- Email: [email protected]
Identifying Barriers and Facilitators to Nurse Faculty Careers for PhD Nursing Students
IDENTIFYING BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO NURSE FACULTY CAREERS FOR PHD NURSING STUDENTS DI FANG, PHD⁎, GERALDINE D. BEDNASH, PHD, RN, FAAN,
AND
RACHAEL ARIETTI, MS
The shortage of doctorally educated nurses pursuing faculty careers is a major concern regarding the development of the nurse faculty workforce. This cross-sectional study aims to identify barriers and facilitators to academic careers for doctoral (PhD) nursing students. A total of 1,500 PhD students were randomly selected from nursing schools across the country to participate in our survey, and a 62.8% response rate was achieved. The study found that 72% of respondents planned to pursue faculty careers after graduating. Students with postgraduation plans for academic careers, nonacademic careers, and undecided careers showed distinct profiles of demographic and academic characteristics. They also perceived facilitators and barriers to faculty careers differently. The most influential facilitators were interest in teaching and an appreciation of the impact of nursing research on patient care, and the most considered barriers were poor financial compensation and a negative perception of academia. Minority students were more likely than White students to have plans for academic careers. Various experiences during doctoral education appeared to have a positive impact on students' decisions to pursue academic careers. (Index words: PhD students; Minority students; Nurse faculty careers; Barriers; Facilitators; Doctoral education; Nursing) J Prof Nurs 0:1–9, 2015. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
T
HE FACULTY SHORTAGE is frequently reported as a major barrier to increasing enrollment capacity of nursing programs. In the 2010 report, The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended that nursing schools should double the number of nurses with a doctorate by 2020 to add to the cadre of nurse faculty and researchers, with attention to increasing diversity. To meet these goals, studies are needed to identify factors that influence the recruitment and retention of doctorally-prepared graduates into nurse faculty positions.
Director of Research and Data Services (D. Fang), Chief Executive Officer, GDB & Associates, Former Chief Executive Officer (G.D.Bednash), Research Associate, Police Executive Research Forum, Formerly Research Assistant (R. Arietti), American Association of Colleges of Nursing, One DuPont Circle, Suite 530, Washington, DC, 20036. Address correspondence to Dr. Fang: American Association of Colleges of Nursing, One DuPont Circle, Suite 530, Washington, DC, 20036. E-mail: [email protected] 8755-7223
nurse faculty requires a major transition from the practice arena to the educational sector, and novice nurse educators have reported feeling inadequate and overwhelmed after making the transition (Anderson, 2009; McDonald, 2010).To gain substantial clinical experiences before entering academia, nurses tend to start faculty careers at an older age (Siela, Twibell, & Keller, 2009; Stevenson, 2003; Yordy, 2006). This tendency may hinder nurses who wish to enter academia at young ages. In addition, noncompetitive salary and heavy workload, which cause dissatisfaction and burnout, are considered as major barriers to entering and remaining in the faculty role (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2008; Barlag, 2008; Daley & Dee, 2006; Durham, Merritt, & Sorrell, 2007; Gormley, 2003; Kaufman, 2007; Schenkein & Best, 2001; Swafford & Legg, 2007; Yedidia, Chou, Brownlee, Flynn, & Tanner, 2014). On the other hand, there are factors that motivate nurses to work as faculty, such as a high level of autonomy and the ability to influence students (Culleiton & Shellenbarger, 2007; Penn, Wilson, & Rosseter, 2008). The ability to shape practice and to give back to the nursing profession is also motivational (Berent & Anderko, 2011; Garbee & Killacky, 2008). In addition,
Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol 0, No. 0 (November), 2015: pp 1–9 © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2015.10.001
Literature Review Barriers to pursuing nurse faculty careers have been well documented in the literature. Entering into the role of
2
ARTICLE IN PRESS
the help of mentors for the orientation to and development of the faculty role after becoming a faculty member, a sense of belonging to the academic community, and the enjoyment of research activities are important (Berent & Anderko, 2011; Danna, Schaubhut, & Jones, 2010). Regarding the impact of graduate education on students' career plans, a study found that students who stayed in their doctoral programs for more than 1 year changed their career goals after entering their doctoral programs. The percentage of students hoping to become faculty in schools of nursing decreased from 50.7 to 35.3% between the time when students enter their doctoral programs and the time the study was conducted, suggesting a negative impact of doctoral education experiences on students' career plans for academic nursing (Zebelman & Olswang, 1989). However, a study in Ireland found the percentage of nursing students who worked as lecturers increased significantly after they completed their master's education, and the students deemed the impact of the master's degree on their career advancement influential (Drennan, 2008). Students with faculty status tended to continue academic careers after graduation since earning a doctoral degree would meet the expectations of their employers for promotion and tenure (Lee, 2009). There were a few studies that found minority faculty were more likely than White faculty to leave academic nursing or to consider leaving academic medicine (Fang & Bednash, 2014; Palepu, Carr, Friedman, Ash, & Moskowitz, 2000). However, it seems there is no study focusing on minority nursing students' interests in academic careers. Although much research has been done on factors discouraging and motivating faculty to leave or stay in academic roles, limited knowledge exists about barriers and facilitators to faculty careers for doctoral nursing students, especially regarding career decisions of minority doctoral students. The purpose of this article is to report the results of our study on research-focused doctoral students' career decisions (since almost all of research-focused doctoral students are PhD students, they are referred as PhD students subsequently). We had the following research questions in this study: a. What are the characteristics of PhD students who plan to pursue a faculty career? b. Are minority PhD students less or more likely than White students to have plans for a faculty career? c. What are factors that attract PhD students to pursuing a faculty career? d. What are factors that dissuade PhD student from pursuing a faculty career? e. What is the impact of doctoral education on the likelihood of planning to pursue a faculty career for PhD students? f. Are PhD students who plan to pursue academic careers prepared for various academic tasks?
Methodology A cross-sectional study design was used for this research project. Using the questionnaire from Nettles & Millett's,
FANG ET AL
2006 study on doctoral degree attainment as a framework, combined with existing literature on career decision making and input from two focus groups involving students from local doctoral nursing programs, we drafted a survey to identify factors affecting career decisions of doctoral nursing students. We then sent the draft questionnaire to 30 doctoral program directors and doctoral nursing students for their feedback before we finalized the survey instrument. The questionnaire included the following topics related to our research questions: (a) nursing background and current student status; (b) doctoral study experiences; (c) faculty experience; (d) postgraduation plans for academic or nonacademic nursing careers; and (e) demographic information. Variables were measured using a series of multiple choice questions, open-ended questions, and Likert items. After we obtained an institutional review board approval from the American Institute for Research, we conducted a national sample survey of PhD and doctor of nursing practice nursing students in 2013. This article reports the part on PhD students. The PhD population for our survey consisted of all 5,110 students enrolled in a total of 138 PhD programs 1 in 2012 (AACN, 2012). Of them, we randomly selected 1,500 as survey participants, and directors of PhD programs helped us distribute survey materials to their students. There were 942 students who responded to our survey, resulting in a response rate of 62.8%. A total of 933 respondents who reported career plans were included in this study. Because 100% of PhD nursing programs in the United States responded to the 2012 AACN Annual Survey, we had data on a few demographic and institutional characteristics of the PhD student population in 2012, which were used to assess nonresponse bias in this study. Because the values of those demographic and institutional characteristics of the student population were known, we considered the differences in percentage distribution between the sample and the population as sampling errors. We found the percentage distributions of the respondents by gender, Academic Health Center status of the institution where a respondent was enrolled, and level of distance education offered by a respondent's doctoral program were within 2 percentage points of those of the general PhD student population, indicating that the respondents represent the student population well with regard to these characteristics, since commonly acceptable sampling errors for large surveys are in the range of 2 to 3 percentage points (Langer, 2008). We also found that White students and full-time students were slightly (4 percentage points) more likely than non-White students and part-time students, respectively, to respond to our survey. We collapsed the five Likert categories into three groups— positive, neutral, and negative—by assigning a value of 3 to the positive categories (significantly influenced and influenced), a value of 2 to the neutral category (neither influenced nor 1
Twelve PhD programs were counted as 5 consortium PhD programs in the AACN survey report. However, for the purpose of our study, these programs were considered as separate programs.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO NURSE FACULTY CAREERS
3
Table 1. Characteristics of PhD Students by Postgraduation Career Plans Characteristics
Academic careers
No-academic careers
n
676 (72.5%)
101 (10.8%)
Male (%) Non-White (%) Non-U.S. resident (%) Full-time student (%) Full-time faculty (%) Part-time faculty (%) Employment in teaching/research at the time of survey (%) Employment in clinical practice at the time of survey (%) Employment in administration at the time of survey (%) Age beginning doctoral education—post master's (M) Age beginning doctoral education—post baccalaureate (M) Expected years to graduation—post master's (M) Expected years to graduation - Post Baccalaureate (M) Stayed in doctoral program for 5 years or more at the time of survey—post master's (%)
8.9 28.1 5.6 61.8 44.4 15.8 61.7 17.3 7.8 43.4 33.5 4.9 5.2 20.1
13.9 15.8 4.0 41.4 7.9 21.8 14.9 34.7 33.7 43.9 33.7 5.3 5.3 25.3
P .0065 .0001 b .0001 b .0001 b .0001 b .0001
Career direction undecided 156 (16.7%) 9.6 22.4 4.5 57.1 10.9 16.7 30.8 38.5 14.7 43.5 34.6 5.0 5.1 21.9
P
b .0001 b .0001 b .0001 .0070
Total
933 9.5 25.2 5.3 58.2 34.8 16.6 51.4 22.7 11.8 43.4 33.9 5.0 5.2 21.0
Note. Chi-square values and P values are reported at P b .05 level. Data source: AACN Survey on Doctoral Students, 2013.
dissuaded), and a value of 1 to the negative categories (dissuaded and significantly dissuaded). We also assigned a missing value to the “NA” category. We performed bivariate analyses using the chi-square test to examine individual characteristics comparing students with different career plans. We also conducted multinomial logistic regression analyses to examine the association between a characteristic and a students' type of career plan while controlling for other variables. We performed all analyses using SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
Findings We divided students into three groups in our analyses based on their postgraduation career plans: (a) students who planned to pursue academic careers; (b) students who planned to seek nonacademic careers; and (c) students who had not decided on their career directions. We expected that this classification would facilitate our identification of students who are interested in academic careers and our examinations of barriers and facilitators to those careers.
Bivariate Analyses on Students' Demographic and Academic Characteristics Table 1 shows that 72.5% of respondents planned to pursue academic careers, whereas 10.8% wanted to seek nonacademic careers, and another 16.7% had not decided on career directions. Compared with students in the nonacademic group, students in the academic group were more likely to be non-White minorities (29 vs. 16%), to be full-time students (61 vs. 46%), and to have faculty status (60 vs. 30%), especially full-time faculty status (45 vs. 10%). In addition, students who planned to pursue academic careers were more likely to work primarily in teaching or research (71 vs. 15%) at the time of our survey.
The magnitude of percentage distributions of the above characteristics for students in the undecided group was often between those of the academic group and the nonacademic group. For example, 57% of the undecided students reported full-time student status, whereas the figure was 61% for the academic group and 46% for the nonacademic group. We found that students entered their doctoral programs at an average age of 33.9 at the postbaccalaureate level and 43.4 at the postmaster's level. On the basis of the year a student entered a program and the additional years the student expect to graduate at the time of our survey, we found that, on average, postmaster's students would graduate in 5 years and postbaccalaureate students in 5.2 years after entering their programs. Twenty-one percent of postmaster's students had already been in their doctoral programs for 5 years or more at the time of our survey.
Bivariate Analyses on Facilitators and Barriers to Academic Careers Table 2 displays data on factors that influenced students' postgraduation plans for academic careers. We asked a number of questions in our survey about students' participation in teaching, research, and leadership development activities during their doctoral education. These activities included workshops, conferences, symposia, formal courses, internships, and assistantships. We found students in the academic group participated in more teaching development activities than students in the nonacademic group (mean of 4.35 vs. 2.53). In addition, participating in these activities was more likely to influence their career interests in academic nursing (79.7 vs. 41.6%).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4
FANG ET AL
Table 2. Factors Influencing Career Plans for Academic Nursing No-academic careers
Factors
Academic careers
n
676
101
Teaching development activities (M) Research development activities (M) Leadership development activities (M) Impact of development activities on interest in academic nursing Increased (%) Neither Increased nor decreased (%) Decreased (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Had faculty as a mentor in doctoral education (%) Impact of interaction with mentor on interest in academic nursing (of students having a mentor) Increased (%) Neither increased nor decreased (%) Decreased (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Received financial support for doctoral education (%) Financial support covering 76–100% of doctoral education expenses (%) (of students received financial support) Impact of Interest level in teaching Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Impact of interest level in research Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Interactions with faculty during doctoral education Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Perceived flexibility of work schedule in academic nursing Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Career growth opportunities in academic nursing Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Perceived financial compensation in academic nursing Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Perceived workload in academic nursing Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%)
4.3 10.4 2.5
2.6 9.7 2.6
79.7 15.2 0.6 4.5 87.9
41.6 31.7 20.8 5.9 78.2
P
Career direction undecided 156 3.2 10.5 2.5
b .0001
b .0001 57.1 23.1 12.2 7.6 77.6
b .0001 81.5 15.5 0.5 2.5 88.5 65.1
46.8 41.8 5.1 6.3 84.2 48.2
86.2 13.0 0.4 0.4
33.7 49.5 12.8 4.0
84.2 14.1 1.2 0.5
41.6 39.6 15.8 3.0
76.3 13.6 3.8 6.3
45.5 21.8 31.7 1.0
78.4 16.6 3.6 1.4
38.6 48.5 8.9 4.0
87.1 11.4 0.4 1.1
51.5 37.6 8.9 2.0
64.5 25.7 8.1 1.7
12.9 42.6 41.6 2.9
24.1 42.3 28.1 5.5
6.9 24.8 63.4 4.9
26.5 45.6 24.3
7.9 45.5 43.6
P
.0027
b .0001 57.9 27.3 5.8 9.0 87.8 51.1
b .0001
.0023 b .0001
62.8 26.3 9.0 1.9 b .0001
b .0001 71.2 22.4 5.8 0.6
b .0001
b .0001 53.8 26.9 17.9 1.4
b .0001
b .0001 55.8 29.5 11.5 3.2
b .0001
b .0001
b .0001 75.6 17.3 3.8 3.3 2.6 36.5 36.5 24.4 2.6
b .0001
b .0001
b .0001 7.7 32.1 55.8 4.4
b .0001
b .0001 9.0 37.8 48.7
ARTICLE IN PRESS
BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO NURSE FACULTY CAREERS
5
Table 2. (Continued) No-academic careers
Factors
Academic careers
n
676
101
3.6
3.0
Not applicable/missing (%) Perceived academic nursing politics Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%)
P
Career direction undecided 156 4.5 b .0001
.0002 13.3 46.4 35.2 5.1
4.0 35.6 54.5 5.9
P
6.4 30.1 61.5 2.0
Note. Chi-square values and P values are reported at P b .05 level. Data source: AACN Survey on Doctoral Students, 2013.
More than 85% of students received financial support for their doctoral education, and students in the academic group were more likely than students in the nonacademic group to receive support to cover 76–100% of their doctoral education expenses (65.1 vs. 48.2%). Students in the academic group were also more likely to report that they had a faculty member as a mentor (87.9 vs. 78.2%), and interactions with their mentors were more likely to increase their career interests in academic nursing (81.5 vs.46.8%). We listed a number of facilitators and barriers in our survey that could influence students' plans for academic careers. We found students in the academic group considered the facilitators more favorably than students in the nonacademic group. For example, 86.2% of students in the former group reported that impact of interest level in teaching influenced them to pursue academic careers, whereas the figure was 34% for students in the latter group. The patterns of percentage distributions were similar for a number of other facilitators including perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care (87.1 vs. 51.5%), impact of interest level in research (84.2 vs. 41.6%), impact of interactions with faculty during doctoral education (76.3 vs. 45.5%), perceived flexibility of work schedule in academic nursing (78.4 vs. 38.6%), and perceived career growth opportunities in academic nursing (64.5 vs. 12.9%). On the other hand, students in the academic group were less likely than students in the nonacademic group to be dissuaded by barriers to pursuing an academic career. These barriers included perceived financial compensation in academic nursing (28 vs. 63%),
perceived workload in academic nursing (24 vs. 44%), and perceived academic nursing politics (35 vs. 55%). The magnitude of percentage distributions on the above facilitators and barriers for students in the undecided group were between those for the academic group and the nonacademic group. For example, 57.1% of undecided students reported that participating in teaching/research/leadership development activities increased their interests in academic nursing, whereas the figure was 79.7% for the academic group and 41.6% for the nonacademic group. To assess the impact of doctoral education on the likelihood of planning for faculty careers, we calculated the percentages of students who had changed career plans since entering their program. We found 47% of students who had nonacademic career plans prior to entering their PhD programs switched to academic career plans during their doctoral education. On the other hand, only 4% of students who had academic career plans before entering doctoral programs changed to nonacademic career plans (see Table 3). To assess PhD students' preparation for academic careers, we asked a number of questions in our survey on students' levels of confidence in carrying out various academic tasks. We found a large percentage of the respondents, regardless of their career plans, felt confident in conducting independent research and publishing research findings (see Table 4). Compared to students in the nonacademic group, students in the academic group were more likely to feel confident in developing curricula and teaching general nursing courses and laboratory/clinical courses. However, less
Table 3. Career Plan Changes After Entering PhD Programs Plan for academic career prior to PhD education Career plan after entering PhD program Academic Non-academic Undecided Plan for non-academic career prior to PhD education Career plan after entering PhD program Academic Non-academic Undecided
674 555 29 90 259
82% 4% 13%
121 72 66
47% 28% 25%
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6
FANG ET AL
Table 4. Level of Confidence in Carrying Out Academic Tasks No-academic careers
Career direction undecided
Factors
Academic careers
n
676
101
(%)
68.8 20.9 10.4
67.3 19.8 12.9
61.5 23.7 14.7
(%)
70.6 18.8 10.7
71.3 16.8 11.9
66.7 21.8 11.5
(%)
71.2 18.5 10.4
43.6 33.7 22.8
(%)
87.0 8.3 4.7
73.3 17.8 8.9
(%)
79.3 13.6 7.1
67.3 20.8 11.9
69.2 16.4 15.4
(%)
45.1 32.4 22.5
51.5 26.7 21.8
45.1 32.4 22.5
(%)
45.9 31.7 22.5
57.4 20.8 21.8
46.2 27.6 26.3
Conduct independent research Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Publish research findings Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Develop curricula Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Teach general nursing courses Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Teach laboratory/clinical courses Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Review grant proposals Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Write grant proposals Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%)
P
156
b .0001
P
b .0001 49.4 27.6 23.1
.0013
.0018 75.6 15.4 9.0
.0255
.0025
Note. Chi-square values and P values are reported at P b .05 level. Data source: AACN Survey on Doctoral Students, 2013.
than 50% of students in the academic group felt confident in reviewing and writing grant proposals. An additional analysis shows that this finding is consistent even for PhD students at research-intensive institutions (as measured by universities with very high research activities according to Carnegie Classification).
Multivariate Analysis on Facilitators and Barriers to Academic Careers Because our outcome variable, career plans, has three categories: academic career plan, nonacademic career plan, and undecided career plan, we conducted multinomial logistic regression to examine the factors that influenced students' career decisions. Our bivariate analyses showed that many variables were significantly associated with career plans for academic nursing. However, some of the variables were highly correlated with each other (multicollinearity) and were therefore excluded as explanatory variables from our regression models. As a result of some correlation analyses, we selected the following explanatory variables for our regression models: (a) full-time student status, (b) minority status; (c) full-time faculty status; (d) primary employment in teaching/research during doctoral education; (e) impact of participation in teaching/research/leadership develop-
ment activities on career interest in academic nursing; (f) impact of level of interest in teaching on pursing an academic career; (g) impact of perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care on pursing an academic career; and (h) impact of perceived financial compensation in academic nursing on pursing an academic career. The variables on mentorship and financial support were not included because more than 10% of students did not have a mentor or receive financial support. Table 5 shows the results of multinomial logistic regression analyses on planning for academic careers. The first column lists odds ratios, P values, and 95% confidence interval comparing students with academic career plans versus students with nonacademic career plans (reference category). Controlling for other variables, we found the odds of having academic career plans for students with full-time student status were 2.329 times the odds for students with part-time status. Being a minority, having full-time faculty status, and having primary employment in teaching or research during doctoral education also increased the likelihood of having academic career plans. In addition, increases in the impact of participation in teaching/research/leadership development activities on career plans for academic nursing (i.e., from negative to neutral or from neutral to
ARTICLE IN PRESS
BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO NURSE FACULTY CAREERS
7
Table 5. Multinomial Logistic Regression on Postgraduation Plans for Academic Careers Nonacademic versus academic Confidence Interval
Nonacademic versus Undecided
Odds ratio
P
Full-time student status (part-time student) Full-time faculty status (part-time faculty/non-faculty) Non-White (White) Primary employment in teaching/research during doctoral education (Primary employment in other setting) Participating in development activities Impact of level of interest in teaching Perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care Perceived financial compensation in academic nursing Intercept n = 776 Likelihood ratio χ 2 = 328.5, P = .9994
2.329
.006
1.274
4.257
1.659
7.582
.0008
2.323
24.749
1.180
4.760
.0002
2.079
10.899
2.757
.0158
1.210
6.283
6.233
b .0001
2.520
15.411
2.777
.0317
1.094
7.052
3.499 4.431 4.424
b .0001 b .0001 b .0001
2.103 2.534 2.341
5.820 7.750 8.360
1.227 1.807 2.140
.0212 .0083
1.092 1.217
2.990 3.763
1.840
.0105
1.153
2.937
0.901
− 12.28 (B)
b .0001
Odds ratio
− 4.02 (B)
P
Confidence interval
Characteristics/factors
b .0001
Note. P values and confidence intervals are reported at P b .05 level. Data source: AACN Survey on Doctoral Students, 2013.
positive) are associated with a 249.9% increase in the odds of planning for an academic career (odds ratio = 3.499). Similarly, increases in the impact of interest level in teaching, perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care, and perceived financial compensation in academic nursing on plans for an academic career also increase the likelihood of having academic career plans. Note that these findings also imply that for each unit decrease in the predictor variables, the odds of planning for an academic career decrease accordingly. For example, if the impact of perceived financial compensation in academic nursing on plans to pursue an academic career changes from positive to neutral or from neutral to negative, the odds of planning for an academic career decreases by 84% (odds ratio = 1.840). The second column of Table 5 shows the results of our regression model comparing PhD students who were undecided on their career directions with those who planned to pursue nonacademic careers (the reference category). We found there are four factors that increase the likelihood of having an undecided career plan rather than a nonacademic career plan: non-White minority status, primary employment in teaching/research during doctoral education, impact of interest level in teaching on pursuing academic careers, and perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care on pursuing academic careers.
Discussion In our bivariate and multivariate analyses, we found minority students were more likely than white students to plan for academic careers. The finding suggests that PhD programs have provided an encouraging environment for developing minority students' interests in
academic careers, which is in line with the recommendation of the 2010 IOM report on increasing diversity of nurse faculty with a doctoral degree. PhD programs should continue their efforts in this endeavor. We found the impact of interest level in teaching and perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care on pursuing academic careers are the leading facilitators to planning for faculty careers for PhD students. This finding is consistent with findings of previous studies on motivators for faculty to stay in academia. Nursing schools should create teaching and research development opportunities for students at the baccalaureate and master's levels to stimulate their interests in teaching and research early on. PhD programs and funding agencies should also give special attention to identify applicants for doctoral education who are interested in teaching and research and therefore are more likely to pursue academic careers. We found more than 85% of students received funding to support their doctoral education. Students considering PhD education should be made aware of the financial support available to them. In addition, PhD programs should identify their students who are more likely to seek faculty careers and help them maintain their interest in teaching and research. And the profile of students who planned to seek academic careers that we found may help PhD programs identify such students. Student's experiences during their graduate education would play a significant role in their postgraduation career decisions. Consistent with previous findings, we found that mentorship plays a significant role in developing students' interests in teaching, research, and academic careers. Specifically, we found that PhD students with academic career plans were more likely
8
ARTICLE IN PRESS
than those with nonacademic or undecided career plans to have a faculty member as a mentor, and interactions with their mentors were more likely to increase their interests in academic nursing. PhD programs should provide their students with mentors and encourage frequent mentor–mentee interactions. Less traditional means of mentoring students should be explored that maximize faculty and other resources, including regular peer group discussions, either face to face or online, that allow for faculty and peer mentoring and support. Mentors should receive support for this component of their faculty role, and formal preparation for this role should be developed to ensure faculty mentors have the skills and tools needed for mentorship. Our study also confirmed the findings of previous studies that postmaster's doctoral students are often in their late 40s upon graduating, which limits the length of their academic careers. The growth of postbaccalaureate doctoral education in recent years indicates an enhanced effort to move nursing professionals into doctoral education earlier in their careers. AACN has been advocating this education pathway for years (AACN, 2010). Faculty, academic leaders, and nursing professional bodies must engage in a campaign to identify candidates for doctoral education and provide advice and counsel that will move these individuals into a program of doctoral studies earlier in their careers. We found 21% of postmaster's PhD students had already been in their programs for 5 years or longer at the time of our survey. The significant financial and personal investments made by students, as well as doctoral programs and their faculty, make this an important issue for future investigation. PhD programs should build a mechanism to monitor students' progress periodically to ensure students to complete their program in a timely manner. Regarding our finding that PhD students, including those at research-intensive institutions, did not feel confident in reviewing and writing grant proposals, PhD programs should provide their students with adequate research training to prepare them to become research scientists. The National Institutes of Health and other funding organizations such as Robert Wood Johnson Foundation should increase research-training support for PhD students. Although we found that 72.5% of survey respondents planned to pursue academic careers, 60% of them were already full-time or part-time faculty. These individuals will not add new supply to the nurse faculty workforce after graduation. To increase the pool of students seeking academic careers, PhD programs should give special attention to students who have not decided on their career directions to influence their career decisions, since a large percentage of these students reported interests in teaching and a passion for nursing research. However, nursing schools and funding agencies will need to address the concerns of these students about academic compensation, which, to different degrees, is a concern for all graduate nursing students. Without a practical solution to this fundamental issue, the pool for PhD
FANG ET AL
students intending to pursue academic careers, currently including mainly individuals who are driven by interests and passion, may not expand.
Conclusions In this study, we found 72.5% of the survey respondents planned to pursue academic careers after graduation. Compared with students who planned to seek nonacademic careers (10.8% of the respondents), they were more likely to be full-time students, to be minorities, to have faculty status, especially full-time faculty status, and to receive financial support to cover most of their doctoral education expenses. During their doctoral education, they were more likely to work primarily in teaching or research, to participate in teaching development activities, and to have a faculty member as a mentor. Students in the academic group were also more likely than students in the nonacademic group to be influenced by facilitators to faculty careers. The facilitators identified in this study include impact of participating in teaching/ research/leadership development activities, impact of interaction with faculty mentors, impact of interest level in teaching and research, perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care, impact of interactions with faculty, and perceived career growth opportunities in academic nursing. On the other hand, they were less likely to be dissuaded by barriers to academic careers, including perceived financial compensation and workload in academic nursing, and perceived academic nursing politics. It seems students who had not decided on their career directions (16.7% of the respondents) considered both barriers and facilitators to be important, which, perhaps, were the reasons that they could not make their decisions. We found that postmater's students entered their doctoral programs with an average age of 43.4, and they would graduate in 5 years on average. Accordingly, they would graduate at the age of 48.5. At the time of survey, 21% of them had stayed in their doctoral programs for 5 years or more. Most students intending to seek academic careers felt confident in carrying out most academic tasks, except for reviewing and writing grant proposals. We found the percentage of students that switched from having nonacademic career plans prior to doctoral education to academic career plans after entering doctoral programs was substantially higher than the percentage that switched from having academic career plans to nonacademic career plans, suggesting that the impact of doctoral education on plans to pursue an academic career is generally positive for PhD students.
Study Limitations As a cross-sectional study on survey respondents' career intentions, we do not know to what extend that the reported careers plans will be realized later. However, we plan to address this limitation in a separate study. AACN has collected individual-level data on nursing doctoral students via the AACN Roster Survey of Doctoral Students.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO NURSE FACULTY CAREERS
We plan to use the data to verify the employment directions of the doctoral students whom we surveyed for this study.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by a research grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (grant number: 70184). We greatly appreciate the support of deans and directors of doctoral nursing programs for this study. We thank Ms. Nancy Steffan and Dr. Catherine Millett for their assistance in the early stages of this study. We also thank Dr. Joan Stanley and Dr. Judy Beal for their feedback on the early drafts of this manuscript.
References American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2008). Nursing faculty shortage fact sheet. http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Media/ factsheets/nursingfacultyshortage.htm. American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2010). Research focused doctoral program in nursing: Pathways to excellence. http://www.aacn.nche.edu/education-resources/ PhDPosition.pdf. American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) (2012). 2011–2012 enrollment and graduations in baccalaureate and graduate programs in nursing. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, J. (2009). The work–role transition of expert clinician to novice academic educator. Journal of Nursing Education, 48, 203–208. Barlag, K. (2008). Taking on the nurse faculty shortage: The role of colleges and universities. Ohio Nurses Review, 83, 1–10. Berent, G. R. & Anderko, L. (2011). Solving the nurse faculty shortage. Nurse Educator, 36, 203–207. Culleiton, A. & Shellenbarger, T. (2007). Transition of a bedside clinician to a nurse educator. MEDSURG Nursing, 16, 253–257. Daley, C. J. & Dee, J. R. (2006). Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 776–803. Danna, D., Schaubhut, R. M. & Jones, J. (2010). From practice to education: Perspectives from three nurse leaders. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 41, 83–87. Drennan, J. (2008). Professional and academic destination of masters in nursing graduates: A national survey. Nurse Education Today, 28, 751–759. Durham, S., Merritt, J. & Sorrell, J. (2007). Implementing a new faculty workload formula. Nursing Education Perspectives, 28, 184–189. Fang, D. & Bednash, G. D. (2014). Attrition of full-time faculty from schools of nursing with baccalaureate and graduate programs, 2010–2011. Nursing Outlook, 62, 164–173. Garbee, D. & Killacky, J. (2008). Factors influencing intent to stay in academia for nursing faculty in the southern United
9
States of America. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 5, 1–15. Gormley, D. K. (2003). Factors affecting job satisfaction in nurse faculty: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nursing Education, 42, 174–178. Institute of Medicine (2010). The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Kaufman (2007). Compensation for nurse educators: Findings from the NLN/Carnegie national survey with implications for recruitment and retention. Nursing Education Perspectives, 28, 223–225. Langer, G. (2008). Sampling error: What it means. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/sampling-errormeans/story?id=5984818. Lee, C. J. (2009). The experience of nurse faculty members enrolled in doctoral study. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 4, 59–75. McDonald, P. J. (2010). Transitioning from clinical practice to nursing faculty: Lessons learned. Journal of Nursing Education, 49, 126–131. Nettles, M. T. & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Palepu, A., Carr, P. L., Friedman, R. H., Ash, A. S. & Moskowitz, M. A. (2000). Specialty choices, compensation, and career satisfaction of underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine. Academic Medicine, 75, 157–160. Penn, B. K., Wilson, L. D. & Rosseter, R. (2008). Transitioning from nursing practice to a teaching role. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 13 [16 pp.]. Schenkein, H. A. & Best, A. M. (2001). Factors considered by new faculty in their decision to choose careers in academic dentistry. Journal of Dental Education, 65, 832–840. Siela, D., Twibell, R. K. & Keller, V. (2009). The shortage of nurses and nursing faculty. Critical Care Nurse/Supplement, 17– 33. Stevenson, E. L. (2003). Future trends in nursing employment: The nursing shortage has made choosing the right career path easier. American Journal of Nursing, 103, 19–25 [Career Job Supplement]. Swafford, L. G. & Legg, J. S. (2007). Job satisfaction among radiation therapy educators. Radiology Technology, 78, 459–467. Yedidia, M. J., Chou, J., Brownlee, S., Flynn, L. & Tanner, C. A (2014). Association of faculty perceptions of work-life with emotional exhaustion and intent to leave academic nursing: Report on a national survey of nurse faculty. Journal of Nursing Education, 53, 569–579. Yordy, K. D. (2006). The nursing faculty shortage: A crisis for health care. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Zebelman, E. S. & Olswang, S. G. (1989). Students career goal changes during doctoral education in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 28, 53–60.
AND
RACHAEL ARIETTI, MS
The shortage of doctorally educated nurses pursuing faculty careers is a major concern regarding the development of the nurse faculty workforce. This cross-sectional study aims to identify barriers and facilitators to academic careers for doctoral (PhD) nursing students. A total of 1,500 PhD students were randomly selected from nursing schools across the country to participate in our survey, and a 62.8% response rate was achieved. The study found that 72% of respondents planned to pursue faculty careers after graduating. Students with postgraduation plans for academic careers, nonacademic careers, and undecided careers showed distinct profiles of demographic and academic characteristics. They also perceived facilitators and barriers to faculty careers differently. The most influential facilitators were interest in teaching and an appreciation of the impact of nursing research on patient care, and the most considered barriers were poor financial compensation and a negative perception of academia. Minority students were more likely than White students to have plans for academic careers. Various experiences during doctoral education appeared to have a positive impact on students' decisions to pursue academic careers. (Index words: PhD students; Minority students; Nurse faculty careers; Barriers; Facilitators; Doctoral education; Nursing) J Prof Nurs 0:1–9, 2015. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
T
HE FACULTY SHORTAGE is frequently reported as a major barrier to increasing enrollment capacity of nursing programs. In the 2010 report, The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended that nursing schools should double the number of nurses with a doctorate by 2020 to add to the cadre of nurse faculty and researchers, with attention to increasing diversity. To meet these goals, studies are needed to identify factors that influence the recruitment and retention of doctorally-prepared graduates into nurse faculty positions.
Director of Research and Data Services (D. Fang), Chief Executive Officer, GDB & Associates, Former Chief Executive Officer (G.D.Bednash), Research Associate, Police Executive Research Forum, Formerly Research Assistant (R. Arietti), American Association of Colleges of Nursing, One DuPont Circle, Suite 530, Washington, DC, 20036. Address correspondence to Dr. Fang: American Association of Colleges of Nursing, One DuPont Circle, Suite 530, Washington, DC, 20036. E-mail: [email protected] 8755-7223
nurse faculty requires a major transition from the practice arena to the educational sector, and novice nurse educators have reported feeling inadequate and overwhelmed after making the transition (Anderson, 2009; McDonald, 2010).To gain substantial clinical experiences before entering academia, nurses tend to start faculty careers at an older age (Siela, Twibell, & Keller, 2009; Stevenson, 2003; Yordy, 2006). This tendency may hinder nurses who wish to enter academia at young ages. In addition, noncompetitive salary and heavy workload, which cause dissatisfaction and burnout, are considered as major barriers to entering and remaining in the faculty role (American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2008; Barlag, 2008; Daley & Dee, 2006; Durham, Merritt, & Sorrell, 2007; Gormley, 2003; Kaufman, 2007; Schenkein & Best, 2001; Swafford & Legg, 2007; Yedidia, Chou, Brownlee, Flynn, & Tanner, 2014). On the other hand, there are factors that motivate nurses to work as faculty, such as a high level of autonomy and the ability to influence students (Culleiton & Shellenbarger, 2007; Penn, Wilson, & Rosseter, 2008). The ability to shape practice and to give back to the nursing profession is also motivational (Berent & Anderko, 2011; Garbee & Killacky, 2008). In addition,
Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol 0, No. 0 (November), 2015: pp 1–9 © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2015.10.001
Literature Review Barriers to pursuing nurse faculty careers have been well documented in the literature. Entering into the role of
2
ARTICLE IN PRESS
the help of mentors for the orientation to and development of the faculty role after becoming a faculty member, a sense of belonging to the academic community, and the enjoyment of research activities are important (Berent & Anderko, 2011; Danna, Schaubhut, & Jones, 2010). Regarding the impact of graduate education on students' career plans, a study found that students who stayed in their doctoral programs for more than 1 year changed their career goals after entering their doctoral programs. The percentage of students hoping to become faculty in schools of nursing decreased from 50.7 to 35.3% between the time when students enter their doctoral programs and the time the study was conducted, suggesting a negative impact of doctoral education experiences on students' career plans for academic nursing (Zebelman & Olswang, 1989). However, a study in Ireland found the percentage of nursing students who worked as lecturers increased significantly after they completed their master's education, and the students deemed the impact of the master's degree on their career advancement influential (Drennan, 2008). Students with faculty status tended to continue academic careers after graduation since earning a doctoral degree would meet the expectations of their employers for promotion and tenure (Lee, 2009). There were a few studies that found minority faculty were more likely than White faculty to leave academic nursing or to consider leaving academic medicine (Fang & Bednash, 2014; Palepu, Carr, Friedman, Ash, & Moskowitz, 2000). However, it seems there is no study focusing on minority nursing students' interests in academic careers. Although much research has been done on factors discouraging and motivating faculty to leave or stay in academic roles, limited knowledge exists about barriers and facilitators to faculty careers for doctoral nursing students, especially regarding career decisions of minority doctoral students. The purpose of this article is to report the results of our study on research-focused doctoral students' career decisions (since almost all of research-focused doctoral students are PhD students, they are referred as PhD students subsequently). We had the following research questions in this study: a. What are the characteristics of PhD students who plan to pursue a faculty career? b. Are minority PhD students less or more likely than White students to have plans for a faculty career? c. What are factors that attract PhD students to pursuing a faculty career? d. What are factors that dissuade PhD student from pursuing a faculty career? e. What is the impact of doctoral education on the likelihood of planning to pursue a faculty career for PhD students? f. Are PhD students who plan to pursue academic careers prepared for various academic tasks?
Methodology A cross-sectional study design was used for this research project. Using the questionnaire from Nettles & Millett's,
FANG ET AL
2006 study on doctoral degree attainment as a framework, combined with existing literature on career decision making and input from two focus groups involving students from local doctoral nursing programs, we drafted a survey to identify factors affecting career decisions of doctoral nursing students. We then sent the draft questionnaire to 30 doctoral program directors and doctoral nursing students for their feedback before we finalized the survey instrument. The questionnaire included the following topics related to our research questions: (a) nursing background and current student status; (b) doctoral study experiences; (c) faculty experience; (d) postgraduation plans for academic or nonacademic nursing careers; and (e) demographic information. Variables were measured using a series of multiple choice questions, open-ended questions, and Likert items. After we obtained an institutional review board approval from the American Institute for Research, we conducted a national sample survey of PhD and doctor of nursing practice nursing students in 2013. This article reports the part on PhD students. The PhD population for our survey consisted of all 5,110 students enrolled in a total of 138 PhD programs 1 in 2012 (AACN, 2012). Of them, we randomly selected 1,500 as survey participants, and directors of PhD programs helped us distribute survey materials to their students. There were 942 students who responded to our survey, resulting in a response rate of 62.8%. A total of 933 respondents who reported career plans were included in this study. Because 100% of PhD nursing programs in the United States responded to the 2012 AACN Annual Survey, we had data on a few demographic and institutional characteristics of the PhD student population in 2012, which were used to assess nonresponse bias in this study. Because the values of those demographic and institutional characteristics of the student population were known, we considered the differences in percentage distribution between the sample and the population as sampling errors. We found the percentage distributions of the respondents by gender, Academic Health Center status of the institution where a respondent was enrolled, and level of distance education offered by a respondent's doctoral program were within 2 percentage points of those of the general PhD student population, indicating that the respondents represent the student population well with regard to these characteristics, since commonly acceptable sampling errors for large surveys are in the range of 2 to 3 percentage points (Langer, 2008). We also found that White students and full-time students were slightly (4 percentage points) more likely than non-White students and part-time students, respectively, to respond to our survey. We collapsed the five Likert categories into three groups— positive, neutral, and negative—by assigning a value of 3 to the positive categories (significantly influenced and influenced), a value of 2 to the neutral category (neither influenced nor 1
Twelve PhD programs were counted as 5 consortium PhD programs in the AACN survey report. However, for the purpose of our study, these programs were considered as separate programs.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO NURSE FACULTY CAREERS
3
Table 1. Characteristics of PhD Students by Postgraduation Career Plans Characteristics
Academic careers
No-academic careers
n
676 (72.5%)
101 (10.8%)
Male (%) Non-White (%) Non-U.S. resident (%) Full-time student (%) Full-time faculty (%) Part-time faculty (%) Employment in teaching/research at the time of survey (%) Employment in clinical practice at the time of survey (%) Employment in administration at the time of survey (%) Age beginning doctoral education—post master's (M) Age beginning doctoral education—post baccalaureate (M) Expected years to graduation—post master's (M) Expected years to graduation - Post Baccalaureate (M) Stayed in doctoral program for 5 years or more at the time of survey—post master's (%)
8.9 28.1 5.6 61.8 44.4 15.8 61.7 17.3 7.8 43.4 33.5 4.9 5.2 20.1
13.9 15.8 4.0 41.4 7.9 21.8 14.9 34.7 33.7 43.9 33.7 5.3 5.3 25.3
P .0065 .0001 b .0001 b .0001 b .0001 b .0001
Career direction undecided 156 (16.7%) 9.6 22.4 4.5 57.1 10.9 16.7 30.8 38.5 14.7 43.5 34.6 5.0 5.1 21.9
P
b .0001 b .0001 b .0001 .0070
Total
933 9.5 25.2 5.3 58.2 34.8 16.6 51.4 22.7 11.8 43.4 33.9 5.0 5.2 21.0
Note. Chi-square values and P values are reported at P b .05 level. Data source: AACN Survey on Doctoral Students, 2013.
dissuaded), and a value of 1 to the negative categories (dissuaded and significantly dissuaded). We also assigned a missing value to the “NA” category. We performed bivariate analyses using the chi-square test to examine individual characteristics comparing students with different career plans. We also conducted multinomial logistic regression analyses to examine the association between a characteristic and a students' type of career plan while controlling for other variables. We performed all analyses using SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
Findings We divided students into three groups in our analyses based on their postgraduation career plans: (a) students who planned to pursue academic careers; (b) students who planned to seek nonacademic careers; and (c) students who had not decided on their career directions. We expected that this classification would facilitate our identification of students who are interested in academic careers and our examinations of barriers and facilitators to those careers.
Bivariate Analyses on Students' Demographic and Academic Characteristics Table 1 shows that 72.5% of respondents planned to pursue academic careers, whereas 10.8% wanted to seek nonacademic careers, and another 16.7% had not decided on career directions. Compared with students in the nonacademic group, students in the academic group were more likely to be non-White minorities (29 vs. 16%), to be full-time students (61 vs. 46%), and to have faculty status (60 vs. 30%), especially full-time faculty status (45 vs. 10%). In addition, students who planned to pursue academic careers were more likely to work primarily in teaching or research (71 vs. 15%) at the time of our survey.
The magnitude of percentage distributions of the above characteristics for students in the undecided group was often between those of the academic group and the nonacademic group. For example, 57% of the undecided students reported full-time student status, whereas the figure was 61% for the academic group and 46% for the nonacademic group. We found that students entered their doctoral programs at an average age of 33.9 at the postbaccalaureate level and 43.4 at the postmaster's level. On the basis of the year a student entered a program and the additional years the student expect to graduate at the time of our survey, we found that, on average, postmaster's students would graduate in 5 years and postbaccalaureate students in 5.2 years after entering their programs. Twenty-one percent of postmaster's students had already been in their doctoral programs for 5 years or more at the time of our survey.
Bivariate Analyses on Facilitators and Barriers to Academic Careers Table 2 displays data on factors that influenced students' postgraduation plans for academic careers. We asked a number of questions in our survey about students' participation in teaching, research, and leadership development activities during their doctoral education. These activities included workshops, conferences, symposia, formal courses, internships, and assistantships. We found students in the academic group participated in more teaching development activities than students in the nonacademic group (mean of 4.35 vs. 2.53). In addition, participating in these activities was more likely to influence their career interests in academic nursing (79.7 vs. 41.6%).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4
FANG ET AL
Table 2. Factors Influencing Career Plans for Academic Nursing No-academic careers
Factors
Academic careers
n
676
101
Teaching development activities (M) Research development activities (M) Leadership development activities (M) Impact of development activities on interest in academic nursing Increased (%) Neither Increased nor decreased (%) Decreased (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Had faculty as a mentor in doctoral education (%) Impact of interaction with mentor on interest in academic nursing (of students having a mentor) Increased (%) Neither increased nor decreased (%) Decreased (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Received financial support for doctoral education (%) Financial support covering 76–100% of doctoral education expenses (%) (of students received financial support) Impact of Interest level in teaching Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Impact of interest level in research Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Interactions with faculty during doctoral education Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Perceived flexibility of work schedule in academic nursing Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Career growth opportunities in academic nursing Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Perceived financial compensation in academic nursing Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%) Perceived workload in academic nursing Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%)
4.3 10.4 2.5
2.6 9.7 2.6
79.7 15.2 0.6 4.5 87.9
41.6 31.7 20.8 5.9 78.2
P
Career direction undecided 156 3.2 10.5 2.5
b .0001
b .0001 57.1 23.1 12.2 7.6 77.6
b .0001 81.5 15.5 0.5 2.5 88.5 65.1
46.8 41.8 5.1 6.3 84.2 48.2
86.2 13.0 0.4 0.4
33.7 49.5 12.8 4.0
84.2 14.1 1.2 0.5
41.6 39.6 15.8 3.0
76.3 13.6 3.8 6.3
45.5 21.8 31.7 1.0
78.4 16.6 3.6 1.4
38.6 48.5 8.9 4.0
87.1 11.4 0.4 1.1
51.5 37.6 8.9 2.0
64.5 25.7 8.1 1.7
12.9 42.6 41.6 2.9
24.1 42.3 28.1 5.5
6.9 24.8 63.4 4.9
26.5 45.6 24.3
7.9 45.5 43.6
P
.0027
b .0001 57.9 27.3 5.8 9.0 87.8 51.1
b .0001
.0023 b .0001
62.8 26.3 9.0 1.9 b .0001
b .0001 71.2 22.4 5.8 0.6
b .0001
b .0001 53.8 26.9 17.9 1.4
b .0001
b .0001 55.8 29.5 11.5 3.2
b .0001
b .0001
b .0001 75.6 17.3 3.8 3.3 2.6 36.5 36.5 24.4 2.6
b .0001
b .0001
b .0001 7.7 32.1 55.8 4.4
b .0001
b .0001 9.0 37.8 48.7
ARTICLE IN PRESS
BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO NURSE FACULTY CAREERS
5
Table 2. (Continued) No-academic careers
Factors
Academic careers
n
676
101
3.6
3.0
Not applicable/missing (%) Perceived academic nursing politics Influenced (%) Neither influenced nor dissuaded (%) Dissuaded (%) Not applicable/missing (%)
P
Career direction undecided 156 4.5 b .0001
.0002 13.3 46.4 35.2 5.1
4.0 35.6 54.5 5.9
P
6.4 30.1 61.5 2.0
Note. Chi-square values and P values are reported at P b .05 level. Data source: AACN Survey on Doctoral Students, 2013.
More than 85% of students received financial support for their doctoral education, and students in the academic group were more likely than students in the nonacademic group to receive support to cover 76–100% of their doctoral education expenses (65.1 vs. 48.2%). Students in the academic group were also more likely to report that they had a faculty member as a mentor (87.9 vs. 78.2%), and interactions with their mentors were more likely to increase their career interests in academic nursing (81.5 vs.46.8%). We listed a number of facilitators and barriers in our survey that could influence students' plans for academic careers. We found students in the academic group considered the facilitators more favorably than students in the nonacademic group. For example, 86.2% of students in the former group reported that impact of interest level in teaching influenced them to pursue academic careers, whereas the figure was 34% for students in the latter group. The patterns of percentage distributions were similar for a number of other facilitators including perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care (87.1 vs. 51.5%), impact of interest level in research (84.2 vs. 41.6%), impact of interactions with faculty during doctoral education (76.3 vs. 45.5%), perceived flexibility of work schedule in academic nursing (78.4 vs. 38.6%), and perceived career growth opportunities in academic nursing (64.5 vs. 12.9%). On the other hand, students in the academic group were less likely than students in the nonacademic group to be dissuaded by barriers to pursuing an academic career. These barriers included perceived financial compensation in academic nursing (28 vs. 63%),
perceived workload in academic nursing (24 vs. 44%), and perceived academic nursing politics (35 vs. 55%). The magnitude of percentage distributions on the above facilitators and barriers for students in the undecided group were between those for the academic group and the nonacademic group. For example, 57.1% of undecided students reported that participating in teaching/research/leadership development activities increased their interests in academic nursing, whereas the figure was 79.7% for the academic group and 41.6% for the nonacademic group. To assess the impact of doctoral education on the likelihood of planning for faculty careers, we calculated the percentages of students who had changed career plans since entering their program. We found 47% of students who had nonacademic career plans prior to entering their PhD programs switched to academic career plans during their doctoral education. On the other hand, only 4% of students who had academic career plans before entering doctoral programs changed to nonacademic career plans (see Table 3). To assess PhD students' preparation for academic careers, we asked a number of questions in our survey on students' levels of confidence in carrying out various academic tasks. We found a large percentage of the respondents, regardless of their career plans, felt confident in conducting independent research and publishing research findings (see Table 4). Compared to students in the nonacademic group, students in the academic group were more likely to feel confident in developing curricula and teaching general nursing courses and laboratory/clinical courses. However, less
Table 3. Career Plan Changes After Entering PhD Programs Plan for academic career prior to PhD education Career plan after entering PhD program Academic Non-academic Undecided Plan for non-academic career prior to PhD education Career plan after entering PhD program Academic Non-academic Undecided
674 555 29 90 259
82% 4% 13%
121 72 66
47% 28% 25%
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6
FANG ET AL
Table 4. Level of Confidence in Carrying Out Academic Tasks No-academic careers
Career direction undecided
Factors
Academic careers
n
676
101
(%)
68.8 20.9 10.4
67.3 19.8 12.9
61.5 23.7 14.7
(%)
70.6 18.8 10.7
71.3 16.8 11.9
66.7 21.8 11.5
(%)
71.2 18.5 10.4
43.6 33.7 22.8
(%)
87.0 8.3 4.7
73.3 17.8 8.9
(%)
79.3 13.6 7.1
67.3 20.8 11.9
69.2 16.4 15.4
(%)
45.1 32.4 22.5
51.5 26.7 21.8
45.1 32.4 22.5
(%)
45.9 31.7 22.5
57.4 20.8 21.8
46.2 27.6 26.3
Conduct independent research Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Publish research findings Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Develop curricula Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Teach general nursing courses Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Teach laboratory/clinical courses Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Review grant proposals Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%) Write grant proposals Confident (%) Neither confident nor unconfident Unconfident (%)
P
156
b .0001
P
b .0001 49.4 27.6 23.1
.0013
.0018 75.6 15.4 9.0
.0255
.0025
Note. Chi-square values and P values are reported at P b .05 level. Data source: AACN Survey on Doctoral Students, 2013.
than 50% of students in the academic group felt confident in reviewing and writing grant proposals. An additional analysis shows that this finding is consistent even for PhD students at research-intensive institutions (as measured by universities with very high research activities according to Carnegie Classification).
Multivariate Analysis on Facilitators and Barriers to Academic Careers Because our outcome variable, career plans, has three categories: academic career plan, nonacademic career plan, and undecided career plan, we conducted multinomial logistic regression to examine the factors that influenced students' career decisions. Our bivariate analyses showed that many variables were significantly associated with career plans for academic nursing. However, some of the variables were highly correlated with each other (multicollinearity) and were therefore excluded as explanatory variables from our regression models. As a result of some correlation analyses, we selected the following explanatory variables for our regression models: (a) full-time student status, (b) minority status; (c) full-time faculty status; (d) primary employment in teaching/research during doctoral education; (e) impact of participation in teaching/research/leadership develop-
ment activities on career interest in academic nursing; (f) impact of level of interest in teaching on pursing an academic career; (g) impact of perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care on pursing an academic career; and (h) impact of perceived financial compensation in academic nursing on pursing an academic career. The variables on mentorship and financial support were not included because more than 10% of students did not have a mentor or receive financial support. Table 5 shows the results of multinomial logistic regression analyses on planning for academic careers. The first column lists odds ratios, P values, and 95% confidence interval comparing students with academic career plans versus students with nonacademic career plans (reference category). Controlling for other variables, we found the odds of having academic career plans for students with full-time student status were 2.329 times the odds for students with part-time status. Being a minority, having full-time faculty status, and having primary employment in teaching or research during doctoral education also increased the likelihood of having academic career plans. In addition, increases in the impact of participation in teaching/research/leadership development activities on career plans for academic nursing (i.e., from negative to neutral or from neutral to
ARTICLE IN PRESS
BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO NURSE FACULTY CAREERS
7
Table 5. Multinomial Logistic Regression on Postgraduation Plans for Academic Careers Nonacademic versus academic Confidence Interval
Nonacademic versus Undecided
Odds ratio
P
Full-time student status (part-time student) Full-time faculty status (part-time faculty/non-faculty) Non-White (White) Primary employment in teaching/research during doctoral education (Primary employment in other setting) Participating in development activities Impact of level of interest in teaching Perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care Perceived financial compensation in academic nursing Intercept n = 776 Likelihood ratio χ 2 = 328.5, P = .9994
2.329
.006
1.274
4.257
1.659
7.582
.0008
2.323
24.749
1.180
4.760
.0002
2.079
10.899
2.757
.0158
1.210
6.283
6.233
b .0001
2.520
15.411
2.777
.0317
1.094
7.052
3.499 4.431 4.424
b .0001 b .0001 b .0001
2.103 2.534 2.341
5.820 7.750 8.360
1.227 1.807 2.140
.0212 .0083
1.092 1.217
2.990 3.763
1.840
.0105
1.153
2.937
0.901
− 12.28 (B)
b .0001
Odds ratio
− 4.02 (B)
P
Confidence interval
Characteristics/factors
b .0001
Note. P values and confidence intervals are reported at P b .05 level. Data source: AACN Survey on Doctoral Students, 2013.
positive) are associated with a 249.9% increase in the odds of planning for an academic career (odds ratio = 3.499). Similarly, increases in the impact of interest level in teaching, perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care, and perceived financial compensation in academic nursing on plans for an academic career also increase the likelihood of having academic career plans. Note that these findings also imply that for each unit decrease in the predictor variables, the odds of planning for an academic career decrease accordingly. For example, if the impact of perceived financial compensation in academic nursing on plans to pursue an academic career changes from positive to neutral or from neutral to negative, the odds of planning for an academic career decreases by 84% (odds ratio = 1.840). The second column of Table 5 shows the results of our regression model comparing PhD students who were undecided on their career directions with those who planned to pursue nonacademic careers (the reference category). We found there are four factors that increase the likelihood of having an undecided career plan rather than a nonacademic career plan: non-White minority status, primary employment in teaching/research during doctoral education, impact of interest level in teaching on pursuing academic careers, and perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care on pursuing academic careers.
Discussion In our bivariate and multivariate analyses, we found minority students were more likely than white students to plan for academic careers. The finding suggests that PhD programs have provided an encouraging environment for developing minority students' interests in
academic careers, which is in line with the recommendation of the 2010 IOM report on increasing diversity of nurse faculty with a doctoral degree. PhD programs should continue their efforts in this endeavor. We found the impact of interest level in teaching and perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care on pursuing academic careers are the leading facilitators to planning for faculty careers for PhD students. This finding is consistent with findings of previous studies on motivators for faculty to stay in academia. Nursing schools should create teaching and research development opportunities for students at the baccalaureate and master's levels to stimulate their interests in teaching and research early on. PhD programs and funding agencies should also give special attention to identify applicants for doctoral education who are interested in teaching and research and therefore are more likely to pursue academic careers. We found more than 85% of students received funding to support their doctoral education. Students considering PhD education should be made aware of the financial support available to them. In addition, PhD programs should identify their students who are more likely to seek faculty careers and help them maintain their interest in teaching and research. And the profile of students who planned to seek academic careers that we found may help PhD programs identify such students. Student's experiences during their graduate education would play a significant role in their postgraduation career decisions. Consistent with previous findings, we found that mentorship plays a significant role in developing students' interests in teaching, research, and academic careers. Specifically, we found that PhD students with academic career plans were more likely
8
ARTICLE IN PRESS
than those with nonacademic or undecided career plans to have a faculty member as a mentor, and interactions with their mentors were more likely to increase their interests in academic nursing. PhD programs should provide their students with mentors and encourage frequent mentor–mentee interactions. Less traditional means of mentoring students should be explored that maximize faculty and other resources, including regular peer group discussions, either face to face or online, that allow for faculty and peer mentoring and support. Mentors should receive support for this component of their faculty role, and formal preparation for this role should be developed to ensure faculty mentors have the skills and tools needed for mentorship. Our study also confirmed the findings of previous studies that postmaster's doctoral students are often in their late 40s upon graduating, which limits the length of their academic careers. The growth of postbaccalaureate doctoral education in recent years indicates an enhanced effort to move nursing professionals into doctoral education earlier in their careers. AACN has been advocating this education pathway for years (AACN, 2010). Faculty, academic leaders, and nursing professional bodies must engage in a campaign to identify candidates for doctoral education and provide advice and counsel that will move these individuals into a program of doctoral studies earlier in their careers. We found 21% of postmaster's PhD students had already been in their programs for 5 years or longer at the time of our survey. The significant financial and personal investments made by students, as well as doctoral programs and their faculty, make this an important issue for future investigation. PhD programs should build a mechanism to monitor students' progress periodically to ensure students to complete their program in a timely manner. Regarding our finding that PhD students, including those at research-intensive institutions, did not feel confident in reviewing and writing grant proposals, PhD programs should provide their students with adequate research training to prepare them to become research scientists. The National Institutes of Health and other funding organizations such as Robert Wood Johnson Foundation should increase research-training support for PhD students. Although we found that 72.5% of survey respondents planned to pursue academic careers, 60% of them were already full-time or part-time faculty. These individuals will not add new supply to the nurse faculty workforce after graduation. To increase the pool of students seeking academic careers, PhD programs should give special attention to students who have not decided on their career directions to influence their career decisions, since a large percentage of these students reported interests in teaching and a passion for nursing research. However, nursing schools and funding agencies will need to address the concerns of these students about academic compensation, which, to different degrees, is a concern for all graduate nursing students. Without a practical solution to this fundamental issue, the pool for PhD
FANG ET AL
students intending to pursue academic careers, currently including mainly individuals who are driven by interests and passion, may not expand.
Conclusions In this study, we found 72.5% of the survey respondents planned to pursue academic careers after graduation. Compared with students who planned to seek nonacademic careers (10.8% of the respondents), they were more likely to be full-time students, to be minorities, to have faculty status, especially full-time faculty status, and to receive financial support to cover most of their doctoral education expenses. During their doctoral education, they were more likely to work primarily in teaching or research, to participate in teaching development activities, and to have a faculty member as a mentor. Students in the academic group were also more likely than students in the nonacademic group to be influenced by facilitators to faculty careers. The facilitators identified in this study include impact of participating in teaching/ research/leadership development activities, impact of interaction with faculty mentors, impact of interest level in teaching and research, perceived contribution of nursing research to patient care, impact of interactions with faculty, and perceived career growth opportunities in academic nursing. On the other hand, they were less likely to be dissuaded by barriers to academic careers, including perceived financial compensation and workload in academic nursing, and perceived academic nursing politics. It seems students who had not decided on their career directions (16.7% of the respondents) considered both barriers and facilitators to be important, which, perhaps, were the reasons that they could not make their decisions. We found that postmater's students entered their doctoral programs with an average age of 43.4, and they would graduate in 5 years on average. Accordingly, they would graduate at the age of 48.5. At the time of survey, 21% of them had stayed in their doctoral programs for 5 years or more. Most students intending to seek academic careers felt confident in carrying out most academic tasks, except for reviewing and writing grant proposals. We found the percentage of students that switched from having nonacademic career plans prior to doctoral education to academic career plans after entering doctoral programs was substantially higher than the percentage that switched from having academic career plans to nonacademic career plans, suggesting that the impact of doctoral education on plans to pursue an academic career is generally positive for PhD students.
Study Limitations As a cross-sectional study on survey respondents' career intentions, we do not know to what extend that the reported careers plans will be realized later. However, we plan to address this limitation in a separate study. AACN has collected individual-level data on nursing doctoral students via the AACN Roster Survey of Doctoral Students.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS TO NURSE FACULTY CAREERS
We plan to use the data to verify the employment directions of the doctoral students whom we surveyed for this study.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by a research grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (grant number: 70184). We greatly appreciate the support of deans and directors of doctoral nursing programs for this study. We thank Ms. Nancy Steffan and Dr. Catherine Millett for their assistance in the early stages of this study. We also thank Dr. Joan Stanley and Dr. Judy Beal for their feedback on the early drafts of this manuscript.
References American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2008). Nursing faculty shortage fact sheet. http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Media/ factsheets/nursingfacultyshortage.htm. American Association of Colleges of Nursing (2010). Research focused doctoral program in nursing: Pathways to excellence. http://www.aacn.nche.edu/education-resources/ PhDPosition.pdf. American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) (2012). 2011–2012 enrollment and graduations in baccalaureate and graduate programs in nursing. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, J. (2009). The work–role transition of expert clinician to novice academic educator. Journal of Nursing Education, 48, 203–208. Barlag, K. (2008). Taking on the nurse faculty shortage: The role of colleges and universities. Ohio Nurses Review, 83, 1–10. Berent, G. R. & Anderko, L. (2011). Solving the nurse faculty shortage. Nurse Educator, 36, 203–207. Culleiton, A. & Shellenbarger, T. (2007). Transition of a bedside clinician to a nurse educator. MEDSURG Nursing, 16, 253–257. Daley, C. J. & Dee, J. R. (2006). Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 776–803. Danna, D., Schaubhut, R. M. & Jones, J. (2010). From practice to education: Perspectives from three nurse leaders. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 41, 83–87. Drennan, J. (2008). Professional and academic destination of masters in nursing graduates: A national survey. Nurse Education Today, 28, 751–759. Durham, S., Merritt, J. & Sorrell, J. (2007). Implementing a new faculty workload formula. Nursing Education Perspectives, 28, 184–189. Fang, D. & Bednash, G. D. (2014). Attrition of full-time faculty from schools of nursing with baccalaureate and graduate programs, 2010–2011. Nursing Outlook, 62, 164–173. Garbee, D. & Killacky, J. (2008). Factors influencing intent to stay in academia for nursing faculty in the southern United
9
States of America. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 5, 1–15. Gormley, D. K. (2003). Factors affecting job satisfaction in nurse faculty: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nursing Education, 42, 174–178. Institute of Medicine (2010). The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Kaufman (2007). Compensation for nurse educators: Findings from the NLN/Carnegie national survey with implications for recruitment and retention. Nursing Education Perspectives, 28, 223–225. Langer, G. (2008). Sampling error: What it means. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/sampling-errormeans/story?id=5984818. Lee, C. J. (2009). The experience of nurse faculty members enrolled in doctoral study. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 4, 59–75. McDonald, P. J. (2010). Transitioning from clinical practice to nursing faculty: Lessons learned. Journal of Nursing Education, 49, 126–131. Nettles, M. T. & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Palepu, A., Carr, P. L., Friedman, R. H., Ash, A. S. & Moskowitz, M. A. (2000). Specialty choices, compensation, and career satisfaction of underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine. Academic Medicine, 75, 157–160. Penn, B. K., Wilson, L. D. & Rosseter, R. (2008). Transitioning from nursing practice to a teaching role. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 13 [16 pp.]. Schenkein, H. A. & Best, A. M. (2001). Factors considered by new faculty in their decision to choose careers in academic dentistry. Journal of Dental Education, 65, 832–840. Siela, D., Twibell, R. K. & Keller, V. (2009). The shortage of nurses and nursing faculty. Critical Care Nurse/Supplement, 17– 33. Stevenson, E. L. (2003). Future trends in nursing employment: The nursing shortage has made choosing the right career path easier. American Journal of Nursing, 103, 19–25 [Career Job Supplement]. Swafford, L. G. & Legg, J. S. (2007). Job satisfaction among radiation therapy educators. Radiology Technology, 78, 459–467. Yedidia, M. J., Chou, J., Brownlee, S., Flynn, L. & Tanner, C. A (2014). Association of faculty perceptions of work-life with emotional exhaustion and intent to leave academic nursing: Report on a national survey of nurse faculty. Journal of Nursing Education, 53, 569–579. Yordy, K. D. (2006). The nursing faculty shortage: A crisis for health care. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Zebelman, E. S. & Olswang, S. G. (1989). Students career goal changes during doctoral education in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 28, 53–60.