Logo image
Evolution of Faculty Affairs and Faculty Development Offices in US Medical Schools: A 10-Year Follow-up Survey
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Evolution of Faculty Affairs and Faculty Development Offices in US Medical Schools: A 10-Year Follow-up Survey

Roberta E. Sonnino, Vivian Reznik, Luanne A. Thorndyke, Archana Chatterjee, Carlos F. Rios-Bedoya, Elza Mylona, Kathleen G. Nelson, Carol S. Weisman, Page S. Morahan and William C. Wadland
Academic medicine, v 88(9), pp 1368-1375
01 Sep 2013
PMID: 23899902
url
https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e31829ed496View
Published, Version of Record (VoR)Maybe Open Access (Publisher Bronze) Open

Abstract

Education & Educational Research Education, Scientific Disciplines Health Care Sciences & Services Life Sciences & Biomedicine Science & Technology Social Sciences
Purpose To determine how U.S. MD-granting medical schools manage, fund, and evaluate faculty affairs/development functions and to determine the evolution of these offices between 2000 and 2010. Method In December 2010, the authors invited faculty affairs designees at 131 U.S. MD-granting medical schools to complete a questionnaire developed by the Association of American Medical Colleges Group on Faculty Affairs, based on a 2000 survey. Schools were asked about core functions, budget, staffing, and performance metrics. The authors analyzed the data using descriptive statistics. Results A total of 111 schools (84.7%) responded. Fifty percent of the offices were established since 2000. Seventy-eight percent reported their top core function as administrative support for appointments, promotions, and tenure, as in 2000. Faculty policies, appointments, databases, governance support, grievance proceedings, management issues, and annual trend analyses continued as major functions. All 11 core functions identified in 2000 remain predominantly provided by central offices of faculty affairs, except support of major leadership searches. Web site communication emerged as a new core function. Similar to 2000, several other offices were responsible for some faculty development functions. Office size and budget correlated positively with size of the faculty and age of the office (P < .05 for all). Thirty-five schools (31.5%) reported formally evaluating their faculty affairs office. Conclusions The number of faculty affairs offices and their responsibilities have substantially increased since 2000. Most major core functions have not changed. These offices are now an established part of the central administration of most medical schools.

Metrics

13 Record Views
15 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#4 Quality Education

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Education, Scientific Disciplines
Health Care Sciences & Services
Logo image