A two-decades-long study of scholarship by clinical laboratory science faculty.J Allied Health 2011; 40(2):72-7JA
To compete successfully in academia, clinical laboratory science (CLS) faculty members must actively engage in research and scholarly activities. Without research, some CLS educators may experience difficulty in the promotion and tenure process or even find their educational programs threatened with closure. Thus began a national study, spanning the years 1985, 1996, and 2008: to compare CLS faculty demographics, their scholarship, and their perceptions of the research environment. Since 1985, faculty members with doctorates have increased from 26% to 52% and senior faculty at the rank of associate and full professors have improved from 38% to 54%. Over time, the data show CLS faculty are providing more refereed publications (in the 2008 study, 19% had 11 or more publications) and more presentations (in the 2008 study, 34% had 11 or more presentations). Grant monies garnered included $62 million in the latest study. On the other hand, there are more faculty in non-tenured track positions. In addition, in both the 1996 and 2008 studies, the average number of faculty per program remained the same (4), as did hours spent each week in teaching (22). For all three studies, faculty perceived the top two research environment characteristics the same: i.e., 1) research is important for promotion and tenure and 2) computer accessibility is present. The lowest ranked characteristic of the research environment for all these studies-time available for research.