A review of U.S. Medical schools' promotion standards for educational excellence.
Leslie A Hoffman, Rebecca S Lufler, Kirsten M Brown, Kathryn DeVeau, Nicole DeVaul, Lawrence M Fatica, Jason Mussell, Jessica N Byram, Stacey M Dunham, Adam B Wilson
Author Information
Leslie A Hoffman: Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. ORCID
Rebecca S Lufler: Department of Medical Education, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kirsten M Brown: Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA.
Kathryn DeVeau: Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA.
Nicole DeVaul: Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA.
Lawrence M Fatica: Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA.
Jason Mussell: Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Jessica N Byram: Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Stacey M Dunham: Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Adam B Wilson: Department of Cell and Molecular Medicine, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois, USA. ORCID
Given the growing number of medical science educators, an examination of institutions' promotion criteria related to educational excellence and scholarship is timely. This study investigates the extent to which medical schools' promotion criteria align with published standards for documenting and evaluating educational activities. This document analysis systematically analyzed promotion and tenure (P&T) guidelines from U.S. medical schools. Criteria and promotion expectations (related to context, quantity, quality, and engagement) were explored across five educational domains including: (i) teaching, (ii) curriculum/program development, (iii) mentoring/advising, (iv) educational leadership/administration, and (v) educational measurement and evaluation, in addition to research/scholarship and service. After independent review and data extraction, paired researchers compared findings and reached consensus on all discrepancies prior to final data submission. Descriptive statistics assessed the frequency of referenced promotion criteria. Promotion-related documents were retrieved from 120 (of 185) allopathic and osteopathic U.S. medical schools. Less than half of schools (43%; 52 of 120) documented a well-defined education-related pathway for advancement in academic rank. Across five education-specific domains, only 24% (12 of 50) of the investigated criteria were referenced by at least half of the schools. The least represented domain within P&T documents was "Educational Measurement and Evaluation." P&T documents for 47% of schools were rated as "below average" or "very vague" in their clarity/specificity. Less than 10% of U.S. medical schools have thoroughly embraced published recommendations for documenting and evaluating educational excellence. This raises concern for medical educators who may be evaluated for promotion based on vague or incomplete promotion criteria. With greater awareness of how educational excellence is currently documented and how promotion criteria can be improved, education-focused faculty can better recognize gaps in their own documentation practices, and more schools may be encouraged to embrace change and align with published recommendations.
