Frank T. Stritter, PH.D. Educationist: teacher, coach and researcher.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Career Mobility↗
Biomedical subjects
Carole J Bland
Publications and source records attributed to Carole J Bland.
A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity.
PURPOSE: Although numerous characteristics impact faculty research productivity, and although researchers have suggested comprehensive theoretical models to explain the relationship between these characteristics and levels of faculty research productivity, few studies have assessed these models. This study tests the ability of the Bland et al. (2002) model-based on individual, institutional, and leadership variables influencing faculty research productivity-to explain individual and group (department) research productivity within the context of a large medical school. METHOD: This study used data from a University of Minnesota Medical School-Twin Cities vitality survey conducted in 2000 that had a response rate of 76% (n = 465 faculty). A statistical software package was used to conduct t tests, logistic regressions, and multiple regressions on these data. RESULTS: The validity of faculty, department, and leadership characteristics identified in the Bland et al. (2002) model were confirmed as necessary for high levels of research productivity. Faculty productivity was influenced more by individual and institutional characteristics; group productivity was more affected by institutional and leadership characteristics. CONCLUSION: The characteristics and groupings (individual, institutional, and leadership) in the Bland et al. (2002) model predict faculty research productivity. Research productivity is influenced by the interaction of the three broad groupings, and it is the dynamic interplay of individual and institutional characteristics, supplemented with effective leadership, that determines the productivity of individuals and departments.
Adult↗
Lessons learned from implementing multidisciplinary health professions educational models in community settings.
This article addresses sustainability elements for multidisciplinary health professions education in communities. The results are based on a 5 year program involving multiple health professions education institutions in seven states within the USA. We offer observations and suggestions to others who plan and implement multidisciplinary programs for health professions educators. Our findings are based on the outcomes of the Community Partnerships in Health Professions Education (CPHPE) initiative funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Data sources included pre and post surveys of students and faculty, site visits, published evaluations and site reports, and a 2 year follow-up evaluation after the external funding phase. Elements of the partnership that facilitated the sustainability of the models were: leadership, complementary missions, curriculum that mirrors clinical community practice, change from outside in, partnership boards, and faculty development. Those elements that were barriers to sustaining the efforts were: professional identities and territorial boundaries, structural differences, costs, and unclear goals. The multidisciplinary components of the community partnership initiative were the most challenging. However, in most programs, they did succeed and are currently in place. By paying attention to the elements that enhance and detract from teaming, one can plan for more successful multidisciplinary education.
Allied Health Personnel↗
Evaluating faculty performance: a systematically designed and assessed approach.
The authors explain how the Department of Family Practice and Community Health (DFPCH) at the University of Minnesota School of Medicine has responded to the need to create for its faculty an evaluation system that provides information for both feedback and merit-pay decisions. The development process, begun in 1996, is described, and its present format detailed. Also presented are the results of a 1999 assessment of the system, which found high satisfaction among the faculty and the department head. In particular, this system has allowed the department head to have a more objective basis for making salary decisions, to increase his role as coach, and to commit more time to career correction and/or development. Other observed outcomes include an enhanced ability to track faculty productivity, increased clarity in organizational structure and goals, increased research productivity, and early retirement of senior faculty receiving low evaluations. The key components of the DFPCH system mirror recommended elements for the design of faculty evaluation systems offered by evaluation professionals. Specific elements that the DFPCH found critical to success were stable and supportive departmental and project leadership, supportive faculty, skilled staff, a willingness to weather resistance to change, tailoring of the system to the department's specific needs and culture, and a willingness to allow the process to evolve. A key question that the evaluation system has evoked at the DFPCH is whether "merit" equals "worth"; that is, does the collective meritorious work of faculty members effectively address program and departmental goals?
Community Medicine↗
One school's strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty.
The authors report how one medical school took an evidence-based, collaborative approach to assessing and improving faculty vitality by building on previous research and including important shareholders (e.g., faculty and administrators). In 1999, the dean and faculty senate asked all full-time faculty (615) at the University of Minnesota Medical School-Twin Cities to complete a survey to (1) identify vitality areas (individual, institutional, or leadership) in which the school was strong and ones that needed improvement, (2) identify strategies for addressing weak areas, and (3) provide a baseline against which to measure the impact of any vitality efforts initiated. The survey was based on features that research studies have found to be associated with academic productivity. Seventy-six percent responded. Summaries of the survey findings were prepared for use at the school level, department level, and special group level (e.g., women, clinical-scholar-track faculty). Three key school-level findings were that (1) there is a disconnect between the stated vision of the school and the departments' visions and actions, (2) there is not enough time for scholarly activity, particularly in the clinical departments, and (3) faculty lack the support of a collegial atmosphere and appreciation for the work they do. In response to the survey's findings every department identified priority faculty needs and initiated tailored development strategies. School-wide strategies were also initiated to address faculty needs common across departments and needs unique to special groups. Together these strategies provide a multi-level, systematic approach to maintaining faculty vitality.
Faculty, Medical↗