HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pilcher, E. S. Articles by Segars, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pilcher, E. S. Articles by Segars, J.

An Assessment of Promotion and Tenure Requirements at Dental Schools

Key words: promotion, tenure, tenure tracks, dental faculty, faculty recruitment and retention

Submitted for publication 08/29/08; accepted 11/18/08

	Abstract

Top Author information Abstract Tenure and Alternative... Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
Tenure and promotion are integral parts of the academic environment; however, in this era of growing shortages of faculty, as the baby boomers retire and the majority of dentists choose private practice, recruitment and retention may be affected by the way institutions handle promotion and tenure. A national survey of U.S. dental schools conducted in 2007 assessed the existence of multiple employment tracks for faculty and examined the requirements for promotion and tenure. All responding schools reported the existence of multiple tracks for academic faculty appointments. Many dental schools reported that they provided opportunity for faculty members to switch from one track to another, thus circumventing the traditional "up-or-out" policy. The number of schools offering non-tenure appointment tracks has also increased. This finding indicates an apparent increase over time in flexibility regarding tracks and tenure. The majority of schools did not report requirements for the number of publications necessary for promotion. Those that did report requirements showed an increase in expected scholarly activity relative to past studies, indicating that it may be more difficult than ever to achieve promotion.

Academic dental institutions vary in their requirements for promotion and tenure, and they vary in their expectations of the achievement of tenure and the time frame for accomplishing both. Research in this area has focused primarily on issues relating to tenure, but there has been little research on promotion requirements in dental education. The relationship of tenure to promotion in academic rank (and the reverse) is close, in many instances occurring at the same time in some institutions but as separate decisions in others. This article reviews the literature on tenure in U.S. dental schools for the period 1980 to 2008, summarizes research on the development and influence of "academic appointment tracks" (or categories) on promotion and tenure, and then reports the findings of an online survey submitted to all dental schools in the United States during 2007 to assess promotion and tenure practices and standards. The answers to questions about promotion and tenure from the respondents are analyzed, and information obtained from current promotion and tenure documents of many academic dental institutions is described.

	Tenure and Alternative Appointment Tracks at U.S. Dental Schools: Literature Review

Top Author information Abstract Tenure and Alternative... Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
In 1982, all U.S. dental schools offered tenure. At the time, over 90 percent of dental faculty members were in tenure-track positions, and over 54 percent of faculty members had been awarded tenure. Deans stated that tenure was "an asset in the recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty."²

A 1990 study of U.S. schools of dental medicine by Kennedy³ compared the status of faculty in 1980 to faculty status in 1990 and found a decline in the total number of faculty by 12 percent, but an increase in the proportion of tenured faculty. In 1995, Mayhew and Van Stewart⁴ surveyed deans of schools of dental medicine; of the thirty-four schools responding, 59 percent of the faculty members were tenured. They also found that institutions requiring sixteen or more publications for tenure review increased in the period from 1993 to 1995. Their findings agree with Kennedy’s 1990 observation that dental schools, "at least as reflected in the tenure review process, would appear to be imposing more stringent expectations for scholarship, especially for clinical faculty." In 1998, Kennedy and Hunt⁵ reported a shift to more non-tenure-track positions in response to more stringent demands on faculty members seeking tenure and the increasing demand for faculty for schools of dental medicine.

The 1995 Institute of Medicine report Dental Education at the Crossroads recommended "that dental schools and their universities supplement tenure-track positions with other full-time non-tenured clinical or research positions that provide greater flexibility in achieving teaching, research, and patient care objectives."⁶ Mayhew and Van Stewart’s⁴ survey of deans of schools of dental medicine included questions about tenure/non-tenure options for faculty employment to determine how many schools were offering these options. Of the thirty-four dental schools represented in that survey, twenty-two offered alternative tracks—most having a clinical option (clinical, clinical scholar/research, clinical teacher/educator, research, or other). Even though 81 percent of schools had a "strict" up-or-out policy, half offered faculty members the opportunity to reapply, while 70 percent of the schools offered faculty members the opportunity to be rehired in non-tenure-track positions.

In 2002, Hunt and Gray⁷ categorized responses from fifty-four dental institutions according to seven appointment tracks in which faculty might participate: tenure-track research emphasis, tenure-track clinician scholar, tenure-track clinical emphasis, clinical track, research track, faculty administrator, and full-time administrator. Their findings suggest that the non-tenure-track positions might help fill needed positions in clinically oriented schools. Such positions might be attractive to those pursuing an academic career after a career in the military or to those dentists who want to supplement their salaries in faculty practice activities rather than concentrate on original research rewarded by tenure.

A 2004 study of pediatric dentistry faculty members by Wood et al.⁸ was conducted in part to assess the impact of diminishing pediatric dental faculty members. These researchers noted that dental schools were increasingly using general dentists to teach pediatric dentistry and that there was a growing blurring of the discipline of pediatric dentistry, accompanied by a reduction in the number of pediatric dentists in academic positions. Seventy-five percent of pediatric dental faculty members who responded to the survey reported that the existence of clinical tracks would aid in the recruitment and retention of faculty. Two-thirds of the pediatric dentistry faculty reported that they maintained a part-time practice in addition to their academic positions. Thirty-one percent reported that they were required by their institutions to supplement their base salary with private practice activity. This study concluded with a suggestion that developing alternate career paths to emphasize clinical teaching in addition to traditional academic paths would improve the crisis in this workforce.

In 2004–05, Chmar et al.⁹ analyzed results of a survey of over 10,000 full- and part-time faculty members, both paid and volunteer positions, and found that 19 percent were tenured and 6 percent were on tenure track but had not yet been awarded a tenured position. This study group consisted of all faculty members, those in traditional academic positions as well as those designated "clinical." Seventy-four percent of these faculty members were on a clinical track or another non-tenure track. The typical faculty member entering academics from private practice was, on average, fifty-four years old and had been hired as a part-time, non-tenure-track, clinical science faculty member at a lower rank. And the typical faculty member leaving for private practice was forty-three years old with a part-time, non-tenure- track, clinical science faculty appointment.⁹

Trotman et al.¹⁰ reported on findings from three studies in 2000, 2004, and 2007 regarding attitudes of tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty about the work environment in academic dental medicine. The 2000 and 2004 studies reflected an appreciation for teaching, yet a level of frustration with the promotion and tenure process due to lack of clarity. The 2007 study surveyed all full- and part-time faculty in clinical, basic science, and behavioral departments in fifty-six U.S. dental schools, with a 17 percent response rate. Over 80 percent of the respondents said the overall process for obtaining tenure was not clear at all or could be improved. Overall, the findings of these three studies indicated that the clarity of the tenure and promotion process, performance standards, and expectations and career-planning advice were perceived by faculty members to be minimally adequate in U.S. dental schools. A majority of non-tenure-track faculty in the 2007 study said their rights and obligations and the evaluation processes were not clear. There is a growing discussion about the future of academic tenure, which is generally tied to promotion. Peterson,¹¹ in a 2007 article on academic tenure and higher education, observed that there is a crisis in faculty recruitment and retention that will continue to be a significant problem for dental schools during the next decade. She recommended that policies regarding tenure be reviewed for clarity at the institutional level; that up-or-out policies be modified or possibly even eliminated; that multiple faculty tracks be considered so that faculty members can have designated functions, focus, and expectations versus a "one size fits all" philosophy; and that "academic freedom and due process be protected for all faculty members regardless of status."

	Methods

Top Author information Abstract Tenure and Alternative... Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
In 2006, the Medical University of South Carolina College of Dental Medicine conducted a review of its promotion and tenure criteria. Consensus among the planning faculty members was that the college’s promotion policies should acknowledge and reward different contributions of faculty members to the academic mission. This revision of promotion and tenure guidelines followed changes that had been undertaken in other colleges within the university. As a result of this review, the College of Dental Medicine developed and approved a two-track system to replace the single-track system for promotion. The new tracks created in 2006 were academic clinician and academic researcher. The requirements for promotion in these tracks emphasize different aspects of academic life; thus, a faculty member on the academic researcher track is expected to conduct and publish more research than a faculty member on a clinical track. Requirements for the academic clinician track place greater emphasis on teaching and patient care. The university does not have an up-or-out policy for promotion or tenure, but tenure guidelines were also clarified in this process.

As a result of this revision of promotion and tenure guidelines, we designed a study to determine the status and content of promotion and tenure (P&T) guidelines in U.S. dental schools. The goal of the study was to assess current academic appointment and P&T practices to inform and guide other dental schools that may also be considering revisions to the tenure track.

In 2007, an online survey was conducted to assess the existence of tracks, requirements for tenure, and the flexibility of promotion processes among U.S. colleges of dental medicine. We constructed the survey based upon a review of the literature and anticipated direction of changes in promotion and tenure (P&T) standards. The survey was pilot-tested by a group of American Dental Education Association (ADEA) Council of Faculty members for content and clarity, and the survey was revised based upon their comments. The survey contained nineteen questions, including four questions related to demographics and contact information. Five questions related to tenure policies including the existence of an up-or-out policy and time requirements for reaching such. Seven questions related to promotion requirements, including the existence of multiple tracks and the number of publications expected for advancement to different academic levels. An open-ended question allowed participants to explain each track at their school. Finally, two questions related to the current status of P&T guidelines at that school and the willingness to share those guidelines with other schools. In addition to responses to the survey, schools were asked to submit a paper or electronic copy of their current P&T guidelines. University Institutional Review Board approval was obtained, and the survey was placed in a web-based format.

All U.S. dental schools were contacted through their ADEA Council of Faculties representatives. Each representative was contacted by email three times over a three-month period and instructed to ask either the head of the Promotions and Tenure Committee or the academic dean to respond to this survey. At the end of the three-month period, the schools that had not yet responded were contacted by emailing the survey to the dean’s office with the same instructions for filling out the survey. A copy of the survey is available upon request from the primary author.

	Results

Top Author information Abstract Tenure and Alternative... Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
The total number of completed surveys was thirty-six, for a response rate of 64 percent. The data reported in this article and conclusions made are based upon the thirty-six responding schools. Of the respondents, twenty-two were categorized as public, eleven as private, and three as private, state-related. This distribution ratio parallels the national totals of thirty-seven public, fifteen private, and four private, state-related.¹² The size of the dental schools was determined by a count of their undergraduate D.M.D. or D.D.S. students, with student bodies ranging in size from 120 to 1,400. The median student enrollment for schools that participated in this survey was 320, close to the national median of 313 students. In addition to the survey responses, electronic or paper promotion and tenure documents were obtained from thirty-four dental schools. The blending of requirements for promotion and achievement of tenure varies from one institution to another, but these data are reported separately wherever feasible.

Tenure
Schools were asked if they had an up-or-out policy for their faculties. Twenty-three schools (63 percent) of the thirty-six reported an up-or-out policy; however, the time frame varied. The average time for twenty-two schools reporting a specific probationary period prior to obtaining tenure was seven years from initial appointment, with the range extending from six to ten years (see Figure 1). One school reported a tenure system but did not specify a time frame. Some schools expressed their individual policy with a range; for example, faculty members are expected to apply for tenure after they have been employed for five years but are not required to achieve it until seven years. In these instances, the midpoint of six years was used in reporting the results. The remaining thirteen schools either do not have tenure available or do not require tenure as a condition of continued employment.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Time expected to reach tenure in surveyed schools with up-or-out policy

Promotion
In response to a question about offering faculty members more than one track, all thirty-six schools responded that multiple tracks are available and that multiple tracks allow faculty to be assessed for promotion based upon different criteria. Thirty-two (89 percent) have both tenure and non-tenure tracks available. Two schools have only tenure tracks, and two schools have only non-tenure tracks. Thirteen schools (36 percent) list a separate track for dental faculty members who are primarily appointed to research positions. The majority of schools (59 percent) also offer non-tenure tracks for faculty members whose responsibilities are primarily clinical teaching and patient care, and not academic. Due to the many varieties of tracks described by the schools, it was extremely difficult to categorize tracks except as presented.

The survey also asked questions pertaining to the number of publications required for advancement through the academic ranks. The majority of the schools (twenty-three of thirty-six, or 63 percent) responded that they do not have a quantitative requirement for publications. Of the schools that reported having a quantitative requirement, five reported a quantitative requirement for publications to be appointed at the level of instructor, ranging from one to seven. Of the eight schools reporting a required number of publications for promotion to assistant professor, the range was one to ten, with an average of 4.75. Thirteen schools reported quantitative publication requirements for promotion to associate professor. Eleven schools require between four and thirty publications, with an average of 9.46 publications. Two schools reported the requirement as a function of continuous productivity, e.g., one to two publications per year. Thirteen schools also require a specific minimum number or range of numbers of publications for promotion to the rank of professor. Over half of those responding require between fifteen and fifty publications, with an average of 16.2.

P&T Guidelines
Schools were also asked to relate the current status of P&T guidelines. The guidelines were described as currently under revision, existing and needing revision, existing and ok, or recently revised. Thirteen schools (36 percent) reported that their guidelines were either currently under revision or needed to be revised (see Figure 2). Schools were asked if they would be willing to share the information in their P&T guidelines. Four schools were not willing to share their guidelines because they report the status of their guidelines as "currently under revision" or "needing revision."

View larger version (36K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Status of promotion and tenure guidelines at surveyed schools

	Discussion

Top Author information Abstract Tenure and Alternative... Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

Findings in this study reflect the trend to increase diversity, or flexibility, in academic standards and to identify additional opportunities for promotion and tenure for faculty members through multiple tracks. These tracks offer added channels for rewarding teaching, clinical care, and research in the promotion and tenure process. There has been a modest increase in the percentage of schools that have recognized the need for additional tracks. In 1990, Clark et al.¹³ reported that 50 percent of dental schools had a clinical track, but based on the data reported by schools in our study, that percentage has increased to 59.

All faculty members on a clinical track should not be interpreted as being on a non-tenure track. Three-fourths of the dental schools now recognize faculty members on a clinical track as being eligible for tenure. Although the majority of schools still have an up-or-out policy, most have developed mechanisms to allow faculty members to remain without tenure. Schools allowing faculty members to switch to a non-tenure track increased from 26 percent in 1990¹³ to 69 percent in our study. The number of schools with non-tenure tracks has increased from fewer than 40 percent in 1980 to 78 percent in 1989¹³ to 94 percent in 2007.

At the same time, some schools appear to have raised the bar by increasing the number of publications required for promotion. Clark et al.’s¹³ 1990 study reported an average of 1.5 publications required for promotion to assistant professor. However, we found the average number of publications required for promotion to assistant professor was 4.75. For promotion to associate professor, the average increased from 5.5 (reported by Clark et al.) to 9.5 in our study. And the average number of publications required for promotion to full professor increased from 11.0 (reported by Clark et al.) to 16.2 in our study. These findings reflect the requirements of the thirteen schools that reported having a specified numbers of publications required. While caution should be used when comparing these data from two separate surveys since the respondents will have differed, we believe that the increase is large enough to show a significant difference. This increase could be problematic in recruiting and retaining faculty members under the current system.

As early as 1984, Smith¹⁴ debated the value of "counting of publications" as a criterion for effective scholarship. According to Smith, the emphasis placed upon faculty members to demonstrate scholarship through publishing (publish or perish) was largely false, and his suggestions were to "support excellence where we find it" rather than expecting all faculty members to fit into a given model. However, data from our study confirm the existence of a numbers requirement for publications as a guideline for promotion in many schools. It is also recognized that the degree of emphasis on research of each university may affect the expectations of scholarly activity for promotion and tenure. Our study did not address this issue.

In 2001, Shepherd et al.¹⁵ surveyed new (defined as within one to five years) dental educators throughout North America to ascertain what could affect the recruitment and retention of new faculty. Faculty members noted that salary was important, but that the work environment and reasonable criteria for promotion and tenure could outweigh salary considerations. Perhaps the increase in creation of multiple tracks will create a more positive environment by allowing faculty members to be assessed based upon their strengths rather than a standard set of criteria.

	Conclusion

Top Author information Abstract Tenure and Alternative... Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
This study reports on findings from a survey completed in 2007 by respondents at thirty-six of the fifty-six U.S. dental schools assessing faculty tenure and promotion policies. The survey results reflect an increase in complexity and variety of these policies, which may address the challenges of recruitment and retention in this age of faculty shortages. It is also recognized that the degree of emphasis on research of each university may affect the expectations of scholarly activity for promotion and tenure.

We propose that providing more flexibility in tenure and promotion criteria that reflect the value of unique contributions of dental faculty members who serve in varied roles within dental education will increase retention of existing faculty and perhaps make the dental academy a more attractive alternative for graduates who may be considering this field. The challenges facing schools of dental medicine to ensure an adequate supply of faculty for the future will be affected by compensation that will never be competitive with private practice. Thus, the academy must concentrate on strategies to recruit and retain outstanding faculty members. Providing alternatives to promotion and tenure other than the up-or-out process and offering multiple tracks appear to be methods for addressing the growing shortage and exodus of dental school faculty. The fact that 94 percent of dental schools provided non-tenure tracks in 2007 reflects this trend.

Future research should focus on those schools without tenure or quantitative requirements for promotion to determine if they are facing recruitment and retention challenges and, if so, what actions are being implemented to answer those challenges. The variety and range of P&T guidelines and policies among dental schools reflect a diversity of strategies being applied to recruit and reward the various contributions made by researchers, clinicians, and teachers. In addition, schools should attend to the environment of the teaching institution to ensure faculty members feel they are involved and included in the decisions affecting them. Providing clear expectations to achieve tenure and promotion should increase faculty perceptions of involvement, increase job satisfaction, and hence, improve retention.

	Author Information

Top Author information Abstract Tenure and Alternative... Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 
Dr. Pilcher is Professor, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, College of Dental Medicine; Dr. Kilpatrick is Professor, Department of Health Administration and Policy; and Mr. Segars is a student, Department of Health Administration and Policy—all at the Medical University of South Carolina. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Elizabeth Pilcher, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, 173 Ashley Avenue, P.O. Box 250507, Charleston, SC 29425-2601; 843-792-2337 phone; 843-792-1593 fax; pilchees{at}musc.edu.

	REFERENCES

Top Author information Abstract Tenure and Alternative... Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References

 

1. White S. Scholarship, service, and tenure: a descriptive analysis. Paper presented at the National Social Science Association Conference in St. Louis, MO, 1999.
2. Scheetz JP, Mendel RW. Tenure in U.S. and Canadian dental schools. J Dent Educ 1982; 46(2):68–73.[Abstract]
3. Kennedy JE. Faculty status in a climate of change. J Dent Educ 1990; 54(5):268–72.[Abstract]
4. Mayhew RB, Van Stewart A. Review of current tenure policies and their relation to junior dental faculty. J Dent Educ 1998; 62(4):302–6.[Abstract]
5. Kennedy JE, Hunt RJ. Meeting the demand for future dental faculty. Presentation at the AADS 75^th Anniversary Summit Conference, 1998. At: www.adea.org/publications/Documents/3kennedy.pdf. Accessed: September 7, 2007.
6. Field MJ, ed. Dental education at the crossroads: challenges and change. An Institute of Medicine Report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.
7. 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]
8. Wood J, Barbieri DM, Rutkauskas JS, Seewoester S. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry survey of U.S. pediatric dentistry faculty members. Pediatr Dent 2006; 28(6):537–42.[Medline]
9. Chmar JE, Weaver RG, Valachovic RW. Dental school vacant budgeted faculty positions: academic year 2004–05. J Dent Educ 2006; 70(2):188–98.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Trotman CA, Haden NK, Hendricson W. Does the dental school work environment promote successful academic careers? J Dent Educ 2007; 71(6):713–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Peterson MR. Academic tenure and higher education in the United States: implications for the dental education workforce in the twenty-first century. J Dent Educ 2007; 71(3):354–64.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Survey of dental education: academic programs, enrollment, and graduates, vol. 1, 2005/06. Chicago: American Dental Association, May 2007: 6,34.
13. Clark NP, Smith GE, Medina JE. The prevailing academic environment for faculty in operative dentistry: recommendations for change. Operative Dent 1990; 15:27–33.
14. Smith RJ. Requirements for faculty scholarship in universities and dental schools: implications for promotion, tenure, and the dual-track system. J Dent Educ 1984; 48(9):500–5.[Medline]
15. Shepherd KR, Nihill P, Botto RW, McCarthy MW. Factors influencing pursuit and satisfaction of academic dentistry careers: perceptions of new dental educators. J Dent Educ 2001; 65(9):841–8.[Abstract]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pilcher, E. S. Articles by Segars, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pilcher, E. S. Articles by Segars, J.