|
2014, Cilt 4, Sayı 3, Sayfa(lar) 141-147 |
|
DOI: 10.5961/jhes.2014.097 |
Clinical Faculty Members in the Schools of Education in the United States: An Overview |
Enes GÖK |
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Rize, Turkey |
Keywords: Clinical faculty, School of education, Academic promotion, Professional school, Practice education |
|
In the United States of America, the term “clinical faculty” has been used to define diff erent positions academic personnel hold in various
fields and job sett ings. Although it possesses diff erent meanings, the main argument is that the clinical faculty position in general, is
designated to bring practical knowledge and expertise to the professional schools by filling the gap between theory and practice. Schools of
education, as in other professional schools, also off er this type of clinical faculty position to provide practical knowledge to their students
who will need it in their future lives as teachers, administrators and practitioners. Th is study aims to discuss the future of clinical faculty in
schools of education through analyzing the position, in terms of job specifications, eff ectiveness, job requirements, personnel rights and
the issues this category of faculty encounters in a cross comparative way across the fields of education, law and medicine. One of the main
recommendations of the paper is that the future of clinical faculty should be secured through creating a clinical – tenure - track faculty
positions in schools of education as in other professional schools instead of keeping them under the general appointment and promotion
rules and regulations with the other faculty members. In this way, both the clinical faculty members' problems related to job security,
compensation, and promotion and non-clinical faculty members' concerns related to quality will be resolved. |
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References
|
|
The US higher education system has been witnessing rapid
growth and change in post-secondary education for the last
several decades. Accountability, efficiency, access, private
sector, finance and the technology have been, are and will be
the forces and issues that continue to affect and shape the
higher education institutions (Altbach, 2005). The changes
in postsecondary education always arise from and parallel
developments or downturns in the environment. Institutions
of higher education, that fails to keep up with the external
changes and respond to the institutional needs, are doomed
to disappear from the higher education arena. Moreover, the
developments and changes in the society; emergence of the
new competitors in the arena and the new challenges create
a risky environment for higher education institutions to fight
for the students and limited resources. The arising argument
is that higher education institutions are ill-equipped to answer
to the environmental trends, particularly “rapidly changing
economy, demographic shifts and competition from new
providers” (Brewer, Gates, & Goldman, 2004, p. 2). These are
today’s fundamental challenges higher education institutions
encounter and need to respond.
In order to survive the challenging environment, colleges and
universities compose and create institutional strategic plans
in response to environmental changes (Peterson & Dill, 1997).
However, it is important to recognize that institutional survival
does not guarantee the future of individual schools or departments.
In fact, institutions may sacrifice their stagnant components;
schools, departments or programs, which bear hard
on the institution. For instance, “inside universities, education
schools have rarely fared well in campus wide strategic planning
efforts, frequently finding themselves among the prime
candidates for downsizing or closure” (Hearn & Anderson,
2001, p. 125).
As stated, schools of education are in the worst position in
higher education institutions. So, this situation requires schools
of education to exert more effort to survive; initiating school
wide projects in response to the environmental changes. One
of the actions schools of education have undertaken is to use
effective human resources through creating flexible employment
options and the recruitment of more non-tenure-track
full-timers, part-timers, and clinical positions. So, the purpose
of this paper is to explore the future of clinical faculty in
schools of education through analyzing the position, in terms
of job specifications, effectiveness, job requirements, personnel
rights and the issues this category of faculty encounters.
Definition and History
Despite the historical connection of the term “clinical” to the
medical profession or field, it has been used in various forms
to define different faculty positions with different definitions
in many professional schools; law, education, business and
medical schools, for decades. While some broad definitions
are available; “the term clinical connotes a disciplines’ relevant
domain of practice outside the university walls” (as cited in
Hearn & Anderson, 2001, p.126), it might be more appropriate to define and analyze the position in specific schools rather
than use general definition.
As mentioned, the aim is to define the position and identify
its characteristics in schools of education. Hearn and Anderson
(2001) argue that the emergence of clinical faculty and the
other clinical initiations in schools of education depends on
two motives: the similarity with the initiatives in other professional
schools (law and medicine) and the theorists’ writings
that support the need of clinical professorship in schools of
education.
The tension between theory and practice is always an issue in
professional education (Shulman, 1998), such as law, education
and medical schools. It is the argument that while the
professional schools provide theoretical preparation for the
pre-service teachers (schools of education), doctors (medical
schools) and lawyers (law schools), the need and call for practical
preparation for the students in academia where research
and theory is valued have been unheeded. The rising importance
of research and popularity of the professorship, declines
in the notion of the importance of the field studies, the reward
systems, more focus in scholarly activities than in field studies
have increased the gap between theory and practice in professional
schools (Hearn & Anderson, 2001). This trend forced
medical schools to initiate clinical faculty positions which are
practice-based and differs from research-based faculty positions
(Hearn & Anderson, 2001). Same trend took exist in the
emergence of clinical positions in other professional schools;
including schools of education.
The discussions about the gap between theory and practice
in schools of education were mostly raised about the teacher
education programs that produce teachers, who serve as
practitioners in the field. It was the argument that totally theory-
oriented teacher education programs and the academia
should integrate some practice in teacher education programs.
The increasing number of educators, who favor and support
the idea that clinical or laboratory type classrooms should be
maintained in teacher education programs, was one of the
incentives that made what Bullough, Hobbs, Kauchak, Crow
and Stokes (1997) call “clinicalization” of teacher education
programs a current issue in the 1980s. Joyce and Showers’
(1980) research study findings, which suggest that “to be effective,
[in-service teacher] training should include theory,
demonstration, practice, feedback, and classroom application”
(p. 379), well reflect the idea and reasoning of the educators
who support the clinicalization of teacher education. Like
Joyce and Showers, many studies highlight the importance of
university-school partnerships. However, none of these was as
effective as the recommendations of the Holmes Group (1986,
1990 and 1995), “a consortium of 96 research universities
with professional education programs” (The Holmes Partnership,
n.d., para.2) in increasing the popularity of the idea of
university-school partnerships in teachers education. Pinar
(1989) enumerates The Holmes Group proposals and recommendations
under three main suggestions: “a) eliminating
the undergraduate major in education, b) re-conceptualizing
teacher education coursework and c) linking teacher education
programs to schools” (p.9).
The Holmes group proposals and the publications of the scholars
who favor the university-school partnerships opened a new
era in teacher education: the participation of school teachers
in teacher education and the idea of Professional Development
Schools (PDSs) that initiated the institutional appointments of
school teachers (Burstein, Kretschmer, Smith & Gudoski, 1999;
Hearn & Anderson, 2001). The emergence and the increase of
the number of PDSs required the creation of clinical faculty
positions (Bullough et al., 1997; Hearn & Anderson, 2001), in
order to incorporate school teachers more in teacher education
and lighten the workload burdened on teacher education
program faculty since the creation of such education settings
put more burden on faculty members (Bollough et al., 1997).
At this point, it is difficult to depict and define the clinical
faculty positions because the term “clinical faculty” utilized to
define different faculty positions with varied emphasizes, job
definitions and responsibilities in the history of higher education,
and the scope of the position was still blurred today.
Generally, the clinical faculty positions in schools of education
attracted two different arguments and point of views. On the
one hand, The Holmes Group proposals suggest that classroom
teachers’ involvement (clinicalization) in the teacher education
programs help academic programs in supplementing theory
with the field experiences and emphasize the crucial role
of clinical faculty in bridging between academy and professional
field. On the other hand, the American Association of
University Professors raises the concern that the increasing
utilization of non-tenured positions may lower the quality of
education (Bullough et al., 1997). While the use of non-tenure
track faculty in US higher education continues to increase
due to some key factors such as flexibility (no more long term
commitments/contracts), economics (less payment for nontenured
faculty than tenured) and access to needed resources
(Baldwin & Chronister, 2002), there is a little understanding of
“its potential impact on core higher education outcomes such
as teaching quality, research productivity, faculty commitment,
faculty diversity, or the attractiveness of faculty careers” (Bland,
Center, Finstad, Risbey, & Staples, 2006, p.89). Although Bland
et al.’s (2006) study reveals findings in favor of tenured faculty
in terms of productivity in research, productivity in education
and commitment, the researchers also suggest that there
are other factors needed to be included in future research.
Baldwin and Chronister (2002) suggest there are both kinds of
studies, that favor non-tenured faculty employment and that
oppose non-tenured faculty, in the literature; the impact of
the increasing use of non-tenured faculty employment on the
quality of education is controversial.
Roles and Responsibilities
As mentioned earlier, the term “clinical faculty” (or clinical professor
or clinical teacher) has come to mean different faculty
positions with different job definitions, requirements and expectations
in different (or even in the same) schools in the history
of higher education. For instance, in schools of education,
the changes in the program curriculums, format of the schools
or teacher certification programs and the state certification requirements
always impact on the role and scope of the clinical professorship (Cornbleth & Ellsworth, 1994). The vagueness of
the title and the environmental factors are always issues that
change the scope of the position make it difficult to identify.
However, it is appropriate to argue that all of the clinical faculty
positions have been tied to a one common purpose, regardless
of the school, program or department; and that is the idea of
the integrating theory and practice in higher education and
more so schools of education. The roles and responsibilities
of the clinical faculty in schools of education will be analyzed
against the classic role classification of a traditional faculty of
the US higher education system: teaching, research and service
activities.
The initial responsibility of clinical faculty in schools of education
was limited to pre-service education of school teachers.
They were responsible for supervising teacher candidates during
their field experiences in primary and secondary schools
(Losee, 1993). Later initiatives resulted in the expansion of the
role, and clinical faculty began to serve teaching activities in
schools of education in teacher education fields. Today, clinical
faculty positions are considered course teachers (a faculty
position) for teacher education programs and also other fields
of schools of education that require professional experience,
such as administration (Hearn & Anderson, 2001).
The expectations for clinical position and traditional faculty
members vary in schools of education depending on schools’
trait and culture. Most of the time, clinical faculty, who has
teaching responsibilities in schools of education, is expected
to exert the same effort as the other faculty members; from
designing courses to implementing curriculum and evaluating
student outcomes.
The most intensive discussions about clinical faculty have been
about their lack of research knowledge and activities. In one of
the early studies, Fretwell (1967) highlighted the importance
of clinical professorship in schools of education and suggested
that clinical faculty should play active roles in reforming educational
research, especially in the fields; research that relates to
professional field issues such as classroom problems in teacher
education (as cited in Cornbleth & Ellsworth, 1994, p. 232).
However, clinical faculty members are coming from professional
fields (school teaching, administration and etc.) in order
to transfer their experience in higher education; because of
the clinical faculty positions’ very nature they are not expected
to do research and contribute scholarly publications (Hearn &
Anderson, 2001). Thus, clinical faculty members often play no
role in research and their scholarly contributions are limited.
Another main responsibility of a faculty member in the US
higher education system is the faculty members’ contributions
in service activities. However, it is generally difficult to
define and identify the service activities in higher education
institutions because of its varied implications. While Blackburn,
Bieber, Lawrence and Trautvetter (1991) divide service
activities for an average faculty member as public, professional
and campus services activities, May (2005) defines faculty
service as “everything one does for one’s program, department,
school, university, community, and society that does not profesrelate
directly to either teaching or research” (p.21). Looking
at service activities from this perspective, one can argue that
clinical faculty’s role in service activities, especially in those
directed to public and institution is acute. Their undeniable
importance in bridging higher education institutions with the
professional fields by reinforcing theory-practice incorporation
(schools, government agents, associates and etc.) is emphasized
by many of the scholars (Cornbleth & Ellsworth, 1994;
Hearn & Anderson, 2001). The other service activities clinical
faculty members participate in varies from joining committees
to student advisory and administrative duties.
Curricular Focus
Clinical faculty’s curricular focus differs depending on which
part of the school of education clinicalization takes place and
what they are responsible for. In other words, the curricular
focus of clinical faculties, who are in teacher education programs,
may differ from the curricular focus of clinical faculty,
who are in other education departments such as administration.
Hearn and Anderson (2001) argue that the use of clinical
faculty positions is becoming more popular in schools of education
beyond teacher education. Thus, the curricular focus of
clinical faculty positions can be analyzed under two different
categories, clinical faculty in teacher education and those in
other education departments.
As mentioned earlier, the need and call for the collaboration of
theory and practice initiated the clinicalization of teacher education
in schools of education; thus resulted in the emergence
of clinical teacher education faculty positions. Bullough Jr et
al. (1997) examine the clinical faculty involvement in teacher
education under three categories: (a) the changing and enhancing
role of cooperating teachers as clinical faculty (b) The
involvement of school teachers in university course instruction
(c) The broad involvement of school teacher in decision making
in schools of education, from planning to admission. While
the clinical faculty members are responsible for supervisory
activities in the preparation of student teachers, their curricular
focus in teacher preparation course instruction are related
to their experience and major in the field. On the other hand,
although, it seems the clinical faculty members actively participate
in delivering most of the teacher education courses,
the early studies from 90’s reveals that non-clinical faculty
in schools of education bear most of the burden in teacher
education course instruction (Bullough et al., 1997). However,
the lack of updated statistical data about the clinical faculty’s
participation in teacher education course instruction makes it
difficult to support this assumption for today at first hand.
Educational administration programs in schools of education
are the other professional programs in which practical teaching
and learning should take place. Levine (2005) and Murphy
(2002) suggest two epistemological aspects of the educational
administration field; “espoused theory” and “practice-based
knowledge” (as cited in Kowalski, 2009, p.362). The recognition
of educational administration programs as professional
fields has forced institutions to redesign and review their program
curricula in order to address the need of clinical practice (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004). Many of the educational
administration departments now attempt to compensate the
practical knowledge needs of aspiring leaders (administration
students). Clark and Clark (1996) suggest that improvement of
instructional practices in educational administration programs
can be possible through fostering internship and mentoring
opportunities, using problem-centered research and learning
activities. The use of clinical faculty in educational administration
programs is among the alternatives that respond to needs
of practical training these administrative fields.
Job Security: Lack of Tenure
Tenure has always been twinned with the terms “academic
freedom” and “job security” in the higher education. It is argued
that one of the advantages (impacts) of tenure is its role
in guaranteeing faculty members’ academic freedom through
restricting the discretion of the administrative body on tenured
faculty members (McPherson & Schapiro, 1999). On the
other hand, National Education Association (NEA) claims that
the assertion about the role of “tenure” in protecting faculty
members’ academic freedom and providing them with a life
time job security are myths since academic freedom is already
protected by the US Constitution. Rather, Tenure is simply a
right to due process; it means that a college or university cannot
fire a tenured professor without presenting evidence that
the professor is incompetent or behaves unprofessionally or
that an academic department needs to be closed or the school
is in serious financial difficulty (NEA, n.d., para. 5).
So, administrators cannot easily dismiss a tenured faculty or
cannot make reductions on tenured faculty salaries. Thus, a
tenure system’s restriction on administrative discretion substantially
provides a big job security to those tenured faculty
members compared to non-tenured ones.
One of the most-voiced complaints about the clinical faculty
in schools of education is the lack of clinical or tenure track
options for the position as pointed by many scholars in the literature
(Hern and Anderson, 2001; Kirby, McCombs, Barney, &
Naftel, 2006; Hackmann, 2007). Essentially, the lack of tenure
option for clinical faculty members can be explained by one
main rationale and that is, while tenure system requires faculty
members to pursue scholarly research activities as well as
teaching and service requirements, because of its very nature,
clinical faculty mostly focuses on field teaching and stand apart
from research activities. Instead of clinical or tenure track options,
clinical faculty has been hired in schools of education on
mostly short-term (limited to year-based arrangements) and
some long-term contracts. It is the complaint that clinical faculty
has no job security in schools of education because their
contractual rights are limited and do not secure their future.
Analysis of the Position Across the Fields
As the clinical faculty position differs in scope, focus, position
type (part-time full-time) and curricula from traditional faculty,
it may be illogical to compare clinical faculty with tenured and
other traditional faculty positions in the school. At this point,
the analysis of the clinical positions across different professional
schools might be more appropriate to better explain the
clinical faculty status in schools of education. The argument
mostly highlighted by the scholars is that clinical faculty members
in education schools are denied many positional rights
and have the most unfortunate clinical position among the
other clinical faculty in other professional schools. Medical and
law schools’ clinical experiences are discussed below.
Medical Schools
The increasing role of medical service components of US
academic medical schools pushed schools to modify their
faculty appointment policies and resulted in the emergence
of clinician-educator faculty tracks (clinical faculty position)
in medical schools (Jones, 1987). While the clinician-medical
faculty members are mostly engaged in patient care and
professional teaching of medical students, they are most of
the time less responsible for scholarly activities. Nevertheless,
Jones (1987) argues “while evidence of scholarly activity
is required for promotion of faculty members in this track,
expectations regarding research publications are generally less
than for tenure-track faculty members” (p. 444). Barzansky and
Kenagy (2010) discuss the clinical education report of 1910 by
Abraham Flexner, who developed a medical education model
suggesting the inclusion of full-time, university-based and
salaried faculty in medical education. Their investigation on
the development of clinical education throughout the history
suggests that clinical faculty today is salaried and full-time,
and medical education today is not in disarray, since clinical
faculty quality has been evaluated through multiple measures,
students are satisfied with the clinical education, and they
achieve well on the national medical licensing examination in
the US. These discussions suggest that medical schools seem to
be successful in integrating clinical training into their curricula
and clinical faculty members into their academic team.
Law Schools
Law schools are the other professional schools that needed to
address the gap between the theory and practice in legal education.
The need for practical education in the early decades
has been met by the establishment of clinical programs in law
schools and the use of clinical faculty. Clinics in law schools
have been playing crucial “role in bridging the gap between the
study of the law and its practice” (Anderson & Wyliett, 2008,
p.2). Beyond the clinics, law schools offer externship opportunities,
in which students have the chance for professional experience
through field practices. It is argued that law schools have
succeeded in integrating clinical norms into traditional faculty
positions instead of establishing separate clinical faculty tracks
(Hearn & Anderson, 2001). However, Adamson et al.’s (2012)
analysis on the results of master survey collected by the Center
for the Study of Applied Legal Education (CSALE) disclosed that
clinical faculty in legal education are employed under a lot of
different models. Adamson et al. (2012) categorize those existing
myriad of full-time clinical models under five most common
appointment models: e.g., 1) unitary tenure track [traditional
tenure track]; 2) clinical tenure track [similar to medical school
appointments]; 3) long-term contract; 4) short-term contract; and 5) clinic fellowships. Noteworthy to mention here is that
these various models exist in legal education give its clinical
faculty not only teaching opportunity but also these faculty
members enjoy participating in scholarly activities as well as
school governance and service activities in the field.
Considering the clinical faculty status in education schools and
their rights and responsibilities compared to the others in other
professional fields, one can completely agree with Hearn and
Anderson’s (2001, p. 129) argument that “education faculty
in research universities often work within the worst possible
context for serving clinical needs: an absence of alternative
faculty lines (as in medical schools) and an absence of a professional
environment welcoming of clinical orientations within
the traditional faculty lines (as in law schools)”. Moreover, the
successful adaption of clinicians in other professional schools
gives more advantages to clinical faculty members in terms of
money, compensation, and job security, compared to those in
schools of education. Moreover, the majority of faculty promotion
and salary increase policies basically depend on scholarly
research activities. These were embedded and standardized
along the lines of tenured faculty tracks. The resulting concerns
of clinical faculty members can be easily understood.
Today, some schools of education in the United States began to
orientate some clinical norms in the school, in order to adapt
the clinical faculty into existing institutional norms. For instance,
University of India School of Education handled the issue
by standardizing clinical faculty positions under short- and
long-term contracts, clinical promotion policies and requirements
by offering clinical lecturer and assistant-associate-full
clinical faculty ranks and positions. The school also standardized
the clinical ranks with time-frames as well as articulating
teaching and service requirements for clinical promotion (Indiana
University School of Education IUPUI, Long-Term Contract
and Promotion Criteria for Clinical Faculty). However, because
of the lack of empirical data about clinical faculty in schools of
education (Hearn & Anderson, 2001), it is difficult to estimate
what percent of the schools of education in the United States
has this sort of clinical orientations and evaluate their experiences
with the clinical positions.
Significance of the Clinical Position
As discussed earlier, many of the studies highlighted how
crucial clinical faculties are in professional schools (Cornbleth
& Ellsworth, 1994; Hearn &Anderson, 2001; Browne-Ferrigno
& Muth, 2004; Anderson & Wyliett, 2008). The need for
professional experience and call for clinical faculty positions
increased especially in teacher education and administrative
programs. The main advantage of this position to schools of
education is that clinical faculty members bring their field
experiences into education arena creating a learning environment
in which students benefit from both theory and practice.
Specifically, Hearn and Anderson (2001) argue that clinical faculty
members’ direct ties and relationships with the external
constituencies and sectors give some advantages to academic
schools through internally and externally improving academic
programs by strengthening university/community relationships. In addition, they also highlight the role clinical faculty
members play in reducing administrative workloads in schools
of education.
While the importance of clinical orientation in schools of
education has been gaining increasing recognition of many
scholars and academician, their problems in schools of education
seems to be unchanged. Clinical faculty members still
have problems integrating into higher education institutions
and their authority and power in institutions are limited.
Cornbleth and Ellsworth (1994) argue “although clinical faculty
members’ practical knowledge is valued, typically it is viewed
as supplementary to university generated knowledge” (p. 241).
They also argue that clinical faculty members have to work in
an environment which is designed by others, due to their lack
of participation in role definition. In addition, clinical faculty
positions (because of lack of research) have been viewed as
“second-class” faculty members in the academia and many of
the tenured faculty members opposed to the transformation
of tenured track lines into clinical faculty positions in some
extend (Hearn & Anderson, 2001). Moreover, the changes and
developments in higher education arena increase the competition
between not only institutions but also among faculty
members who seek jobs and careers. It is important to consider
that US higher education system has been experiencing a big
transformation in course delivery resulting in changes in terms
of faculty positions. Ehrenberg and Zhang (2005) state that
since the 80s, higher education institutions have been witnessing
rapid growth in the appointment of part-time and full- time
faculty members without tenure track status. At this point, it
can be argued that the decline in the appointment of tenured
and tenure-track faculty positions will make higher education
arena more competitive. Considering the unclear status of
clinical faculty and their absence from research activities, it can
be concluded that clinical faculty members won’t fare well in a
highly competitive arena. It seems that this unclear status will
undermine the future status of clinical faculty.
While many scholars highlight the importance of the integration
of theory and practice (Cornbleth & Ellsworth, 1994; Hearn
& Anderson, 2001; Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004), the role
and importance of clinical faculty positions remains unclear.
As mentioned earlier, one of the arguments is that the utilization
of many non-tenure track faculty positions lowers the
quality of education. At this point, integration of tenure-line
faculty with clinical faculty assuming that “tenured-line faculty
will provide intellectual rigor to the program and nurturant
mentoring to clinical faculty members” is vital, in responding
to concerns raised (Bullough et al., 1997, p.94). Moreover,
Hearn and Anderson (2001) state that the role and necessity of
clinical (professional) positions in schools should be explained
to non-clinical faculty members, in order to eliminate possible
tensions. |
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References
|
|
Still today, the role and responsibility of clinical faculty members
and the scope of their job in schools of education seems
to be blurred. The debate around clinical orientation in schools of education will most likely continue among scholars and
administrators in higher education. One of the most common
stated arguments is the lack of a common definition for clinical
positions and the scope of the job in schools of education.
Moreover, as Hearn and Anderson (2001) state the lack of empirical
data on clinical faculty role, renders scholars’ attempts
in clarifying clinical role useless and limits the effectiveness of
studies in this area. Some of the arguments and discussions in
this paper in respect to clinical faculty do not go beyond these
arguments due to lack of empirical data and the lack of clear
definition of the position. One of the main barriers to clarifying
the title “clinical faculty” is that the United States has a decentralized,
the largest and most diverse postsecondary system in
the world (Bassett, 2006), with different missions, visions and
academic structures. In this kind of arena, it is possible that
higher education institutions use the term “clinical faculty” to
define slightly different faculty positions. Second, the general
definition for “clinical faculty” as the faculty members who fulfill
the practical needs of the professional schools focusing on
teaching and service and stands apart from research activities
creates another problem. It is because this definition can only
be used in research oriented institutions in order to separate
clinical from traditional faculty members. However, “outside of
the research universities…education faculty has always been
“clinical” in many respects” (Hearn & Anderson, 2001, p. 127).
Thus the scope of the “clinical faculty” position should be always
determined in each professional school, instead of using
a nation-wide title and description.
Eventually, nationwide empirical study is required to understand
and clarify the clinicalization of schools of education. In
the same way, the concerns raised among non-clinical faculty
members can be eliminated. Moreover, the initiation of new
clinical tracks (as in other professional schools) for clinical
faculty positions in education schools may solve the problems
clinical faculty have in terms of job security, compensation
and benefits. This paper suggests that it is the best solution to
adjust and initiate a clinical track with its own standards (such
as professional field research [Bullough Jr et al. 1997]) instead
of attempting to put clinical faculty into tenure-line that will
never fit because of the positions very nature. This seems to
solve problems and concerns raised from both sides of clinical
faculty debate (complaints about job security and compensation)
and non-clinical faculty (with complaints about the academic
quality). |
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References
|
|
1) Adamson, B. L., Pang, C., Colbert, B., Hessler, K., Kruse, K., Kuehn,
R., McNeal, M.H. & Santacroce, D. (2012). Clinical faculty in
the legal academy: Hiring, promotion and retention. Journal of
Legal Education, 62(1), 115-161.
2) Altbach, P. (2005). Patterns in higher education development. In P.
G. Altbach, & R. O. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education
in the twenty-first century: Social, political and economic
challenges. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
3) Anderson, A. &Wyliett, N. (2008). Beyond the ADA: How clinics
can assist law students with “nonvisible” disabilities to bridge
the accommodations gap between classroom and practice.
Clinical Law Review, 15(1), 1-53.
4) Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2002). What happened to the
tenure track? In R. P. Chait (Ed.), The questions of tenure (pp.
125–159). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5) Barzansky, B. & Kenagy, G. (2010). The full-time clinical faculty:
What goes around, comes around. Academic Medicine, 85(2),
260-265.
6) Bassett, R. M. (2006). The WTO and the university: Globalization,
GATS, and American higher education. New York, NY:
Routledge.
7) Blackburn, R., Bieber, J., Lawrence, J., & Trautvetter, L. (1991).
Faculty at work: Focus on research, scholarship, and service.
Research in Higher Education, 32(4), 385-413.
8) Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J.
(2006). The impact of appointment type on the productivity
and commitment of full-time faculty in research and doctoral
institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 89-123.
9) Brewer, A., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. (2004). In pursuit of
prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
10) Browne-Ferrigno, T. & Muth, R. (2004). Leadership mentoring in
clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development,
and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly,
40(4), 468-494.
11) Bullough Jr, R. V., Hobbs, S. F., Kauchak, D. P., Crow, N. A., & Stokes,
D. (1997). Long-term PDS development in research universities
and the clinicalization of teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 48(2), 85-95.
12) Burstein, N., Kretschmer, D., Smith, C., & Gudoski, P. (1999).
Redesigning teacher education as a shared responsibility of
schools and universities. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(2),
106-118.
13) Clark, D. C. & Clark, S. N. (1996). Better preparation of educational
leaders. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 18-20.
14) Cornbleth, C., & Ellsworth, J. (1994). Clinical faculty in teacher
education: Roles, relationships and careers. In K. R. Howey, &
N. L. Zimpher (Eds.), Informing faculty development for teacher
educators (pp. 213-247). Norwook, NJ: Ablex.
15) Ehrenberg, R. G. & Zhang, L. (2005).The changing nature of faculty
environment. In R. L. Clark and J. Ma (Eds.), Recruitment,
retention, and retirement in higher education: building and
managing the faculty of future (pp.32-52). Northampton, MA:
Edward Elgar.
16) Fretwell, E. K. Jr. (1967). Discussant. In W.R. Hazard (Ed.), The
clinical professorship in teacher education. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
17) Hackmann, D. (2007). Roles and responsibilities of clinical faculty
in selected educational leadership programs. Planning and
Changing, 38, 17-34.
18) Hearn, J. C., & Anderson, M. S. (2001). Clinical faculty in schools
of education. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.), Faculty work in schools of
education: Rethinking roles and rewards for the twenty-first
century (pp. 125-149). Albany: State University of New York
Press.
19) Indiana University School of Education IUPUI, Long-term contract
and promotion criteria for clinical faculty. Retrieved on
November 4, 2009. Retrieved from http://education.indiana.
edu/Portals/28/IUPUI%20Long%20Term%20Contract%20
and%20Promotion%20Criteria%20for%20Clinical%20Faculty.
pdf
20) Jones, R. F. (1987). Clinician-educator faculty tracks in US Medical
Schools. Journal of Medical Education, 62(5), 444-447.
21) Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The
messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37(5), 379-385.
22) Kirby, S. N., McCombs, J. S., Barney, H., & Naftel, S. (2006).
Reforming Teacher Education: Something Old, Something
New. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
23) Kowalski, T. (2009). Need to address evidence-based practice
in educational administration. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 45(3), 351-374.
24) Losee, S. (1993). Toward quality field experiences: The role of
clinical faculty. Paper presented at the National Conference on
Creating the Quality School, Oklahoma City, OK, ERIC Journal
Number (ED364498).
25) May, D.C. (2005). The nature of school of education faculty work
and materials for promotion and tenure at a major research
university. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA.
26) McPherson, M. S. & Schapiro, M. O. (1999). Tenure issues in higher
education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 85-98.
27) NEA (n.d.). The truth about tenure in higher education. Retrieved
Nov. 14, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/
home/33067.htm
28) Peterson, M.W., & Dill, D. D. (1997). Understanding the competitive
environment of the postsecondary knowledge industry. In W. P.
Marvin, D. D. Dill, & L. Mets, (Eds.), Planning and management
for a changing environment (pp. 230-245). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
29) Pinar, W. F. (1989). A reconceptualization of teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 9-12.
30) Shulman, L. S. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of
professionals. The Elementary School Journal, 98(5), 511-526.
31) The Holmes Partnership. (n.d.a). Origins of the Holmes Partnership
(1987-1997), retrieved on October 19, 2009 from http://www.
holmespartnership.org/about/history.cfm |
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Conclusion
References
|
|
|
|