost importance due to its influence over public health, wellness, and advancement of educational techniques. This amplified interest has come to weigh heavily on clinical faculty who balance the demands of patient care as well as the educational, research, and service missions of their college or university.1 As discussed by Smesny et al., scholarship has been an ever-evolving definition over the years. In the earliest stages, it was the pursuit of new knowledge, and this effort was largely led by academic institutions. Until the early 1990 s, much of this work was focused at the benchtop or in clinical settings. In recent years, this definition has expanded to include pursuits related to pedagogical research.1 Within schools and colleges of pharmacy, faculty have seen an increased emphasis on a consistent record of publication. In 2012, Chisolm-Burns et al. discussed that this record is not only important for the advancement of the profession and science, but also a requirement for promotion and tenure along with teaching and service obligations.2 These requirements differ among pharmacy faculty, but pharmacy practice faculty are unique in that they must meet these requirements while maintaining a clinical practice. The 2007 report by Smesny et al. provided insight into perceived barriers to scholarship that are common for clinical faculty amongst all health science disciplines. The barriers included balancing clinical practice with teaching time and effort, yet finding
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: lwfl[email protected] (L.W. Fleming), [email protected] (S.S. Malinowski), jfl[email protected] (J.W. Fleming), [email protected] (M.A. Brown), [email protected] (C.S. Davis), [email protected] (S. Hogan). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.12.004
1877-1297/ © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Fleming, L.W., Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.12.004
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
L.W. Fleming et al.
time for scholarly pursuits.1 These barriers were also described in the report by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Section of Teachers of Pharmacy Practice Task Force with some suggestions as to recommended models for successful pursuit of scholarship. Many of the suggestions offered in this report included creating an environment that nurtures scholarship and mentorship of these efforts. This report also acknowledges, “The best model for the productive pursuit of all faculty responsibilities, including scholarship, can be challenging to identify and create,” due to the variety in structure of colleges and schools of pharmacy.3 A survey of the clinical track faculty at the University of Illinois revealed many of the same concerns related to time and support for scholarly pursuits. These faculty members made many suggestions for improving scholarly pursuits, including one major recommendation related to mentorship across all levels of experience. An additional suggestion made was the creation of special interest research groups that could provide the peer mentorship and support desired.4 Lastly, a 2009 survey report from the AACP Scholarship/Research Faculty Development Task Force was released that described perceived barriers to scholarship and research among Pharmacy Practice Faculty. Faculty members at the University of California-San Francisco, Virginia Commonwealth University, and the University of Tennessee identified “insufficient time” as the most common barrier to scholarship and help “identifying a research question and how to answer it” as the most common recommendation. Among the suggestions from this Task Force was the formation of a research mentor network.5 At the University of Mississippi, the scholarship requirement for all members of the pharmacy practice faculty is well-defined. As stated in our vision statement, “The Department of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy seeks to be a leader in pharmacy education, world-class basic and applied research, innovative medication management models, and delivery of exemplary patient care.” Our Mission Statement specifically addresses scholarship by stating “Our scholarship mission is to impart new knowledge by developing and participating in basic and applied research programs, by promoting collaborative research in communities and the broader public health arena, and by contributing to the literature of pharmacy practice and beyond.”6 The percent effort faculty have to dedicate to research is defined individually by the department chair each year and can change based on other responsibilities. Like many other institutions of pharmacy education, the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy is made up of a variety of tenure and non-tenure track faculty with varying responsibilities related to teaching, service, and scholarship. In early 2013, the Department of Pharmacy Practice (DPP) created a small pilot Research/Writing Group (RWG) in an effort to explore ways to increase scholarly productivity among faculty. The pilot group was initiated with newly hired, non-tenure track faculty who were being led by a senior nontenure track faculty member. The RWG was established to provide a foundation for successful scholarly pursuits for these faculty members. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this model by quantifying scholarly activity from the participants in the RWG compared to a matched cohort of clinical non-tenure track faculty not participating in the group. Educational activity and setting The RWG was made up of five non-tenure track faculty members in the Pharmacy Practice Department who specialize in a similar clinical area (ambulatory care). Group members were all recently hired as full-time faculty members within the last one to two years at the Clinical Assistant Professor level. The training background for these faculty members were similar in that each of them had completed at least one year of post-graduate training with one member completing two years of post-graduate training. The RWG was led by a senior non-tenure track faculty member at the Clinical Associate Professor level with a long-standing, consistent publication history. The formation of this group was recommended and created by the Department Chair. It was designed to be focused on research and scholarship to provide a group-based environment to increase productivity. The RWG set monthly, one-hour meetings to discuss current scholarly activities with each member providing an assessment of their progress since the last meeting. Group meetings were not necessarily structured to teach faculty how to compose a manuscript or conduct research, rather they were intended to motivate, offer accountability, and provide interim deadlines to keep projects on track. The group leader recorded notes from the meetings, facilitated discussions, and shared ideas and information based on their own experiences over the years. Group members served as a sounding board for ideas on improvement, resources and possible platforms for presentation/publication. Additionally, members also provided encouragement, mentorship, regularly reviewed manuscripts for one another, assisted in choosing target journals for publication, discussed feasibility of projects, and helped each other brainstorm and develop future research/writing projects. Findings Using annual faculty report data, a comparison was made between reported scholarly activity during the reporting years 2013, 2014, and 2015 for the six RWG faculty and six matched DPP faculty randomly chosen by the Department Chair who did not participate in a RWG. The matched DPP faculty were chosen based on similar years of experience and tenure versus non-tenure track status. The types of scholarly activity that was collected included published manuscripts, published book chapters, and poster presentations. Data obtained in the 2013 reports provided a baseline prior to RWG participation. A survey was distributed electronically via Qualtrics to obtain data related to faculty perceptions of time commitment and effect of participation in the RWG. Approval to conduct this research was received from the University of Mississippi Institutional Review Board. Scholarly activity At baseline, scholarly activity was higher in the comparison group with the primary difference being more book chapters in that group. At year two, scholarly activity was relatively similar between the groups, but the number of published manuscripts and book 2
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
L.W. Fleming et al.
chapters in the RWG exceeded those of the comparison group. During year three, the scholarly activity in the RWG was greater than the comparison group in published manuscripts and poster presentations. The slow but steady increase in productivity over this three-year span demonstrates the positive influence that an RWG can have on scholarly activities (Table B.1). Perceptions survey In addition to comparing scholarly activity, an electronic survey was distributed to members of the RWG to assess the perceptions of the design and effectiveness of the group. The survey consisted of 12 questions that assessed the RWG perceptions of the structure and timing of the meetings, perceived effectiveness, and perceived benefit. There was one additional question that was included that allowed members of the RWG to leave free-text comments. All six group members completed the survey in its entirety, for a 100% response rate. All members of the RWG agreed that the 60–90 min length and monthly frequency of the meetings were appropriate. In addition, group members unanimously (100%) agreed with each of the following statements:
• • • •
“Since becoming a member of the Research/Writing Group, my scholarly publications have increased” “Since becoming a member of the Research/Writing Group, my scholarly productivity (other than publications; posters, research projects, etc.) has increased” “Since becoming a member of the Research/Writing Group, my level of confidence pursuing research ideas has increased” “Since becoming a member of the Research/Writing Group, identification of collaborators for research ideas has become easier”
For the final six questions, participants were asked to respond with their level of agreement to each statement using a Likert scale. (Fig. A.1) All participants expressed some level of disagreement with the following statement “I have difficulty formulating ideas for research projects because others in the Group have already identified projects that I had been thinking about,” (33% strongly disagreed, 67% disagreed). When asked about dissemination of their research findings, 83% of the group members affirmed they would be more likely to present their findings in the form of a poster at a professional meeting, and all of the group members (100%) agreed they were more likely to publish their results in a written format through their involvement with the RWG. All members of the group agreed that having each other to review work and provide feedback was helpful, accountability provided by the group assisted with staying on-task, and guidance from the senior faculty member was beneficial to the newly hired faculty members. Lastly, survey participants were offered an opportunity to provide any additional thoughts or comments regarding their experience as a member of the writing group. Three group members provided comments, which are summarized in Table B.2. Discussion As many colleges and universities seek to increase scholarly productivity across the board, we at the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy have set similar goals of increased scholarship. This pilot project to determine the effectiveness of a RWG at increasing scholarly activity in clinical, non-tenure track faculty has shown a positive impact. Over the course of the three-year evaluation of the group, scholarly productivity increased and exceeded that of the comparison group by year three. The qualitative analysis of the project also confirmed that having this group increased the perception of productivity, confidence in dissemination, and provided a sounding board for idea generation. The formation of this RWG appears to have been successful for the department as a whole and did not require any additional resources other than time. It is important to note potential limitations of this study. First, all data was self-reported yearly. Because the comparison group consisted of non-tenure track DPP randomly chosen by the Department Chair from those faculty that did not participate in a RWG, there was no way to verify their data submissions. Therefore, there is the potential for unintentional duplication of scholarship from year to year. The data reported is therefore a conservative estimate of the successes of this program. Secondly, members of the RWG had similar areas of interest and practice sites, but this may have varied with the comparison group. Also, there was no way to account for the influence of any individual faculty mentorship that may have occurred during the time period. Other medical professions have used groups similar to the RWG, and they have also shown positive results.7–9 A similar group was formed among radiology faculty. This group was made up of more experienced faculty (most at the associate level) with a longer history of scholarly activity. This group focused on resubmitting formally rejected manuscripts, and at six months, four of the 10 revised manuscripts were accepted for publication, five were in active revision, and one was withdrawn.7 A group formed by nursing educators focused on increasing publication as it related to similar teaching ideas. This group described their successes of increasing their publications, the additional support provided by the group in the publication process, and how the writing group worked for them due to their similar research interests.8 A mentoring group formed by psychiatry faculty focused on assisting junior faculty, and in their results they discussed the benefits of increased professional connections, increased confidence, increased scholarly activity, and greater information sharing.9 Each of these articles came from a different medical specialty, but they each highlight the difficulties faced by clinical faculty to be productive in research and scholarship. All three of these articles support the findings of the RWG in that having a group helps to increase scholarly activity and improves confidence writing and research abilities. Summary Participation in the Group provided junior faculty the mentorship and support system needed to feel confident in their pursuit of scholarly activities; and therefore, they outpaced their counterparts in dissemination of their research. 3
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
L.W. Fleming et al.
Based on the successes of this RWG, the Department Chair recently expanded the number of RWGs from one to four. All faculty are included, and the groups are divided by areas of specialty and track (tenure versus non-tenure). This endeavor is one that other colleges and schools of pharmacy could easily implement without the need for additional staff or resources. For future research, we would like to analyze the successes of the newly formed Research/Writing Groups within the Department and specifically look into the quality of scholarly activity including peer reviewed versus non peer reviewed and original research versus review articles. Conflict of interest statement None. Financial disclosure statement This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Specific contribution to the literature Special interest research groups have been suggested to be advantageous to provide peer mentorship and support to increase scholarly activity for faculty. This study uniquely compares the scholarly productivity of non-tenure track participants in a Research/ Writing group to a matched cohort not participating in the group.
Appendix A. Figures See Fig. A.1.
Fig. A.1. Perceptions survey responses.
4
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
L.W. Fleming et al.
Appendix B. Tables See Tables B1 and B2.
Table B.1 Scholarship quantification. 2012–2013
Manuscript publications Book chapter publications Local, regional, and national poster presentations Total
2013–2014
2014–2015
Research/Writing Group (n=6)
Comparator Group (n=6)
Research/Writing Group (n=6)
Comparator Group (n=6)
Research/Writing Group (n=6)
Comparator Group (n=6)
7 0 32
6 3 32
9 3 34
7 2 39
13 0 40
8 1 28
39
41
46
48
53
37
Table B.2 Additional comments. Please provide any additional thoughts/comments about your experience as a member of this Group: The public commitment and accountability component has been very effective for "pushing" me to be more productive than would have otherwise occurred. Being a part of this group has made the research/scholarship seem less daunting since I know others are going through the same things I am. Having a team to help encourage and stimulate ideas is quite helpful. This makes research and scholarship stay a priority. This model works well for this group of like-minded junior faculty that desire to meet career goals. There is not really competition, but no one wants to be the one not moving ahead so that the monthly meetings make it essential to meet deadlines.
References 1. Smesny AL, Williams JS, Brazeau GA, Weber RJ, Matthews HW, Das SK. Barriers to scholarship in dentistry, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy practice faculty. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(5) Article 91. 2. Chisholm-Burns MA, Spivey C, Martin JR, Wyles C, Ehrman C, Schlesselman LS. A 5-year analysis of peer-reviewed journal article publications of pharmacy practice faculty members. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76(7) Article 127. 3. Bosso JA, Hastings JK, Speedie MK, Rodriguez de Bittner M. Recommendations for the successful pursuit of scholarship by pharmacy practice faculty members. Am J Pharm Educ. 2015;79(1) Article 04. 4. Pickard AS. Towards supporting scholarship in research by clinical pharmacy faculty. Pharm Pr (Granada). 2006;4(4):191–194. 5. Robles JR, Youmans SL, Byrd DC, Polk RE. Perceived barriers to scholarship and research among pharmacy practice faculty: survey report from the AACP Scholarship/Research Faculty Development Task Force. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(1) Article 17. 6. University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy. Department of Pharmacy Practice Mission and Vision Statement. 〈http://pharmacy.olemiss.edu/pharmacypractice/ index-pharmacy-practice/about-dpp-pharmacy-practice/mission-pharmacy-practice/〉. Accessed April 20, 2017. 7. Brandon C, Jamadar D, Girish G, Dong Q, Morag Y, Mullan P. Peer support of a faculty "writers' circle" increases confidence and productivity in generating scholarship. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(4):534–538. 8. Ness V, Duffy K, McCallum J, Price L. Getting published: reflections of a collaborative writing group. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(1):1–5. 9. Lord JA, Mourtzanos E, McLaren K, Murray SB, Kimmel RJ, Cowley DS. A peer mentoring group for novice clinician educators: four years' experience. Acad Med. 2012;87(3):378–383.
5
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cptl
Experiences in Teaching and Learning
The impact of participation in a Research/Writing Group on scholarly pursuits by non-tenure track clinical faculty ⁎
Laurie W. Fleming , Scott S. Malinowski, Joshua W. Fleming, Meagan A. Brown, Courtney S. Davis, Shirley Hogan University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, 2500 North State Street, Jackson, MS 39216, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Accountability group Faculty Scholarship Research
Background and purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the success of a faculty Research/Writing Group (RWG) by quantifying the amount of scholarly productivity from participants in the group compared with that of a matched cohort. Educational activity and setting: The RWG meets monthly to discuss current projects, providing an assessment of their scholarly activity. Participants offer ideas on improvement, resources and possible platforms for presentations and/or publications. Findings: To evaluate the success of this model, scholarly production from the participants in the RWG was compared to a matched group of clinical non-tenure track faculty not participating in the group over a three year period. Faculty perception of RWG participation was evaluated by data collected through a survey using Qualtrics. Summary: Participation in the RWG provided these junior faculty the support system to feel confident in their pursuit of scholarly activities; and therefore, they outpaced their counterparts in dissemination of their research.
Background and purpose The amplified interest on high-quality research and scholarship in recent years has placed an increased demand on the workforce of faculty in the health sciences. The research generated by these faculty is of utmost importance due to its influence over public health, wellness, and advancement of educational techniques. This amplified interest has come to weigh heavily on clinical faculty who balance the demands of patient care as well as the educational, research, and service missions of their college or university.1 As discussed by Smesny et al., scholarship has been an ever-evolving definition over the years. In the earliest stages, it was the pursuit of new knowledge, and this effort was largely led by academic institutions. Until the early 1990 s, much of this work was focused at the benchtop or in clinical settings. In recent years, this definition has expanded to include pursuits related to pedagogical research.1 Within schools and colleges of pharmacy, faculty have seen an increased emphasis on a consistent record of publication. In 2012, Chisolm-Burns et al. discussed that this record is not only important for the advancement of the profession and science, but also a requirement for promotion and tenure along with teaching and service obligations.2 These requirements differ among pharmacy faculty, but pharmacy practice faculty are unique in that they must meet these requirements while maintaining a clinical practice. The 2007 report by Smesny et al. provided insight into perceived barriers to scholarship that are common for clinical faculty amongst all health science disciplines. The barriers included balancing clinical practice with teaching time and effort, yet finding
⁎
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: lwfl[email protected] (L.W. Fleming), [email protected] (S.S. Malinowski), jfl[email protected] (J.W. Fleming), [email protected] (M.A. Brown), [email protected] (C.S. Davis), [email protected] (S. Hogan). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.12.004
1877-1297/ © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Fleming, L.W., Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.12.004
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
L.W. Fleming et al.
time for scholarly pursuits.1 These barriers were also described in the report by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) Section of Teachers of Pharmacy Practice Task Force with some suggestions as to recommended models for successful pursuit of scholarship. Many of the suggestions offered in this report included creating an environment that nurtures scholarship and mentorship of these efforts. This report also acknowledges, “The best model for the productive pursuit of all faculty responsibilities, including scholarship, can be challenging to identify and create,” due to the variety in structure of colleges and schools of pharmacy.3 A survey of the clinical track faculty at the University of Illinois revealed many of the same concerns related to time and support for scholarly pursuits. These faculty members made many suggestions for improving scholarly pursuits, including one major recommendation related to mentorship across all levels of experience. An additional suggestion made was the creation of special interest research groups that could provide the peer mentorship and support desired.4 Lastly, a 2009 survey report from the AACP Scholarship/Research Faculty Development Task Force was released that described perceived barriers to scholarship and research among Pharmacy Practice Faculty. Faculty members at the University of California-San Francisco, Virginia Commonwealth University, and the University of Tennessee identified “insufficient time” as the most common barrier to scholarship and help “identifying a research question and how to answer it” as the most common recommendation. Among the suggestions from this Task Force was the formation of a research mentor network.5 At the University of Mississippi, the scholarship requirement for all members of the pharmacy practice faculty is well-defined. As stated in our vision statement, “The Department of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy seeks to be a leader in pharmacy education, world-class basic and applied research, innovative medication management models, and delivery of exemplary patient care.” Our Mission Statement specifically addresses scholarship by stating “Our scholarship mission is to impart new knowledge by developing and participating in basic and applied research programs, by promoting collaborative research in communities and the broader public health arena, and by contributing to the literature of pharmacy practice and beyond.”6 The percent effort faculty have to dedicate to research is defined individually by the department chair each year and can change based on other responsibilities. Like many other institutions of pharmacy education, the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy is made up of a variety of tenure and non-tenure track faculty with varying responsibilities related to teaching, service, and scholarship. In early 2013, the Department of Pharmacy Practice (DPP) created a small pilot Research/Writing Group (RWG) in an effort to explore ways to increase scholarly productivity among faculty. The pilot group was initiated with newly hired, non-tenure track faculty who were being led by a senior nontenure track faculty member. The RWG was established to provide a foundation for successful scholarly pursuits for these faculty members. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this model by quantifying scholarly activity from the participants in the RWG compared to a matched cohort of clinical non-tenure track faculty not participating in the group. Educational activity and setting The RWG was made up of five non-tenure track faculty members in the Pharmacy Practice Department who specialize in a similar clinical area (ambulatory care). Group members were all recently hired as full-time faculty members within the last one to two years at the Clinical Assistant Professor level. The training background for these faculty members were similar in that each of them had completed at least one year of post-graduate training with one member completing two years of post-graduate training. The RWG was led by a senior non-tenure track faculty member at the Clinical Associate Professor level with a long-standing, consistent publication history. The formation of this group was recommended and created by the Department Chair. It was designed to be focused on research and scholarship to provide a group-based environment to increase productivity. The RWG set monthly, one-hour meetings to discuss current scholarly activities with each member providing an assessment of their progress since the last meeting. Group meetings were not necessarily structured to teach faculty how to compose a manuscript or conduct research, rather they were intended to motivate, offer accountability, and provide interim deadlines to keep projects on track. The group leader recorded notes from the meetings, facilitated discussions, and shared ideas and information based on their own experiences over the years. Group members served as a sounding board for ideas on improvement, resources and possible platforms for presentation/publication. Additionally, members also provided encouragement, mentorship, regularly reviewed manuscripts for one another, assisted in choosing target journals for publication, discussed feasibility of projects, and helped each other brainstorm and develop future research/writing projects. Findings Using annual faculty report data, a comparison was made between reported scholarly activity during the reporting years 2013, 2014, and 2015 for the six RWG faculty and six matched DPP faculty randomly chosen by the Department Chair who did not participate in a RWG. The matched DPP faculty were chosen based on similar years of experience and tenure versus non-tenure track status. The types of scholarly activity that was collected included published manuscripts, published book chapters, and poster presentations. Data obtained in the 2013 reports provided a baseline prior to RWG participation. A survey was distributed electronically via Qualtrics to obtain data related to faculty perceptions of time commitment and effect of participation in the RWG. Approval to conduct this research was received from the University of Mississippi Institutional Review Board. Scholarly activity At baseline, scholarly activity was higher in the comparison group with the primary difference being more book chapters in that group. At year two, scholarly activity was relatively similar between the groups, but the number of published manuscripts and book 2
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
L.W. Fleming et al.
chapters in the RWG exceeded those of the comparison group. During year three, the scholarly activity in the RWG was greater than the comparison group in published manuscripts and poster presentations. The slow but steady increase in productivity over this three-year span demonstrates the positive influence that an RWG can have on scholarly activities (Table B.1). Perceptions survey In addition to comparing scholarly activity, an electronic survey was distributed to members of the RWG to assess the perceptions of the design and effectiveness of the group. The survey consisted of 12 questions that assessed the RWG perceptions of the structure and timing of the meetings, perceived effectiveness, and perceived benefit. There was one additional question that was included that allowed members of the RWG to leave free-text comments. All six group members completed the survey in its entirety, for a 100% response rate. All members of the RWG agreed that the 60–90 min length and monthly frequency of the meetings were appropriate. In addition, group members unanimously (100%) agreed with each of the following statements:
• • • •
“Since becoming a member of the Research/Writing Group, my scholarly publications have increased” “Since becoming a member of the Research/Writing Group, my scholarly productivity (other than publications; posters, research projects, etc.) has increased” “Since becoming a member of the Research/Writing Group, my level of confidence pursuing research ideas has increased” “Since becoming a member of the Research/Writing Group, identification of collaborators for research ideas has become easier”
For the final six questions, participants were asked to respond with their level of agreement to each statement using a Likert scale. (Fig. A.1) All participants expressed some level of disagreement with the following statement “I have difficulty formulating ideas for research projects because others in the Group have already identified projects that I had been thinking about,” (33% strongly disagreed, 67% disagreed). When asked about dissemination of their research findings, 83% of the group members affirmed they would be more likely to present their findings in the form of a poster at a professional meeting, and all of the group members (100%) agreed they were more likely to publish their results in a written format through their involvement with the RWG. All members of the group agreed that having each other to review work and provide feedback was helpful, accountability provided by the group assisted with staying on-task, and guidance from the senior faculty member was beneficial to the newly hired faculty members. Lastly, survey participants were offered an opportunity to provide any additional thoughts or comments regarding their experience as a member of the writing group. Three group members provided comments, which are summarized in Table B.2. Discussion As many colleges and universities seek to increase scholarly productivity across the board, we at the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy have set similar goals of increased scholarship. This pilot project to determine the effectiveness of a RWG at increasing scholarly activity in clinical, non-tenure track faculty has shown a positive impact. Over the course of the three-year evaluation of the group, scholarly productivity increased and exceeded that of the comparison group by year three. The qualitative analysis of the project also confirmed that having this group increased the perception of productivity, confidence in dissemination, and provided a sounding board for idea generation. The formation of this RWG appears to have been successful for the department as a whole and did not require any additional resources other than time. It is important to note potential limitations of this study. First, all data was self-reported yearly. Because the comparison group consisted of non-tenure track DPP randomly chosen by the Department Chair from those faculty that did not participate in a RWG, there was no way to verify their data submissions. Therefore, there is the potential for unintentional duplication of scholarship from year to year. The data reported is therefore a conservative estimate of the successes of this program. Secondly, members of the RWG had similar areas of interest and practice sites, but this may have varied with the comparison group. Also, there was no way to account for the influence of any individual faculty mentorship that may have occurred during the time period. Other medical professions have used groups similar to the RWG, and they have also shown positive results.7–9 A similar group was formed among radiology faculty. This group was made up of more experienced faculty (most at the associate level) with a longer history of scholarly activity. This group focused on resubmitting formally rejected manuscripts, and at six months, four of the 10 revised manuscripts were accepted for publication, five were in active revision, and one was withdrawn.7 A group formed by nursing educators focused on increasing publication as it related to similar teaching ideas. This group described their successes of increasing their publications, the additional support provided by the group in the publication process, and how the writing group worked for them due to their similar research interests.8 A mentoring group formed by psychiatry faculty focused on assisting junior faculty, and in their results they discussed the benefits of increased professional connections, increased confidence, increased scholarly activity, and greater information sharing.9 Each of these articles came from a different medical specialty, but they each highlight the difficulties faced by clinical faculty to be productive in research and scholarship. All three of these articles support the findings of the RWG in that having a group helps to increase scholarly activity and improves confidence writing and research abilities. Summary Participation in the Group provided junior faculty the mentorship and support system needed to feel confident in their pursuit of scholarly activities; and therefore, they outpaced their counterparts in dissemination of their research. 3
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
L.W. Fleming et al.
Based on the successes of this RWG, the Department Chair recently expanded the number of RWGs from one to four. All faculty are included, and the groups are divided by areas of specialty and track (tenure versus non-tenure). This endeavor is one that other colleges and schools of pharmacy could easily implement without the need for additional staff or resources. For future research, we would like to analyze the successes of the newly formed Research/Writing Groups within the Department and specifically look into the quality of scholarly activity including peer reviewed versus non peer reviewed and original research versus review articles. Conflict of interest statement None. Financial disclosure statement This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Specific contribution to the literature Special interest research groups have been suggested to be advantageous to provide peer mentorship and support to increase scholarly activity for faculty. This study uniquely compares the scholarly productivity of non-tenure track participants in a Research/ Writing group to a matched cohort not participating in the group.
Appendix A. Figures See Fig. A.1.
Fig. A.1. Perceptions survey responses.
4
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
L.W. Fleming et al.
Appendix B. Tables See Tables B1 and B2.
Table B.1 Scholarship quantification. 2012–2013
Manuscript publications Book chapter publications Local, regional, and national poster presentations Total
2013–2014
2014–2015
Research/Writing Group (n=6)
Comparator Group (n=6)
Research/Writing Group (n=6)
Comparator Group (n=6)
Research/Writing Group (n=6)
Comparator Group (n=6)
7 0 32
6 3 32
9 3 34
7 2 39
13 0 40
8 1 28
39
41
46
48
53
37
Table B.2 Additional comments. Please provide any additional thoughts/comments about your experience as a member of this Group: The public commitment and accountability component has been very effective for "pushing" me to be more productive than would have otherwise occurred. Being a part of this group has made the research/scholarship seem less daunting since I know others are going through the same things I am. Having a team to help encourage and stimulate ideas is quite helpful. This makes research and scholarship stay a priority. This model works well for this group of like-minded junior faculty that desire to meet career goals. There is not really competition, but no one wants to be the one not moving ahead so that the monthly meetings make it essential to meet deadlines.
References 1. Smesny AL, Williams JS, Brazeau GA, Weber RJ, Matthews HW, Das SK. Barriers to scholarship in dentistry, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy practice faculty. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(5) Article 91. 2. Chisholm-Burns MA, Spivey C, Martin JR, Wyles C, Ehrman C, Schlesselman LS. A 5-year analysis of peer-reviewed journal article publications of pharmacy practice faculty members. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76(7) Article 127. 3. Bosso JA, Hastings JK, Speedie MK, Rodriguez de Bittner M. Recommendations for the successful pursuit of scholarship by pharmacy practice faculty members. Am J Pharm Educ. 2015;79(1) Article 04. 4. Pickard AS. Towards supporting scholarship in research by clinical pharmacy faculty. Pharm Pr (Granada). 2006;4(4):191–194. 5. Robles JR, Youmans SL, Byrd DC, Polk RE. Perceived barriers to scholarship and research among pharmacy practice faculty: survey report from the AACP Scholarship/Research Faculty Development Task Force. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(1) Article 17. 6. University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy. Department of Pharmacy Practice Mission and Vision Statement. 〈http://pharmacy.olemiss.edu/pharmacypractice/ index-pharmacy-practice/about-dpp-pharmacy-practice/mission-pharmacy-practice/〉. Accessed April 20, 2017. 7. Brandon C, Jamadar D, Girish G, Dong Q, Morag Y, Mullan P. Peer support of a faculty "writers' circle" increases confidence and productivity in generating scholarship. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(4):534–538. 8. Ness V, Duffy K, McCallum J, Price L. Getting published: reflections of a collaborative writing group. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(1):1–5. 9. Lord JA, Mourtzanos E, McLaren K, Murray SB, Kimmel RJ, Cowley DS. A peer mentoring group for novice clinician educators: four years' experience. Acad Med. 2012;87(3):378–383.
5