Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: A 10-year follow-up survey

Roberta E. Sonnino, Vivian Reznik, Luanne A. Thorndyke, Archana Chatterjee, Carlos F. Ríos-Bedoya, Elza Mylona, Kathleen G. Nelson, Carol S. Weisman, Page S. Morahan, William C. Wadland

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1368-1375
Number of pages8
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume88
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2013

Fingerprint

school
budget
central administration
staffing
descriptive statistics
promotion
leadership
governance
responsibility
questionnaire
communication
trend
management
performance
Group

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education

Cite this

Sonnino, R. E., Reznik, V., Thorndyke, L. A., Chatterjee, A., Ríos-Bedoya, C. F., Mylona, E., ... Wadland, W. C. (2013). Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: A 10-year follow-up survey. Academic Medicine, 88(9), 1368-1375. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed496
Sonnino, Roberta E. ; Reznik, Vivian ; Thorndyke, Luanne A. ; Chatterjee, Archana ; Ríos-Bedoya, Carlos F. ; Mylona, Elza ; Nelson, Kathleen G. ; Weisman, Carol S. ; Morahan, Page S. ; Wadland, William C. / Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools : A 10-year follow-up survey. In: Academic Medicine. 2013 ; Vol. 88, No. 9. pp. 1368-1375.
@article{c2cffbc174434e1f8614de2b68584e58,
title = "Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: A 10-year follow-up survey",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Sonnino, {Roberta E.} and Vivian Reznik and Thorndyke, {Luanne A.} and Archana Chatterjee and R{\'i}os-Bedoya, {Carlos F.} and Elza Mylona and Nelson, {Kathleen G.} and Weisman, {Carol S.} and Morahan, {Page S.} and Wadland, {William C.}",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed496",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "88",
pages = "1368--1375",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

Sonnino, RE, Reznik, V, Thorndyke, LA, Chatterjee, A, Ríos-Bedoya, CF, Mylona, E, Nelson, KG, Weisman, CS, Morahan, PS & Wadland, WC 2013, 'Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: A 10-year follow-up survey', Academic Medicine, vol. 88, no. 9, pp. 1368-1375. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed496

Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools : A 10-year follow-up survey. / Sonnino, Roberta E.; Reznik, Vivian; Thorndyke, Luanne A.; Chatterjee, Archana; Ríos-Bedoya, Carlos F.; Mylona, Elza; Nelson, Kathleen G.; Weisman, Carol S.; Morahan, Page S.; Wadland, William C.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 88, No. 9, 09.2013, p. 1368-1375.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools

T2 - A 10-year follow-up survey

AU - Sonnino, Roberta E.

AU - Reznik, Vivian

AU - Thorndyke, Luanne A.

AU - Chatterjee, Archana

AU - Ríos-Bedoya, Carlos F.

AU - Mylona, Elza

AU - Nelson, Kathleen G.

AU - Weisman, Carol S.

AU - Morahan, Page S.

AU - Wadland, William C.

PY - 2013/9

Y1 - 2013/9

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883653638&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883653638&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed496

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed496

M3 - Article

C2 - 23899902

AN - SCOPUS:84883653638

VL - 88

SP - 1368

EP - 1375

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 9

ER -