The culture of scholarship is best described as an environment of creativity and productivity that extends
from active investigations designed to create, advance, or transform new knowledge. This new knowledge becomes
scholarship when it is assessed by peer-review and made public. The culture requires active support by the
administration as reflected in a dynamic infrastructure, a well-defined method of evaluation, and a system of rewards
that adheres to the established evaluation criteria. In addition, the culture is facilitated by a contingent of
productive senior faculty members who sustain the environment and are available to mentor junior investigators
as they develop independent careers.
This manuscript begins with a brief overview of the development of scholarship in American academia
followed by examples of the common expressions of scholarship in pharmacy education and how they are
encompassed by the definition. Subsequent sections discuss the support and development of research, an
analysis of the rewards to faculty for scholarly activities, and the relationship between scholarship and
professional pharmacy education. The final section includes recommendations that colleges, as well as AACP
and ACPE, can pursue to further develop and sustain a culture of scholarship in pharmacy education.
This manuscript begins with a brief, but important for perspective, overview of the development of scholarship
in American academia. A definition of scholarship that establishes whether an activity qualifies for this moniker is
presented. Then, examples of the common expressions of scholarship in pharmacy education and how they are
encompassed by the definition are presented. Subsequent sections discuss the support and development of research,
an analysis of the rewards to faculty for scholarly activities, and the relationship between scholarship and professional
pharmacy education.
Scholarship in American Academia
The 1980 report of the Argus Commission underscored the concept that faculties in colleges of pharmacy
share the responsibility of conducting scholarly activity for the advancement of knowledge and the benefit of
mankind.1 Clearly this is a precept of the academician’s role and the foundation upon which all academic endeavors
are based.
An understanding of the historical development and transformation of scholarship in American academic life
is instructional and provides a foundation for the definitions that will be put forth later in this section. While a
detailed historical development is beyond the scope of this paper, a brief developmental sequencing is presented
below. The references cited will serve the interested reader well in obtaining a deeper and more comprehensive
picture if so desired.
American scholarship can be viewed as having followed three developmental phases. The colonial college
represents the initial phase. The first colleges formed in the United States were focused almost entirely on the
student and teaching. Their goals were the building of character and the preparation of a new generation of
civic and religious leaders. Teaching was a sacred and honored calling. Scholarship beyond the classroom was
not a high priority. This period is well characterized by the words of Charles W. Eliot upon assuming the Presidency
of Harvard College in 1869 who reportedly said; “… the prime business of American professors … must be regular and assiduous class teaching.”2
During the 19th century the tide shifted as universities and colleges began to focus on the practical side of the educational
enterprise. This was the time prior to the industrial and agricultural revolution, and it was characterized by an
increasing desire for college/university education to result in skills that would translate into a productive economy.
Science took on a greater importance, and the government began the land-grant program that allowed states to
develop universities (sometimes referred to as “cow colleges”) that could support the growing need for individuals
who were able to translate learning from the university to the farm or factory. During this time the realm of service
was introduced as the second leg of what would become the modern day “three-legged” mission of academic
institutions (to teach, to serve, to search). Harvard President Eliot is reported to have remarked in 1908 that; “most of the American institutions of higher education are filled with the modern democratic spirit of
serviceableness. Teachers and students alike are profoundly moved by the desire to serve the democratic
community…All the colleges boast of the serviceable men they have trained, and regard the serviceable patriot
as their ideal product. This is a thoroughly democratic conception of their function.”2
During this time the concept that the academic community could improve the function of the farmer or
industrialist through focused study or investigation gave birth to the concept that applied research was a useful
and beneficial role of educational institutions. The academic transition to basic research was spawned by
investigations initiated outside of academia. Industry and private enterprise had already embraced the concept
that basic research could lead to the opening of new doors and frontiers, and this belief was adopted by academia
as an expansion of their applied research focus. The first American Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree was
conferred by Yale University in 1861. Subsequently, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), founded at
the end of the Civil War, was recognized as the center of scientific investigation.
Foreshadowing the ultimate research university was the founding of the University of Chicago in 1892, which
made the PhD degree the apex of their academic program. By 1895, University President William Rainey Harper
required each faculty appointee to sign an agreement that his promotion in rank and salary would be determined
primarily on personal research productivity. Thus, the transformation of American academia was complete, and the
focus of many colleges and universities in America, explicitly or implicitly, was sharply tuned towards individual
research productivity as the determinant of promotion and salary increases.
It was this focus on research as the dominant view and definition of scholarship that compelled Ernest L.
Boyer, President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, to write his highly cited report
titled “Scholarship Reconsidered; Priorities of the Professorate.”2 In this report he makes the case that scholarship can be defined in various realms of academic life and
suggests that each is critical and necessary for the health of academia as a whole. The four realms identified by
Boyer are: (1) the scholarship of discovery; (2) the scholarship of integration; (3) the scholarship of application;
and (4) the scholarship of teaching.
Scholarship Defined
Scholarship is defined as the creation, discovery, advancement, or transformation of knowledge. The fruits
of such efforts are evidenced only when that knowledge is assessed for quality by peer review and made public.
Thus, the defining elements of scholarship are originality, creativity, peer review and communication.
This definition incorporates the realms of scholarship enunciated by Boyer2 and endorsed by others.3-5 It is important to point out that the essential features commonly classified under the heading of research
are properly included in the defining elements of scholarship. These are that the work is original and creative, that
it stems from the application of individual or collaborative intellect, and that the work is composed in a manner that
is subject to peer review and effective communication.
Scholarship Expressed
The scholarship of discovery. The scholarship of discovery, the form of scholarship most often equated with the term research, is the most
identifiable type of scholarly activity since it is focused on creating or reformulating knowledge regarding a particular
subject. Thus, the elements of originality and creativity are inherent, as is communication in a peer-reviewed format.
The Argus Commission in 19801 stated that: “research is the activity that makes pharmacy a science rather than a technical skill.” Indeed, research demonstrates that knowledge is not static but expansive, and when properly presented it
compels students to become lifelong learners. In addition, research adds flavor to the classroom ensuring that
knowledge gains are based on a scientific foundation.
Within AACP, research has an interesting history. A committee on research was first established within AACP
in 1917. In 1929 the committee was discontinued at its own request because members felt they had accomplished
everything possible.1 In 1943 a new standing committee on pharmaceutical research was organized and charged by then president
H. C. Newton.1 By 1953 the committee was also dropped, not because it felt it had accomplished its mission, but rather
because “the reports of the chair of the committee had become repetitive in their calling attention to the lack of support
for research by deans and the frustrations of the faculty over a lack of time for research that resulted from heavy
teaching loads.” The present interest of the Association in research stems from the creation in 1978 of a Special Committee
on Research and Graduate Affairs.1
Currently the more common expressions of discovery research in pharmaceutical education lie in the basic
science areas of pharmaceutics, pharmacokinetics, medicinal chemistry, biochemistry and molecular biology,
physiology, pathophysiology, and pharmacology. Research in these areas is focused on mechanisms of disease,
drug delivery and drug action, as well as on understanding the physiological and biochemical systems of life and
disease. These investigations are directed towards the treatment of disease or ultimate design of therapeutic
and pharmacist-provided interventions; however, they are also driven by the thirst for new information, and the
knowledge obtained often takes years to reach the “bedside”. In addition, social and administrative scientists
conduct discovery research focusing on economic, social and behavioral phenomena and processes that enable
the development of theories which predict, explain and describe health care systems and human behaviors such
as consumer drug utilization. There are numerous rigorously peer-reviewed journals that investigators can use to
communicate the results of discovery research. Although some individuals identify discovery research as the primary
mark of scholarship, the terms research and scholarship of discovery can be readily applied to other creative
activities as described below.
The scholarship of integration. At its core the scholarship of integration asks the question; “what does it mean?” The dynamics involve a
clear understanding of basic discovery and the ability to span several areas of basic investigation to develop
hypotheses related to how one relates to and interacts with another to elicit a final response in an integrated
system.5,6 Modern day biomedical and pharmaceutical research is rich in integrative collaborative teams of researchers
working to understand and apply basic discoveries to the patient or therapeutic delivery models. Studies concerned
with the delivery of pharmaceutical care and health care outcomes research are good examples. Similarly, researchers
in social, behavioral, administrative and economic sciences collaborate across disciplines to synthesize and apply
concepts pertinent to both the micro and macro level issues of the drug use process. The key element is the bringing
together of often dissimilar concepts and principles, and synthesizing them into a new perspective. Pharmacy colleges
have a significant and increasingly important role in this type of activity as future research will focus more and more
on individual variation in the response to drugs, often termed “pharmacogenomics.”
The scholarship of application. The scholarship of application is an expression of the early concept that university faculty can and should
look at knowledge with an eye on how it can improve productivity in farming or industry.5,7 In modern day settings this research is evidenced in clinical trials and, with specific reference to pharmacy,
the areas of pharmacoeconomics, pharmaceutical policy, and health utilization research. Results of this research
have ready access to peer-review communication; however, in some cases, such as industry-sponsored clinical trials,
publication may be constrained by the funding source.
The scholarship of teaching. Although good and even inspired teaching can be found at most colleges, this alone does not qualify as
scholarship. To qualify as scholarly activity, teaching, generally in the format of curriculum development, analysis
and/or outcomes, must be accompanied by some form of inquiry with the results being subjected to external peer
review and effectively communicated. Thus, the scholarship of teaching lies not in effective delivery of appropriate
content but more in the development of creative and original means for delivery and measuring of outcomes.
Based on typical methods of evaluating teaching effectiveness, which are often student and/or colleague-based
and somewhat subjective, an individual faculty member may be identified as a good or excellent teacher.
However, while there is no doubt that this is an important contribution to the professional degree program, good
teaching does not necessarily qualify as scholarship, and thus faculty are often placed in the dilemma of striving to
fulfill a desire to teach well or to receive rewards from the institution based on “scholarship” criteria.
New realms – the scholarship of engagement. Recently, additional characterizations such as the scholarship of engagement have been proposed.8 The scholarship of engagement refers to the relationship between the expertise and resources of the
university and the systems of the community to address social, ethical, and civic problems.9 This form of scholarship
seeks to advance the university-community partnership in a collaborative effort to address various problems. This
formulation seems reminiscent of the original heavy emphasis of the university on community outreach and service
characteristic of the mid nineteenth century. Many of the descriptions of the scholarship of engagement seem
similar to the scholarship of discovery or application within the context of the psychosocial/behavioral
sciences/humanities realm. That is, the scholarship of engagement explores the interactions within communities or
groups.
For definitional purposes, engagement, or other formulations of academic life, qualify as legitimate scholarship
only to the extent that new knowledge or understandings are developed, formally peer-reviewed and effectively
communicated.
The Heart of the Matter
Perhaps it is obvious, perhaps not, that Boyer’s identification of the realms of scholarship provided a
vocabulary for discussing the different aspects common to modern day biomedical and pharmaceutical research.
Thus, research is not just “discovery” but includes the integration and application definitions as well. The composite
research activities of most academic medical centers and pharmacy schools in the United States give clear examples
of these realms of scholarship. Additionally, much of this research is funded by extramural sources and communicated
in a peer-reviewed manner to the community at large.
In contrast to the scholarships of discovery, integration and application, there is some debate and thus
difficulty in identifying the scholarship of teaching. The debate centers on the fact that some individuals believe
teaching alone qualifies as scholarship, and thus, by extension that “teaching-focused” institutions can be viewed
as encompassing scholarship. As discussed above, this is not the opinion of the authors. Nonetheless, the answer
to this debate over definition is not as important as the question of whether students in the professional program
are handicapped by an absence of the atmosphere provided by the scholarship of research. It was the Argus
commission that stated the inextricable link between the scholarship of research and the development of life-long
learners, and the role of research as the differentiating factor between pharmacy as a science and a technical
skill.1
The Culture and Infrastructure that Supports Scholarship
To establish and sustain a scholarly program, colleges must invest in the required supporting infrastructure.
In many institutions, an associate or assistant dean is charged with developing and maintaining this infrastructure.
Important components include core multi-user equipment and facilities with technical support, effective information
technology, library resources, statistical and technical writing assistance, and student research programs that
include both graduate degree and professional degree students. This infrastructure can be quite expensive and
is sometimes considered prohibitive. However, if the institution values the benefits of scholarly activity to the
professional degree program and the possible economic benefits of extramural funding, this expense is properly
viewed as an investment. Institutions often utilize numerous revenue sources to develop and support their
research infrastructure. Some of the more common include state- and/or tuition-derived income, endowments,
salary recovery, and indirect costs resulting from extramural support. It is understood that salary support by
extramural sources is based on the time committed to research and that indirect costs are set at the rate required
to pay for the overhead resulting from research activities. Nonetheless, these extramural dollars may relieve the
expenditure of funds derived from other resources and thereby serve, at least in part, to support development of
infrastructure.
One other component of an effective scholarly environment is the sometimes overlooked role of productive
senior faculty leadership. Junior faculty members are often recruited with minimal research training, and even
those with postdoctoral, residency or fellowship training are often not totally prepared to become independent
investigators. Thus, the final stages of faculty development often require a well-designed college plan for faculty
mentoring. Offices of Faculty Career Development are available in some institutions; however, many colleges and
departments rely upon mentorship by senior faculty. In the absence of this commitment, junior faculty members
often spend unnecessary time and effort seeking to become productive and independent, and may only become
frustrated by their perceived inability to compete.
Administrative Delays
Scholarly activity is often frustrated and sometimes stifled by administrative delays. These include internal
delays that arise within the college or institution, such as those resulting from the institutional animal care and
use committee (IACUC), the institutional review board (IRB), contract offices, patent committees, and committees
assigned to monitor biohazards, radiation safety and occupational health. In most cases, these committees serve
important functions by insuring that the institution meets federal and state guidelines that govern research related
activities. Nonetheless, they often delay progress and can diminish investigator enthusiasm. Some institutions have
offices of research administration (or sponsored research) that coordinate these review activities and are effective
at establishing templates, forms and processes that streamline the reviews as much as possible. In the absence of
administrative support for these activities, senior faculty are often a good source of information regarding ways of
working as quickly as possible through the system.
Other administrative delays are external and largely beyond the control of the institution. The time between
submission and review of proposals for extramural funding is often frustrating to investigators, especially early in their
career, and this is sometimes compounded by delays in the receipt of critiques, which the investigator can utilize in
efforts to improve his/her application and research program. In fact, some sources of extramural funding do not
provide written evaluations of proposals, leaving the applicant little information that can assist in improving his/her
proposed research. Although these issues delay funding, diminish productivity and frustrate investigators, it should
be remembered that most agencies, foundations and companies work diligently to decrease the lag time as much as
possible while providing reviews by individuals with demonstrated expertise in the chosen field. Faculty members
often utilize pre-reviews or mock reviews as a means of improving their extramural applications and thereby possibly
decreasing the time lost in revision.
In addition to the above, recent issues have arisen that add to administrative burden and thereby decrease
productivity. The relatively newly developed select agents list, the restriction of foreign student access to
laboratories and buildings containing select agents, and the increasing surveillance of graduate students from
foreign countries have all increased the time and effort expended by institutions to support scholarly activity.
While these issues understandably arose because of the threat of terrorism and risks to national security, they
nonetheless often increase institutional administrative costs, diminish funds, and decrease efficiency.
In general, there is little that can be done regarding federal regulations and administrative burdens arising
from extramural funding sources. As discussed above, several institutions have offices of research administration,
which provide support to diminish the delays introduced by external sources, and senior investigators can often
provide insight into methods of streamlining the processes. In addition, the Federal Demonstration Partnership,
a cooperative initiative among federal agencies and institutional recipients of federal funds, was established to
increase research productivity by streamlining the administrative process and minimizing the administrative burden
on principal investigators while maintaining effective stewardship of federal funds. This group played a major role
in some of the streamlining initiatives introduced by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), such as expanded
authorities and recent efforts to establish an effective system for electronic proposal submission.
Sources for Extramural Support
Although some scholarly activity can be sustained with minimal resources, most research requires funding in
the form of salary, technical support, supplies, equipment, travel, etc. Multiple sources of extramural support are
available from federal, state, industrial, foundation and private agencies. Some of the more common sources of
federal support include the NIH, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality (AHRQ), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Defense, the Department of
Energy (DOE) and the Department of Education, which among other initiatives provides the FIPSE (Funds to Improve
Postsecondary Education) program. In addition, some institutions have access to federal programs that target states
with lower levels of federal research support, such as NSF-EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research) and the NIH BRIN (Biomedical Research Infrastructure Network) and COBRE (Centers of Biomedical
Research Excellence) Programs. All of these federal agencies have websites that describe their programs and
application processes. Although the majority of funds from these agencies have been awarded to PhD and MD
investigators, individuals with PharmD degrees have received federal funding, and initiatives to promote faculty
development in pharmacy colleges is being considered. One point for significant improvement that could be
proposed by AACP is the development of a dedicated funding stream to support PharmD/PhD degree students.
A program analogous to the Medical Scientist Training Program, that supports MD/PhD students across some 30
medical schools in the United States, would address the pressing and serious problem of pharmacy academicians
for the future and thereby provide stability to the development of scholarship in professional pharmaceutical
education.
State support for scholarly activity is also available to several colleges of pharmacy. State agencies focusing
on research and development, economic development, healthcare manpower and delivery, and educational programs
often have funds available to initiate and sometimes sustain scholarly enterprise. Several states have also invested a
portion of their tobacco settlement funds into research and healthcare programs.
Other sources of extramural support include foundations, associations and organizations such as the American
Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Chemical Society and pharmacy-specific sources such as AACP,
the American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education (AFPE), the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), the
American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP), the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), and the
American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS). In total there are more than 100 such organizations, some
with rather broad opportunities and others that are more specific in their scope. In addition, the pharmaceutical
and chemical industry provides significant support to research through funding for clinical trials, product
development and investigator-initiated projects.
This broad range of funding opportunities, although available, is often not recognized by all investigators.
Thus, it is important that each institution establish a mechanism whereby funding opportunities are monitored
continually and individual faculty are notified of programs that align with their area of expertise. This is often
accomplished by an office of research administration or by an associate/assistant dean for research.
Scholarly activity is also supported at many institutions by endowment income. Colleges, chairs and
professorships are endowed with the funds often being used at the discretion of the individual to foster research
programs within their unit. Common uses include provision of start-up funds for new investigators or initiatives,
bridging support for active investigators who are between extramural awards, recruitment of senior faculty, travel,
and outside speakers’ programs. Although sometimes used as a source of continuing support for a given program,
these funds are generally more productive if used to initiate new areas of scholarly activity.
The importance of endowments to the development of productive scholarly capacity is not questioned.
However, the ability to attract such funding often requires trained professionals. Development officers who are
skilled in identifying potential donors, cultivating a relationship with the institution, and ultimately obtaining the
support are well worth the investment. Major endowments occasionally arise from alumni association programs
and individual interactions between faculty and benefactors; however, continued success at obtaining endowment
support is best attained by those individuals trained and experienced in the process.
There is often debate on the issue of what is the “best” source of research support or the question of
whether one source of funding is more prestigious than others. Unfortunately, this debate often evolves into
discussions of whether research funded by one source is better than that funded by another. In fact, in some
cases research productivity is now measured by the amount of extramural support, including the amount of
indirect or overhead support, rather than by scientific impact as monitored by the quality of papers published
and cited. Currently, AACP’s ranking of research among colleges of pharmacy is presented in a format that tends
to diminish the importance of scholarly activity that is not funded by NIH dollars. Considering the level of non-NIH
funding that supports many of our faculty, it may once again be worth re-evaluating our measures of scholarly
activity by colleges of pharmacy. There is no doubt that active programs funded by NIH make a significant
scientific contribution; however, it is also likely that the current economic climate will force many investigators
to find additional sources of revenue. Furthermore, it should be remembered that scientific impact is not
measured solely by source or level of support, and the impact of investigations that do not require major federal
funding should not be overlooked. In light of the definitional framework of scholarship central to this manuscript,
the basis for the AACP ranking may need to be re-considered and additional information or sources included. We
would recommend that AACP alter its annual report of research support to include all sources of extramural funding,
with the sources being divided into federal, industrial and other, but with the ranking based on total support with
equal weight being given to all sources. In addition, scholarly output could be measured by presentations and
peer-reviewed papers; however, this information may be more difficult to obtain and verify.
Intramural Support
While extramural funding is usually required to sustain productive research programs, intramural support is
often required to initiate and broaden its scope within a school or college. Intramural funds are often invested as
start-up support for new investigators, pilot funding to allow established scientists to pursue new avenues of
investigation, bridging support for active investigators who are between extramural awards, funds to support
travel to professional meetings as well as to other institutions to learn techniques and network with other
investigators, recruitment incentives for productive senior faculty, support for the administrative staff required
to maintain an efficient research program, developmental funds for collaborative interactions that can culminate
in program-project or center-type awards, and funds to purchase and support major equipment and core
facilities.
Although often limited, institutions have numerous sources from which to obtain funds for intramural support.
Some of the more common sources include indirect cost and salary recovery from extramural awards, income from
intellectual property, and recurring institutional budgets. Many institutions return a portion of the salary recovery
and indirect costs from extramural support to the investigator who obtained the original award, either as salary
bonus, discretionary funds for research, or both. This type of incentive program is generally a wise investment
since the funds are being returned to investigators who have already demonstrated their ability to succeed.
However, a portion of the indirect cost and salary recovery is often also retained as a source of intramural support
for those activities identified above.
Nurturing Junior Faculty
With the pharmacy manpower shortage and resulting increases in class size and number of accredited
schools and colleges, institutions are competing for an increasingly limited pool of faculty, especially senior
faculty. This has often resulted in recruitment of junior faculty who have potential but require significant
nurturing to successfully engage their research programs. Even those individuals coming from residencies,
fellowships and postdoctoral positions often have limited exposure to the pressures and skills required of
independent investigators. Thus, institutions wishing to develop or sustain active scholarly programs need to
invest in an infrastructure that will nurture the successful transition of these faculty members. Those institutions
that develop such programs are making a wise investment in their future and that of pharmacy education as a
whole.
There are several components that should be considered when establishing an effective faculty
development program. In some institutions these components are coordinated by an office of faculty
development, while in others the burden is left with individual departments or units. Several of the
components have been mentioned above but will be reiterated below to emphasize their importance in
terms of faculty development and the growth of a strong scholarly environment.
One of the most important issues for faculty development is a clear understanding of the institution’s
expectations in terms of teaching, service and research. Faculty members should meet regularly with their chairs
to discuss their progress relative to promotion, tenure and compensation. A timetable with specific milestones of
success should be established early in the faculty member’s career and reviewed forthright during regularly
scheduled meetings. Once provided with a clear understanding of expectations, faculty can generally identify
their strengths and weaknesses, and obtain needed assistance.
Junior faculty members present with a wide spectrum of preparedness for scholarly activity. Some arrive
on campus after being involved in an active research program and will have a clear focus of their interests. These
individuals may require assistance with little more than the proposal writing process, dealing with administrative
burdens and access to appropriate equipment and facilities, most of which should be provided in start-up packages
or as core facilities. In fact, some newly hired junior faculty members may have submitted their first application for
extramural support before leaving postdoctoral or fellowship training. Support in terms of proposal preparation and
administrative issues is achieved in some institutions via specified personnel in an office of research, while in many
cases it is a task assigned to chairs or other senior faculty.
Other faculty members may begin their academic careers with much less experience and sometimes with
limited knowledge as to their true research interests. Thus, they may need to initiate their research careers in
collaborative efforts with existing established investigators and may develop most quickly in departments or
programs that have focused areas of expertise. Although the debate regarding diversification versus focusing
of the research enterprise within a college will continue, a group of investigators that collaborate in a specified
area of research often provide a rich environment for faculty who enter the system with minimal experience.
Other important components of a nurturing scholarly program include adequate “protected” time to pursue
research, an outside speakers program, travel support, and the presence of an established productive environment.
In order to succeed, junior faculty members need to be given the necessary time to develop their research
programs before being totally integrated into teaching and service commitments. If a new faculty member tries
to initiate a research program while concurrently developing numerous lectures and serving on several committees,
the outcome is somewhat predictable. However, release time alone is not the sole determinant of success. External
speakers’ programs, which bring established investigators to campus, allow faculty to broaden their knowledge base
and initiate productive collaborative networks. Travel support to attend professional meetings and visit other
institutions is important for staying abreast of one’s field and developing off-site collaborations. Finally, the
importance of senior leadership needs to be reiterated when one is hiring faculty with the intention of developing
and sustaining research activity. The success or failure of new investigators is obviously dependent upon numerous
factors including their training, talent and motivation; however, the likelihood of success is significantly improved
when the proper environment is available to support and reward research activities.
Perhaps the most critical component required for developing and sustaining scholarly activity in modern
academia is the nature and application of an institutional system that rewards scholarship. Promotion and tenure
requirements, as well as financial and other forms of compensation, are the clearest indication of the importance
of scholarship to an institution. If scholarship is not rewarded it will wither, and faculty scholars will seek positions
elsewhere. In addition, it is important that the definition of scholarly activity and the requirements for promotion,
tenure, and compensation, along with specific methods of documentation, be stated precisely so that faculty have
a clear understanding of what is expected. Finally, rewards must follow stated expectations. Inconsistencies
between expectations and compensation decrease productivity by creating an environment of uncertainty, with
faculty time being wasted in efforts to understand or discern what is truly important.
It should be pointed out that it is possible to sustain scholarship within a college even when multiple tracks
for promotion and tenure exist. In the authors’ experience, concurrent research and clinician (or educator) tracks
can in fact promote research productivity by allowing individuals to focus on areas in which they excel and thus
provide more non-teaching time for faculty who wish to pursue scholarly activity. Given the significant teaching
demands on faculty at many pharmacy colleges, this approach can prove to be quite beneficial in terms of research
productivity. It is important, however, when establishing or sustaining such a system that the research and
non-research tracks result in equal effort, equal compensation, and mutual respect.
Promotion and Tenure
Historically, promotion and tenure (P&T) evolved as a system to attract and stimulate the scientist who
sought to question dogma or the philosopher who challenged existing principles.10 The indefinite term of appointment provided academic freedom and economic security, two principles
that are the underpinning of tenure. Academic freedom is the ability to engage in ethical scholarly and creative
pursuits without consideration of consequence. The indefinite term of tenure was awarded to stimulate continued
scientific discovery since it was recognized that scientific discovery could advance most effectively if it was not
constrained by existing beliefs. The academic freedom provided by tenure was established to foster creativity
and insure that opposing political influences did not stifle it. Economic security, which also comes from indefinite
appointment (although tenure at some institutions does not ensure a given salary), ensured that those engaged in
scholarly and creative activities could do so without concern of financial ramifications. Scientific discovery would
advance most efficiently if it were not limited to addressing only questions with economic value. Academic freedom
and economic security made scholarly and creative activities attractive to highly motivated and skilled
individuals.
P&T is the process by which faculty are formally evaluated to assess their contribution to the institutional
mission. The process is an integral part of the academic environment and is vital to an institution. Promotion
recognizes the value of a faculty member's contributions in the areas of teaching, research, and service. Promotion
is a testament that the contributions are meritorious and valuable, and therefore need to be continued. In that
sense promotion serves as recognition of work sufficient to the title. Tenure on the other hand is an indefinite
term of appointment for a faculty member who has demonstrated excellence in his/her contribution to the
institution’s mission and who is reasonably expected to continue to produce at the same or an increasing level.
Tenure guarantees a continuing appointment with certain conditions. In that sense and unlike promotion, it
represents a significant long-term commitment by a college to the individual, with the hope that the return on
that investment will be a lasting high level of productivity towards the institution’s mission.
The missions of many colleges of pharmacy are threefold: 1) to develop students into competent professionals
through rigorous education and training; 2) to serve the needs of society by advancing the practice of pharmacy; and
3) to serve the profession by promulgating new knowledge. Though diverse, these missions are intertwined.
Nonetheless, one of the largest problems facing most faculty is the determination of the time and effort they
should devote to activities associated with each of the three missions. Over time an evolution of the P&T process
has occurred as institutions have identified the types of activities desired and those that would be rewarded.
However, dichotomies have often developed as the rewards of promotion and tenure were attached to faculty
scholarship, and activities such as teaching and service, while still occupying a substantial percent of faculty time,
were not weighted or considered. To the extent that this creates a two-class faculty system it undermines the
culture of scholarship and serves as a significant deterrent.
The issue of time spent on teaching, scholarship and service is intensified in clinical departments where
faculty responsibilities are often focused on clinical practice as well as teaching,11 and the concern is compounded by the increasing need for clinical faculty. With the evolution of clinical
pharmacy, schools of pharmacy have had to attract and will need to retain an increasing critical mass of clinical
faculty.11 This increased demand has not only been fueled by the burgeoning clinical education resources required
by the expansion of entry level PharmD programs, but also by the advent of new colleges of pharmacy that are
primarily focused on education based missions.11 This trend has resulted in a significant increase in the hiring of new clinical practitioners-educators into
non-tenure track lines in 2000-01.11
Clearly, clinical practitioners-educators are critical to the clinical programs of many colleges. However,
recognizing their contributions and accomplishments within the framework of conventional P&T processes is
often problematic. Clinical practitioner-educators do not fit the mold of the scientist/philosopher/educator.
By definition, clinical practitioner-educators must divide the majority of their effort between the areas of
teaching and clinical service. Although there are other reasons, the effort required to demonstrate excellence
in these two areas often leaves the clinical practitioner-educator with less time for creative work. P&T
committees have been faced with this quandary for years. Unfortunately, even though clinical
practitioner-educators are hired with expectations different from those of traditional “scientist/educators”,
in many schools they are often not evaluated separately by P&T committees. This raises the question: Is the
desire to be an outstanding clinical practitioner-educator any different from the desire to be an outstanding
scientist? Bertolami12 argued no, that the want for knowledge is common to, and drives both. Nonetheless, this debate
will continue, and it is probably worth considering the development of separate P&T tracks that reflect the
expected contributions of the two types of educators to the institutional mission. As mentioned above, the
development of separate P&T tracks can be quite productive for both the educational and scholarly missions
of an institution. However, when establishing such a system it is important to insure that the research and
non-research tracks result in equal effort, equal compensation and mutual respect.
Recognizing Scholarship in the P&T Process
Historically, the perception at many colleges is that P&T Committees value excellence in research and
do not adequately recognize teaching and service.5,13 There are likely many reasons for this. First, research productivity is measurable in terms of the quantity
of publications and quality of journals in which they are published. Secondly, research productivity is also
measurable in terms of the number of grants and the amount of funding it generates.13 Moreover, revenue generated by research can provide resources that help ease the budgetary pressures
facing many institutions. In addition, research is visible and can bring recognition to the institution. Such a
reputation is often as valuable as the revenue generated and helps to attract and retain faculty.13 Perhaps the reason that scholarship is so heavily weighted is the view that academia is responsible for
generating and disseminating new knowledge. Thus, scholarship is central to the mission of pharmacy academia and
distinguishes it from other components of the profession of pharmacy. In that context the argument can be made
that whether in a tenure track or not all faculty have a responsibility to generate and disseminate knowledge
through scholarship.3,5
Whatever the reason, the perception that traditional research (i.e., the scholarship of discovery) is the
preeminent form of scholarship has been promulgated for decades.14 Although Boyer expanded the traditional narrow definition of scholarship in the recent past, the view that
the scholarship of discovery is more valuable to the institution’s mission than other forms of scholarship still exists in
many colleges and P&T committees.2,5,15
The Devaluing of Teaching in the P&T Process
Perhaps the greatest paradox in measuring and rewarding academic productivity is the devaluation of the
function of teaching. The primary reason is perhaps that excellence in this function is difficult to evaluate due to
a paucity of objective and validated tools for documentation and evaluation.13,14,16 To quote Miller,16 “If an activity cannot be evaluated using universally recognized criteria, it will not be universally valued.” Historically, teaching has been evaluated based upon hours taught, student evaluations, internal peer
reviews, and institutional rewards for teaching excellence. These measures are somewhat subjective and often
ambiguous. The value of teaching is also diminished by the misconceptions that all faculty are inherently qualified
to teach, that the activity requires little time or sustained effort, and that it does not deserve reward because it
is a basic responsibility of all faculty.13
The difficulty of measuring and rewarding teaching is complicated by the fact that most faculty received
little or no formal training on the methods of teaching in their postgraduate programs.13 Since they are not trained in the actual mechanics of teaching, it is often not practiced as a scholarly
activity, but rather as a duty.16 Those who are interested in the scholarship of teaching often receive little institutional support or
reward and thus abandon the effort before dissemination in a peer-reviewed manner.5 This contributes to the devaluation of teaching in the P&T process. Clearly P&T committees should
not merely reward the act of teaching, but rather they should recognize and value teaching that advances
knowledge, stimulates active student learning, and develops lifelong learning skills in students.3,13 Though such a level of teaching was advocated in Boyer’s expanded definition of scholarship,2 many faculty are discouraged from pursuing pedagogical research because of the narrow view of
scholarship described previously.
In some institutions teaching is not rewarded by tenure. Non-tenure track positions have been
established at several colleges, especially for clinical faculty and often for individuals who commit little time and
effort to scholarship or service. Likewise, at some institutions tenure-track faculty who are highly active in
research have been “bought-out of teaching” in order to spend more time in research. In some such situations
graduate students and temporary faculty are used to “fill-in” teaching time. Although considered by some as a
financially sound decision, these practices have the obvious disadvantage of potentially creating what many believe
is a two-class system that may result in reductions in teaching quality and faculty morale.
Service: Defining the Ill-defined for the P&T Process
Although the 19th century focus at universities and colleges highlighted the importance of the educational enterprise in
service to humanity, modern institutional structures evidence little in the way of rewards for faculty service
beyond the aspects of duty. Again, service is difficult to measure objectively and therefore is often superficially
evaluated by P&T committees. Common measures in this category include an accounting of the number of
committee assignments, leadership roles on committees, and whether the committee was at a college, university,
state or national level.13
Another problem arising when evaluating service is that the term is ill-defined and often applied
inconsistently between or even within colleges. For example, in addition to typical committee assignments
other activities that are sometimes included under the term “service” are mentoring junior faculty, advising
student organizations, and serving the general community by sharing professional expertise. In his personal
view of scholarship, Popovich17 listed activities involved in service to the profession, such as service on editorial boards, service as a
peer-reviewer for funding agencies or journals, etc.; while other individuals include these peer-review functions
solely as service activity. As mentioned above, not only are service activities difficult to define, like teaching
activities they are difficult to quantify. Given the scope of activities that can constitute service and the difficulty
in quantifying these activities, instruments to evaluate this effort are needed.
These problems with the definition and evaluation of service and its contribution to P&T decisions often
result in faculty spending little time engaged in these activities. Individuals generally realize that the vague
nature of “service” devalues accomplishments in this area. When the time intensive commitments to teaching
and scholarly activity are considered in light of the widely held perception that “service” is a perfunctory activity,
it should not be surprising that many faculty avoid service activities.
Evaluating Scholarship
As discussed above, teaching and service activities are sometimes difficult to define and measure, while
scholarship can generally be evaluated by commonly accepted criteria. In developing a systematic approach to
evaluating all forms of scholarship defined by Boyer, Glassick and colleagues identified six standards that are
common to the assessment of all types of scholarly work: clear goals, adequate preparation, appropriate
methods, significant results, effective presentation, and reflective critique.18,19 These six standards for assessing scholarship are widely accepted. Accordingly, no matter its form, to be
considered scholarship, every achievement must be critiqued by other scholars and disseminated.4 Thus, the works of Boyer and Glassick not only refined the definition scholarship, but also provided a
template for more standardized assessment. Nonetheless, issues sometimes arise even when measuring
scholarship.
Issues involved in evaluating the scholarship of discovery. Of all the forms of scholarship, discovery best lends itself to assessment using the standards of Glassick et al.19 However, in terms of evaluating the scholarship of discovery, one often must balance quality and quantity.
The debate focuses on whether a long-term investment in an investigator who produces quantity over quality will
pay higher dividends than investment in an individual who focuses on quality. In the absence of quality one can
publish a large quantity of work that has little impact. Conversely, in the absence of quantity one can publish a
small body of work that has enormous impact. If scholarship is to advance knowledge, it follows that quality needs
to be assessed more so than quantity.11
Similarly, current trends have resulted in some institutions placing more weight on the amount of
extramural support, or even on the source of extramural support, than on scientific impact when evaluating
scholarship. This is true in terms of discovery as well as all forms of scholarship. There is no doubt that
research with high impact should sustain extramural support; however, certain forms of scholarship require
greater resources than others. Even different types of basic or “bench” research differ significantly in the
support required. Although funding should be included in the evaluation of scholarship, it should be only
one of several markers.
Issues involved in evaluating the scholarship of application. The scholarship of application is essential for society and academic institutions. As mentioned above, the
scholarship of application translates basic knowledge to practical application with the intention of solving problems
facing individuals or society.11 Using the standards of Glassick and colleagues,18,19 the quality of the scholarship depends on the clarity and importance of the question, whether appropriate
methods were used in addressing the question, the validity and generalizability of the conclusions, and how
effectively they are disseminated.
Peer review is essential to the evaluation of the scholarship of application; however, it has its limitations.
Academicians are well suited to evaluate the importance of the work, the adequacy of the methods, and the
validity of the work. However, only those to whom the knowledge is being applied can judge if the knowledge
has helped his/her situation. Therefore, input is required from those who benefit (i.e. the “consumers”).11 In many cases this is accomplished by using a measurement of outcomes that includes input from the
“consumers.”
Issues involved in evaluating the scholarship of integration. As discussed previously, the scholarship of integration involves the association of isolated facts into
perspective both within and across disciplines.3 In short, one who engages in the scholarship of integration is trying to determine what existing knowledge
means in “the bigger picture”. “Translational research,” which tests the clinical applicability of results obtained
from basic science experimentation, fits this category.
Although not necessarily collaborative in nature, the scholarship of integration often requires teams of
researchers and thus raises the question of how P&T committees evaluate collaborative efforts. While independence
is a desirable trait among faculty, P&T committees must not develop a narrow view of independence. Collaboration
and independence should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Independence in collaboration means that the
independent participant brings their unique expertise to a collaborative effort. The P&T committee must determine
to what extent the individual collaborator’s efforts are necessary for the research and thus the mission of the
institution. This is often approached by examining first and senior authorship, as well as principal investigator and
co-investigator status on extramural support. In addition, the P&T committee should consider how the contribution
of individual collaborators fits into the standards of Glassick and colleagues.18,19 The importance of the contribution should be measured by whether the collaboration would suffer without
the individual being reviewed. In short, P&T committees should not penalize collaboration if the contribution is
vital to the success of the project.
Measuring the scholarship of teaching. As discussed above, there is some debate regarding the separation between the scholarship of teaching
and scholarly teaching. Shulman20 put forth a working definition for distinguishing the two, which is an extension of the earlier criteria set
forth by Boyer.2 He indicated that to be scholarship the work must be made public, it must be peer reviewed and critiqued
according to accepted standards, and it must be reproducible and capable of being advanced by others. In short,
teaching becomes scholarship when it demonstrates knowledge of the field and current findings about teaching.20,21 In his personal view of scholarship, Popovich17 stated that the scholarship of teaching should not be restricted to events in the classroom but rather
broadened to include any component of an instructional program.
As stated above, the act of teaching alone should not be considered scholarship. Rather, P&T committees
should recognize activities such as the creation of new and innovative learning materials (web-based learning, texts,
interactive coursework software, etc.), and new and innovative methods of teaching as scholarship once they are
peer reviewed and published.5,17 Furthermore, abstracts, publications, presentations, and leadership in measuring and improving teaching
should receive the same weight as other forms of scholarship, even discovery.5
Sustaining Productivity
The responsibility of sustaining productivity rests with individual faculty members and the administrators of
the college. A well designed and applied system of rewards for scholarship should sustain productivity so long as
the infrastructure does not deteriorate. However, many institutions are currently struggling with the question of
whether it is necessary for every faculty member to be recognized as a scholar. This is properly left to the desires
of each institution and its administrative leadership; however, those institutions desiring that every faculty member
seek recognition as a scholar undertake a substantial responsibility to provide the necessary infrastructure. In the
authors experience, many institutions have decided that a mix of faculty scholars and faculty skilled in the primary
activities of teaching, service, and clinical practice better fits the institutional capacity. In these cases it is
necessary that efforts be focused on clear and equal application of the rewards for faculty achievement so that
a two-class system does not result. Accordingly, incentive programs need to be developed with concurrent
financial rewards for teaching and service excellence analogous to those for research. This is not an easy task,
as mechanisms for equating excellence across these sometimes diverse areas often do not exist. The basic
questions are yet to be determined. Who should be rewarded? What activities warrant reward? And, how much
reward is justified? Consequently, great care must be exercised when implementing such programs because
non-equivalent reward systems for these areas could generate an even greater divide between teaching and
research. When developing effective incentive programs, colleges need to consider that individuals who excel
in teaching and service, and devote extensive time and effort in these areas, often promote the acquisition of
extramural research support by providing active investigators the additional release time required to sustain
funded programs.
Clearly new and junior faculty require and deserve focused developmental efforts; however, administrators
must not forget that the decision to tenure should be based upon the outcome of an evaluation suggesting that
the return on that investment will be a lasting high level of productivity. Therefore, administrators need to insure
that senior faculty members do not lose their drive to produce. Among other strategies, this can be accomplished
by post-tenure evaluations, by providing continuing career development through retraining mechanisms such as
sabbaticals, and by encouraging active mentoring of junior faculty.
Research, teaching, and service are the three principal activities within most colleges of pharmacy, although
the emphasis on and relationship among each activity varies tremendously among institutions. In this section, various
potential benefits as well as possible unfavorable effects of research and scholarship on pharmaceutical education will
be identified as they relate to the professional pharmacy degree program. In addition, approaches that may be
incorporated into institutional systems to improve their interplay will be presented.
Using the premise that all research qualifies as scholarship, but not all scholarship is research, forces us to
approach this topic using certain frames of reference. With that in mind, the effects of the “scholarship of
teaching” on pharmaceutical education will be addressed separately from the “scholarships of discovery, integration,
and application”, which are often collectively referred to as “research” in this section.
Relationship Between Research & Pharmaceutical Education
The ongoing debate over the relationship between teaching and research remains strong in higher education
including colleges of pharmacy. Views on the research-teaching nexus fall within two camps. The separatist camp
views research and teaching as two independent issues with the relationship being costly and dysfunctional, whereas
the integrationist camp holds to the common belief that research and teaching are entwined with a positive symbiosis
existing between the two entities. While the integrationist’s beliefs are prevalent in western universities, data that
clearly define the relationship are lacking for pharmaceutical education. What little has been published on the
relationship has focused on undergraduate education in general and in evaluating such a setting, little or no
relationship has been demonstrated between achieving high levels of research activity and effective education.22-25 Arguably and in accord with these findings, outcomes data for entry-level pharmaceutical education, based
on first-time pass rates of the NAPLEX exam, suggest that a research focus currently has little influence on the
abilities of colleges of pharmacy to produce graduates who meet the minimum requirements necessary for licensure.
However, because this is an indirect marker of educational success that deals with minimum standards, it does not
necessarily address the issue of the relationship. Consequently, in the absence of a well-founded body of evidence
supporting or denying a benefit of research on professional pharmaceutical education, the debate as to the overall
relationship between research and teaching in colleges of pharmacy will likely continue. Organizations such as the
AACP and ACPE will need to step forward, organize and promote the development of studies designed to thoroughly
and objectively evaluate this relationship before any link can be established. In the meantime, the multitude of effects,
positive or negative, born out of the interplay between research and pharmaceutical education will have to be
evaluated by each institution independently.
Impact of Research on Pharmaceutical Education
Depending on the mission of the individual college of pharmacy, be it research-oriented or teaching-focused,
the influence of research on pharmaceutical education can be extremely varied and affect the success of the teaching
mission on a number of fronts. Even in those institutions where research and teaching are considered independent
entities, the downstream effects of participating in research can have direct and indirect, as well as positive and
negative, impacts on pharmaceutical education. Each subsection below will address how research can affect a
different aspect of pharmaceutical education; however, while specific components will be discussed independently,
the branching influences of research are such that tremendous interconnections exist between them.
Academic infrastructure. First, and probably the easiest conceptualization of how research impacts education, are the positive
attributes that are conveyed in terms of academic infrastructure. Some research laboratories and facilities may
not lend themselves to integration into the professional curriculum. However, state-of-the art laboratories,
plentiful library holdings, and advanced computer networks are all necessities for competitive research endeavors,
and these facilities and technologies are often made available for enhancing the teaching environment. The classic
example is the Internet. It was the need for advanced computer networking to integrate and share research
information between universities that spearheaded its development. Subsequently, the Internet evolved so
extensively that it has become an integral component of the educational process, in some instances emerging
into a standard tool for not only student recruitment and matriculation, but also teaching, coursework provision,
and examinations.
Curriculum. Colleges of pharmacy are facing new challenges because of the move to student-centered (or self-directed)
learning and the development of critical thinking and problem solving skills that will allow graduates to apply concepts
to the promotion of patient health. Given the fact that research utilizes an evidence-based approach and incorporates
a self-directed learning style, it is not unreasonable to expect that individuals involved in research can help integrate
these approaches into an educational paradigm that focuses on life-long learning skills. Research faculty may impart
this knowledge via more traditional didactic presentations or as facilitators in a self-directed or problem-based learning
format. A direct benefit of research in pharmaceutical education occurs when the research-teaching nexus focuses
on the processes of inquiry and problem based learning. As the practice of pharmacy moves towards an evidence-based
approach, the pharmacist’s ability to acquire, process, and apply new knowledge in a systematic format has become
fundamental to delivering effective pharmaceutical care. The ideologies of continuously redefining individual learning
needs to adapt to the high rate of scientific and medical advancements are the same fundamental processes applied
in research methodology and consequently lay the foundation for life-long learning. Hence, from a curriculum
standpoint, research affects not only the educational system but the educational process as well.
Additionally, beyond the conceptual positive influences that research may have on the style and quality of
education, research benefits the entire curriculum because the input of active scientists ensures that students are
continuously exposed to cutting edge information. As such, evolution at all levels of the curricula maintain pace with
discovery. Faculty who are not engaged in active research can obviously stay abreast of the published literature and
impart this knowledge to students in the professional curriculum, and there is no doubt that many effective faculty
devote themselves to this approach. However, delays in peer-review and publication need to be considered when
one defines the term “current knowledge”, and there is little doubt that individuals involved in research in a given
area are better qualified to truly understand both the quality and applications of the new knowledge.
Finally, while not the primary goal of entry-level professional education programs, research exposure in the
professional curricula may serve to attract pharmacy students into post-graduate training or degree programs. This
is not an unimportant aspect since the pharmacy faculty of tomorrow will be derived largely from the students
inspired to pursue advanced educational opportunities. Under present educational paradigms, pharmacy graduate
entrance into advanced programming remains mediocre at best, and an influx of research into professional curricula
may spur future students into such academic activities.
Finances. Most pharmacy programs are dealing with increasing student-to-faculty ratios, flat or declining sources of
recurring support, and increasing costs associated with sustaining or implementing needed and/or
accreditation-mandated changes in the provision of pharmaceutical education. This is coupled with increasing
competition in terms of retaining and recruiting qualified faculty. Combined, these problems are creating an economic
crisis for colleges of pharmacy as costs are outpacing income. Research has the potential to offset this problem by
generating revenue through salary recovery, indirect cost payback, and stipend support that can be used in part to
advance the teaching mission of the college by supporting educational programs and technologies. As mentioned
above, while it is understood that salary and indirect cost recovery from extramural sources is focused on support
of given research programs, these extramural dollars may relieve the expenditure of funds derived from other resources
and thereby serve in part to support professional education.
Extramural support can also be used to fund incentive programs, which are being employed in an increasing
number of universities to provide faculty salary augmentation and thereby a financial reward system that is related
to performance. Such incentive programs, when appropriately administered, not only aid in enhancing faculty morale
and performance, but can also promote faculty recruitment and retention. Unfortunately, while incentive programs
can have a tremendous positive impact, many currently employed incentive packages are focused on extramural
research funding and often ignore educational and service endeavors. As such, faculty with heavy teaching, clinical,
and/or service commitments, which typically do not generate revenue, are not provided the same opportunities for
financial reward. If non-research activities are important to the mission of a college, the incentive program needs to
provide concurrent financial rewards for teaching and service excellence. This is not an easy task, as mechanisms for
equating excellence across these sometimes diverse areas often do not exist. Even in those colleges where the
mission is research-intensive, the incentive program needs to reflect the fact that individuals who excel in teaching
and service, and devote extensive time and effort in these areas, promote the acquisition of extramural research
support by providing protected time for active scientists.
Despite the many positive attributes that research generated revenues can have on enhancing pharmaceutical
education through infrastructure, curricula, and reward systems, the circumstances are such that the extent of
research funding and its role in the promotion and tenure process ultimately determine its overall impact, positive or
negative. Financial needs for research equipment, space, and support may compete with educational resources and
materials, resulting in shortcomings for one or both arenas. When the research revenue generated within an institution
does not exceed those funds budgeted to support research (salaries, space, overhead, etc.), the expansion of
educational efforts obviously cannot be realized. As such, internal resources going into “under-funded” research
programs communicate a negative stream of revenue that may not be sustainable over the long term. While some
argue that the benefits of research to the professional educational program warrant this expense, others believe that
professional education suffers because of a decline in resources.
Impact of the Scholarship of Teaching on Pharmaceutical Education
The scholarship of teaching provides the fundamentals on which educational materials, methods, and assessment
tools are developed, tested, and modified for the purposes of improving educational outcomes. While many colleges of
pharmacy are already using educational outcomes to guide curricular change, future accreditation will likely depend on
some form of formal curricular validation in all schools. Difficult decisions about curricular emphases will continue to be
based on both the present as well as the anticipated future needs of pharmacy graduates, but the thrust of future
changes will come through the scholarship of teaching. Consequently, results of studies designed to identify effective
teaching methods and models that lead to positive, as well as negative, educational outcomes will become critical to
the success of not just those institutions that generate data, but all programs involving pharmaceutical education.
Impact of Scholarly Activities in General on Pharmaceutical Education
Effects on knowledge and teaching. Almost all activities included under the definition of scholarship serve to inspire and advance pharmaceutical
education. The creation, discovery, advancement, and transformation of disease, drug and patient knowledge
(scholarships of discovery, integration, and application) generate the ideas, concepts, and principles that establish
the tenets of pharmaceutical care and thus the content of much of pharmaceutical education. Likewise, with the
continuous assessment of knowledge delivery, learning and curricular outcomes (scholarship of teaching) molded into
the process, pharmaceutical education evolves. Consequently, academic works circulated as a result of all forms of
scholarship shape the foundation for pharmaceutical education.
Effects on faculty time and effort. The overall mission of the college dramatically influences faculty commitments of time and effort. The
compelling needs of the research enterprise require that research faculty at research-intensive universities
devote a significant portion of their effort to research endeavors. This tendency is not likely to change, as
research programs are requiring more time due to the changing tides in research funding and compliance.
While competition for research funding remains high, current economics suggest that revenues from federal
sources, pharmaceutical companies, and foundations will remain flat or even decline over the next decade.
In addition, it is becoming more difficult for research revenues to maintain pace with the growth in technological,
personnel, and supply expenses. Together these issues indicate that more time and effort will be required to
sustain research endeavors. To compound the problem, faculty are being pressed to pay increasingly more
attention to the nurturing of professional pharmacy students with faculty contact and service hours increasing
due to the changing nature of pharmaceutical education. The result is a somewhat divergent struggle between
scholarly activity and teaching. Under such circumstances, if the emphasis sways towards scholarly activity, then
the focus means less time and effort for “quality education” and less access to faculty scholars by students.
Whereas, if the emphasis swings towards teaching, then research/scholarly programs become non-competitive
through a lack of effort and support, and the positive effects of research/scholarly activities on pharmaceutical
education cannot be realized. In either scenario, without adequate support for both endeavors, pharmaceutical
education stands to lose.
The continuing struggle for faculty time and effort raises two other closely related questions that need to be
discussed. 1) Should productive research faculty be excluded from the professional teaching arena? And, 2) what is
the role of graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and part-time faculty in the professional curriculum? It has
been suggested by some that research faculty are too narrowly focused to provide a good educational experience
for professional students, or that it may be better for productive faculty to “buy” their time from teaching and be
replaced by trainees or part-time teachers. There is obvious merit to providing graduate students and fellows the
opportunity to teach since many will assume faculty positions and would be well served by the experience. In
addition, it may be cost-effective for well-funded faculty to “buy” extra research time by employing students,
fellows or part-time faculty. In fact, some of these trainees and part-time individuals are very effective teachers.
However, productive scholars should not be totally shielded from the professional students because of the
knowledge they can impart, both in content and approach to learning, and because this can result in the
development of a two-class system that may detract from mutual respect and ultimately diminish effectiveness
in both teaching and research. An individual who can compete effectively in today’s scholarly environment is
quite capable of teaching within the broad scope of the professional curriculum and should take the time to
fulfill this role, even if limited in the amount of time devoted. Indeed, it may be wise on the part of an institution
to ask its “Nobel Prize winning scientists” to teach the most general courses since this would provide the greatest
student exposure to individuals who may unmask a student’s interest and thereby motivate the development of
future scientists and academicians.
In spite of the issues raised above regarding the increasing demands placed on faculty time by both the
research and teaching enterprises, the authors believe that institutional leadership can set the stage for the
coexistence of both within a well designed and nurturing culture that serves to reward both activities and sustain
the attitude of mutual respect among faculty of divergent skills and missions.
Why Link Scholarship and Pharmaceutical Education?
As colleges of pharmacy have increasingly emphasized and promoted active learning and teaching as a process
of inquiry and discovery to encourage life-long learning skills, the multiple benefits of scholarship in pharmaceutical
education have become more evident. Scholarly activity not only enhances the ability of teachers and students to
keep abreast of new discoveries and therapeutic interventions, but also keeps curricular content up-to-date and
relevant. Scholarship stimulates research skills and generates areas of interest, which can lead to students pursuing
advanced research training and degree programs. Further, scholarship builds infrastructure and supports educational
programming and technologies. In the end, enhancement of academic programs through scholarly activities also
provides credibility to colleges of pharmacy and their respective academic centers. This in turn boosts the institution’s
reputation in fields of excellence and enhances the prospects of future funding, which feeds back into scholarship’s
beneficial effects on pharmaceutical education.
If the premise that scholarship benefits teaching is correct, then it is critical that strategies be developed to
improve and validate the link between scholarly activities and professional pharmaceutical education. This concept
appears to be in its infancy in colleges of pharmacy, and as such potential productive links between the two entities
may remain untested. Thus, future efforts among colleges, administrators and faculty should focus on identifying the
optimal relationship, and the impact of any new strategy on professional education should be assessed using the quality
of the pharmacy school graduate as a measure of programmatic outcomes. It would be wise to systematically evaluate
and document the nexus by developing a ‘map’ of curricular content, clearly showing where and how scholarly
activities support substance and delivery.
In summary, we believe that scholarship is, and must be, intimately entwined in the enterprise of
pharmaceutical education. The identification of scholarship, regardless of the field or area, can be easily
accomplished by asking the question “was new knowledge or understanding developed that was formally
peer-reviewed and effectively communicated?” Regardless of the area of scholarship (i.e. discovery,
application, teaching, engagement, etc.) the identifying characteristics remain the same.
In spite of our firm belief regarding the need for scholarship, a search of available published literature
revealed that more focused analyses are required to substantiate in a quantitative manner our “conclusions”
about the relative impact of research on teaching. Nevertheless, it is a prevailing assumption among most
faculties in the health care fields (and the AACP as well) that active and productive research programs have a
positive impact on educational quality of professional curricula.
We have attempted in the text above to provide some insight into what we believe is required to develop
and sustain scholarship in a school or college of pharmacy. The definition of this culture is somewhat difficult to
summarize. However, in brief, we believe that the culture of scholarship is best defined as an environment of
creativity that is based on the excitement generated by active investigation that develops new knowledge. It
requires support by the administration as reflected by a dynamic infrastructure, a well-defined method of
evaluation that promotes scholarly endeavor, and a system of rewards that follows the established evaluation
criteria. In addition, it is promoted by productive senior faculty members who maintain the environment and
are available to mentor junior investigators as they develop independent careers in the sciences.
Although it might be expected in a “white paper” such as this, we have intentionally declined to identify
a specific threshold of scholarship or scholarly activity that every faculty in every college should meet. The
setting of a threshold and the ensuing debate regarding its extreme or minimal level would, in the authors’
opinion, serve more to divide rather than unify the profession. The position of AACP is clear and was affirmed by
the Research and Graduate Affairs Committee in 199526 “every full-time faculty member is expected to participate in research (the generation and/or application of
new knowledge) and its dissemination to an extent consistent with the mission of the school or college.” The emphasis that individual colleges place on the various forms of scholarly activity (discovery, teaching,
etc.) will dictate the infrastructure required for their specific program, and in some cases the position of the
college may be guided in part by the university setting in which they exist (e.g., private college vs. state-funded
academic health center). Regardless, the development and maintenance of scholarship within a college demands
continued support, critical evaluation and refinement of the environment and the scholarly work produced.
Ongoing success requires that colleges clearly define their expectations of faculty as they relate to promotion,
tenure and rewards, and insure that stated expectations are consistent with the rewards provided. The individual
drive of a faculty member to produce scholarly work will often exceed any set threshold providing the environment
is nurturing and sufficient.
After preparing, debating and editing this manuscript, we stand in strong support of several recommendations
that colleges, as well as professional societies and accrediting bodies, can pursue to further develop and sustain a
culture of scholarship in pharmacy education. These include:
Recommendations to Schools/Colleges
Mentoring programs within the college and perhaps across colleges for all faculty, but especially junior
faculty. It should be pointed out that mentoring includes all areas of scholarship including research as well as
teaching, and that the level of mentoring required for individual faculty may vary dramatically because of
differences in educational background and experience.
Implementation of PharmD/PhD programs. These could include the traditional graduate programs
common to pharmacy education (i.e. pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, pharmaceutical chemistry, social
and administration sciences, etc.) as well as development in newer areas such as pharmaceutical policy,
outcomes research, and pharmacy education.
Development of multiple faculty tracks for promotion and tenure that serve to enhance mutual
respect among individuals with divergent skills without creating a faculty cast system.
Implementation of effective strategic planning and periodic review processes to promote and
examine progress in terms of both the scholarly and educational missions of the college. As indicated
by the report of the AACP Research and Graduate Affairs Committee in 1982,27 such a review should include self-study as well as external evaluation.
Systemic evaluations of tenured faculty, often referred to as post-tenure review, that serves to
promote the continued engagement of scholarship.
Development of mechanisms to provide real rewards and incentives to faculty engaged in all aspects
of scholarship including the scholarship of teaching, research, etc.
Recommendations to AACP
The ranking produced by the AACP of research funding in colleges of pharmacy should be expanded to
include all extramural sources with equal weight being given to all. In addition, development of rankings based
on scientific and scholarly impact would provide equally important metrics for comparative analysis.
The academy should work to enhance the atmosphere for federal support of combined PharmD/PhD
degree programs through mechanisms analogous to the Medical Scientist Training Programs of the NIH.
The AACP should actively support or engage in serious analyses of the impact of research on teaching
quality, as well as the question of whether students are more or less served by colleges with strong research
programs. It may be difficult to identify the appropriate measures of performance or outcomes for this type
of analysis; however, the answer to the continued debate over this issue requires a true scholarly approach
and warrants the attention of everyone involved in pharmacy education. In addition, data regarding
infrastructure, faculty compensation, faculty rewards, etc. are all within the realm of AACP to capture and
analyze in a comparative manner across research intensive and teaching intensive colleges.
Recommendation to ACPE
As in number 3 immediately above, the ACPE should also actively support or engage in serious analyses of the
impact of research on teaching quality, as well as the question of whether students are more or less served by
colleges with strong research programs.
1.
Kinnard WJ, Miya TS, Weaver LC, White AI, Wolf HH. Faculty scholarship and research: Their importance to
the future of pharmacy education. The 1980 AACP Argus Commission Report. Am J Pharm Educ. 1980;44:393-404.
2.
Boyer EL. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Princeton, NJ. 1990.
3.
Wolf HH, Hepler CD, Koda-Kimble MA, Knapp DA, Miller KW, Nahata MC, Rutledge CO, Smith, Jr WE, Vandel JH and Yanchick VA. The responsibility of pharmaceutical education for scholarship, graduate education, fellowships, and postgraduate professional education and training. Am J Pharm Educ. 1993;57:386-99.
4.
Beattie DS. Expanding the view of scholarship: Introduction. Acad Med. 2000;75:871-875.
5.
Popovich NG, Abel SR. The need for a broadened definition of faculty scholarship and creativity. Am J Pharm Educ. 2002;66:59-65.
6.
Daulphinee D, Martin JB. Breaking down the walls: Thoughts on the scholarship of integration. Acad Med. 2000;75:881-86.
7.
Shapiro ED, Coleman DL. The scholarship of application. Acad Med. 2000;75:895-98.
8.
Rice RE. Rethinking scholarship and new practice: A central AAHE priority. American Association for Higher Education Special Report 4, 2003. Available at: http://www.aahe.org/specialreports/part4.htm. Accessed September 5, 2003.
9.
Boyer E. The scholarship of engagement. J Public Service Outreach. 1996;1:11-20.
10.
American Association of University Professors. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure
with 1970 Interpretive Comments. http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/1940stat.htm. Accessed September 5, 2003.
11.
Raehl CL. Changes in pharmacy practice faculty 1995-2001: Implications for junior faculty development. Pharmacother. 2002;22:445-62.
12.
Bertolami CN. The role and importance of research and scholarship in dental education and practice. J Dent Ed. 2002;66:918-26.
13.
Matthews HW. Scholarship redefined: A Dean’s perspective. Am J Pharm Educ. 1992;56:447-49.
14.
Amerson AB. The evolution of scholarship in pharmacy practice: Examining our direction. Am J Pharm Educ. 1992;56:421-24.
15.
Jungnickel PW. Scholarly performance and related variables: A comparison of pharmacy practice faculty and
department chairpersons. Am J Pharm Educ. 1997;61:34-44.
16.
Miller KW. Treating teaching as a scholarly activity. Am J Pharm Educ. 1991;55:373-75.
17.
Popovich NG. The “write” stuff: An individual perspective. Am J Pharm Educ. 1988;52:345-48.
18.
Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI. Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professorate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Princeton, NJ. 1997.
19.
Glassick CE. Boyers’s expanded definitions of scholarship, the standards for assessing scholarship, and the
elusiveness of the scholarship of teaching. Acad Med. 2000;75:877-80.
20.
Shulman L. The scholarship of teaching. Change. 1999;31:10.
21.
Hutchings P, Shulmann LS. The scholarship of teaching new elaborations and developments. Change. 1999;31:11-15.
22.
Hattie J, Marsh HW. The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Rev Educ Res. 1996;66:507-42.
23.
Ramsden P, Moses I. Associations between research and teaching in Australian higher education. Higher Educ. 1992;23:273-95.
24.
Feldman KA. Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers as related to their
instructional effectiveness: A review and exploration. Res Higher Educ. 1987;26:227-98.
26.
Speedie MK, Brouwer KL, Hak LJ, Lathers CM, Thomas J, Smith MD. Chair report for the Research and Graduate
Affairs Committee. Am J Pharm Educ. 1995;59:19S-23S.
27.
Knapp DA, Evans WE, McLaughlin JL, Perrier DG, Rutledge CO, Wolff, ME. Chair report for the Committee on
Research and Graduate Affairs. Am J Pharm Educ. 1982;46:371-74.
Corresponding Author: Richard H. Kennedy, PhD Address: Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Mail slot 522, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Tel: 501-686-8041 Fax: 501-686-6057 E-mail: kennedyrichardh@uams.edu
Kennedy RH, Gubbins PO, Luer M, Reddy IK, Light KE.
Developing and Sustaining a Culture of Scholarship.
Am J Pharm Educ. 2003; 67(3):article 92.
