Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Perceptions and Practices for Evaluating Faculty Workload by Pharmacy Education Administration/Leadership.
Lebovitz, Lisa; Park, Sharon K; Dey, Surajit; Sheaffer, Elizabeth A; Kirkwood, Cynthia K; Weldon, David J; Medina, Melissa S; Castleberry, Ashley N; Lee, Kelly C; Attarabeen, Omar F; DiVall, Margarita V.
  • Lebovitz L; University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: llebovitz@rx.umaryland.edu.
  • Park SK; Notre Dame of Maryland University School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.
  • Dey S; Roseman University of Health Sciences, Henderson, NV, USA.
  • Sheaffer EA; Samford University McWhorter School of Pharmacy, Homewood, AL, USA.
  • Kirkwood CK; Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
  • Weldon DJ; William Carey University School of Pharmacy, Biloxi, MS, USA.
  • Medina MS; University of Oklahoma College of Pharmacy, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
  • Castleberry AN; University of Texas at Austin College of Pharmacy, Austin, TX, USA.
  • Lee KC; Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
  • Attarabeen OF; University of Maryland Eastern Shore School of Pharmacy, Princess Anne, MD, USA.
  • DiVall MV; Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Am J Pharm Educ ; 87(5): 100033, 2023 05.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37288684
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To assess how department chairs/administrators define, measure, and evaluate faculty workload to better understand practices within the Academy.

METHODS:

An 18-item survey was distributed to department chairs/administrators via American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Connect. Participants identified if they are a primary decision maker for faculty workload, whether their program has a workload policy, how workload is calculated, and how faculty satisfaction with workload equity is measured.

RESULTS:

Of 71 participants initiating the survey, data from 64 participants from 52 colleges/schools were eligible for analysis. Leaders of practice departments reported that their faculty spend an average of 38% of their time on teaching (compared to 46% for non-practice departments), 13% on research (vs 37%), 12% on service (vs 16%), and 36% on clinical practice (vs 0%). Most survey participants (n = 57, 89%) are at schools/colleges with a tenure system, and about 24 participants reported that faculty workload metrics differ across departments/divisions. Teaching assignments and service are reportedly negotiable between faculty and supervisors, and workload expectations are widely variable. The majority indicated they do not analyze faculty satisfaction with workload fairness (n = 35) and faculty do not provide evaluative feedback on how supervisors assign faculty workload (n = 34). Of 6 priorities considered when determining workload, 'support college/school strategies and priorities' ranked highest (1.92) and 'trust between the chair and faculty' ranked lowest (4.87).

CONCLUSION:

Overall, only half of the participants reported having a clear, written process of quantifying faculty workload. The use of workload metrics may be needed for evidence-based decision-making for personnel management and resource allocation.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Carga de Trabajo / Educación en Farmacia Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Límite: Humans País como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Carga de Trabajo / Educación en Farmacia Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Límite: Humans País como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article