1. Jan Shorey Associate Dean for CME & Faculty Affairs

2. Objectives: At the conclusion of this activity, the participant will be able to: Better understand the 2009 COM Guidelines for Faculty Appointments, Promotion and Tenure Better understand the broad scope of scholarly contributions that is needed in contemporary academic medicine – and how these varied contributions are considered by the College P&T Committee Better understand how to explain to the College P&T Committee the peer-review process(es) by which your scholarly contributions are assessed.

3. P&T Guidelines – state the criteria for academic advancement Serve as a faculty development tool For individual faculty members For mentors For department chairs and division directors For departmental faculty development programs Serve as an assessment tool For individual faculty members, mentors, dept and div directors, departmental P&T Committees, and For the College Promotion and Tenure Committee

4. P&T Committee’s job: Study evidence presented in a candidate’s P&T Packet Compare the evidence to the P&T criteria Fairly determine whether or not the candidate has fulfilled the criteria Quantity of contributions and Quality of contributions are assessed What is the evidence that the contributions have achieved excellence? What comparative measures were available/used/presented?

5. P&T Committee’s sense of the “new” Guidelines: 2009 P&T Guidelines more clearly articulate the criteria than did the 1997 Guidelines Made the Committee members’ job easier Nevertheless - their work remains challenging High stakes A LOT to study Some candidates make the Committee members’ jobs easy….

6. Why is a candidate’s request(s) denied? Incomprehensible P&T packet – cannot determine whether the P&T criteria were fulfilled Comprehensible P&T packet - the candidate did not fulfill the P&T criteria

7. 8 lessons from 2010 P&T Retreat 1. Use a standard format for your Curriculum Vitae 2. Annotate your bibliography (copy/paste from CV then annotate) 3. Annotate your leadership/administrative service roles (copy/paste from “committees “ noted on CV – then annotate) 4. Attend to your Time & Effort distribution – if atypical, provide explanation 1. By candidate within packet materials 2. By chair within Chair’s letter

8. Lessons, continued 5. Present best possible evaluation of your work in each domain – metrics, peers (local, national, international), learners 6. Spell out abbreviations and acronyms (at least once!) 7. Paper “accepted” for publication – include notification from publisher 8. 3 letter of recommendation REQUIRED (from experts outside of UAMS an all but Clinical Attending pathway – wherein letters from UAMS experts are acceptable – from ACROSS UAMS – not just your own department)

9. Important “local” reference http://www.uams.edu/facultyaffairs/Promotionandtenure/default.asp Candidate’s Companion Guide

10. “Scholarship Reconsidered” Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities for the Professoriate. EL Boyer. Princeton University Press 1990 Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. CE Glassick, MT Huber. Jossey-Bass. 1997 Broadened the consideration of what constitutes scholarship- of Discovery of Integration of Application of Education

11. Scholarly Work In Academic Medicine creates new knowledge in any of 4 domains Clinical Care Education/Teaching Research (bench to bedside to community) Administration

12. Useful references Special issue of Academic Medicine Vol. 75, No. 9, 2000 Expanding the View of Scholarship: Introduction. Diana Beattie Breaking Down the Walls: Thoughts on the Scholarship of Integration. Dale Dauphinee & Joseph Martin. The Scholarship of Application. Eugene Shapiro & David Coleman. Advancing Educators and Education: Defining the Components and Evidence of Educational Scholarship. Summary Report and Findings from the AAMC Group of Educational Affairs Consensus Conference on Educational Scholarship. AAMC 2007

13. Characteristics of Scholarly Work: (CE Glassick) 1. Clear goals 2. Adequate preparation 3. Appropriate methods 4. Significant results 5. Effective presentation 6. Reflective critique

14. Work vs. Scholarship Scholarly work requires: High level of discipline & related expertise Innovation “Product” can be replicated or elaborated Can be peer-reviewed Scholarship Assessed, Glassick, Huber, Maeroff (1997)

15. Work vs. Scholarship “work” becomes scholarship when it is: Made public Available for peer review and critique according to accepted standards Able to be reproduced and built upon by others [the 3 P’s: product, peer-reviewed, published] Lee S. Shulman Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

16. Scholarship Made Public: “Publication” Examples of “Tried and True” Methods: Peer-reviewed journal articles about original contributions Peer-reviewed “review” articles Textbooks and chapters; monographs Peer-reviewed poster presentations and abstracts

17. Scholarship Made Public: “Publication” Examples of Newer Methods: Peer-reviewed web-based materials CDs and other forms for enduring materials Educational syllabi and curriculum documents Patient education materials Quality improvement projects Clinical Practice Guidelines

18. Scholarship of activity Public, peer review, platform Scholarly approach to activity Evidence of professional development Quality in activity Data collection Pathway to Scholarship Reward 2006 GEA Consensus Development Conference CP1220953-2 Involvement in activity (Quantity) Instructor Assistant Associate Professor

19. Collecting and Storing “your evidence of contribution” Continuously update your Curriculum Vitae Educator’s portfolio (AAMC Group of Educational Affairs; American Pediatrics Association) Quality Improver’s portfolio (Society of General Internal Medicine, Institute for Healthcare Improvement)

20. Thank you! QUESTIONS???