How to Understand Promotion Criteria for “Traditional” and “Research” Tracks

Chapter

Abstract

Congratulations! You have accepted a job offer and, for many of you, uprooted yourself and your family to pursue your academic career. This is a great achievement that is often accompanied by a mix of emotions, ranging from joy and excitement to fear and anxiety. This is a normal reaction to being in a novel situation where the outcome matters a great deal. We all want to do well in our careers, and make a difference for our patients, students, and the communities we serve. However, the blueprint for how to sustain our careers through advancement and promotion is often hard to locate. In part, this difficulty is associated with the unique and diverse positions that each of us holds, making it difficult for institutions to develop a single blueprint that will fit all of us. This said, there are things that we can do to understand the criteria for successful promotion through the ranks, even for those of us who are “one of a kind.” The aim of this chapter is to assist faculty in locating and understanding the criteria for promotion so that a compelling case can be made for advancement.

Keywords

Expense Clarification 

References

  1. 1.
    Roberts L. Bootcamp for promotion. Stanford, CA: Stanford University School of Medicine; 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson SR. Becoming a productive academic writer. http://www.thrivingamidstchaos.com/articles.html. Accessed 23 Dec 2011.
  3. 3.
    Gerin W, Kapelewski CH, Itinger JR, Spruill T. Writing the NIH proposal: a step-by-step guide. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Burroughs Wellcome Fund & Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Making the right moves: a practical guide to scientific management for postdocs and new faculty. 2nd ed.; 2006. http://www.hhmi.org/resources/labmanagement/mtrmoves_download.html
  6. 6.
    Darley JM, Zanna MP, Roediger HL, editors. The compleat academic: a career guide. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Women in U.S. academic medicine and science: statistics and benchmarking report 2009–2010. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2011. p. 7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral SciencesStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations