Rebecca R S Socolar1, Lesley S Kelman. 1. Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7225, USA. rsocolar@med.unc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the number of academic medical faculty working part time, the ranks and genders of part-time faculty, the satisfaction with having part-time faculty, and the advantages/disadvantages of employing part-time faculty as reported by department chairs. METHODS: We mailed a survey to all chairs of departments of pediatrics, medicine, family medicine, and surgery in the United States and Puerto Rico. The survey assessed whether the department employed part-time faculty (defined as faculty working more than 0.5 full-time equivalent but less than 1.0 full-time equivalent), the ranks and genders of all faculty, satisfaction (on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 [extremely satisfied] to 6 [extremely dissatisfied]), and advantages/disadvantages of part-time faculty. RESULTS: Chairs from 308 (59%) of 519 departments completed the survey. Overall, 85% of departments surveyed employed part-time faculty-94% of pediatrics departments employed part-time faculty, 89% of medicine departments, 86% of family medicine departments, and 72% of surgery departments. The average rating for satisfaction with having part-time faculty in the department was 2.3-between very satisfied and satisfied. Advantages of employing part-time faculty most frequently cited were keeping talented people in the workforce who might otherwise leave; leveraging financial resources; and skills of part-time faculty. The most frequently cited disadvantages were less academic productivity of part-time faculty and lack of shared goals/values of part-time faculty with the department. Overall, more advantages than disadvantages were cited. Part-time faculty tended to have lower academic rank than full-time faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Most chairs of departments surveyed employed part-time faculty and were very or extremely satisfied with having part-time faculty. A variety of advantages and disadvantages were cited, with advantages outweighing disadvantages.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the number of academic medical faculty working part time, the ranks and genders of part-time faculty, the satisfaction with having part-time faculty, and the advantages/disadvantages of employing part-time faculty as reported by department chairs. METHODS: We mailed a survey to all chairs of departments of pediatrics, medicine, family medicine, and surgery in the United States and Puerto Rico. The survey assessed whether the department employed part-time faculty (defined as faculty working more than 0.5 full-time equivalent but less than 1.0 full-time equivalent), the ranks and genders of all faculty, satisfaction (on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 [extremely satisfied] to 6 [extremely dissatisfied]), and advantages/disadvantages of part-time faculty. RESULTS: Chairs from 308 (59%) of 519 departments completed the survey. Overall, 85% of departments surveyed employed part-time faculty-94% of pediatrics departments employed part-time faculty, 89% of medicine departments, 86% of family medicine departments, and 72% of surgery departments. The average rating for satisfaction with having part-time faculty in the department was 2.3-between very satisfied and satisfied. Advantages of employing part-time faculty most frequently cited were keeping talented people in the workforce who might otherwise leave; leveraging financial resources; and skills of part-time faculty. The most frequently cited disadvantages were less academic productivity of part-time faculty and lack of shared goals/values of part-time faculty with the department. Overall, more advantages than disadvantages were cited. Part-time faculty tended to have lower academic rank than full-time faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Most chairs of departments surveyed employed part-time faculty and were very or extremely satisfied with having part-time faculty. A variety of advantages and disadvantages were cited, with advantages outweighing disadvantages.
Authors: Rachel B Levine; Rebecca A Harrison; Hilit F Mechaber; Christopher Phillips; Thomas H Gallagher Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 5.128