doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080076Originally published online January 29, 2009

2009; 89:204-216.PHYS THER. Regina R KaufmanTherapist Education ProgramsScholarship Among Faculty Members in Physical Career Factors Help Predict Productivity in

http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/89/3/204found online at: The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, can be

Online-Only Material 4.DC1.html

http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/suppl/2009/02/24/89.3.20

Collections

Professional Issues     Education: Other    

in the following collection(s): This article, along with others on similar topics, appears

e-Letters

"Responses" in the online version of this article. "Submit a response" in the right-hand menu under

or click onhere To submit an e-Letter on this article, click

E-mail alerts to receive free e-mail alerts hereSign up

by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

Career Factors Help PredictProductivity in Scholarship AmongFaculty Members in Physical TherapistEducation ProgramsRegina R Kaufman

Background. Academic institutions and scholars play a critical role in the devel-opment of a unique and substantive professional science and disciplinary literature.Individual and environmental characteristics influence the scholarly work of highereducation faculty generally, but little is known about factors that influence scholarlyproductivity of physical therapist faculty members.

Objective. The purpose of this study was to identify the factors that contribute tothe variability in scholarly productivity among faculty members in physical therapisteducation programs.

Design. A cross-sectional study design was used.

Methods. A survey of a representative sample of faculty members in accreditedprofessional (entry-level) physical therapist education programs in the United Stateswas conducted. Descriptive analysis was conducted, and 5 blocked hierarchicalregression models were constructed to identify factors that help explain variability ingrantsmanship, peer-reviewed publications, and peer-reviewed presentations.

Results. A usable response rate of 58% was obtained. The 520 participants dis-played variability in scholarly productivity. The regression models explained half ofthe variance in career publishing productivity and 28% to 44% of the variance inproductivity in presentations and grants. Career factors, including discipline ofhighest degree, appointment status, and faculty rewards, contributed most substan-tially to the explained variance. Several phenomena unique to physical therapy wereconsidered in light of these findings. The multidisciplinary nature of the faculty,national trends in faculty hiring and appointment, and the status of the DPT-trainedfaculty cohort all may influence physical therapy faculty scholarship.

Limitations. Unidentified errors in sampling or reporting may limit the results ofthis study.

Conclusions. Career factors generally predict the largest proportion of explainedvariance in scholarly productivity. Large numbers of questions remain regarding thestatus of scholarship and scholars in physical therapy.

RR Kaufman, PT, EdD, NCS, isAssociate Professor of PhysicalTherapy, Springfield College, 263Alden St, Springfield, MA 01109(USA). Address all correspondenceto Dr Kaufman at: rkaufman@spfldcol.edu.

[Kaufman RR. Career factors helppredict productivity in scholarshipamong faculty members in physi-cal therapist education programs.Phys Ther. 2009;89:204–216.]

© 2009 American Physical TherapyAssociation

Research Report

Post a Rapid Response orfind The Bottom Line:www.ptjournal.org

204 f Physical Therapy Volume 89 Number 3 March 2009 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

Scholarly activity in the formsof discovery, integration, appli-cation, and teaching results in

the extension and transformation ofknowledge.1 Scholarly activity is con-sidered the purview of higher educa-tion institutions.2 Faculty scholarsplay a critical role in the develop-ment of disciplinary literature. Lead-ers within the American PhysicalTherapy Association (APTA) advo-cate strongly that every core facultymember in physical therapist profes-sional (entry-level) education pro-grams demonstrate engagement inscholarship.3 The evaluative criteriafor accreditation of professional pro-grams articulate expectations thateach core faculty member fulfill hisor her role as scholar in a consistentand substantial manner.4 The APTAhas promoted efforts toward devel-oping a comprehensive body of evi-dence for practice through formula-tion of the Clinical Research Agenda(CRA) for physical therapy.5

Scholarly products include publica-tions, presentations, grants, and otherscholarly works.1,6,7 Fulfillment ofthe scholarly role often is evaluatedin terms of scholarly productivity bymeasuring the quantity of scholarlyworks published or presented. De-spite efforts to elevate the status ofother scholarly products, the peer-reviewed journal article is generallythe most highly regarded form ofscholarly work.1,7,8 Efforts to quan-tify scholarly productivity often usethe number of peer-reviewed journalpublications as the unit of interest.Faculty rewards, including tenureand promotion, are dependent, inpart, on the volume and characteris-tics of scholarly works producedthroughout the faculty member’s ac-ademic career.9

Scholarly productivity of higher edu-cation faculty members has beenexamined from a variety of perspec-tives.9–14 Characteristics such asgender, disciplinary affiliation, insti-

tutional type, appointment, and rankare all connected, either directly orindirectly, to scholarly productivityin general and to publishing pro-ductivity in particular. Factors in-fluencing productivity tend to havedirectional effects. Female genderhas a negative influence on publish-ing productivity, either directly orindirectly, as a result of gender pat-terns in disciplinary and institutionalaffiliation, workload, and faculty re-wards.9,12–14 Faculty in research-intensive institutions publish morethan faculty in teaching-intensive set-tings due to institutional resourcesand time allocation that favor schol-arly work.15 Although the relation-ship of publishing productivity topromotion appear equivocal,10,16–22

most faculty agree that achieve-ment of tenure and promotion is dif-ficult without a sufficient quantity ofscholarly publications.7–9

Two conceptual frameworks are use-ful to consideration of scholarly pro-ductivity of physical therapist acade-micians. First, disciplinary structureand culture influence processes andproducts of scholarly endeavor.23–25

Structure refers to content matterand inquiry processes that character-ize disciplinary fields.24 Fields identi-fied as “hard,” or paradigmatic, holddistinct bodies of knowledge and uti-lize fixed theoretical frameworksand modes of inquiry to develop thedisciplinary substance.23,26 Physicaland biological sciences are examplesof paradigmatic disciplines. “Soft,” ornonparadigmatic, fields have poorlydelineated boundaries, loosely de-fined bodies of knowledge, and avariety of interpretive frames andmethodological approaches to advanc-ing the discipline’s knowledge.24,25

Anthropology and sociology are exam-ples of nonparadigmatic disciplines.The discipline of physical therapy,drawing upon an array of sciencesand utilizing a variety of interpretiveframes and research methods, is anonparadigmatic discipline.27

Disciplinary culture is reflected intypes of activities, strategies for col-laboration, modes of communica-tion, and patterns of socializationpracticed by disciplinary scholars.23

Paradigmatic disciplinary scholars(PDS) are socialized to the prob-lems of the discipline and engage incollaborative, competitive, and fast-paced scholarly activity. Nonparadig-matic disciplinary scholars (NPDS)receive little socialization to centralconcerns of the discipline and oftenrepresent a broad range of problemswithin any given field. They usuallywork singly or in small groups, withrelatively little competition and littlesupport and at a slower pace thanPDS.23

Differences in structural and cul-tural characteristics of disciplines areassociated with varying patterns ofscholarly productivity.23–25 Differ-ences include numbers and types ofvenues for publications and presen-tations. Works by PDS generally ap-pear earlier in their career and withgreater frequency than those byNPDS. The PDS are more likely topublish peer-reviewed journal arti-cles, whereas NPDS are more likelyto publish books and other types ofnonjuried products.23–25

The condition of physical therapy asa nonparadigmatic discipline may in-fluence both the volume and quali-ties of the profession’s scholarship.27

Physical therapy, as a soft field,would be inclined toward lower andslower rates of publication. Addition-ally, physical therapy has a multi-disciplinary academy. Although thenumber of physical therapist facultyholding academic doctoral degreeshas grown significantly over the lastseveral decades,28–30 those degreesrepresent many different academicfields,30 suggesting the researchagendas of physical therapist facultymay be widely divergent, with someinclined to greater productivity thanothers, based in part on disciplinary

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

March 2009 Volume 89 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 205 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

affiliation.27 How the nature of thediscipline and the multidisciplinarynature of the faculty influence theacademy’s scholarly productivity hasnot been explored.

The second body of literature guid-ing consideration of physical thera-pist faculty scholarship addressesscholarly productivity of higher edu-cation faculty generally. Blackburnand Lawrence31 developed a concep-tual framework that encompassesthe variety of factors that influencescholarly productivity. Their frame-work includes 7 antecedents charac-terized as individual or environmen-tal in nature. Individual antecedentsinclude sociodemographic variablessuch as gender, career factors suchas the academic discipline, and self-knowledge such as insight into in-stitutional culture. Environmentalantecedents include environmentalconditions such as institutional mis-sion, environmental responses suchas faculty rewards of tenure andrank, and personal social contingen-cies such as family responsibility.

Little is known about how individualor environmental antecedents influ-ence the scholarly productivity offaculty members in physical thera-pist education programs. Histori-cally, individual physical therapistfaculty scholarly productivity ap-pears to be quite low.28,29 The meannumber of article publications was1.33 per subject, with 43% of respon-dents reporting no publications, in a1987 study of 127 faculty members.29

Recently, Richter and colleagues32

measured physical therapist programpublishing productivity and foundthat half of the programs sampledhad fewer than 5 citations in thePubMed and CINAHL databases forthe 5-year period studied. Highernumbers of per-program citationswere associated with research anddoctoral-level institutions. That studywas limited in several regards. Produc-tivity was described per academic unit

and not per academician. In addition,the bibliographic search strategy waslimited by design and, therefore, omit-ted citations by contributing authorsand authors of works indexed in otherbibliographic databases.

No study has analyzed factors thatcontribute to scholarly productivityof individual physical therapist fac-ulty members. The purpose of thisstudy was to develop and test amodel to help explain how individ-ual, career, institutional, and workfactors help explain variability inpeer-reviewed publications, peer re-viewed presentations, and peer re-viewed grant awards of individualphysical therapist academicians.

MethodThis cross-sectional study used sur-vey methods. Submission of a com-pleted survey questionnaire by a par-ticipant signified informed consent.

InstrumentationA 49-question survey (eAppendix;available at www.ptjournal.org) wasdeveloped to capture information re-garding sociodemographic character-istics, environmental factors, careerfactors, work factors, and numbersof peer-reviewed and non–peer-reviewed scholarly products. Surveyvariables were based on the frame-work of Blackburn and Lawrence.31

The survey was modeled after ques-tionnaires used by the Higher Educa-tion Research Institute33 and the Na-tional Center for Education StatisticsNational Study of Postsecondary Fac-ulty.34 The survey was constructed inonline and paper formats using iden-tical text and minor differences inlayout.

A pilot test evaluated the survey in-strument for test-retest consistency,format consistency, and face andcontent validity. The 17 pilot studyparticipants were 12 physical ther-apy faculty volunteers not includedin the current study sample and 5

faculty members from a professionalprogram in occupational therapy.Participants completed the onlineversion of the survey questionnairetwice, at 1-week intervals. They com-pleted the paper version of thesurvey questionnaire once, 1 monthfollowing the first online submis-sion. Percentage of agreement wasassessed for each item across elec-tronic and paper submissions. Itemswith less than 75% agreement wereedited for clarity and precision. Ad-ditional written comments affirmedface and content validity and re-sulted in minor clarifications in sur-vey language.

ParticipantsA stratified random sampling proce-dure was used to obtain the studysample. A sampling frame of 1,735full-time faculty members from 188accredited physical therapist educa-tion programs in the United Stateswas developed in January 2006through review of program Websites and personal contact with eachprogram. Information for facultyfrom the remaining programs wasnot confirmed, and they were ex-cluded from the sampling frame. The188 programs were stratified by in-stitutional type based on their 2000Carnegie classification35 (research/doctoral, master’s, baccalaureate,specialized) and by size (small�4–7 faculty, medium�8–10 faculty,large�11 or more faculty), creating12 categories. Programs were sam-pled at random from within eachcategory using the random case se-lection function in SPSS base ver-sion 14.0.36,* Every faculty memberin each program selected was sur-veyed. The final sample consistedof 97 programs and 881 facultymembers.

* SPSS Inc, 233 S Wacker Dr, Chicago, IL60606.

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

206 f Physical Therapy Volume 89 Number 3 March 2009 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

Data CollectionThe survey dissemination processinvolved Web-based and standardmailing procedures.37 The SurveyMonkey service38 was used for on-line administration. An e-mail invi-tation was sent to all participants.Participants who followed an em-bedded link to the survey question-naire were able to complete the sur-vey and submit responses online.Two additional e-mail invitations weresent to nonrespondents 7 days and14 days following initial contact.Three weeks following initial con-tact, a final request for participationand a paper copy of the survey ques-tionnaire with a postage-paid returnenvelope were sent to remainingnonrespondents via standard mail.

Data AnalysisA total of 568 participants respondedto the survey. Of those respondents,519 submitted their questionnairevia the survey Web site and 49 sub-mitted their questionnaire on paper.Any respondent who failed to pro-vide data pertaining to scholarly pro-ductivity was omitted. The finalnumber of usable responses was520, for a final response rate of 58%.

A wave analysis was used to assessfor nonresponse bias.39 A wave anal-ysis identifies differences betweenearly and late responders. If earlyresponders are different from late re-sponders, they also probably aredifferent than nonresponders, andnonresponse bias is of concern.40

There were no consistent patternsin response characteristics, includ-ing gender, highest degree, institu-tional type, and number of careerarticle publications, that would sug-gest early and late responders weredifferent from each other.

The SPSS base version 14.036 wasused to calculate measures of centraltendency, frequencies, and cross tab-ulations for selected demographic,

environmental, career, work, andproductivity factors.

A regression analysis was conductedusing a blocked hierarchical design.Five regression models were con-structed for dependent variables ofcareer grant awards, career peer-reviewed article publications, 2-yearpeer-reviewed article publications,career peer-reviewed presentations,and 2-year peer-reviewed presenta-tions. The choice of dependent vari-ables was based on the primacy of thepeer-reviewed publication in the eval-uation of scholarly productivity,1,6–8

the relatively higher frequency ofpresentations than publications withinthe study data, and the enablingvalue of grant support to scholarlywork.15

The selection of independent vari-ables was based on Blackburn andLawrence’s framework.31 The blocksrepresented both individual and en-vironmental factors and included de-mographic, institutional, career, andwork characteristics. As previouslynoted, “career grant awards” was thedependent variable for the firstmodel. Career grant awards also wasincluded as the fifth independentblock variable for the remaining 4models. In addition to their useful-ness as a measure of scholarly pro-ductivity, grants enable productivityin publication and presentation.15

“Discipline of highest degree” wasincluded with the career factorsblock because of the multidisci-plinary composition of the physicaltherapy academy and the presumedinfluence of disciplinary affiliationon scholarly work.

Role of the Funding SourceThis study was funded, in part, bythe Springfield College Faculty Re-search Fund. Springfield Collegeplayed no role in the design, con-duct, or reporting of the study.

ResultsA description of the participants, lev-els of scholarly productivity, resultsof the regression analyses, and de-scriptive information for selectedvariables pertaining to “career fac-tors” are presented. Participant char-acteristics are provided in Table 1.Sixty-three percent of the partici-pants were female, and almost all ofthe participants were white. Almosthalf of the participants held the PhDas the highest degree. More than halfof the participants were tenured oron a tenure track, and a large major-ity were assistant or associate profes-sors. Approximately 40% of the par-ticipants worked in research ordoctoral institutions. The partici-pants represented 32 different aca-demic fields within the disciplines oftheir highest degrees (Tab. 2). Ap-proximately 63% of those reportingwere affiliated with soft academicdisciplines (Tab. 2). Using the 2005Fact Sheet for Physical Therapist Ed-ucation Programs30 for comparison,the sample was representative of thenational faculty.

Participants varied widely in the ex-tent to which they were productiveas scholars (Tab. 3). They engaged inpeer-reviewed presentations to agreater extent than peer-reviewed ar-ticle publication, and they engagedin both activities to a greater extentthan other activities. For purposes offurther discussion, results will focuson peer-reviewed article publica-tions, peer-reviewed presentations,and grants. The terms “nonpublish-ers” and “nonpresenters” will referto those respondents who did nothad a product in either of those peer-reviewed categories. Nearly 20% ofthe respondents were nonpublish-ers, and more than 10% were non-presenters. Just 12.5% of the partici-pants had published more than 20peer-reviewed articles.

The results of the regression modelsare presented in Table 4. The models

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

March 2009 Volume 89 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 207 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

Table 1.Characteristics of Physical Therapist Faculty Participantsa

CharacteristicsbPercentageof Sample

Comparison Data (%)From 2005 CAPTE Fact Sheet30

Sex (n�518)

Male 37.1 37

Female 62.9 63

Race/ethnicity (n�508)

Asian American/Asian 2.7 3

African American/black 1.8 2

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.2 NAc

Hispanic/Latino 2.0 2

White/Caucasian 93.3 90

Highest degree (n�519)

Baccalaureate 0.6 NA

Master’s 24.7 36

Transitional DPT 7.1 4

EdD 8.9 NA

PhD 48.1 45

Other doctorate 7.7 16d

Professional (entry-level) physical therapy degree 2.9 NA

Disciplinary type (n�482)

Hard or high consensus field 37 NA

Soft or low consensus field 63 NA

Institutional type (n�519)

Research/doctoral 40.1 40

Master’s 36.0 37

Baccalaureate 2.9 5

Specialized 21.0 18

Academic rank (N�520)

Lecturer/instructor 7.1 NA

Assistant professor 41.2 39

Associate professor 34.0 30

Professor 14.6 12

Other 3.1 NA

Appointment status (n�519)

No tenure system 11.9 NA

Not on tenure track 31.2 26

On tenure track 25.0 26

Tenured 31.9 29

Position (n�519)

Core faculty 69.1 78

ACCE/DCE 10.2 11

Chair/director 11.8 10

Other 8.9 NA

a CAPTE�Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education, DPT�Doctor of Physical Therapy, ACCE/DCE�academic coordinator of clinicaleducation/director of clinical education.b Variation in number of participants is due to missing data.c None available (no comparison data are available).d This includes EdD and other postprofessional doctoral degrees, excluding the PhD and DPT.

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

208 f Physical Therapy Volume 89 Number 3 March 2009 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

explained from one quarter to onehalf of the variance for each of thedependent variables. Generally, ca-reer factors predicted the largestproportion of explained variance.The first model explained 36% of thevariability in career grant awards. Ca-reer factors accounted for more thanhalf of the explained variance, anddemographic attributes contributed7.9%. The second model explainedhalf of the variance in career peer-reviewed article publications, withcareer factors contributing 17% anddemographic factors contributing12.4%. The third model predicted41.2% of the variance in career pre-sentations. Career factors again pre-dicted the largest portion of the vari-ance at 15.2%. The fourth modelexplained 44.4% of the variance in2-year publications. Work factorspredicted the largest proportion ofthe variance at 18.6%, and career fac-tors were the second-largest predic-tor at 16.6%. The fifth model ex-plained just more than one fourth ofthe variance in 2-year presentations.The career factors block again pre-dicted the largest proportion of thevariance (12.7%).

Because career factors tended topredict the largest proportion of ex-plained variance, additional descrip-tive information is provided regard-ing career factors. In areas of rankand tenure status, faculty with non–tenure track appointments were morelikely to be nonpublishers and lesslikely to be high-frequency publish-ers than faculty with tenure trackappointments (Tab. 5). In relation totype of doctoral degree (Tab. 6), the2-year publication and presentationrates for the Doctor of PhysicalTherapy (DPT)-trained faculty werelower than for any other type ofdoctorally prepared faculty member.The DPT-trained faculty were leastlikely of all of the doctorally pre-pared faculty to prefer the researchcomponent of their work. Approxi-mately 78% of the DPT-trained fac-

ulty either were working without atenure system or were not on a ten-ure track. As regards productivityacross disciplinary types, partici-pants holding the highest degrees inparadigmatic fields were more likelyto be higher-frequency publishersand less likely to be lower-frequency

publishers than NPDS (Tab. 5). ThePDS were more likely than the NPDSto engage in scholarship of discoveryand basic or applied science re-search (Tab. 7). The PDS were lesslikely than the NPDS to direct ex-plicit attention toward the CRA.5

Table 2.Second Disciplines of the Faculty Sample

Discipline Frequency % Typea

Administration 18 3.5 Soft

Anatomy 24 4.6 Soft

Biochemistry 1 0.2 Hard

Biology 5 1.0 Hard

Biomechanics 16 3.1 Hard

Biomedical engineering 5 1.0 Hard

Biomedical sciences 4 0.8 Hard

Chiropractic 1 0.2 Soft

Computer technology 2 0.4 Hard

Conflict resolution 1 0.2 Soft

Corporate communications 1 0.2 Soft

Education 82 15.8 Soft

Engineering 2 0.4 Hard

Epidemiology and biostatistics 9 1.7 Soft

Ergonomics 4 0.8 Hard

Ethics 3 0.6 Soft

Exercise science 41 7.9 Hard

Genetics 1 0.2 Hard

Gerontology 2 0.4 Soft

Health promotion 1 0.2 Soft

Kinesiology 20 3.8 Hard

Law 4 0.8 Soft

Medicine 3 0.6 Soft

Movement science 15 2.9 Hard

Neuroscience 13 2.5 Hard

Pharmacology 4 0.8 Soft

Physiology 18 3.5 Hard

Psychology 8 1.5 Hard

Physical therapy 141 27.1 Soft

Public health 6 1.2 Soft

Rehabilitation sciences 26 5.0 Soft

Social work 1 0.2 Soft

Total 482

a Categorization of hard or soft discipline based on Sax et al.54

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

March 2009 Volume 89 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 209 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

DiscussionThese results suggest importantvariations in individual, career, andwork factors that influence scholarlyproductivity of physical therapist ac-ademicians. The factors identified,in the context of the evolving aca-demic culture of the physical ther-apy profession, raise important ques-tions about the status of scholarshipwithin the field.

In many ways, the sample in thisstudy is similar to and appears sub-ject to factors affecting higher edu-cation faculty generally. Like facultyin many academic fields, these partic-ipants displayed variability in peer-reviewed article publications. As notedearlier, about 18% of the physicaltherapist faculty participants werenonpublishers, and 12.5% had pub-lished more than 20 peer-reviewedarticles. Across higher education ingeneral, estimates of nonpublishersare around 25%.1,9 Approximately 15%of the faculty produce about 50% ofthe publications for many fields.9 Itappears that physical therapist fac-ulty are similar to faculty at largewhen it comes to peer-reviewed ar-ticle publications.

Career factors, including disciplineof highest degree, appointment sta-tus, and faculty rewards, contributedmost substantially to the explained

variance. Several phenomena war-rant consideration in light of thesefindings. These phenomena includethe multidisciplinary nature of thefaculty, the hiring and appointmentpatterns of the faculty, and the statusof the DPT-trained faculty cohort.

The Multidisciplinary AcademyHas Strengths and ChallengesThe discipline of physical therapy isnonparadigmatic. The professiondraws its foundational informationfrom a variety of fields such as phys-ics, anatomy, physiology, psychol-ogy, and education.41 The body ofknowledge unique to physical ther-apy is arguably the specialized appli-cation of information from disci-plines such as exercise science andmovement science.42,43 The non-paradigmatic nature of the field maypredispose the profession to lowerand slower rates of peer-reviewed ar-ticle publication in particular and ofscholarly work in general.23–25,27

To complicate the issues of disciplin-ary type and scholarly productivity,the physical therapy academy is mul-tidisciplinary. There were 32 distinctacademic fields represented in thedegrees earned by the participants inthis study (Tab. 2). Nonparadigmaticdisciplines accounted for 53% of theacademic fields and 63% of the par-ticipants. Paradigmatic disciplines

accounted for 47% of the academicfields and 37% of the participants.Although some fields, such as move-ment science, kinesiology, exercisescience, and biomechanics, haveclear links to the clinical and founda-tional sciences of physical therapy,other fields, such as biochemistry,corporate communications, and law,are less clearly or directly related.With a large array of second disci-plines and with a large proportionof the disciplines characterized asnonparadigmatic, faculty no doubt ex-perience a diversity in research cul-tures that includes differences inquestions and priorities, methodo-logical approaches, tendencies to-ward collaboration, modes of com-munication, and, ultimately, amountsof publishing and other forms of schol-arly productivity.23–26

As noted previously, participants inparadigmatic and nonparadigmaticfields displayed different patterns ofscholarly work in several regards.The PDS were more likely to be pro-lific publishers and less likely to below-frequency publishers than theNPDS (Tab. 5). The PDS were morelikely than the NPDS to engage inscholarship of discovery and to en-gage in basic or applied science re-search (Tab. 7). The Commission onAccreditation in Physical TherapyEducation (CAPTE) position paper on

Table 3.Scholarly Products of Physical Therapist Faculty Participants

Scholarly Products NaMedian(Range)

Levels of Productivity by Percentage ofParticipants at Each Level

0 1–2 3–5 6–10 >11

Career peer-reviewed articles 510 4 (0–75) 18.3 23.1 17.1 13.6 27.9

Career peer-reviewed presentations 517 8 (0–200) 12.8 12.2 17.8 17.0 40.2

2-year peer-reviewed articles 519 1 (0–20) 35.8 36.6 17.2 8.1 2.3

2-year peer-reviewed presentations 520 2 (0–40) 25.0 30.0 25.0 14.9 5.1

Career grant awards 505 2 (0–43) 28.1 26.1 23.6 12.9 9.3

Career textbooks 518 0 (0–19) 69.3 18.9 6.8 3.3 1.7

Career non�peer-reviewed articles 510 2 (0–65) 51.5 23.8 13.9 7.1 3.7

a Variation in number of participants is due to missing data.

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

210 f Physical Therapy Volume 89 Number 3 March 2009 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

Table 4.Predicting Productivity in Scholarship: Summary of Standardized Coefficients

Independent Variables

�-Weights for Dependent Variables

CareerGrant

Awards

CareerPeer-Reviewed

ArticlesCareer

Presentations

2-YearPeer-Reviewed

Articles

2-YearPeer-ReviewedPresentations

Sex .062 �.125a .043 �.060 .054

Race .051 .078b .030 .051 .044

Marital status .008 .045 �.017 .015 �.067

Children .062 �.076 �.071 �.005 .003

Years as physical therapist .013 .001 .003 �.051 �.037

Years as faculty member .097 .087 .063 �.030 �.078

R2 for demographic block .079 .124 .092 .019 .012

Master’s degree–level institution .031 �.102b �.055 �.072 �.039

Specialized institution �.039 �.065 .035 �.042 .066

Urban location .085 .011 �.033 .025 .059

Rural location .007 �.073 �.059 �.076 �.031

R2 for institutional block .023 .040 .009 .043 .010

No tenure system .023 .085b .054 .075 .082

Tenure track .116b .060 .030 .090 .144b

Tenured .180a .077 .074 .058 .032

Assistant professor �.086 .002 .012 .004 .003

Associate professor .036 .144 .098 .035 .073

Professor .142 .283a .275a .072 .219b

Master’s degree .067 .006 �.013 �.080 �.039

EdD .057 �.033 �.076 �.073 �.099

PhD .215b �.001 �.093 �.014 �.080

PT/tDPTc .066 �.018 �.036 �.097 �.105

Hard or soft discipline �.093b .033 �.012 .058 .097

R2 for career block .204 .172 .152 .166 .127

Prefer teaching �.068 .019 .147b .005 .083

Prefer research .074 .197a .227a .133b .115

Time teaching �.013 �.261a �.199b �.165b �.187b

Time research .178b .008 �.046 .270a .096

Time service .014 �.071 �.040 �.007 .023

Time administration �.039 �.195b �.143 �.119 �.135

R2 for work block .054 .119 .068 .186 .082

Career grant awards .276a .378a .216a .288a

R2 for block .048 .091 .030 .053

Total R2 .360 .503 .412 .444 .284

a P�.01.b P�.05.c PT/tDPT�physical therapy/transitional Doctor of Physical Therapy.

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

March 2009 Volume 89 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 211 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

Table 5.Two-Year and Career Peer-Reviewed Publishing Rates (%) by Rank, Tenure-Related Status, and Disciplinary Type

AppointmentStatus

2-Year Peer-Reviewed ArticlePublication Career Peer-reviewed Article Publication

None 1–2 3–5 >6 None 1–2 3–5 >6

Assistant professor

T/TT,a n�104 30.8 34.6 19.3 15.3 n�103 19.4 20.4 19.4 40.8

NTT/NTS,b n�109 51.4 32.2 10.1 6.3 n�108 35.2 31.4 10.1 23.3

Associate professor

T/TT, n�123 22.8 42.3 19.6 15.3 n�121 5.0 19.0 21.4 54.6

NTT/NTS, n�54 37.0 51.8 9.3 1.9 n�53 9.4 39.6 20.8 30.2

Professor

T/TT, n�64 25.0 26.5 32.9 15.6 n�62 3.2 1.6 14.5 80.7

NTT/NTS, n�11 18.2 45.5 36.3 0.0 n�10 10.0 20.0 0.0 70.0

Disciplinary type

Hard, n�168 21.5 36.6 25.0 16.9 n�168 6.5 12.5 18.1 62.9

Soft, n�307 43.1 36.7 13.8 6.4 n�307 24.4 28.0 16.9 30.7

a Tenured or on tenure track.b Non–tenure track or no tenure system.

Table 6.Characteristics of Faculty Holding Master’s and Doctoral Degrees (%)

CharacteristicMaster’s(n�128)

DPTa

(n�37)PhD

(n�250)EdD

(n�46)

OtherDoctorate

(n�40)

Mean years of faculty experience 12.2 5.7 14.0 16.6 10.5

2-year peer-reviewed article publicationsis equal to “none”

58.3 59.5 19.2 37.0 27.5

2-year peer-reviewed presentations isequal to “none”

37.5 45.9 17.2 17.4 17.5

Prefer teaching 75.8 63.6 46.8 56.5 70.0

Prefer research 3.1 5.5 43.6 15.2 15.0

Prefer service 17.2 21.8 6.0 23.9 12.5

Non–tenure track 55.5 60.0 16.4 13.0 25.0

Tenure track 10.9 18.2 32.4 30.4 27.5

Tenured 19.5 3.6 42.4 43.5 30.0

No tenure system 14.1 18.2 8.8 10.9 17.5

Scholarship of discovery 39.8 29.7 72.0 47.8 50.0

Scholarship of integration 28.1 32.4 29.2 34.8 32.5

Scholarship of application 48.4 37.8 40.0 45.7 45.0

Scholarship of teaching 39.1 54.1 22.4 34.8 32.5

a DPT�Doctor of Physical Therapy.

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

212 f Physical Therapy Volume 89 Number 3 March 2009 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

faculty scholarship articulates valuefor the full range of scholarship, in-cluding discovery, integration, appli-cation, and teaching.3 Despite thebroad view of CAPTE, physical ther-apist scholars work within thehigher education culture that honorsand rewards discovery more highlythan other forms of scholarship.1,7

Thus, the generally nonparadigmaticphysical therapy academy may be ata disadvantage within the academicworkplace.

In addition, it is not clear whetherthe priorities for clinical researcharticulated by professional leader-ship are subject to desired attentionor produced in desired volume. Adriving force behind the call forphysical therapist faculty scholarshipis the need to develop a strong evi-dence base for clinical practice. Thisrequires, among other things, a suf-ficient volume of studies addressingefficacy and effectiveness of clinicalinterventions—the scholarship ofdiscovery.5 Furthermore, only asmall proportion of the respondentsconsidered the CRA5 in planning aresearch agenda. The PDS were evenless likely than the NPDS to tailorresearch activities to the CRA(Tab. 6). Perhaps the lack of atten-tion to the CRA reflects limited ex-posure to the document. Perhaps itreflects tension between physicaltherapy and the discipline of highest

degree. Although the second disci-pline may or may not result in a pro-pensity toward scholarship of dis-covery, divided interests of facultymembers may reduce the likelihoodthat physical therapist scholars willexamine the clinical priorities of theprofession in sufficient volume.

The multidisciplinary nature of thephysical therapy academy is both astrength and a challenge for the phys-ical therapy profession. The strengthof the multidisciplinary faculty maybe that it serves the wide array ofinterests and questions inherent inthe nonparadigmatic field itself. Schol-arship that addresses the needs ofthe diverse populations, clinical prob-lems, and practice settings served bythe field may require a diverse andmultidisciplinary group of scholars.

On the other hand, the large pro-portion of participants who held de-grees in soft fields appeared predis-posed toward lesser and slowerpublishing productivity, more-limitedgrant support for scholarly work,and fewer and lesser rewards foraccomplishments as faculty schol-ars.23,24,44,45 Scholars across the widevariety of fields represented may ormay not hold mutual or complemen-tary objectives related to physicaltherapy.27 The inclination and pro-pensity among faculty members tocommunicate, collaborate, and pro-

duce scholarly works that contributeto the advancement of the profes-sion’s science should be moreclosely examined.

The Changing Lives of HigherEducation Faculty Are Reflectedin Physical TherapyFaced with public demand for ac-countability and cost containment,an evolving technology base, a rap-idly expanding knowledge base, un-precedented fiscal constraints, and anincreasingly diverse workforce, highereducation institutions are seeking toincrease their flexibility and respon-siveness.2,46,47 For faculty, this meansan increasing number of part-time,provisional, and non–tenure trackappointments. These appointmentsmay “unbundle” the faculty role byemphasizing just one element of thetraditional teaching/research/servicetriad. The non–tenure track and con-tract appointments may offer somefaculty members desirable opportuni-ties to develop, market, and use intel-lectual talents in a flexible manner.However, some view such appoint-ments as “second class,” with unclearexpectations, limited rewards, lack ofequity and power within faculty gov-ernance systems,47 and uncertainsecurity.2

With fully 43% of the participantsreporting non–tenure track appoint-ments (Tab. 1), it is apparent that

Table 7.Characteristics of Scholarly Work by Disciplinary Type

Type of Scholarship General Topic of Scholarship

ExplicitConsiderationof the Clinical

Research Agenda

Characteristic Discoverya Integrationa Applicationa TeachingaPatientCarea

PhysicalTherapy

Educationa Sciencea Othera N Yesa Noa

Hard discipline(n�163)

73.0 28.8 38.0 22.7 49.7 22.1 63.2 3.1 158 21.5 78.5

Soft discipline(n�287)

48.4 28.9 45.6 35.5 62.4 40.4 20.9 10.5 270 33.8 61.3

a Number is percentage of participants.

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

March 2009 Volume 89 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 213 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

physical therapist faculty are subjectto national trends in faculty hiring.These non–tenure track appoint-ments may allow physical therapisteducation programs flexibility in hir-ing and may offer some faculty mem-bers welcome opportunities for flex-ibility and specialization in roles.However, the participants with non–tenure track appointments weremore likely to be nonpublishers andless likely to be high-frequency pub-lishers than the participants withtenure track appointments (Tab. 5).Given the terms of any individual non–tenure track appointment, a lowerrate of publishing productivity mightbe quite acceptable at the institutionallevel. The physical therapist programaccreditation standards require thatevery physical therapist faculty mem-ber demonstrate a consistent and on-going record of scholarly productivity.Therefore, the non–tenure track ap-pointments may be problematic for theprofession. In addition, a dispropor-tionate number of non–tenure trackappointments may diminish the in-fluence of the physical therapistprograms within their institutions.Attention to hiring practices andevaluation of the accreditation criteriarelated to individual versus program-matic scholarship may be useful as theprofession moves forward.

The DPT-Trained Faculty CohortThe extent to which DPT-trained fac-ulty are prepared to fulfill roles asscholars, particularly in the area ofdiscovery, is a matter of ongoing dis-cussion.48–52 Many authors49–52 sug-gest that DPT-trained faculty mem-bers are best prepared to teach andto engage in scholarships of integra-tion, application, and teaching. TheDPT-trained participants comprisedonly a small proportion (7.7%) ofthe study participants. They had anaverage of 5 years of experience asa faculty member. Based on theirlimited representation and experi-ence, it is difficult to draw preciseimpressions of their work as schol-

ars. However, they do allow initialconsideration of the DPT-trained fac-ulty cohort in relation to scholarlywork.

It appears that DPT-trained facultymembers were working differentlythan other doctorally trained facultymembers (Tab. 7). The 2-year publi-cation and presentation rates for DPT-trained faculty members were lowerthan for any other type of doctorallyprepared faculty member. The DPT-trained faculty members were leastlikely of all doctorally prepared fac-ulty members to prefer research toteaching or service. Approximately78% of the DPT-trained faculty mem-bers were working without a tenuresystem or were not on a tenuretrack. The DPT-trained faculty mem-bers appear more similar to the mas-ter’s degree-prepared participantsthan to the other doctorally trainedparticipants (Tab. 7).

The implications of the work pat-terns of this small cohort are notclear, but several thoughts bear con-sideration. First, some authors50,51

have suggested that clinical doctoraltraining should prepare the DPT-trained faculty member to engage inscholarly integration, application, andteaching, but not discovery. The re-sults of our study suggest the DPT-trained faculty cohort is most activein nondiscovery scholarship. Second,the emphasis on teaching amongDPT-trained individuals is consistentwith suggestions that DPT-trainedfaculty members are best preparedto serve in teaching rather than re-search roles.50,51 The DPT-trainedparticipants in our study appeared toat least prefer teaching to research.Third, even accounting for the earlycareer stage of a large proportion ofthe DPT-trained participants, therewas a high number of nonpublishersand nonpresenters during the 2-yearperiod reported; higher than for anyother type of doctorally trained par-ticipant. Persistently low performance

in scholarship could jeopardize pro-fessional development and programstanding. Fourth, a high proportion ofDPT-trained participants held non–tenure track appointments, which mayserve as a disincentive to productivityas a scholar.

Thus, it appears the DPT-trained fac-ulty may be engaged in precisely thekinds of activities for which someauthors suggest they are best pre-pared. The optimal composition ofthe physical therapy academy maywell include a proportion of facultywith professional clinical degrees.53

What is not at all clear is whether anincrease in the proportion of facultyprepared at the clinical doctorallevel will enhance or compromisethe profession’s research mission.49,52

The DPT-trained faculty cohort shouldbe subject to ongoing study.

LimitationsLimitations to external validity ofthe survey include sampling errorand a low response rate.39 The sam-pling frame consisted of 1,735 fac-ulty members representing 188 outof 194 accredited programs. The3.1% of programs and the similarproportion of faculty omitted fromthe sampling frame most likely re-sulted in little compromise to therepresentative nature of the sample.Careful development of a the surveyinstrument and 2 methods of follow-up with nonrespondents helped min-imize nonresponse. The wave analysisindicated little likelihood of nonre-sponse bias.

Threats to internal validity includedreporting inaccuracy.39 There wereerrors in reporting of institutionaltype, and corrections were made bychecking individual responses. Otherpossibilities of systematic responseerror cannot be ruled out.

Directions for Future StudyThis study did not include part-timefaculty, nor did it explore the terms

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

214 f Physical Therapy Volume 89 Number 3 March 2009 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

of non–tenure track appointments.Future research should examine thecircumstances, roles, and responsi-bilities of faculty with alternative ap-pointments and the relationships ofnon–tenure track and part-time ap-pointments to scholarly productiv-ity. An additional line of inquiry isthe relationship of professional stan-dards for scholarly productivity toinstitutional missions and produc-tivity standards, particularly in non-research institutions. Additional studyshould examine in greater detail thecontributions of each disciplinary fieldto priorities of the profession. Suchinquiry should distinguish among co-horts of academic and clinical doctor-ally trained individuals in order to con-tribute to the analysis of the DPTdegree as an appropriate credential forfaculty scholars.

ConclusionThis study is the first to examine fac-tors associated with the scholarly pro-ductivity of individual faculty mem-bers in physical therapist educationprograms. Demographic, environmen-tal, career, and work characteristicswere included in a model by whichproductivity was analyzed. A nationalsample of physical therapist facultymembers was surveyed using an in-strument developed for the pur-poses of this study. Career factorsgenerally predicted the largest pro-portion of variance in peer-reviewedarticle publications, peer-reviewedpresentations, and grantsmanship.The study provides ample directionfor future inquiry regarding the sta-tus of scholarship and of scholars inphysical therapy.

The study was approved by the InstitutionalReview Board of the School of Education atthe University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

This research was presented at the Com-bined Sections Meeting of the AmericanPhysical Therapy Association; February 14–18, 2007; Boston, Massachusetts.

This study was funded, in part, by theSpringfield College Faculty Research Fund.

Springfield College played no role in the de-sign, conduct, or reporting of the study.

This article was received March 13, 2008, andwas accepted December 12, 2008.

DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20080076

References1 Boyer EL. Scholarship Reconsidered: Pri-

orities of the Professoriate.Princeton, NJ:Carnegie Foundation for the Advancementof Teaching; 1990.

2 Finkelstein M. The morphing of the Amer-ican academic. Liberal Education. 2003;89:6–15.

3 Physical Therapy Faculty and Scholarship.American Physical Therapy AssociationWeb site. Available at: http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section�General_Information & Template � / CM / ContentDisplay . cfm & ContentID � 23140. Ac-cessed October 22, 2008.

4 Evaluative Criteria for Accreditation ofEducation Programs for the Preparationof Physical Therapists. Alexandria, VA:American Physical Therapy Association;2006.

5 Clinical Research Agenda for PhysicalTherapy. Phys Ther. 2000;80:499–513.

6 Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI. Schol-arship Assessed: Evaluation of the Profes-soriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass IncPublishers; 1997.

7 O’Meara K. Principles of good practice:encouraging multiple forms of scholarshipin policy and practice. In: O’Meara K, RiceRE, eds. Faculty Priorities Reconsidered:Rewarding Multiple Forms of Scholar-ship. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass IncPublishers; 2005:290–302.

8 O’Meara, K. Encouraging multiple formsof scholarship in faculty reward systems:Does it make a difference? Research inHigher Education. 2005;46:479–510.

9 Creamer EG. Assessing Faculty Publica-tion Productivity: Issues of Equity. Wash-ington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher EducationReport No. 420 243; 1998.

10 Creswell JW. Faculty Research Perfor-mance: Lessons From the Sciences andthe Social Sciences. Washington, DC:ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report; 1985.

11 Braxton JM, Luckey W, Helland P. Institu-tionalizing a Broader View of Scholar-ship Through Boyer’s Four Domains.Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Edu-cation Report; Vol. 29, No. 2; 2002.

12 Nettles MT, Perna LW. Sex and Race Dif-ferences in Faculty Salaries, Tenure,Rank, and Productivity. Washington, DC:ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.ED 391 402; 1995.

13 Poole M, Bornholt L, Summers F. An inter-national study of the gendered nature ofacademic work: some cross-cultural explo-rations. Higher Education. 1997;34:373–396.

14 Teodorescu D. Correlates of faculty publi-cation productivity: a cross-national analy-sis. Higher Education. 2000;39:201–222.

15 Dey EL, Milem JF, Berger JB. Changing pat-terns of publication productivity: accumu-lative advantage or institutional isomor-phism? Sociology of Education. 1997;70:308–323.

16 Flanigan KS, Ballinger PW, Grant HK, et al.Research productivity profile of alliedhealth faculty. J Allied Health. 1988;17:87–100.

17 Hannafin KM. An analysis of the scholarlyproductivity of instructional technologyfaculty. Educational Technology, Research,and Development. 1991;39:39–42.

18 Kraemer LG, Lyons KJ. Research produc-tivity of allied health faculty in academichealth centers. J Allied Health. 1989;18:349–359.

19 Paul S, Liu Y, Ottenbacher KJ. Researchproductivity among occupational therapyfaculty members in the United States. Am JOccup Ther. 2002;56:331–333.

20 Tien FF, Blackburn RT. Faculty rank sys-tem, research motivation, and faculty re-search productivity: measure refinementand theory testing. Journal of Higher Ed-ucation. 1996;67:2–22.

21 Vardan S, Smulyan H, Mookherjee S, Me-hrotra KG. Factors encouraging researchproductivity in a division of general inter-nal medicine. Acad Med. 1990;65:772–774.

22 Waller KV, Wyatt D, Karni KR. Researchproductivity and activities of clinical labo-ratory science faculty: a follow-up study.J Allied Health. 1998;27:142–149.

23 Becher T. Academic Tribes and Territo-ries: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cul-tures of Disciplines. Bristol, PA: Societyfor Research Into Higher Education andOpen University Press; 1989.

24 Biglan A. The characteristics of subjectmatter in different academic areas. J ApplPsychol. 1973;57:195–203.

25 Biglan A. Relationships between subjectmatter characteristics and the structureand output of university department.J Appl Psychol. 1973;57:204–213.

26 Kezar A. Higher education research at themillennium: still trees without fruit? Re-view of Higher Education. 2000;23:443–468.

27 Kaufman RR. A reflection on disciplinarynature and the status of physical therapyscholarship. J Phys Ther Educ. 2005;19(1):3–8.

28 Worthingham CA. The clinical environ-ment for basic physical therapy education,part II: staff. Phys Ther. 1968;48:1353–1382.

29 Holcomb DJ, Selker LG, Roush RE. Schol-arly productivity: a regional study of phys-ical therapy faculty in schools of alliedhealth. Phys Ther. 1990;70:118–124.

30 2005 fact sheet: physical therapist educa-tion programs. American Physical TherapyAssociation Web site. Available at: http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section�PT_Programs1&TEMPLATE�/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm & CONTENTID � 43471.Accessed July 9, 2005.

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

March 2009 Volume 89 Number 3 Physical Therapy f 215 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

31 Blackburn RT, Lawrence JH. Faculty atWork: Motivation, Expectation, Satisfac-tion. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni-versity Press; 1995.

32 Richter RR, Schlomer SL, Krieger MM,Siler WL. Journal publication productivityin academic physical therapy programs inthe Unites States and Puerto Rico from1998 to 2002. Phys Ther. 2008;88:376–386.

33 Higher Education Research Institute Fac-ulty Survey. University of California, LosAngeles, Higher Education Research Insti-tute Web site. Available at: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/facoverview.php. Ac-cessed October 22, 2008.

34 National Center for Education StatisticsNational Survey of Postsecondary Faculty.National Center for Education StatisticsWeb site. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf/. Accessed October 22, 2008.

35 The Carnegie Classification of Institutionsof Higher Education. Carnegie Founda-tion for the Advancement of TeachingWeb site. Available at: http://www.carnegiefoundation . org / Classification/index.htm. Accessed October 22, 2008.

36 SPSS [computer program]. Base version14.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc; 2005.

37 Dillman, DA. Mail and Internet Surveys:The Tailored Design Method. 2nd ed. NewYork, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2000.

38 Survey Monkey Web site. Availableat: http://www.surveymonkey.com.Accessed November 16, 2008.

39 Fowler FJ. Survey Research Methods. 3rded. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage PublicationsInc; 2002.

40 Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualita-tive, Quantitative, and Mixed MethodsApproaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications Inc.; 2003

41 A Normative Model of Physical TherapistProfessional Education, Version 2004. Al-exandria, VA: American Physical TherapyAssociation; 2004.

42 Cott CA, Finch E, Gasner D, et al. Themovement continuum theory of physicaltherapy. Physiother Can. 1995;47:87–95.

43 O’Hearn M. The elemental identity of physi-cal therapy. J Phys Ther Educ. 2002;16:4–7.

44 Schon DA. The new scholarship requires anew epistemology. Change. 1995;27:26–34.

45 Slaughter S. Federal policy and supply-sideinstitutional resource allocation at publicresearch universities. Review of HigherEducation. 1998;21:209–244.

46 Finkelstein M, Schuster JH. Assessing thesilent revolution: how changing demo-graphics are reshaping the academic pro-fession. AAHE Bulletin. 2001;54:3–7.

47 Gappa JM, Austin AE, Trice AG. Rethink-ing academic work and workplaces.Change. 2005;37:32–39.

48 The Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) asa faculty credential. American PhysicalTherapy Association Web site. Availableat: http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section�General_Information&Template�/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID�23141.Accessed October 22, 2008.

49 Jette AM. A future with increased ratherthan diminished research capabilities.Phys Ther. 2005;85:710–711.

50 Sahrmann SA. Moving precisely? Or takingthe path of least resistance? Phys Ther.1998;78:1208–1218.

51 Threkheld AJ, Jensen GM, Royeen CB. Theclinical doctorate: a framework for analy-sis in physical therapist education. PhysTher. 1999;79:567–581.

52 Simoneau GG. The DPT: will the researchkeep up? J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.2002;32:546–547.

53 Brueilly KE, Williamson EM, Morris GS. De-fining core faculty for physical therapisteducation. J Phys Ther Educ. 2007;21(2):10–14.

54 Sax LJ, Hagedorn LS, Arredondo M, DicrisiFA. Faculty research productivity: explor-ing the role of gender and family-relatedfactors. Research in Higher Education.2002;43:423–446.

Invited Commentary Leslie G Portney

I applaud Kaufman for her attentionto this important issue in this study1

and her 2005 treatise on scholar-ship.2 She has recognized a long-standing challenge that has been thetopic of extensive conversation butlittle analysis in physical therapy.

The need to support faculty develop-ment and scholarship has been rec-ognized in all disciplines in highereducation, most consistently in clin-ical disciplines. Studies in medicine,nursing, clinical laboratory medi-cine, occupational therapy, andother disciplines have all docu-mented low publication rates of fac-ulty.3–7 These studies also have inves-tigated the barriers to facultyscholarship, agreeing on the obvioushurdles of time (teaching and clinicalresponsibility), research knowledge

and experience (lack of researchdoctorates), and limited support(mentorship). These factors alsohave been shown to be related to theresearch mission of the institution,which influences resources andscholarship expectations. Kaufmanhas shown that, not surprisingly,physical therapy faculty are subjectto these same constraints.

Kaufman adds an important consid-eration to this discussion, however,by postulating about the nature ofour science and the “soft” focus ofphysical therapy research. Based onher 2005 thesis, she has cited an in-teresting model to help explain lim-itations of faculty research in physi-cal therapy. The concept of “soft”and “hard” disciplines is helpful toappreciate varied research ap-

proaches in different fields. The au-thor also points out a lack of a uni-fying theory in physical therapy,which is reflected in the diversity ofconcentrations for those who haveadvanced degrees. Unfortunately,the study does not include data onwhich fields of study faculty havepursued. If we accept that physicaltherapy is a soft discipline because ofits diversity of content, then I wouldassume this is also true of other di-verse clinical professions, such asnursing and medicine. Research inthese fields can be equally eclectic interms of focus. Therefore, studies inthese disciplines should be useful forunderstanding our own scholarshipstruggles.

Kaufman comments that the non-paradigmatic nature of physical ther-

Predicting Productivity in Scholarship

216 f Physical Therapy Volume 89 Number 3 March 2009 by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from

doi: 10.2522/ptj.20080076Originally published online January 29, 2009

2009; 89:204-216.PHYS THER. Regina R KaufmanTherapist Education ProgramsScholarship Among Faculty Members in Physical Career Factors Help Predict Productivity in

References

http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/89/3/204#BIBLfor free at: This article cites 32 articles, 6 of which you can access

Cited by

http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/89/3/204#otherarticles

This article has been cited by 4 HighWire-hosted articles:

Information Subscription http://ptjournal.apta.org/subscriptions/

Permissions and Reprints http://ptjournal.apta.org/site/misc/terms.xhtml

Information for Authors http://ptjournal.apta.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml

by guest on February 25, 2016http://ptjournal.apta.org/Downloaded from