AN INDEPENDENT VOICE FOR NURSING
From Dissertation Defense to Dissemination: Jump Start Your Academic Career With a Scholar Mentor Group Carlee Lehna, PhD, RN, APRN-BC, Melinda Hermanns, PhD, RN, BC, CNE, Diane B. Monsivais, PhD, RN, CNE, and Joan Engebretson, DrPH, RN, AHN-BC Carlee Lehna, PhD, RN, APRN-BC, is Associate Professor, School of Nursing, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY and is Associate in Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Melinda Hermanns, PhD, RN, BC, CNE, is Associate Professor, School of Nursing, The University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX; Diane B. Monsivais, PhD, RN, CNE, is Associate Professor, School of Nursing, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX; and Joan Engebretson, DrPH, RN, AHN-BC, FAAN, is Professor of Family Health and Judy Fred Professorship in Nursing, School of Nursing, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX. Keywords Education, innovation, leadership, professional issue Correspondence Diane B. Monsivais, PhD, RN, CNE, School of Nursing, The University of Texas at El Paso, 500 West University Avenue, El Paso, TX 79968 E-mail: [email protected] Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Lehna
Monsivais
PROBLEM. The dissertation provides an excellent source of scholarly productivity for new doctoral faculty, yet is often neglected because of the demands inherent in the faculty role. METHODS. The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of a scholar mentor group composed of three graduates of a PhD nursing program and their shared dissertation chair, who acted as a senior scholar mentor to the group. FINDINGS. By working together, we have been able to enhance our scholarly productivity by disseminating our dissertations through presentations and publications. The paper will present the evolving process of this working group, summarize outcomes, analyze the challenges, and provide suggestions for future doctoral students and faculty who are working with them. CONCLUSIONS. Our experience and scholar mentor model captures the best of both worlds—the benefits of interaction with academic peers and the benefits of having a senior scholar mentor. This was accomplished while all members were at different schools in different cities and states. Although other literatures that document successful collaborations using a peer-mentorship model are available, we were unable to locate any that documents a post-doctoral group with a senior scholar mentor who continued working together after graduation.
Hermanns
Engebretson
The demands of a faculty scholarly role often leave both new and experienced faculty feeling overwhelmed by expectations to present, publish, and conduct research (Clark, Alcala-Van Houten, & Perea-Ryan, 2010; Cumbe, Weinert, Luparell, Conley, & Smith, 2005). Meeting scholarly requirements has, in fact, become more difficult in the last decade with increases in part-time and adjunct faculty, teaching responsibilities, faculty attrition, and higher student enrollment (Tanner & Fitzpatrick, 2006). A faculty recruitment and retention pilot survey was conducted by the authors of barriers and facilitators to tenure and promotion. A volunteer sample from two
62 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
C. Lehna et al. western universities, one university in the Ohio River Valley region, and from participants at an international scholarly nursing conference showed that they did not perceive that they had the ability or support from their universities to achieve tenure and promotion, and mirrored published findings on the topic (Lehna et al., 2013).
The Dissertation as a Source of Scholarly Productivity An excellent and readily available source of scholarly productivity for new doctoral faculty, the dissertation, is often neglected. Many doctoral programs have started requiring a publishable paper instead of the long dissertation; however, post-graduation, once in the faculty role, the day-to-day urgent matters of academia and clinical practice take precedence over scholarly productivity, and the paper is never published. The combination of role demands and lack of guidance for dissemination creates a situation where the number of dissertations that are published is very low. Wieck (2014), in a study of U.S. doctoral dissertations from 2011 to 2013, found that only 38% of doctoral graduates had published in a refereed journal either prior to or after graduation. Conn (2008) suggests that publication of dissertation results should be considered an obligation to the profession so that other professionals have the chance to incorporate findings into practice or use them as a basis for future research. Unfortunately, for many doctoral graduates hired into a tenure-track academic position, balancing teaching, research, and service obligations leaves little time for disseminating the dissertation, and support for doing so is generally scarce. The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of a scholar mentor group composed of three graduates and their shared dissertation chair, who served as a senior scholar mentor to the group. By working together after graduation to the present time, we have been able to enhance our scholarly productivity by disseminating our dissertations through presentations and publications. The evolving process of this working group, a summary of outcomes, analysis of the challenges, and suggestions for future doctoral students, and faculty who are working with them, will be discussed. Although there are other literatures documenting successful collaborations using a peermentorship model, there is none that documents a
From Defense to Dissemination post-doctoral group with a senior scholar mentor who continued working together after graduation. Background Roadblocks to Dissertation Dissemination Academia is sometimes defined as a community of scholars, with the purpose of universities to create and disseminate knowledge. The idea of a community of scholars is predicated on discussion with the common goal of the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge (Caelleigh, 2000). Parse (2005) noted the essential features of a community of scholars as a knowledge vision, a spirit of collegiality, and a persistent pattern of critical contemplation. Unfortunately, many times, new faculty experience what Shulman (1993) termed “pedagogical solitude.” One of the issues is that both academic progress and tenure and promotion are based on individual accomplishments. This individualism often stands in sharp contrast to the idealized community aspect of academia. Our culture is highly individualistic and can impede the development of the community of scholars. Some suggestions have been proposed: (a) selecting a role model to help realize their potential; (b) continuing to learn and bring out the best in oneself; (c) fulfilling ones potential; and (d) building on the thinking of others (Bunkers, 2005). The notion of mentorship has been applied in many forms to increase scholarly production, with formally assigned or informal relationships. Mentoring programs can be dyadic or in collaborative groups. These mentors are often assigned to new doctoral faculty. Often, these programs may be entrenched in power issues and can result in a failure to move beyond the initial hierarchical relationship to a more egalitarian one that fosters the unique development of the protégé (Pololi & Knight, 2005). Relationship problems may range from the subtle push for the protégé to become a clone of the mentor to the extremes of exploitation or other inappropriate behavior. Busen and Engebretson (1998) used a metaphor to describe toxic mentors. There was improper choice of the metaphor; i.e., sculptor, show-biz mom, and masterslave. Errors within the metaphor of gardening (the garden of good and evil), which included errors of commission (over-feeding and over-watering) and errors of omission (neglect and failure to nurture, 63
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
From Defense to Dissemination inability to differentiate between the flowers and the weeds, and failure to share the beauty of the garden). Stewart and Krueger (1996) studied successful and failed mentoring relationships and identified critical attributes for successful mentoring relationships: reciprocity, mutual respect, clear expectations, personal connection, and shared values. These were contrasted with failed mentoring with poor communication, lack of commitment, personality differences, perceived or real competition, conflicts of interest, and lack of mentoring experience. Peer-mentorship models (Cumbe et al., 2005; Lewallen, Crane, Letvak, Jones, & Hu, 2003) are one way of overcoming some of the issues involved with traditional mentoring models. There is a growing body of literature that describes scholar-mentoring programs to assist with the transition to the faculty role (Turnbull & Roberts, 2005). Such mentoring programs help to prepare the novice and seasoned faculty for their scholarly role. In addition, Heinrich and Oberleitner (2012) emphasize that there is a lack of senior scholars to act as mentors because many senior scholars are retiring and being replaced by “scholar newbies.” Therefore, models that use peer mentors are more critical than ever. Our experience and scholar mentor model capture the best of both worlds—the benefits of interaction with academic peers and the benefits of having a senior scholar mentor. Our Scholar Mentor Group The Early Connection Our program offered a Doctor of Philosophy in Nursing and promoted collaborative activities and development of a community of scholars. The program was a hybrid educational experience composed of required on-campus time and online work. We were a geographically far-flung group and worked together only in a very limited way during the classes held during on-campus time. As students, our link was that we shared the same dissertation chair and had used ethnography as a research method. Group discourse and constructive critique throughout courses (both online and face to face) created comfort with peer-mentoring. Coming from a similar scholarly background, both from the program and from our individual advisor’s viewpoint, gave us common values and outlook. During our data analysis process, we were involved with faculty and other students for 64 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
C. Lehna et al. debriefing. We learned to process ideas—challenge and discuss our thematic synthesis without personal attacks—from differing perspectives. Our graduations occurred in May 2008 (CL and MH) and December 2009 (DBM). We were all hired into tenure-track positions—two where we were already teaching (MH and DM) and one at a different institution (CL). Shortly After Graduation—Group Formation Shortly after graduation, the three of us discussed the possibility of staying connected through scholarship during an impromptu meeting held during winter break at a gulf coast hotel. We believed that the similar threads throughout our dissertations might lead to interesting presentations and publications for all of us. Similarities involved using the same qualitative method (ethnography) that grouped naturally under the umbrella of chronic conditions. The following were the topics of our dissertations: • Sibling relationships in the family of a child with a burn injury (CL) • The illness experience of persons with Parkinson’s disease (MH) • Understanding cultural constructions of chronic pain in Mexican American women (DM) Because of our close working relationship with our dissertation chair, we reached out to have her as part of the first conference where we decided to send abstracts. Although we did not realize it at the time, this was an important step in our continued evolution as it gave us a built-in scholar mentor who would continue to guide our scholarly development. The collegial process of working together (although at a distance) was energizing and provided the sense of scholarly connection we missed from our doctoral programs. Moving from student–faculty relationships to a more collegial one also created a positive move for the former dissertation chair, as it provided a forum for stimulating scholarly discourse as well as additional publications that were inspired and supported by the group. The Following Years. Presentations and Publications Presentations. During the following years, we intentionally monitored calls for abstracts that
From Defense to Dissemination
C. Lehna et al.
Table 1. Presentation Topics/Themes and Meetings Topics/Themes
Meeting
Culturally competent care: use of ethnographic research Stigma: concerns in chronic conditions
Council of Advancement of Nursing Science, Washington, DC, September 27–30, 2010.
Body image: issues in chronic conditions
Increasing scholarly productivity Ethnography as a research method
Sigma Theta Tau International, 41st Biennial Convention, Grapevine, Texas. October 29–November 2, 2011. Expanding Networks of Knowledge for Healthcare Innovations. Annual Conference of the Southern Nursing Research Society. Little Rock, Arkansas. February 27–March 2, 2013. Sigma Theta Tau International 42nd Biennial Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana. November 16–20, 2013. Doctoral Student Workshop, Southern Nursing Research Society, San Antonio, Texas. February 12, 2014.
included symposiums, since that would allow us to present our work in the same session. During the first year, our senior scholar mentor was especially helpful in identifying common themes and alternate theoretical lenses to view our dissertation findings and expand and disseminate additional findings. At the conclusion of each meeting, we discussed, brainstormed, and took turns taking notes so we did not lose the ideas that we wanted to develop in the future. Table 1 illustrates the topics and themes of our symposium presentations and where they were presented. Manuscript development. After each of our first two joint-meeting presentations, we contacted journal editors known to two of the graduates (DM and CL) to provide guidance on simultaneous publication of our individual manuscripts where each had lead authorship. Thankfully, they were happy to work with us. With one editor, we set up a planning conference call to discuss the best approaches for publication. After our presentations, we built in our own deadlines for the manuscript development and were able to adhere to them by keeping each other on track to meet our deadlines.
Generally, we would follow these steps: JE would provide conceptual background on the topic for everyone to read. Normally, the readings would include classic works on the topic (e.g., stigma, body image, culturally appropriate care model) that we would use for common grounding. Usually, MH or CL would be finished first with their drafts and would distribute them to the others, ask for feedback, and then ask how the others were progressing. Usually the third group member (DM) would review for conceptual consistency in the presentation or manuscript drafts, suggest revisions, and then perform manuscript editing. This has worked for us because we feel comfortable sharing ideas, critiquing each other’s work, and giving each other constructive feedback. Table 2 outlines simultaneous publications with individual lead authorship. Either prior to or during this same time period, we each had separate publications related to our dissertations published. We were able to build on our past individual experiences as we worked together. Table 3 lists individual publications related to our dissertations. Scholar Mentor Model The collaborative scholar mentorship model (Figure 1) developed by the group has three interdependent factors, which are proposed to influence probationary faculty transition and adjustment—the person’s temperament (e.g., introvert or extrovert, easy going, obsessive, driven, etc.); structured environmental factors (e.g., school of nursing requirements for teaching, scholarship, and service; and workload allocations for these requirements); and informal factors (e.g., personal or professional collaborations). The person’s temperament certainly plays an important role in our peer mentorship (see Figure 1). Acknowledging our strengths and weaknesses, capitalizing on individual’s strengths (although we are all self-directed learners, we share degrees of Type A personality traits), developing and fostering mutual respect and trust, being conscientious in providing knowledge and wisdom, and physical and emotional support. One of the key elements is that our group feels valued; we value each other and acknowledge that we each have expertise and knowledge and that it is being accurately represented. Equally important is to acknowledge our individual assets and work toward our strength. The unexpected finding is that although we are different, we are 65
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
From Defense to Dissemination
C. Lehna et al.
Table 2. Simultaneous Publication with Individual Lead Authorship
Table 3. Individual Publications Related to Dissertations
Journal
Titles
Dissertation Articles
Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 25(10), 2013
JE. Understanding stigma in chronic health conditions: Implications for nursing, 545– 550. doi:10.1111/1745– 7599.12009 MH. The invisible and visible stigmatization of Parkinson’s disease, 562–566. doi:10.1111/1745– 7599.12008 CL. Stigma perspective of siblings of children with a major childhood burn injury, 557–562. doi:10.1111/1745– 7599.12007 DM. Decreasing the stigma burden of chronic pain, 545– 550. doi:10.1111/1745– 7599.12010 JE. Clinically applied medical ethnography: Relevance to cultural competence in patient care, 145–154. doi:10.1016/ j.cnur.2011.02.002 MH. Culturally competent care for Parkinson disease, 171– 180. doi:10.1016/ j.cnur.2011.02.003 CL. Families with burn injury: Application of the clinically relevant continuum model, 155–161. doi:10.1016/ j.cnur.2011.02.005 DM. Promoting culturally competent chronic pain management using the clinically relevant continuum model, 163–169. doi:10.1016/j.cnur.2011.02.006
MH
Nursing Clinics of North America 46(2), June 2011
similar in many ways: We strive to seek excellence in our scholarly endeavors for the betterment of advancing nursing science. Positive outcomes using this model would result in a positive adjustment as evidenced by publications, funded grants, and balancing of teaching, scholarship, and service requirements. For us, peer mentorship and support was successful in increasing scholarly productivity through a collaborative scholarly group. 66 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
MH & JE
CL
DM & JE DM & JM
2011. Weathering the storm: Living with Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Christian Nursing, 28(2), 76–82. 2010. Stanley-Hermanns, M., & Engebretson, J. Sailing the stormy seas: The illness experience of persons with Parkinson’s disease. The Qualitative Reports, 15(2), 340–369. doi:10.1097/CNJ.0b013e31820b8d9f 2010. Sibling experiences after a major childhood burn injury. Pediatric Nursing, 36(5), 245–252. 2009. “Sibling Closeness,” a concept explication using the hybrid model, in siblings experiencing a major burn trauma. Southern Online Journal of Nursing Research, 9(4). 2014. Childhood burn survivors’ and their siblings’ perceptions of their body image. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. Published online October 9, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2014.09.009 2012. “I’m just not that sick”: Pain medication and identity in Mexican American women with chronic pain. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 30(3), 188– 194. 2011. Cultural cues: review of qualitative evidence of patient-centered care in patients with nonmalignant chronic pain. [Review]. Rehabilitation Nursing Journal, 36(4), 166–171, 2011 July– August. 2007. Multicultural influences on pain medication attitudes and beliefs in patients with nonmalignant chronic pain syndromes. [Review]. Pain Management Nursing, 8(2), 64–71.
Our scholar mentor model can be seen as an exemplar of self-organization, which is a major component of complex adaptive systems (Engebretson & Hickey, 2011). Complexity science and complex adaptive systems is an emergent perspective being integrated into the healthcare literature at multiple levels (Zimmerman, Lindberg, & Plsek, 1998). Grounded in modern physics and mathematics, it offers a fresh approach from which to view systems and is being applied to clinical care and healthcare organizations. These follow some of the ideas put forth in nursing related to systems theory. The complex adaptive
C. Lehna et al.
From Defense to Dissemination
Figure 1. Scholar Mentor Model Assists With Scholarly Productivity/Dissertation Dissemination
systems view contrasts to the more mechanized hierarchal structures of many organizations and is thought to be related to higher productivity. In this view, complex adaptive systems have the following characteristics. They are “dynamic” and “adaptive,” with “distributed control,” rather than hierarchically directed control (Lindberg, Nash, & Lindberg, 2008). This is an important concept as the system is continually in a dynamic state and thus more able to adapt to internal and external changes. One of the most salient issues is that control is not top down, but distributed. This was the most important aspect of the success of this group. The actions were very well distributed, and even though a former faculty member was a member of the group, initiatives, ideas, and tasks shifted. It was always helpful to receive prompts via email to keep us active and productive. Self-organization generally operates with a few simple rules, which is a major component of complex adaptive systems (Plsek, 2001). Consistent with distributed control, the system self-organizes. This clearly applied to the way our group functioned. For example, we had a few simple rules: everyone contributes, critique is welcomed, and goals/deadlines are set by the group. Another feature of complex adaptive systems is the ability and tendency of these systems to utilize “diversity” within the system, resulting in the emergence of new ideas or products (Chafee & McNeill,
2007). We are a diverse group as we all come from different clinical backgrounds and experiences, with different strengths and weaknesses. This synergy has led to the emergence of new ideas and multiple additional papers that it is unlikely any of us could have accomplished individually. As these systems move into “co-evolution” of new ideas, increased productivity is more a more likely outcome. Perspectives From the Former Dissertation Chair (JE) Following this group of former students after graduation and moving into a collegial relationship has been most rewarding. When asked to join them in developing a symposium for the first joint presentation, I was excited. I saw this as a way to extend the fine work that they had done individually and to expand on the use of ethnography in health care and nursing. As the relationship moved from teacher/student to colleagues, I was thrilled to receive reminders from the group to get going on my section. Their critiques are insightful and creative and much appreciated. We have begun to discuss future projects and perhaps multisite projects. We relish getting together at conferences for long discussions. Thanks to their encour67
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
From Defense to Dissemination agement and reminders, in addition to the great discussions and meetings, I have been also able to increase my own scholarly productivity through additional presentations and publications. I believe that this is the community of scholars for the future. Recommendations Based on Lessons Learned With hindsight, we realize that more formal and explicit processes would have been beneficial. Early in the process, we would have benefitted from clarifying expectations for participation and deadlines, as an early participant in our group was not able to follow through on deadlines because of personal life events. This caused disruption in our workflow, and stress for the group. A possible solution to this problem is to establish a partnership agreement for each project (Heinrich, 2011). In addition, the shift in working relationship with our dissertation chair from chair role to a mentorcolleague created some discomfort when we took the lead on a project instead of her. Being aware of this shift and discussing the implications at the outset would have been helpful. Once again, a partnership agreement (Heinrich, 2011) would have opened this topic for discussion at the beginning of each project. In addition to establishing partnership agreements, at the beginning of each project (either presentation or publication), there should be a synchronous discussion related to the classic literature related to the collaboration topic. We did this in an informal way at first, but then realized that simultaneous review of classic works was very helpful. For example, although stigma and body image were embedded common themes in our findings, making sure we had an updated common grounding in the original works (instead of the more focused works on our own topics) was important. From early drafts through peer review, a timeline with clear deadlines for each project phase provides helpful structure. Incorporated in that deadline must be time to practice any meeting presentations as a group. Although it may appear from the PowerPoint outline that each person is focused on a different angle, we found frequent redundancies when we practiced out loud. The most common problem was repetition of the shared background information, and deciding how that information will be presented is key to joint presentations that run smoothly. The chance to plan for future projects in face-toface meetings is invaluable. The experience of a joint 68 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
C. Lehna et al. presentation is energizing and naturally leads to the wish for further collaborations. Two to three hours set aside for discussion at a conference produces a large list of possible future projects. In summary, clear partnership agreements, timelines, planning sessions that allow time for fruitful discussion, and in-person meetings to discuss future projects will create working relationships that provide exciting scholarly opportunities and leave the least to chance. Conclusion and Implications Our working group process provides a useful model for new doctoral graduates who are in similar situations. Collaboration with peers and a senior scholar we had already worked closely with was highly beneficial and enhanced scholarly productivity for not only the new doctoral graduates, but also for the senior scholar. We feel comfortable sharing ideas and giving each other constructive feedback. Each person’s temperament certainly plays an important role in our scholar support. One of the key elements to “staying connected” is that the group feels valued; that each person feels that their expertise and knowledge is being accurately represented. For us, this peer scholar mentor model that included a senior scholar was successful in increasing scholarly productivity through disseminating our dissertation during transition to a faculty role. The selforganization in the evolution of the group and the productivity clearly are a good example of how selforganization is an effective approach to productivity. As we move from the “Industrial Age” to the “Information Age,” the impetus of change is real. The notion of the lone researcher is moving toward more group projects, many of them interprofessional. With the Internet and ease of travel, one can develop and maintain a community of scholars over distances, and it behooves nurses to take advantage of this. As we have discovered, these collective self-organizing groups expand the productivity of all and often engender new ideas. This has implications for nursing schools to facilitate faculty productivity and the generation of new knowledge; the hallmarks of a community of scholars. References Bunkers, S. S. (2005). A community of scholars: What is it? Nursing Science Quarterly, 18(2), 117–119. doi:10.1177/ 0894318405274812
C. Lehna et al. Busen, N., & Engebretson, J. (1998). Mentoring in advanced practice nursing: The use of metaphor in concept exploration. The Internet Journal of Advanced Nursing Practice, 2(2). Retrievable through Google Scholar but does not show pages. doi:10.5580/52f Caelleigh, A. S. (2000). Community of scholars. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 75(9), 912. doi:10.1097/00001888-20000900000013 Chafee, M. W., & McNeill, M. M. (2007). A model of nursing as a complex adaptive system. Nursing Outlook, 5(5), 232– 241. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2007.04.003 Clark, N. J., Alcala-Van Houten, L., & Perea-Ryan, M. (2010). Transitioning from clinical practice to academia: University expectations on the tenure track. Nurse Educator, 35(3), 105–109. doi:10.1097/NNE .0b013e3181d95069 Conn, V. S. (2008). The light under the bushel basket: Unpublished dissertations. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 30(5), 537–538. doi:10.1177/0193945908317602 Cumbe, S., Weinert, C., Luparell, S., Conley, V., & Smith, J. (2005). Developing a scholarship community. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(3), 289–293. doi:10.1111/j.15475069.2005.00049.x Engebretson, J., & Hickey, J. (2011). Introduction to complexity science. In J. Butts & K. Rich (Eds.), Philosophies and theories in advanced practice nursing (pp. 115–142). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. Heinrich, K. T. (2011). Give and take: Effective partnership practices propel publishing success. Reflections on Nursing Leadership, 37(2). Retrieved from http://www.reflectionsonnursingleadership.org/Pages/ Vol37_2_Heinrich.a Heinrich, K. T., & Oberleitner, M. G. (2012). How a faculty group’s peer mentoring of each other’s scholarship can enhance retention and recruitment. Journal of Professional Nursing, 28(1), 5–12. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.06.002 Lehna, C., Hermanns, M., Monsivais, D. B., & Engebretson, J. (2013). Faculty recruitment and retention survey. Unpublished survey.
From Defense to Dissemination Lewallen, L. P., Crane, P. B., Letvak, S., Jones, E., & Hu, J. (2003). An innovative strategy to enhance new faculty success. Nursing Education Perspectives, 24(5), 257– 260. Lindberg, C., Nash, S., & Lindberg, C. (2008). On the edge: Nursing in the age of complexity. Bordentown, NJ: Plexus Press. Parse, R. R. (2005). Community of scholars. Nursing Science Quarterly, 18(2), 119. doi:10.1177/0894318405275862 Plsek, P. (2001). Redesigning health care with insights from the science of complex adaptive systems. In Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century (pp. 322–335). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Pololi, L., & Knight, S. (2005). Mentoring faculty in academic medicine. A new paradigm? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20(9), 866–870. doi:10.1111/j.15251497.2005.0167.x Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change, 25(6), 6–7. Stewart, B., & Krueger, L. (1996). An evolutionary concept analysis of mentoring in nursing. Journal of Professional Nursing, 12(5), 311–321. doi:10.1016/S8755-7223(96) 80011-1 Tanner, C. A., & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2006). What ever happened to faculty governance? Journal of Nursing Education, 45(9), 339–340. Turnbull, B. J., & Roberts, K. (2005). Nurse-academics’ mentorship: Rhetoric or reality? Collegian (Royal College of Nursing, Australia), 12(2), 33–38. Wieck, K. L. (2014). Future of nursing research: A national overview of US doctoral dissertations 2011–2013. Paper presented at the American Association of Colleges of Nursing Doctoral Education Conference, Naples, Fla. January. Zimmerman, B., Lindberg, C., & Plsek, P. (1998). Edgeware: Lessons from complexity science for health care leaders. Bordentown, NJ: Plexus Press.
69 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
From Dissertation Defense to Dissemination: Jump Start Your Academic Career With a Scholar Mentor Group Carlee Lehna, PhD, RN, APRN-BC, Melinda Hermanns, PhD, RN, BC, CNE, Diane B. Monsivais, PhD, RN, CNE, and Joan Engebretson, DrPH, RN, AHN-BC Carlee Lehna, PhD, RN, APRN-BC, is Associate Professor, School of Nursing, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY and is Associate in Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY; Melinda Hermanns, PhD, RN, BC, CNE, is Associate Professor, School of Nursing, The University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, TX; Diane B. Monsivais, PhD, RN, CNE, is Associate Professor, School of Nursing, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX; and Joan Engebretson, DrPH, RN, AHN-BC, FAAN, is Professor of Family Health and Judy Fred Professorship in Nursing, School of Nursing, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX. Keywords Education, innovation, leadership, professional issue Correspondence Diane B. Monsivais, PhD, RN, CNE, School of Nursing, The University of Texas at El Paso, 500 West University Avenue, El Paso, TX 79968 E-mail: [email protected] Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Lehna
Monsivais
PROBLEM. The dissertation provides an excellent source of scholarly productivity for new doctoral faculty, yet is often neglected because of the demands inherent in the faculty role. METHODS. The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of a scholar mentor group composed of three graduates of a PhD nursing program and their shared dissertation chair, who acted as a senior scholar mentor to the group. FINDINGS. By working together, we have been able to enhance our scholarly productivity by disseminating our dissertations through presentations and publications. The paper will present the evolving process of this working group, summarize outcomes, analyze the challenges, and provide suggestions for future doctoral students and faculty who are working with them. CONCLUSIONS. Our experience and scholar mentor model captures the best of both worlds—the benefits of interaction with academic peers and the benefits of having a senior scholar mentor. This was accomplished while all members were at different schools in different cities and states. Although other literatures that document successful collaborations using a peer-mentorship model are available, we were unable to locate any that documents a post-doctoral group with a senior scholar mentor who continued working together after graduation.
Hermanns
Engebretson
The demands of a faculty scholarly role often leave both new and experienced faculty feeling overwhelmed by expectations to present, publish, and conduct research (Clark, Alcala-Van Houten, & Perea-Ryan, 2010; Cumbe, Weinert, Luparell, Conley, & Smith, 2005). Meeting scholarly requirements has, in fact, become more difficult in the last decade with increases in part-time and adjunct faculty, teaching responsibilities, faculty attrition, and higher student enrollment (Tanner & Fitzpatrick, 2006). A faculty recruitment and retention pilot survey was conducted by the authors of barriers and facilitators to tenure and promotion. A volunteer sample from two
62 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
C. Lehna et al. western universities, one university in the Ohio River Valley region, and from participants at an international scholarly nursing conference showed that they did not perceive that they had the ability or support from their universities to achieve tenure and promotion, and mirrored published findings on the topic (Lehna et al., 2013).
The Dissertation as a Source of Scholarly Productivity An excellent and readily available source of scholarly productivity for new doctoral faculty, the dissertation, is often neglected. Many doctoral programs have started requiring a publishable paper instead of the long dissertation; however, post-graduation, once in the faculty role, the day-to-day urgent matters of academia and clinical practice take precedence over scholarly productivity, and the paper is never published. The combination of role demands and lack of guidance for dissemination creates a situation where the number of dissertations that are published is very low. Wieck (2014), in a study of U.S. doctoral dissertations from 2011 to 2013, found that only 38% of doctoral graduates had published in a refereed journal either prior to or after graduation. Conn (2008) suggests that publication of dissertation results should be considered an obligation to the profession so that other professionals have the chance to incorporate findings into practice or use them as a basis for future research. Unfortunately, for many doctoral graduates hired into a tenure-track academic position, balancing teaching, research, and service obligations leaves little time for disseminating the dissertation, and support for doing so is generally scarce. The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of a scholar mentor group composed of three graduates and their shared dissertation chair, who served as a senior scholar mentor to the group. By working together after graduation to the present time, we have been able to enhance our scholarly productivity by disseminating our dissertations through presentations and publications. The evolving process of this working group, a summary of outcomes, analysis of the challenges, and suggestions for future doctoral students, and faculty who are working with them, will be discussed. Although there are other literatures documenting successful collaborations using a peermentorship model, there is none that documents a
From Defense to Dissemination post-doctoral group with a senior scholar mentor who continued working together after graduation. Background Roadblocks to Dissertation Dissemination Academia is sometimes defined as a community of scholars, with the purpose of universities to create and disseminate knowledge. The idea of a community of scholars is predicated on discussion with the common goal of the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge (Caelleigh, 2000). Parse (2005) noted the essential features of a community of scholars as a knowledge vision, a spirit of collegiality, and a persistent pattern of critical contemplation. Unfortunately, many times, new faculty experience what Shulman (1993) termed “pedagogical solitude.” One of the issues is that both academic progress and tenure and promotion are based on individual accomplishments. This individualism often stands in sharp contrast to the idealized community aspect of academia. Our culture is highly individualistic and can impede the development of the community of scholars. Some suggestions have been proposed: (a) selecting a role model to help realize their potential; (b) continuing to learn and bring out the best in oneself; (c) fulfilling ones potential; and (d) building on the thinking of others (Bunkers, 2005). The notion of mentorship has been applied in many forms to increase scholarly production, with formally assigned or informal relationships. Mentoring programs can be dyadic or in collaborative groups. These mentors are often assigned to new doctoral faculty. Often, these programs may be entrenched in power issues and can result in a failure to move beyond the initial hierarchical relationship to a more egalitarian one that fosters the unique development of the protégé (Pololi & Knight, 2005). Relationship problems may range from the subtle push for the protégé to become a clone of the mentor to the extremes of exploitation or other inappropriate behavior. Busen and Engebretson (1998) used a metaphor to describe toxic mentors. There was improper choice of the metaphor; i.e., sculptor, show-biz mom, and masterslave. Errors within the metaphor of gardening (the garden of good and evil), which included errors of commission (over-feeding and over-watering) and errors of omission (neglect and failure to nurture, 63
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
From Defense to Dissemination inability to differentiate between the flowers and the weeds, and failure to share the beauty of the garden). Stewart and Krueger (1996) studied successful and failed mentoring relationships and identified critical attributes for successful mentoring relationships: reciprocity, mutual respect, clear expectations, personal connection, and shared values. These were contrasted with failed mentoring with poor communication, lack of commitment, personality differences, perceived or real competition, conflicts of interest, and lack of mentoring experience. Peer-mentorship models (Cumbe et al., 2005; Lewallen, Crane, Letvak, Jones, & Hu, 2003) are one way of overcoming some of the issues involved with traditional mentoring models. There is a growing body of literature that describes scholar-mentoring programs to assist with the transition to the faculty role (Turnbull & Roberts, 2005). Such mentoring programs help to prepare the novice and seasoned faculty for their scholarly role. In addition, Heinrich and Oberleitner (2012) emphasize that there is a lack of senior scholars to act as mentors because many senior scholars are retiring and being replaced by “scholar newbies.” Therefore, models that use peer mentors are more critical than ever. Our experience and scholar mentor model capture the best of both worlds—the benefits of interaction with academic peers and the benefits of having a senior scholar mentor. Our Scholar Mentor Group The Early Connection Our program offered a Doctor of Philosophy in Nursing and promoted collaborative activities and development of a community of scholars. The program was a hybrid educational experience composed of required on-campus time and online work. We were a geographically far-flung group and worked together only in a very limited way during the classes held during on-campus time. As students, our link was that we shared the same dissertation chair and had used ethnography as a research method. Group discourse and constructive critique throughout courses (both online and face to face) created comfort with peer-mentoring. Coming from a similar scholarly background, both from the program and from our individual advisor’s viewpoint, gave us common values and outlook. During our data analysis process, we were involved with faculty and other students for 64 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
C. Lehna et al. debriefing. We learned to process ideas—challenge and discuss our thematic synthesis without personal attacks—from differing perspectives. Our graduations occurred in May 2008 (CL and MH) and December 2009 (DBM). We were all hired into tenure-track positions—two where we were already teaching (MH and DM) and one at a different institution (CL). Shortly After Graduation—Group Formation Shortly after graduation, the three of us discussed the possibility of staying connected through scholarship during an impromptu meeting held during winter break at a gulf coast hotel. We believed that the similar threads throughout our dissertations might lead to interesting presentations and publications for all of us. Similarities involved using the same qualitative method (ethnography) that grouped naturally under the umbrella of chronic conditions. The following were the topics of our dissertations: • Sibling relationships in the family of a child with a burn injury (CL) • The illness experience of persons with Parkinson’s disease (MH) • Understanding cultural constructions of chronic pain in Mexican American women (DM) Because of our close working relationship with our dissertation chair, we reached out to have her as part of the first conference where we decided to send abstracts. Although we did not realize it at the time, this was an important step in our continued evolution as it gave us a built-in scholar mentor who would continue to guide our scholarly development. The collegial process of working together (although at a distance) was energizing and provided the sense of scholarly connection we missed from our doctoral programs. Moving from student–faculty relationships to a more collegial one also created a positive move for the former dissertation chair, as it provided a forum for stimulating scholarly discourse as well as additional publications that were inspired and supported by the group. The Following Years. Presentations and Publications Presentations. During the following years, we intentionally monitored calls for abstracts that
From Defense to Dissemination
C. Lehna et al.
Table 1. Presentation Topics/Themes and Meetings Topics/Themes
Meeting
Culturally competent care: use of ethnographic research Stigma: concerns in chronic conditions
Council of Advancement of Nursing Science, Washington, DC, September 27–30, 2010.
Body image: issues in chronic conditions
Increasing scholarly productivity Ethnography as a research method
Sigma Theta Tau International, 41st Biennial Convention, Grapevine, Texas. October 29–November 2, 2011. Expanding Networks of Knowledge for Healthcare Innovations. Annual Conference of the Southern Nursing Research Society. Little Rock, Arkansas. February 27–March 2, 2013. Sigma Theta Tau International 42nd Biennial Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana. November 16–20, 2013. Doctoral Student Workshop, Southern Nursing Research Society, San Antonio, Texas. February 12, 2014.
included symposiums, since that would allow us to present our work in the same session. During the first year, our senior scholar mentor was especially helpful in identifying common themes and alternate theoretical lenses to view our dissertation findings and expand and disseminate additional findings. At the conclusion of each meeting, we discussed, brainstormed, and took turns taking notes so we did not lose the ideas that we wanted to develop in the future. Table 1 illustrates the topics and themes of our symposium presentations and where they were presented. Manuscript development. After each of our first two joint-meeting presentations, we contacted journal editors known to two of the graduates (DM and CL) to provide guidance on simultaneous publication of our individual manuscripts where each had lead authorship. Thankfully, they were happy to work with us. With one editor, we set up a planning conference call to discuss the best approaches for publication. After our presentations, we built in our own deadlines for the manuscript development and were able to adhere to them by keeping each other on track to meet our deadlines.
Generally, we would follow these steps: JE would provide conceptual background on the topic for everyone to read. Normally, the readings would include classic works on the topic (e.g., stigma, body image, culturally appropriate care model) that we would use for common grounding. Usually, MH or CL would be finished first with their drafts and would distribute them to the others, ask for feedback, and then ask how the others were progressing. Usually the third group member (DM) would review for conceptual consistency in the presentation or manuscript drafts, suggest revisions, and then perform manuscript editing. This has worked for us because we feel comfortable sharing ideas, critiquing each other’s work, and giving each other constructive feedback. Table 2 outlines simultaneous publications with individual lead authorship. Either prior to or during this same time period, we each had separate publications related to our dissertations published. We were able to build on our past individual experiences as we worked together. Table 3 lists individual publications related to our dissertations. Scholar Mentor Model The collaborative scholar mentorship model (Figure 1) developed by the group has three interdependent factors, which are proposed to influence probationary faculty transition and adjustment—the person’s temperament (e.g., introvert or extrovert, easy going, obsessive, driven, etc.); structured environmental factors (e.g., school of nursing requirements for teaching, scholarship, and service; and workload allocations for these requirements); and informal factors (e.g., personal or professional collaborations). The person’s temperament certainly plays an important role in our peer mentorship (see Figure 1). Acknowledging our strengths and weaknesses, capitalizing on individual’s strengths (although we are all self-directed learners, we share degrees of Type A personality traits), developing and fostering mutual respect and trust, being conscientious in providing knowledge and wisdom, and physical and emotional support. One of the key elements is that our group feels valued; we value each other and acknowledge that we each have expertise and knowledge and that it is being accurately represented. Equally important is to acknowledge our individual assets and work toward our strength. The unexpected finding is that although we are different, we are 65
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
From Defense to Dissemination
C. Lehna et al.
Table 2. Simultaneous Publication with Individual Lead Authorship
Table 3. Individual Publications Related to Dissertations
Journal
Titles
Dissertation Articles
Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 25(10), 2013
JE. Understanding stigma in chronic health conditions: Implications for nursing, 545– 550. doi:10.1111/1745– 7599.12009 MH. The invisible and visible stigmatization of Parkinson’s disease, 562–566. doi:10.1111/1745– 7599.12008 CL. Stigma perspective of siblings of children with a major childhood burn injury, 557–562. doi:10.1111/1745– 7599.12007 DM. Decreasing the stigma burden of chronic pain, 545– 550. doi:10.1111/1745– 7599.12010 JE. Clinically applied medical ethnography: Relevance to cultural competence in patient care, 145–154. doi:10.1016/ j.cnur.2011.02.002 MH. Culturally competent care for Parkinson disease, 171– 180. doi:10.1016/ j.cnur.2011.02.003 CL. Families with burn injury: Application of the clinically relevant continuum model, 155–161. doi:10.1016/ j.cnur.2011.02.005 DM. Promoting culturally competent chronic pain management using the clinically relevant continuum model, 163–169. doi:10.1016/j.cnur.2011.02.006
MH
Nursing Clinics of North America 46(2), June 2011
similar in many ways: We strive to seek excellence in our scholarly endeavors for the betterment of advancing nursing science. Positive outcomes using this model would result in a positive adjustment as evidenced by publications, funded grants, and balancing of teaching, scholarship, and service requirements. For us, peer mentorship and support was successful in increasing scholarly productivity through a collaborative scholarly group. 66 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
MH & JE
CL
DM & JE DM & JM
2011. Weathering the storm: Living with Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Christian Nursing, 28(2), 76–82. 2010. Stanley-Hermanns, M., & Engebretson, J. Sailing the stormy seas: The illness experience of persons with Parkinson’s disease. The Qualitative Reports, 15(2), 340–369. doi:10.1097/CNJ.0b013e31820b8d9f 2010. Sibling experiences after a major childhood burn injury. Pediatric Nursing, 36(5), 245–252. 2009. “Sibling Closeness,” a concept explication using the hybrid model, in siblings experiencing a major burn trauma. Southern Online Journal of Nursing Research, 9(4). 2014. Childhood burn survivors’ and their siblings’ perceptions of their body image. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. Published online October 9, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2014.09.009 2012. “I’m just not that sick”: Pain medication and identity in Mexican American women with chronic pain. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 30(3), 188– 194. 2011. Cultural cues: review of qualitative evidence of patient-centered care in patients with nonmalignant chronic pain. [Review]. Rehabilitation Nursing Journal, 36(4), 166–171, 2011 July– August. 2007. Multicultural influences on pain medication attitudes and beliefs in patients with nonmalignant chronic pain syndromes. [Review]. Pain Management Nursing, 8(2), 64–71.
Our scholar mentor model can be seen as an exemplar of self-organization, which is a major component of complex adaptive systems (Engebretson & Hickey, 2011). Complexity science and complex adaptive systems is an emergent perspective being integrated into the healthcare literature at multiple levels (Zimmerman, Lindberg, & Plsek, 1998). Grounded in modern physics and mathematics, it offers a fresh approach from which to view systems and is being applied to clinical care and healthcare organizations. These follow some of the ideas put forth in nursing related to systems theory. The complex adaptive
C. Lehna et al.
From Defense to Dissemination
Figure 1. Scholar Mentor Model Assists With Scholarly Productivity/Dissertation Dissemination
systems view contrasts to the more mechanized hierarchal structures of many organizations and is thought to be related to higher productivity. In this view, complex adaptive systems have the following characteristics. They are “dynamic” and “adaptive,” with “distributed control,” rather than hierarchically directed control (Lindberg, Nash, & Lindberg, 2008). This is an important concept as the system is continually in a dynamic state and thus more able to adapt to internal and external changes. One of the most salient issues is that control is not top down, but distributed. This was the most important aspect of the success of this group. The actions were very well distributed, and even though a former faculty member was a member of the group, initiatives, ideas, and tasks shifted. It was always helpful to receive prompts via email to keep us active and productive. Self-organization generally operates with a few simple rules, which is a major component of complex adaptive systems (Plsek, 2001). Consistent with distributed control, the system self-organizes. This clearly applied to the way our group functioned. For example, we had a few simple rules: everyone contributes, critique is welcomed, and goals/deadlines are set by the group. Another feature of complex adaptive systems is the ability and tendency of these systems to utilize “diversity” within the system, resulting in the emergence of new ideas or products (Chafee & McNeill,
2007). We are a diverse group as we all come from different clinical backgrounds and experiences, with different strengths and weaknesses. This synergy has led to the emergence of new ideas and multiple additional papers that it is unlikely any of us could have accomplished individually. As these systems move into “co-evolution” of new ideas, increased productivity is more a more likely outcome. Perspectives From the Former Dissertation Chair (JE) Following this group of former students after graduation and moving into a collegial relationship has been most rewarding. When asked to join them in developing a symposium for the first joint presentation, I was excited. I saw this as a way to extend the fine work that they had done individually and to expand on the use of ethnography in health care and nursing. As the relationship moved from teacher/student to colleagues, I was thrilled to receive reminders from the group to get going on my section. Their critiques are insightful and creative and much appreciated. We have begun to discuss future projects and perhaps multisite projects. We relish getting together at conferences for long discussions. Thanks to their encour67
© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
From Defense to Dissemination agement and reminders, in addition to the great discussions and meetings, I have been also able to increase my own scholarly productivity through additional presentations and publications. I believe that this is the community of scholars for the future. Recommendations Based on Lessons Learned With hindsight, we realize that more formal and explicit processes would have been beneficial. Early in the process, we would have benefitted from clarifying expectations for participation and deadlines, as an early participant in our group was not able to follow through on deadlines because of personal life events. This caused disruption in our workflow, and stress for the group. A possible solution to this problem is to establish a partnership agreement for each project (Heinrich, 2011). In addition, the shift in working relationship with our dissertation chair from chair role to a mentorcolleague created some discomfort when we took the lead on a project instead of her. Being aware of this shift and discussing the implications at the outset would have been helpful. Once again, a partnership agreement (Heinrich, 2011) would have opened this topic for discussion at the beginning of each project. In addition to establishing partnership agreements, at the beginning of each project (either presentation or publication), there should be a synchronous discussion related to the classic literature related to the collaboration topic. We did this in an informal way at first, but then realized that simultaneous review of classic works was very helpful. For example, although stigma and body image were embedded common themes in our findings, making sure we had an updated common grounding in the original works (instead of the more focused works on our own topics) was important. From early drafts through peer review, a timeline with clear deadlines for each project phase provides helpful structure. Incorporated in that deadline must be time to practice any meeting presentations as a group. Although it may appear from the PowerPoint outline that each person is focused on a different angle, we found frequent redundancies when we practiced out loud. The most common problem was repetition of the shared background information, and deciding how that information will be presented is key to joint presentations that run smoothly. The chance to plan for future projects in face-toface meetings is invaluable. The experience of a joint 68 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
C. Lehna et al. presentation is energizing and naturally leads to the wish for further collaborations. Two to three hours set aside for discussion at a conference produces a large list of possible future projects. In summary, clear partnership agreements, timelines, planning sessions that allow time for fruitful discussion, and in-person meetings to discuss future projects will create working relationships that provide exciting scholarly opportunities and leave the least to chance. Conclusion and Implications Our working group process provides a useful model for new doctoral graduates who are in similar situations. Collaboration with peers and a senior scholar we had already worked closely with was highly beneficial and enhanced scholarly productivity for not only the new doctoral graduates, but also for the senior scholar. We feel comfortable sharing ideas and giving each other constructive feedback. Each person’s temperament certainly plays an important role in our scholar support. One of the key elements to “staying connected” is that the group feels valued; that each person feels that their expertise and knowledge is being accurately represented. For us, this peer scholar mentor model that included a senior scholar was successful in increasing scholarly productivity through disseminating our dissertation during transition to a faculty role. The selforganization in the evolution of the group and the productivity clearly are a good example of how selforganization is an effective approach to productivity. As we move from the “Industrial Age” to the “Information Age,” the impetus of change is real. The notion of the lone researcher is moving toward more group projects, many of them interprofessional. With the Internet and ease of travel, one can develop and maintain a community of scholars over distances, and it behooves nurses to take advantage of this. As we have discovered, these collective self-organizing groups expand the productivity of all and often engender new ideas. This has implications for nursing schools to facilitate faculty productivity and the generation of new knowledge; the hallmarks of a community of scholars. References Bunkers, S. S. (2005). A community of scholars: What is it? Nursing Science Quarterly, 18(2), 117–119. doi:10.1177/ 0894318405274812
C. Lehna et al. Busen, N., & Engebretson, J. (1998). Mentoring in advanced practice nursing: The use of metaphor in concept exploration. The Internet Journal of Advanced Nursing Practice, 2(2). Retrievable through Google Scholar but does not show pages. doi:10.5580/52f Caelleigh, A. S. (2000). Community of scholars. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 75(9), 912. doi:10.1097/00001888-20000900000013 Chafee, M. W., & McNeill, M. M. (2007). A model of nursing as a complex adaptive system. Nursing Outlook, 5(5), 232– 241. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2007.04.003 Clark, N. J., Alcala-Van Houten, L., & Perea-Ryan, M. (2010). Transitioning from clinical practice to academia: University expectations on the tenure track. Nurse Educator, 35(3), 105–109. doi:10.1097/NNE .0b013e3181d95069 Conn, V. S. (2008). The light under the bushel basket: Unpublished dissertations. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 30(5), 537–538. doi:10.1177/0193945908317602 Cumbe, S., Weinert, C., Luparell, S., Conley, V., & Smith, J. (2005). Developing a scholarship community. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(3), 289–293. doi:10.1111/j.15475069.2005.00049.x Engebretson, J., & Hickey, J. (2011). Introduction to complexity science. In J. Butts & K. Rich (Eds.), Philosophies and theories in advanced practice nursing (pp. 115–142). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. Heinrich, K. T. (2011). Give and take: Effective partnership practices propel publishing success. Reflections on Nursing Leadership, 37(2). Retrieved from http://www.reflectionsonnursingleadership.org/Pages/ Vol37_2_Heinrich.a Heinrich, K. T., & Oberleitner, M. G. (2012). How a faculty group’s peer mentoring of each other’s scholarship can enhance retention and recruitment. Journal of Professional Nursing, 28(1), 5–12. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.06.002 Lehna, C., Hermanns, M., Monsivais, D. B., & Engebretson, J. (2013). Faculty recruitment and retention survey. Unpublished survey.
From Defense to Dissemination Lewallen, L. P., Crane, P. B., Letvak, S., Jones, E., & Hu, J. (2003). An innovative strategy to enhance new faculty success. Nursing Education Perspectives, 24(5), 257– 260. Lindberg, C., Nash, S., & Lindberg, C. (2008). On the edge: Nursing in the age of complexity. Bordentown, NJ: Plexus Press. Parse, R. R. (2005). Community of scholars. Nursing Science Quarterly, 18(2), 119. doi:10.1177/0894318405275862 Plsek, P. (2001). Redesigning health care with insights from the science of complex adaptive systems. In Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century (pp. 322–335). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Pololi, L., & Knight, S. (2005). Mentoring faculty in academic medicine. A new paradigm? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20(9), 866–870. doi:10.1111/j.15251497.2005.0167.x Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change, 25(6), 6–7. Stewart, B., & Krueger, L. (1996). An evolutionary concept analysis of mentoring in nursing. Journal of Professional Nursing, 12(5), 311–321. doi:10.1016/S8755-7223(96) 80011-1 Tanner, C. A., & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2006). What ever happened to faculty governance? Journal of Nursing Education, 45(9), 339–340. Turnbull, B. J., & Roberts, K. (2005). Nurse-academics’ mentorship: Rhetoric or reality? Collegian (Royal College of Nursing, Australia), 12(2), 33–38. Wieck, K. L. (2014). Future of nursing research: A national overview of US doctoral dissertations 2011–2013. Paper presented at the American Association of Colleges of Nursing Doctoral Education Conference, Naples, Fla. January. Zimmerman, B., Lindberg, C., & Plsek, P. (1998). Edgeware: Lessons from complexity science for health care leaders. Bordentown, NJ: Plexus Press.
69 © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Nursing Forum Volume 51, No. 1, January-March 2016
