The purpose of this five-year evaluation case study (2011-2016) was to identify changes in faculty scholarly performance metrics associated with the introduction of a research strategic plan within a college of nursing in the United States of America.
Methods:
The methods used in this case study included the collection of scholarly performance data (e.g. external funding, publications, etc.) and the research interests of nursing faculty. This data was obtained from self-reports, literature searches and official university research expenditure data. In addition, individual and small group interviews were held with nursing faculty as a means of clarifying personal research priorities. Data from these meetings (2011) were used as a focus for a number of faculty-wide discussions aimed at determining research priorities for the next 5 years. From these, a series of four research priorities were identified: symptom management, gerontology, health services, and social justice research. A national comparison of research active schools/colleges was also performed to guage current research expenditures. Other data was calculated including a measure of ‘tenure density’ (ratio of tenure track and tenured faculty and the size of the undergraduate student body). This metric was calculated from data made available from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). Data was also collected from a number of other sources, including faculty self-reports of scholarly output. Data was collected on the growth in faculty and student enrolment and on alumni and development fund-raising activities. All the above data was collected annually and entered into a database.
Results:
The results and findings from this case study report the changes in research productivity following the introduction of a research strategic plan. Data showed that it was possible to identify a series of measures that may be indicative of future success in obtaining research funding. These were identified as a formal research strategy, growth in the faculty size, the determination of tenure density metric, the number of collaborative relationships outside of the college of nursing, growth in development funds, and financial investment in faculty development. One of the most important findings from this evaluation was the growth in submission of requests for external funding. During the study, the total number of grants submitted rose from 13 (2011) to 33 (2016), while external funding rose from $48k to $2.33m in the same time period, and included the awarding of a P20 center grant.
Conclusion:
The findings of this evaluation study suggest the importance of developing research priorities as part of an overall research strategy for a college. Aligning these priorities with activities such as hiring new faculty and developing partnerships across campus was essential in developing a growing research and scholarly output. It was also recognized that the concept of tenure density might be an important measure to consider when developing a research strategy. This, in turn, may provide important insight into determining what the optimum college might be, based on faculty and student numbers. The idea of growing a research program based upon tenure density, however, needs further work in nursing. This study illustrates that many factors can influence the growth of research productivity, including fund-raising and inter-collegiate collaborations.