Commentary: Hiring researchers who teach

One year ago we published Robert H. Glew's impassioned and provocative essay that described the causes of what he saw as the deterioration of problem-based learning (PBL)1 instruction in medical education [1]. Fundamentally, he felt that basic scientists, clinicians, and administrators did not adequately support the teaching mission at his school, where PBL was once an educational centerpiece. Subsequently, we solicited responses to his essay from several prominent PBL practitioners and educators in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, to determine the extent of this malaise [2–7]. Rather than vigorously attack Glew's position, the responses often revealed substantial agreement. In this issue, Glew responds to the responses [8] and focuses on the tremendous importance of having clinicians and basic science faculty who care deeply about education, and who work well together. Caring about learning needs to be part of the culture. He reminds us that educating physicians is a public trust. In the end, he makes some recommendations. Among them is, “ … stop hiring and promoting Ph.D.-basic scientists who would rather walk barefoot through poison ivy than teach medical students.” Glew notes that although job descriptions and mission statements proclaim the importance of teaching, this obligation for employment is often ignored in the final analysis when positions are offered to candidates with long publication lists, research grants, 10–15 years of post-doctoral research experience, and no significant teaching experience. Administrators exacerbate the situation when they waive teaching duties for the first 2 years, then offer reduced teaching loads, and subsequently base promotions on extramural funding and publication records. Tenured faculty then may be threatened with increased teaching responsibilities to encourage more research productivity and funding. What are the messages here? As Glew and others who responded to his initial essay emphasize, the culture needs to change, and it is not a question of whether or not or how well PBL is implemented; it represents a more general problem affecting the quality of medical education. For example, Goodenough's response [2] to Glew [1] lamented that the practice of medicine has succumbed to big money and managed care. As with medical education, issues of social justice, involving access of the poor to medical treatment or dealing with long-term global health care issues, have little relevance when the motive is short-term profit. He suggests that change may have to come from unionization and social action by those who are affected. Glew [8] also hints at more drastic measures when he invites legislators to examine and compare the quality of education at medical schools versus schools of osteopathic medicine. Clearly, major problems affect medical education, and these go well beyond the scope of this journal, so I will return to Glew's issue of hiring and valuing research-active faculty who teach. Expect faculty candidates to make a presentation in a class or to a student audience on a topic other than their research, in addition to the normal research seminar and proposals. This practice is fairly common at liberal arts colleges, where teaching and learning are truly valued. Require a statement of educational philosophy and teaching interests in every candidate's application, in addition to a statement of research plans. If this scares off some “hot shot” researchers, so be it. It is part of the selection process for academia, where more than research is expected. Avoid automatic release time from teaching and reduced teaching responsibilities for new faculty. A willingness to teach and an interest in education among researchers should be attitudes that are sought after rather than viewed with suspicion. Include documentation of efforts to improve one's own teaching and the teaching by others in annual faculty reviews. Mentoring and faculty development has particular importance for PBL, in which the mode of instruction may be unfamiliar to new and established faculty. Make student evaluations of teaching count. Certainly, some student evaluations are irresponsible, but important patterns emerge. The successes and failures in “grantsmanship” are a matter of public record, why not for teaching as well? Recognize and value changes in career emphasis. Faculty whose research record over-powered their mediocre or poor teaching record for tenure will likely burden an institution if their funding lapses, whereas excellent teachers continue to contribute to an institution's mission. Couple the institution's research mission to its educational mission. The National Science Foundation has attempted this recently, but it is not yet clear to what extent educational components of grant applications factor into the funding decisions or change the behavior of the applicants [9]. Expect faculty to regularly attend research seminars outside their immediate research area. In medical schools, this might include more crossover between basic scientists and clinicians. Although this list could be extended, it is also flawed. For example, a prominent medical educator like P. K. Rangachari would never have been hired due to his initial lack of interest in education [3]. Nevertheless, for changes that affect education, we need to examine the attitudes and practices of our culture and exercise good judgment. More broadly, the culture needs to recognize individual accomplishments without jeopardizing the common good. It is a myth that the best researchers make the best teachers. Some teach well, others do not. In my experience of attending weekly research seminars for over 35 years, researchers from industry or medical schools frequently give poorly constructed seminars, whereas researchers who teach regularly tend to know how to introduce their material and explain it well. Whether this synergy I perceive between teaching and research is a myth or is simply part of the selection process that partitions researchers into different career environments requires study. In any case, the issues raised by Glew and those who responded to him relating to implementing PBL in medical schools show that significant problems exist. Although we may be bringing this structured exchange to an end, we welcome and encourage others to respond.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.