Report of the 2018-2019 Research and Graduate Affairs Committee

INTRODUCTION AND COMMITTEE CHARGES

According to the bylaws of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the Research and Graduate Affairs Committee (RGAC) assists in the development of the research, graduate education and scholarship agenda of the Association.¹ In this role, the 2018-2019 RGAC was charged by President David D. Allen with the following:

1. Critically evaluate the leadership development support necessary for post-graduate researchers in academic pharmacy to develop the skills necessary to build and sustain successful, innovative, and high impact research programs.

2. Analyze how well leadership development needs are being met by existing programs at AACP or other member organizations serving academic pharmacy and/or the extent to which those programs are utilized.

3. Evaluate the leadership development needs unique to postdoctoral trainees and the extent to which those needs are met by existing programs at AACP or other member organizations.

The RGAC met in person on October 9 and 10, 2018 in Washington, DC to develop a strategy for addressing each of the charges. Additional work by the RGAC was conducted via conference calls and asynchronous communication through Basecamp, an online project management tool.

BACKGROUND

In the scope of higher education leadership development, researcher development has not received significant attention.² Scholarship in research leadership development is scarce, as institutions focus instead on building research capacity and quantifying outputs.^3,4 Evans proposes that researcher development has three areas of focus: behavioral, attitudinal, and intellectual development. Shaping leadership principles within these foci, in the context of research leadership, can be accomplished actively, passively, or even unconsciously.⁴ Investments in developing faculty members as researchers during their early careers, through mentoring, structured development, and professional interactions, increase the chances of a successful trajectory for those individuals.³ Additional research suggests that visionary approaches toward research leadership, that do not focus on a ‘carrot-and-stick’ principle, are essential for inspiring academic researchers to persist.⁵ These authors point to the crucial role that research leaders play in not only staff management, but also in maintaining ethical practices.⁵

Despite the limited attention given to this issue, the development of research leaders is essential in filling the gap created by the ongoing retirement of senior faculty members.³ Research-intensive and research-emerging universities value productivity in this area, and often devote administrative positions to the institutional management of research. In this context, the 2018-2019 RGAC explored available opportunities for intentional (active) development of research leadership in pharmacy faculty and examined the alignment of those opportunities with the needs of this population.

Policy statement: AACP recognizes the positive role that research leadership development can play in the success of early and mid-career faculty. [Adopted July 2019 by the AACP House of Delegates]

Evaluation of met and unmet research leadership development needs of faculty

Having established a set of foundational skills needed by research leaders, the RGAC next sought to determine if and how those skills are supported by existing programs from AACP and other national organizations, including the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP), American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), and National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS). To this end, the RGAC took a two-pronged approach. First, the RGAC identified programs offered by AACP and other organizations the provide training in some form of leadership (either broadly defined or specifically related to research leadership) or research development. Although the RGAC recognizes that universities frequently provide their own programs in research leadership development, it elected to focus on those programs that are widely available to all colleges and schools of pharmacy. These programs, which utilize a variety of formats, are outlined in Table 2.

While there are a variety of programs currently available for pharmacy faculty to further develop their research and leadership skills, they are not without limitations. For example, programs like the Pharmacy Leadership Institute from ASHP,²⁹ offerings from the Academy for Advancing Leadership (AAL), and AACP’s ALFP¹⁹ offer extensive leadership training, but these programs may not provide sufficient consideration of the unique needs of research leaders. Other programs, including those offered by ACCP and AACP Catalyst, may align more closely with research leadership development, but the number of participants in those programs is small relative to the Academy at-large; this limits the extent of potential benefit from such formalized training in research leadership. Most of these programs also come at a cost, both in terms of price and time commitment, that may deter broad participation.

Recommendation 3: AACP should expand research leadership development opportunities building from existing programs such as ALFP and AACP Catalyst, with consideration placed on developing programs that promote collaborative research.

The need for this type of education is broad, making it important to build a mechanism that is widely accessible and affordable. Not every faculty member and institution will be able to commit time and resources necessary for a year-long intensive experience characterized by programs such as ALFP and Catalyst, nor will this type of training be appropriate for each individual faculty member. One strategy to incorporate training of this type into current programs offered by AACP would be to use a “pre-meeting” format attached to one of the national meetings (e.g., AACP Annual Meeting) to meet this need. This pre-meeting could be coupled with online content developed specifically for the key subject areas that participants can utilize before the face-to-face meeting. Depending on the specific content of the pre-meeting, this approach could be attractive to faculty who require less intensive training, or this approach could alternatively be used to enhance the ALFP and Catalyst programs by providing basic training in preparation for participation in those programs. Alternatively, AACP could provide opportunities within its Association meetings in the form of seminars, sessions, or workshops related to research career development. This type of short-format training is already offered by many other professional societies, including the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET).

Recommendation 4: AACP should collaborate with other professional organizations to expand research leadership development opportunities across the academy.

Collaboration with related organizations would avoid duplicative efforts while ensuring a broader reach to faculty and trainees at colleges and schools of pharmacy who may not already engage with AACP. These efforts would enable AACP and partner organizations to expand upon previously established programs to address unmet research leadership needs. Moreover, these collaborative efforts between associations/societies could facilitate the formation of interdisciplinary collaborations between researchers in colleges and schools of pharmacy.

Surveys of Research Leadership Training Needs

Although programs to support research career development exist in AACP and other national organizations, it is less clear to what extent those programs are known and utilized by pharmacy faculty. Similarly, there may be additional research career development needs of pharmacy faculty that are not met by these programs. To address these issues, the RGAC developed two online surveys to collect information regarding current training needs for research leadership at pharmacy schools, programs that are being utilized now to meet those needs, and the support available to faculty to participate in such programs. This report presents an overview of some of the survey results to identify potential opportunities and challenges associated with research leadership development. Both surveys were open from November 2018 to January 2019. Responses were not counted if no questions were answered or if the duration of participation was less than five seconds, indicating immediate closure of the survey after accessing the online link.

The first survey was intended to collect responses from administrators responsible for faculty research (Appendix 1). The survey link was sent to CEO deans of pharmacy schools, and 57 responses were collected. Table 3 provides an overview of the Carnegie designations noted by administrators at colleges and schools of pharmacy. However, because Carnegie designations describe an entire university and do not consider differences in research activity between colleges within a university, administrators were also asked to categorize their college or school of pharmacy with regards to research and teaching responsibilities. While approximately half of responses came from R1 or R2 institutions, or those doctoral universities with high research activity, roughly one-quarter of pharmacy schools were described as research-intensive. Instead, most pharmacy schools were described as teaching-intensive or research/teaching-balanced. This would suggest that while some pharmacy schools at high research activity universities may have access to university-wide resources, additional environmental factors that are unique to the structures of pharmacy schools should be considered when designing or implementing research support programs and services.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 3.

Carnegie Classifications of Institutions Represented in the Administrator Survey

A second survey was designed to collect information from faculty about their backgrounds, needs and limitations with respect to research leadership development (Appendix 2). Faculty survey recipients were identified through the AACP roster of pharmacy faculty. The total of 540 responses were collected. To understand faculty demographics, the RGAC faculty survey asked respondents both to describe their research and teaching workload as well as to indicate their training background. Faculty responses regarding teaching and research workload were roughly similar to those responses collected through the administrator survey, with approximately one-quarter of faculty indicating their workload is research-intensive and nearly three-quarters of responses reporting a teaching-intensive or research/teaching-balanced environment. Additionally, roughly one-third of faculty respondents self-identified their backgrounds as PhD-trained research scientists and one-third as residency-trained pharmacists (Figure 1). Faculty could identify themselves with multiple backgrounds if appropriate, yielding several variations of pharmacist-scientists within the responses.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Figure 1.

Training Background of Faculty Survey Respondents

Faculty-conducted research was considered important by both administrator and faculty respondents. Greater than three-quarters of faculty survey responses indicated that research is required for promotion, despite that nearly the same proportion of responses indicated more focus at the school on teaching or a balance between teaching and research responsibilities. Similarly, administrator survey responses noted that research was required for the majority of tenure-track faculty when not separated by discipline. Discipline-specific research requirements varied, with basic science faculty and social and administrative science faculty more frequently required to conduct research than their practice counterparts. However, more than half of pharmacy schools indicated a requirement for practice faculty to conduct research, stressing a need for a broad portfolio of research career development programs, tools, or services to suit the varying needs of all disciplines.

To advance faculty research, the administrator survey found that schools were supportive of faculty participating in research leadership development programs, and that at least some faculty take advantage of such programs. According to the administrator survey, faculty members currently participate in the following programs in career development related to research: AACP (33 responses), other professional organizations (45 responses), university (43 responses), college/school of pharmacy (44 responses), and department (25 responses). Whether faculty preferentially engage in research career development programs offered by other professional organizations than by AACP due to the current AACP offerings not meeting their needs or a lack of awareness in how AACP supports research career development is unknown. However, these results suggest that any new programs developed by AACP should be mindful to address needs that are not widely supported by other organizations. For example, as a home to all disciplines of research found at colleges and schools of pharmacy, AACP is uniquely positioned to bring together researchers from these disciplines to learn from one another.

When considering why a respondent may not participate in available research leadership development program, the most commonly-selected limiting factors for faculty members were fees and funding, indicated by one-third of respondents. However, nearly all responses from administrators indicated that schools support registration and/or travel costs associated with attending leadership development programs. The time commitment for travel was cited by faculty nearly as often as a limiting factor, and many respondents also noted a lack of time to complete pre- or post-work for programs. Approximately two-thirds of administrator responses noted that release time was provided for faculty attending leadership development programs, while three-quarters of schools provide some form of mentorship or encouragement to participate in leadership development programs. Collectively, the mismatch between faculty limitations and administrator support may reflect variations across institutions, a possible lack of awareness of what support is available to faculty, and/or that the support provided is insufficient to the costs and time demands of existing programs.

Suggestion 1: Colleges and schools of pharmacy should take a proactive role in promoting and facilitating research leadership development for faculty.

A striking aspect of survey responses was that faculty awareness was low for many external programs, such as those offered by scientific and professional societies and associations. This lack of awareness, coupled with a lack of interest and a perception of limited value gained from these programs, suggested by free text responses to “Other limiting factors,” may constitute another significant barrier to participation in training. This perception appears to be mismatched with administrator perception of the value of these programs, given that schools provide financial support and release time, as indicated by survey results. Greater awareness of both the existence of programs to support continued research career development and their value could be achieved through additional communication between faculty and administrators.

Because time and costs were often listed as limiting factors for individuals potentially interested in pursuing research leadership development, one potential time- and cost-effective avenue of support by AACP for these faculty would be the development of webinars and other virtual content. Along these lines, both surveys included a list of potential webinar topics, and respondents were asked to rank the topics in order of most to least useful. Topics and rankings by both faculty and administrators are shown in Table 4. Faculty and administrators both ranked research leadership topics (formulating research questions for trainees, how to lead a project by collaborating, selecting appropriate funding agencies, how to change or develop new research directions) more highly than research management topics (developing a research budget, working with technicians/trainees, establishing a culture of research integrity). Importantly, both faculty and administrator responses ranked leading a project by collaborating with others as the most useful topic. This is consistent with the increasing need for researchers to be skilled in team science mentioned previously. The topics of next greatest interest to faculty and administrators resonate with the research skills and competencies outlined in Table 1 – critical self-evaluation and professional development to support changes in research direction; mentorship and education in support of student research; and grant writing and scientific communication to seek funding sources for existing and new research directions. Collectively, these responses provide insight into initial directions AACP should pursue in the creation of content to support research leadership development.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 4.

Faculty and Administrator Ranking of Webinar Topics

Examination of met and unmet research leadership development needs of postdoctoral trainees

Research leadership development ideally begins before the first faculty position is gained and is included as an integral element of pre- and postdoctoral research training. Previous work by the RGAC has focused on establishing a solid foundation of research skills in predoctoral trainees.^11,28 However, additional efforts to support postdoctoral trainees in research leadership development is necessary when preparing these individuals for faculty roles. Before designing or implementing additional support for the postdoctoral community, it is important to recognize differences among groups of individuals collectively termed postdoctoral trainees. The first group would include those pursuing additional research training following completion of a PhD or PharmD/PhD dual-degree program (Post-PhD or Post-PharmD/PhD trainees). The second group would include those who have completed a PharmD program and are pursuing research training through a fellowship (Post-PharmD fellows). The third group would be those who are pursuing residency training (Post-PharmD residents).

Those in the first group, by the nature of PhD training (e.g., in pharmaceutical sciences), likely have acquired knowledge in research design and methodology, data analysis, publication, and grantsmanship positioning them to assume leadership of a research team. Those in the second group likely would be more diverse and, on average, have fewer opportunities to have developed skills for establishing and leading a research program than their post-PhD or post-PharmD/PhD trainee counterparts. Those in the third group, mostly likely the largest cohort, might gain some research training in their PGY1 or PGY2 years, though it would not be the primary focus of their programs. Given the clinical and professional focus of PharmD programs and residency training, it is likely that individual initiative would drive some in such programs to seek research training through use of electives, special programs, dual degrees, and development of more extensive residency research projects. Regardless of the path to postdoctoral training, individuals will benefit from development of the “power skills” outlined in previous reports from this committee.¹¹

The RGAC undertook a review of organizations related to different aspects of pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences in regard to programs designed to provide opportunities to gain additional research training or experience, with the assumption that leadership training could be a component. These included ACCP, ASHP, ASPET, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), PhRMA Foundation, Academy Health, American Cancer Society (ACS), American Federation of Aging Research (AFAR), American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), and industry sources. Specific programs or resources provided by each of these organizations are listed in Table 5.

Many of the opportunities national organizations provide for postdoctoral trainees include a funding mechanism to support research training. Similarly, NIH-funded training mechanisms should be considered when identifying what opportunities exist for postdoctoral trainees to obtain and enhance research leadership skills. For example, the National Institute for General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) is a major supporter of pre- and postdoctoral T32 training grants. An emphasis in recent years has been ensuring trainees develop professional and leadership skills to aid in development as scientists. A significant feature is training of mentors, even experienced ones, to ensure the quality and consistency of training. Career development is a core component of training grants and individual fellowships from all institutes, perhaps not yet at the level required by NIGMS.

Research training support by NIH is not limited to NIGMS. Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) provide focused research training at the late postdoctoral-early faculty stage through the KL2 mechanism. They also provide shorter-term research training opportunities. However, with only ∼60 CTSAs nationwide, a minority of pharmacy schools are likely engaged.

The extent to which individuals from the three target groups can benefit from the funding, services, and opportunities provided by the organizations listed in Table 5 vary. Some opportunities or resources are designed to serve a particular type of individual. For the most part, organizations focus on funding of postdoctoral positions and provide guidance specific to the nature of the programs and organizations. With the exception of NIH-affiliated programs, including CTSAs, and some committees from organizations such as ASPET, most opportunities do no specifically focus on development of leadership skills necessary for the transition from the postdoctoral years to faculty members’ establishment of research programs. Specific skills, beyond research competence, that appear necessary to make this transition include those previously described in Table 1 as well as effective engagement in scientific and professional organizations and engagement with community partners and stakeholders. Indeed, the framework described in Table 1 should not be limited to support for faculty researchers but would additionally benefit postdoctoral trainees on their way to a faculty position.

Suggestion 2: Colleges and schools of pharmacy should include postdoctoral trainees with academic interests in research leadership development opportunities available to junior faculty.

Another important factor that will influence the extent to which an individual will be provided opportunities for developing leadership skills necessary to lead a scientific program is the environment of the specific pharmacy school. While all colleges and schools of pharmacy must provide opportunities for research and scholarship as a part of meeting accreditation standards,³⁰ there is considerable variation. Many schools have funded research programs and graduate programs, while others do not. Post-PhD and post-PharmD/PhD trainees almost certainly will find themselves in research training settings with opportunities for growth in research leadership. These individuals also are likely to engage with scientific and professional organizations such as AAPS, ASPET, or ACCP. Similarly, post-PharmD fellows likely will be in somewhat structured, relatively resource-rich environments and logically would engage with ACCP. By contrast, those in post-PharmD residency training might not necessarily be in an environment that fosters high-level research training.

Post-PhD trainees are well positioned to become basic science faculty members in schools of pharmacy. Post-PharmD/PharmD-PhD fellows and post-PharmD residents will more likely move into faculty positions in pharmacy practice departments. Those in the former group likely have reasonable opportunities for developing research leadership skills in-house or through professional and scientific organizations. Those in the latter group are at greater risk for this not to be the case. This provides an opportunity for AACP to foster development of research leadership development among those in career tracks that will focus on clinical practice.

Recommendation 5: AACP should support and/or develop programs and activities for pharmacy residents seeking to transition into faculty positions to acquire the skills necessary to develop and lead research programs.

AACP has the opportunity to engage those in residency training and anticipating an academic career to gain skills and experience to increase the likelihood that they will be successful in establishing and leading research programs. Research leadership at AACP could work with the Leadership Development SIG and Pharmacy Practice Section to develop programs and activities for those in residency programs to acquire skills necessary to develop and lead research programs once they have assumed faculty positions. PharmD fellows/post-PhD postdoctoral fellows should be included in these efforts as peer mentors; such a relationship will be mutually beneficial. AACP should also collaborate with organizations such as NACDS in such programming.

CONCLUSION AND CALL TO ACTION

Building from the competency framework developed by the previous RGAC for graduate education in colleges and schools of pharmacy, this report seeks to continue a lifelong learning model for pharmacy researchers to identify, develop, and refine skills needed to lead high impact research programs and agendas. While there appears to be a core set of skills that define research leadership across all career stages, how those skills are strengthened should be tailored to the career stage to best meet the needs of the researcher. Through the policy statement and recommendations articulated in this report, AACP can and should serve as a bridge to those seeking additional development in essential leadership skills necessary to drive innovation in pharmacy research, from connecting researchers at different institutions to providing additional leadership development opportunities directly. Additionally, the survey results described here indicate that many colleges and schools are already providing some level of support for faculty to build and augment their leadership skills. Suggestions to colleges and schools to take a proactive role in research leadership development, including in the support of postdoctoral trainees as they build these skills, serve to reinforce these survey results and recognizes that long-term success of any AACP initiatives and of the research workforce will require continued engagement of colleges and schools in this area. Indeed, to advance both research and leadership development, collaboration is key to success. Just as research itself is increasingly the domain of multidisciplinary teams addressing complex questions, it is critical for AACP to forge partnerships with members and other associations to achieve a common goal of preparing researchers for leadership roles throughout their careers.