Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 705–710 | Cite as

Looking forward to promotion

Characteristics of participants in the prospective study of promotion in academia
Original Articles


OBJECTIVES: To determine what clinician-educators consider important for promotion, and what support they find helpful and useful for success.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.

SETTING: Eighty academic medical centers in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eighty-three participants of the Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia comprising assistant professors in departments of medicine from 80 different medical schools in 35 states.

MEASUREMENTS: Differences between clinician-educators’ and clinician-investigators’ work activities, promotion preparedness, and faculty support needs.

RESULTS: One hundred seven (58%) of the faculty were clinician-educators (CEs), and 63 (34%) were clinician-investigators (CIs); the remaining 13 fit neither category. Participants had been in their faculty position for 4.7 years. Ninety-eight percent of CIs reported a publication expectation for promotion, and 75% of CEs also reported such an expectation. More CIs had career mentors available than CEs (68% vs 32%, P<.001). Seventy-nine percent of CIs indicated >10% protected scholarly work time, compared to only 35% of CEs (P<.001). Fifty-three percent of CIs as compared to 32% of CEs (P<.01) meet more often than yearly with their chief/chair for performance review, and more CIs have been written promotion guidelines (72% vs 51%, P<.01). Clinician educators believed out of 11 job performance areas, research, written scholarship, and reputation were the 3 most important factors that would determine the success of their application for promotion. Both CEs and CIs sense that CIs are more likely get promoted (82% vs 79%).

CONCLUSIONS: Clinician educators are less familiar with promotion guidelines, meet less often with superiors for performance review, and have less protected time than CI colleagues. There is dissonance between CEs’ beliefs and previously published data from promotion committee chairs in the importance given to specific aspects of job performance.

Key words

academic medical centers mentors medical faculty cohort studies socioeconomic factors peer review 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abrahamson S. Time to return medical schools to their primary purpose: education. Acad Med. 1996;71:343–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stossel TA. Volume: papers and academic promotion. Ann Intern Med. 1991;106:146–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levinson W, Rubenstein A. Integrating clinician-educators into academic medical centers: challenges and potential solutions. Acad Med. 2000;75:906–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McHugh PR. A letter of experience about faculty promotion in medical schools. Acad Med. 1994;69:877–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beasley BW, Wright SM, Cofrancesco Jr J, Babbott SF, Thomas PA, Bass EB. Promotion criteria for clinical-educators in the United States and Canada. JAMA. 1997;278:723–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atasoylu AA, Wright SM, Beasley BW, et al. Promotion criteria for clinician-educators. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:711–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones RF, Gold JS. Faculty appointment and tenure policies in medical schools: a 1997 status report. Acad Med. 1998;73:211–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levinson W, Branch WT, Kroenke K. Clinician-educators in academic medical centers: a 2-part challenge. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:59–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zakowski LJ, Cooney TG, Noel GL. Do general internal medicine fellows find jobs that match their training? J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:410–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hafler JP, Lovejoy FH. Scholarly activities recorded in the portfolios of teacher-clinician faculty. Acad Med. 2000;75:649–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sherertz EF. Criteria of the “Educators’ Pyramid” fulfilled by medical school faculty promoted on a teaching pathway. Acad Med. 2000;75:954–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simpson DE, Marcdante KW, Duthie EH, Sheehan KM, Holloway RL, Towne JB. Valuing educational scholarship at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Acad Med. 2000;75:930–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nora LM, Pomeroy C, Curry TE, Hill NS, Tibbs PA, Wilson EA. Revising appointment, promotion, and tenure procedures to incorporate an expanded definition of scholarship: the University of Kentucky College of Medicine Experience. Acad Med. 2000;75:913–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fincher RE, Simpson DE, Mennin SP, et al. Scholarship in teaching: an imperative for the 21st Century. Acad Med. 2000;75:887–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simpson D, Morzinski J, Beecher A, et al. Meeting the challenge to document teaching accomplishments: the educator’s portfolio. Teach Learn Med. 1994;6:203–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Received from the Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of Missouri in Kansas City-St. Luke’s HospitalKansas City
  2. 2.Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical CenterJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimore

Personalised recommendations