The Collaborative Scholarship Intensive: A Research-Intensive Course to Improve Faculty Scholarship

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Learning to balance the clinical, educational, and scholarly elements of an academic career is challenging for faculty. To increase research output amongst family medicine faculty with limited to no publications, we developed the Collaborative Scholarship Intensive (CSI) to provide participants with intensive instruction in research methodology coupled with structured writing support and protected time for writing. Methods: The CSI was developed by the University of Minnesota Department of Family Medicine and Community Health as a six-session faculty development program that enrolled 23 participants in its first three classes. Results: Findings reveal that faculty participants significantly improved their pre- to postcourse self-ratings of 12 research competencies, and significantly increased their scholarly output. Conclusions: Our CSI faculty development program successfully engaged clinical faculty in a collaborative research program. Our results suggest that a program focused on intensive instruction in research methodology coupled with structured writing support and protected writing time may be a model for faculty development in other academic departments.

Faculty Development and Infrastructure to Support Educational Scholarship: A Scoping Review on Author Development

“…The study flow chart is depicted in Figure 1. Of the 20 studies 14–26,29,38–43 included in our scoping review, the earliest was published in 1995 18 and the most recent in 2021. 38 Fourteen 14–16,21–26,29,38,39,41,43 of the 20 (70%) studies were published in 2015 or later.…”

“…Of these 18 unique programs, 1 (6%) was jointly sponsored by a university and a professional society, 43 5 (28%) were sponsored by professional societies, 25,26,29,39–42 5 (28%) were sponsored by university or medical school organizations, 16,17,19,20,24 and 7 (39%) were sponsored by specific medical departments. 14,15,18,21–23,38…”

“…Of the stated goals of the 18 programs, 14 (78%) focused on educational scholarship, 14,15,17,19,21–26,29,39–43 8 (44%) on collaboration, 15–17,20,39–41,43 5 (28%) on writing skills, 18,20,21,38,42 4 (22%) on educational research skills, 38–41 and 2 (11%) on academic promotion and leadership. 14,43 Participants for 10 of the 18 programs (56%) opted into their respective programs, 14–16,18,23,24,38,40–42 whereas 4 programs (22%) had a competitive application process. 21,25,26,29,39,43 The remaining 4 programs (22%) did not report the selection process for program participants.…”

“…17,19,20,22 Thirteen programs (72%) required in-person participation. 14,16–21,23,24,38,40,42,43 Four programs (22%) had both in-person and online/virtual components. 15,22,25,26,29,41 One program (6%) consisted of exclusively online/virtual components.…”

“…Regarding the expectations that programs had for their participants, 8 programs (44%) did not have expectations beyond participation. 15–17,22,23,25,26,29,40,42 The other programs’ requirements varied, including completion of a scholarly product, 14,25,26,29,38,41,43 presentations in academic settings (e.g., posters), 19,21,38 submission of a manuscript for publication, 14,18,20,24,38 and dissemination of their research in other peer-reviewed forums. 25,26,29,43…”