J Dent Educ. 72(4): 448-457 2008
© 2008 American Dental Education Association
From the Students' Corner |
Reflections on Academic Careers by Current Dental School Faculty
James M. Rogér, Sc.B.;
Meggan M.H. Wehmeyer, B.S.;
Matthew S. Milliner, B.A.
Key words: dental education, student research, faculty recruitment, faculty retention, faculty development
Submitted for publication 09/19/07;
accepted 01/11/08
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
During the inaugural year (2006–07) of the Academic Dental Careers Fellowship Program (ADCFP), 110 faculty members at ten different dental schools were interviewed by dental students who were participating as ADCFP fellows in this year-long program designed to introduce them to faculty roles and activities and help them gain an appreciation for the rewards and issues associated with academic life. The goals, format, and components of the ADCFP are described in a companion article in this issue of the Journal of Dental Education. One of the fellows’ assignments during the ADCFP was to interview faculty at various academic ranks who had differing degrees of work emphasis in teaching, research, service/patient care, and administration. Sixty-nine (63 percent of the total) of these interviews were reviewed and analyzed by the authors, who were student fellows in the ADCFP during 2006–07. The purpose of these interviews was to provide the fellows with insight into the positive aspects and challenges in becoming and remaining a dental school faculty member. This aggregate perspective of the interviews conducted at ten dental schools highlights the motivations and challenges that confront a dentist during the process of choosing a career in academic dentistry and determining if dental education is a good fit for each individual who elects to pursue this pathway. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed several factors consistently identified by faculty across the schools as being positive influences on the quality of the academic work environment and career satisfaction: mentorship and student interaction, opportunities for scholarship (research and discovery), job diversity, intellectual challenge, satisfaction with the nature of academic work, lifestyle/family compatibility, flexibility, lifelong learning, professional duty, and lab responsibility. A series of negative themes were also consistently identified: bureaucracy/administrative burdens and barriers, time commitment, financial frustration, political frustration, lack of mentorship, required research emphasis, lack of teaching skills development, student engagement, isolation, and funding uncertainty. This article reports the approximate frequency of each theme, presents representative statements that describe the motivations and attitudes of dental faculty members who were interviewed, and concludes with a review of programs/methods aimed at marketing academic careers to current students. The purpose of this review of the rewards, benefits, and challenges that current dental faculty face is to provide students who are considering dental education with a frame of reference to guide their further exploration of this career path and to help students appreciate the many positive aspects of academic life that may not be readily apparent from their own interactions with faculty members.
The Academic Dental Careers Fellowship Program (ADCFP) was developed in 2006 through a joint effort of the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) and the American Association of Dental Research (AADR) and was sponsored by a grant from the American Dental Association Foundation (ADAF). The overall goal of the one-year fellowship was to expose and ultimately encourage interested students to pursue academic dental careers. Eleven students from ten dental schools were selected as fellows for the 2006–07 academic year. Fellows were introduced to dental academia under the guidance of a mentor and participated in training workshops, a research experience, faculty interviews, and hands-on didactic, preclinical laboratory and clinical teaching experiences.1 Each fellow developed a portfolio containing documentation and wrote personal reflections on their experiences as described in more detail in a companion article in this issue of the Journal of Dental Education.2
During ADCFP meetings at the 2007 ADEA Annual Session, fellows commented positively on the candor of faculty members throughout the interview portion of the fellowship. All fellows noted that the opportunity to converse privately with a faculty member was a unique experience and contributed significantly to their perspective on academic careers. During debriefings of the ADCFP experience, fellows concluded that the opportunity afforded by the interviews to gain perspectives on academic life directly from faculty was one of the most important outcomes of the year-long experience: this activity gave the fellows a unique frame of reference about careers in dental education that many of their classmates did not have. Most dental students graduate from school with a limited perspective on the overall roles and responsibilities of dental school faculty or the reasons why their instructors were attracted to education and/or research rather than private practice.
Indeed, a review of the literature indicates that students’ level of exposure to an academic career during dental school is minimal. A study by Rupp et al. explored dental students’ knowledge about careers in academic dentistry and reported that 71.1 percent of dental students indicated no or low knowledge about careers in academia.3 In a national survey and quantitative analysis of 240 faculty members, 87 percent of the new faculty members had postgraduate training, suggesting this may be where the exposure to research, service, and teaching has been relegated.4 In a letter to the editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association, Thierer stated that "professional education must be considered as a continuum, from undergraduate to predoctoral to postdoctoral. . . . It can be counterproductive to look at any of these entities in isolation."5 But the question of where students should be exposed to academic dental careers remains unanswered.
One of the omnipresent themes in dental education is the growing faculty shortage.6 Hand identified three categories of future dental faculty members: clinical teacher (non-tenure-track; expected to teach in a variety of settings, especially the clinic); clinical scholar (tenure-track; expected to participate in teaching, research, and service); and research- intensive scholar (tenure-track; expected to conduct research and to teach, often with an emphasis on graduate students). 7 By surveying dental education experts, Hand described and ranked the competencies necessary for these three different categories. There was a significant difference between the essential competencies, suggesting that dental faculty see themselves as divided into discrete populations. This implies that there is no typical dental faculty member, so to address developmental possibilities and the faculty shortage, one must look more broadly across the landscape.
Other authors have suggested that monetary incentives should be made available to make a career in education competitive with private or specialty practice.8,9 This idea is supported by Schenkein and Best, who identified "income differential compared to private practice" as the key negative factor when considering an academic career.4
Krebsbach and Ignelzi offered a solution for dental institutions to attract and retain clinician scientists trained through NIH-sponsored dual-degree training programs when they proposed "break[ing] the mold for a small percentage of incoming first-year students." They suggested modification of the admissions criteria for some members of the first-year class, so that schools could admit individuals who have already received a research-oriented Ph.D. and desire to pursue a career in research within an academic institution. Krebsbach and Ignelzi further proposed that the recruitment of students who have the capacity to become dual-trained (D.D.S./Ph.D.) academicians should begin even prior to dental school.10 However, in a survey of the twenty-two programs in the United States that advertised these opportunities, only 13 percent responded to student emails requesting more information.11 There is no question that dental schools have programs designed to train talented faculty who are interested in perpetuating the profession, but how does an interested student access these particular programs and faculty members?
In 2003, Marquette University School of Dentistry (MUSoD) revised its curriculum and created a research/scholarly track. Using the NIDCR R25 Oral Health Research Curriculum grant, MUSoD "integrated biomedical, behavioral, and clinical sciences while emphasizing the application of science to patient care" throughout the four years of a student’s dental education.12 At the five-year evaluation point, MUSoD faculty and administrators observed "significant increases in student participation in research/scholarship, attendance at national meetings, research awards, publication of manuscripts, pursuit of advanced training/degrees, and expressions of interest in academic/research careers."13
Both Baum and Iacopino have raised questions about the content and type of biomedical training that dental students receive. Baum recommends a "substantive training experience in general internal medicine [which] would demonstrate the relevance in much of biomedical science,"14 and Iacopino says that "new knowledge and technologies must be incorporated into the mainstream of dental education."15 These two opinions come from different kinds of organizations (Baum at the NIDCR/NIH and Iacopino at a dental school), suggesting that concern about meaningfully incorporating science into dental education exists at a variety of institutions involved in the academic side of the dental profession.
New faculty appointments tend to be consistent with the mission of the institution. In a study describing appointment trends at different dental schools, Hunt and Gray noted that schools employ high percentages of clinically oriented faculty at clinically intensive schools versus high percentages of research-oriented faculty at research-focused institutions.16 Iacopino calls attention to "research non-intensive dental schools [which] function as significant ‘feeder sources’ for advanced education/training programs located at research-intensive institutions." Despite the different missions across dental schools, Iacopino explains, "the goal is to create an environment that facilitates entry into academic and research careers by providing time for meaningful research training."17
The goal of presenting an analysis of the predominant themes that emerged from the ADCFP fellows’ interviews with faculty members from different dental school environments is to transcend the particular missions/orientations of individual schools and identify a core set of factors that motivate dental professionals to pursue and sustain careers within dental schools no matter what the focus of the institution. While the studies and proposals reviewed above propose various ways to develop potential faculty members through training programs or recommend strategies to encourage graduates to consider research and academic careers as viable options equivalent to private practice, none of the initiatives has examined the attitudes and motivation of current dental school faculty. Consequently, our study addresses a gap in the literature by presenting the opinions of faculty members "in the trenches" about their decision to become dental educators or researchers.
|
Methods
|
|---|
The interview component of the ADCFP was explained and demonstrated at the 2006 ADCFP summer training session. Fellows were provided a set of standard questions (Table 1
), but were encouraged to approach the interview as a conversation and were not required to adhere to the question bank. Interviewees were selected by the fellow and his or her mentor. Generally, the mentor would make the initial contact with the faculty member and provide preliminary background about the ADCFP. After this facilitating introduction was made, the fellow would then contact the faculty member and schedule the interview. Fellows were instructed to complete all interviews during the fall semester and to begin the interview cycle with the most junior faculty members and conclude with the dean of the school. All questions were to be emailed/delivered to the interviewee in advance of the interview. Faculty members’ responses to questions were not tape-recorded and were not anonymous because the ADCFP fellows prepared summaries that identified the interviewees. However, in this report of the themes that emerged from the composite set of interviews, faculty members are not identified by name or institution. Fellows recorded their impressions of the interview and prepared a written summary of the responses, which was included in their ADCFP portfolio. Most of these summaries contained quotations that were recorded in the fellows’ notes taken during the course of the interviews.
At the conclusion of the ADCFP (May 2007), all fellows were contacted by the lead author to obtain the interview summaries. A total of sixty-nine faculty interview summaries were contributed by seven of the eleven fellows (64 percent) and analyzed by the three authors. One additional fellow contributed an overall summary of all of the interviews conducted by this individual; this fellow’s composite summary was considered qualitatively in the discussion, but was not included in the quantitative description.
A master file was distributed to the three authors, who independently identified recurrent positive themes and negative themes. Additionally, each author was asked to select quotations as representative examples of identified themes. Upon conclusion of the independent assessment, the three authors collectively examined these results and finalized the common language for the overall themes and challenges. Two quotations were selected by consensus as most representative of each theme, and they were ranked by citation count.
|
Results
|
|---|
A total of sixty-nine interviews were analyzed. Interviewees were sorted by academic rank, gender, specialty, and degree to determine any obvious associations. Summary data are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4.
Explanation of Positive Themes
Ten independent positive themes were identified during this thematic analysis. The results are shown in Table 5. The positive themes are as follows:
- Mentorship and Student Interaction. Faculty members’ interactions with predoctoral students (in classroom and clinical settings), as well as serving as mentors to junior faculty, graduate students, and clinical resident trainees.
- Opportunities for Scholarship (Research and Discovery). The pursuit of new knowledge through procuring funding, developing new ideas, and publishing (including both basic science and clinically oriented research).
- Job Diversity. The variety of positions available to faculty members or the assortment of duties within a specific role.
- Intellectual Challenge. Personal and professional stimulation coming from constantly keeping up with the latest clinical techniques or scientific literature.
- Satisfaction with the Nature of Academic Work. A generally positive feeling about working in a dental school/academic environment.
- Lifestyle/Family Compatibility. The schedule flexibility in working at a university seen as a benefit by those faculty members with family or personal obligations.
- Flexibility. The faculty member’s perception specifically relating to professional flexibility (vacations and benefits) at a large institution versus working in a smaller private practice.
- Lifelong Learning. The enhanced knowledge of the profession gained by being in an academic setting.
- Professional Duty. The ability to impact the profession positively by training the next generation of professionals.
- Lab Responsibility. Faculty members’ satisfaction of autonomously running a laboratory.
Explanation of Negative Themes
A total of ten independent negative themes were identified during this thematic analysis. The results are shown in Table 6. These negative themes are as follows:
- Bureaucracy/Administrative Burdens and Barriers. The faculty member’s frustration with the often complicated infrastructure of an institution including policies, management hierarchy, and procedures.
- Time Commitment. The difficulty of meeting the demands of a faculty position in the time available.
- Financial Frustration. The faculty member’s displeasure with his or her compensation.
- Political Frustration. The perception of unfairness, favoritism, or hostility within the institution.
- Lack of Mentorship. A lack of a formal or informal mentorship program, which leaves faculty members uncertain about how to advance their careers.
- Required Research Emphasis. The disconnect between some faculty members’ lack of interest or lack of training in conducting research projects or procuring grants and the fact that many institutions require some degree of research and scholarship for promotion.
- Lack of Teaching Skills Development. Concerns that faculty members are not being specifically trained how to teach effectively.
- Lack of Student Engagement. The faculty member’s perception of predoctoral student apathy in his or her area of expertise.
- Isolation. A feeling of isolation in a large organization versus the more intimate setting of a private practice environment.
- Funding Uncertainty. Faculty members’ frustration in their attempts at obtaining support (both institutional administrative support and federal funding).
Reporting of Results
In the following summary of commonly expressed themes, the percentage of faculty who commented on the theme is identified in parentheses after the item. "Mentorship and Student Interaction" was the most cited positive theme, mentioned by 60 percent of the interviewed faculty, followed by "Opportunities for Scholarship (Research and Discovery)" (26 percent) and "Job Diversity" (22 percent). "Bureaucracy/Administrative Burdens and Barriers" was the most frequently discussed negative theme (52 percent), followed by "Time Commitment" (39 percent) and "Financial Frustration" (35 percent).
Interestingly, related versions of three similar themes appear on both the positive and negative tables. "Flexibility" appears as a positive theme, while "Time Commitment" appears as a negative theme; "Opportunities for Scholarship (Research and Discovery)" appears as a positive theme, while "Required Research Emphasis" appears as a negative theme; and "Mentorship and Student Interaction" appears as a positive theme, while "Lack of Student Engagement" appears as a negative theme.
Throughout the thematic analysis, we recorded quotations that did not clearly fall into a particular theme. Occasionally, fellows would highlight certain topics within their interview summary. These "comments of interest" were often advisory in nature and are presented as positive and negative comments in Table 7.
These remarks are representative of "off-the-record" advice from the faculty member to the fellow. In several cases, the faculty members go so far as to discourage the fellow from pursuing an academic career, while others explain that certain disciplines (such as combining clinical practice with research) will naturally lead one to a dental faculty position. Interestingly, these comments were all conveyed by midcareer and senior faculty members (20 percent and 80 percent, respectively).
|
Discussion
|
|---|
As discussed previously, the data for this report were collected informally via a series of interviews conducted by dental students who were not experienced in interviewing techniques. Although the ADCFP fellows had the chance to roleplay the general interview format during the summer retreat, all fellows did not necessarily follow the specified interview protocol. Interview questions were recommended, but were not identical for each interviewee. The original purpose of the interviews was for the individual growth of the fellow and not as a research survey. Each fellow and mentor selected the interviewees based on criteria provided by the ADCFP, but some deviation from recommended subject selection guidelines occurred based on circumstances and opportunities at each school. The interview subjects were identified in the summaries prepared by the fellows, and the faculty members who consented to participate in this activity were aware that their responses could be potentially traced back to them by identifiers in the summaries. Thus, the interviewees were not guaranteed anonymity, which may have influenced their answers to certain questions. Finally, interview comments and quotations were compiled by the fellows in a summary form after the interviews, and it is possible that faculty member statements were not recorded verbatim and that fellows’ summaries may have contained misrepresentations. However, the consistency of expression of main themes by faculty, both positive and negative, lends face validity to the overall accuracy of the fellows’ notes and summaries as reflections of the main currents of the conversations.
This report is a qualitative reflection of impressions and comments, not a quantitative analysis. The process for selection of interviewees may have been biased toward those who are more actively engaged in mentorship and thus were more prone to be encouraging of student efforts, which may ultimately represent a different profile than faculty who are less supportive of students or unconcerned with recruitment of future academicians/researchers. Despite these limitations, we feel this qualitative examination provides unique insight into the motivation of current dental faculty members.
Given that the mentors and fellows likely selected student-friendly faculty members, it seems logical that faculty indicated "Mentorship and Student Interaction" (61 percent) as the primary positive theme in the analysis. All three authors were surprised that "Financial Frustration" (35 percent) was third on the list of negative themes behind "Bureaucracy/Administrative Burdens and Barriers" (52 percent) and "Time Commitment" (39 percent). The fact that faculty expressed a higher level of concern about workload, institutional infrastructure and processes (which were often described as barriers to performance of faculty responsibilities), and lack of time to fulfill job functions could indicate that these issues should become the focus of strategies for retaining faculty members rather than focusing exclusively on the salary differential between academia and private practice—which, for the time being, may be beyond dental schools’ ability to address in a meaningful manner. While there are recruitment programs that address financial debt, schools may want to look towards reducing the level of service commitments that new faculty initially undertake as well as overall enhancement of the work environment.
This result could also be related to our faculty distribution, which was slightly skewed from junior faculty (28 percent) toward midcareer (35 percent) and senior faculty (38 percent), who likely participate in more administrative roles and have higher levels of compensation than junior faculty. Twenty faculty members (29 percent) had a clinical focus and experience in smaller private practice organizations. The concerns about "Bureaucracy/Administrative Burdens and Barriers" as well as "Political Frustration" could represent the perspectives of individuals with private practice experience where they were often the sole decision maker who now were experiencing the slower pace of decision-making processes in a large organization.
Among the additional comments presented in Table 7
are several examples of faculty recommendations to not pursue a career in academics. Surprisingly, these comments came mostly from senior faculty who had built long careers in academic dentistry. While all faculty related challenges that they faced in their careers, few went so far as to discourage students from following in their footsteps. The general theme of the interviews was that life as a dental faculty member was a balance of the positive and negative themes, and in the majority of cases, the scales tipped towards the positive themes.
|
Implications and Future Directions
|
|---|
Revisiting the quantitative survey of Schenkein and Best,4 we see that our qualitative themes are represented within the positive and negative influences cited in their survey. The most important positive consideration in their quantitative study was "Teaching and scholarship," while the most important negative consideration in the study was "Concerns about finance and indebtedness." The positive aspects of academic dentistry identified by participants in the Schenkein and Best study were consistent with the primary positive theme of "Mentorship and Student Interaction" described by faculty participants in our study. However, outcomes of the Schenkein and Best study regarding faculty perception of primary challenges differed from our study. Faculty interviewed by the ADCFP fellows identified "Bureaucracy and Administrative Burdens and Barriers" as a substantial challenge, while faculty in the Schenkein and Best study most often described financial concerns. This difference could relate to the difference in sample population (e.g., new faculty in Schenkein and Best versus a cross-section of all faculty in the ADCFP interviews).
ADEA has undertaken a number of responses to the dental faculty shortage, including tools to make academic job openings more accessible (the Academic Dental Careers Network and the Faculty Applicant Registry), a promotional video about academic dental careers, awards to recognize teaching, conferences on curriculum reform, a minority faculty development program and committees on oversight in minority recruitment and retention, and lobbying for increased funding in general dentistry and public health dentistry residencies.6 These efforts continue and have been augmented with programs like the ADCFP (in cooperation with the AADR and the ADAF), calling attention to the national outcry for solutions to the increasing challenges in meeting the demand for dental faculty.1
In a brief essay entitled "Academic Careers Without Tenure," Kane described the "many job titles outside the traditional Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor" that are not obvious to the job seeker.18 Kane’s perspectives are consistent with the assessment by Rupp et al., which suggests that schools in general are not providing students with the necessary information to make an informed decision about academic dentistry as a potential career path.3
In 2000, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Dentistry established a Student Teachers Program for its fourth-year students. With the help of faculty mentors, the students designed and taught a micro-course entitled "Welcome to Dental Anatomy." In a two-year program evaluation, Bibb and Lefever concluded that the program has "great potential for encouraging more graduates to pursue academic dentistry."19 A similar program at the University of Missouri–Kansas City (UMKC) found that using fourth-year dental students was an effective way to make up for a faculty shortage in the preclinical dental morphology course, but noted that the students’ interest in academic dentistry was not increased.20 The program did not emphasize faculty development, recruitment, or retention, which may indicate that an introduction to a faculty career must include more than offering dental students the opportunity to teach.
In addition to these ideas from within the dental education environment, Hsu et al. recommend adapting recruiting strategies used by the U.S. military.21 Discussing the success the military has had in recruiting dentists to military service, Hsu et al. reported that "those who committed to military service were familiar with the military through a variety of means" and noted that the recruits "appeared knowledgeable and well informed about military dental careers." They suggest that dental institutions would have more success if they provided this depth of familiarity about academic careers to students during dental school.
The five-year Pipeline, Profession, and Practice: Community-Based Dental Education program was designed to reduce disparities in access to dental care. The objectives of this program were to increase the time senior students spend in community clinics, provide didactic and clinical courses to prepare students for community experiences, and recruit more minority and low-income students to dental schools.22 This short-term project conducted at fifteen dental schools is perhaps the type of pilot campaign that should be undertaken to enhance recruitment and retention of young dental professionals into academic dentistry. Integrating the positive experiences from the Pipeline program, the ADCFP, the UCLA Student Teachers Program, and the UMKC program could yield a comprehensive strategy for introducing dental students and recent graduates to academic careers.
|
Concluding Remarks
|
|---|
It was the opinion of the 2006–07 ADCFP fellows that many dental students have a negative impression of a career in academic dentistry and that this impression is largely based on sporadic interaction with faculty, typically in classrooms, labs, and clinics, which allows students to see only a limited portion of faculty members’ overall responsibilities and daily activities. During informal discussions among the fellows, many seemed to emerge from the ADCFP experience with a far better understanding of the broad scope of academic life, although at the conclusion of the program many of the fellows were still undecided about whether they would choose an academic career. As this was the inaugural year of the ADCFP, the data will not be available for many years to determine if this is a successful method to recruit new dental school faculty members.
At the conclusion of the ADCFP, all fellows indicated that the faculty interviews had been one of the most enlightening components of the program for them. We hope that this report allows more dental students to appreciate some of the wisdom that these faculty members generously made available to the fellows.
|
Acknowledgments
|
|---|
We would like to thank all the 2006 ADCFP Fellows and Mentors, especially Dr. Jennifer Brueckner, Dr. Anthony M. Iacopino, Dr. Thomas Taft, and Dr. Janet Guthmiller. In addition, we would like to thank all faculty and staff interviewees, the ADA Foundation, the American Association for Dental Research, and the American Dental Education Association. Finally, we would like to enthusiastically acknowledge the incredible efforts of ADCFP program director, Dr. W. David Brunson.
|
Author Information
|
|---|
Mr. Rogér is a D.D.S./Ph.D. Student, Marquette University School of Dentistry and University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry; Ms. Wehmeyer is a Class of 2007 Student, University of Iowa College of Dentistry; and Mr. Milliner is a Class of 2007 Student, University of Kentucky College of Dentistry. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to James M. Rogér, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Center for Oral Biology, Box 611, 601 Elmwood Ave., Rochester, NY 14642; 215-200-6436; James_Roger{at}urmc.rochester.edu.
|
REFERENCES
|
|---|
- Kennedy JE. A fifteen-year perspective on dental school faculty. J Dent Educ 1995; 59(5):578–83.[Medline]
- Rogér JM. The Academic Dental Careers Fellowship Program: a pilot program to introduce dental students to academia. J Dent Educ 2008; 73(4):438–47.
- Rupp JK, Jones DL, Seale NS. Dental students’ knowledge about careers in academic dentistry. J Dent Educ 2006; 70(10):1051–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Schenkein HA, Best AM. Factors considered by new faculty in their decision to choose careers in academic dentistry. J Dent Educ 2001; 65(9):832–40.[Abstract]
- Thierer T. More on education. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 37(9):1222,1224.
- Haden NK, Weaver RG, Valachovic RW. Meeting the demand for future dental school faculty: trends, challenges, and responses. J Dent Educ 2002; 66(9):1102–13.[Abstract]
- Hand JS. Identification of competencies for effective dental faculty. J Dent Educ 2006; 70(9):937–47.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Glick M. Dental education: an evolving challenge. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137(7):940,942,944.[Free Full Text]
- Flores-Mir C. Dental faculty shortage in the United States and Canada: are there solutions? J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72(8):725–6.[Medline]
- Krebsbach PH, Ignelzi MA Jr. Failure to attract and retain clinician/scientist faculty puts our profession at risk. J Dent Res 1999; 78(10):1576–8.[Free Full Text]
- Rogér JM. A survey of dual-degree training opportunities at U.S. dental schools. J Dent Educ 2006; 70(9):909–17.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Iacopino AM, Lynch DP, Taft T. Preserving the pipeline: a model dental curriculum for research non-intensive institutions. J Dent Educ 2004; 68(1):44–9.[Abstract]
- Iacopino AM, Pryor ME, Taft TB, Lynch DP. The effect of NIDCR R25 grant support on the curriculum and culture of a research non-intensive dental school. J Dent Res 2007; 86(7):581–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Baum BJ. Inadequate training in the biological sciences and medicine for dental students: an impending crisis for dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138(1):16,18,20.[Free Full Text]
- Iacopino AM. The influence of "new science" on dental education: current concepts, trends, and models for the future. J Dent Educ 2007; 71(4):450–62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hunt RJ, Gray CF. Faculty appointment policies and tracks in U.S. dental schools with clinical or research emphases. J Dent Educ 2002; 66(9):1038–43.[Abstract]
- Iacopino AM. The role of "research non-intensive" institutions within the global framework. J Dent Res 2004; 83(4):276–7.[Free Full Text]
- Kane CM. Academic careers without tenure. Am Society for Cell Biol Newsletter 2004; 27(3):2.
- Bibb CA, Lefever KH. Mentoring future dental educators through an apprentice teaching experience. J Dent Educ 2002; 66(6):703–9.[Abstract]
- Haj-Ali R, Walter MP, Petrie CS, Steven J. Educational necessities to compensate for faculty shortage. J Dent Educ 2007; 71(4):511–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hsu RH, Roberts MW, Tulloch JFC, Trotman CA. A study of military recruitment strategies for dentists: possible implications for academia. J Dent Educ 2007; 71(4):501–10.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Bailit HL, Formicola AJ, Herbert KD, Stavisky JS, Zamora G. The origins and design of the dental pipeline program. J Dent Educ 2005; 69(2):232–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
J. M. Roger
The Academic Dental Careers Fellowship Program: A Pilot Program to Introduce Dental Students to Academia
J Dent Educ.,
April 1, 2008;
72(4):
438 - 447.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods
