Journal of Nursing Education

The articles prior to January 2012 are part of the back file collection and are not available with a current paid subscription. To access the article, you may purchase it or purchase the complete back file collection here

Faculty Practice as a Requirement for Promotion and Tenure: Receptivity, Risk, and Threats Perceived

Keela A Herr, PhD, RN, CS

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine the receptivity of nurse faculty to the proposal of adding faculty practice as an additional requirement for promotion and tenure and to investigate the perceived risk and threats from introduction of this proposal. Factors that affect the risk faculty perceived are examined. Nurse educators from all faculty ranks in public nursing programs in 15 states in the southern region of the United States served as subjects for this study (N = 280). Findings indicate that nurse faculty are more receptive than resistant to the proposal requiring faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure. A high negative correlation exists between receptivity to the proposal and the risk faculty perceived from implementation of the proposal. A measure of the threat to job perquisites correlated moderately with the risk faculty perceive from the proposal, with specific threats and benefits perceived by faculty identified. Implications for administrators and faculty are discussed.

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine the receptivity of nurse faculty to the proposal of adding faculty practice as an additional requirement for promotion and tenure and to investigate the perceived risk and threats from introduction of this proposal. Factors that affect the risk faculty perceived are examined. Nurse educators from all faculty ranks in public nursing programs in 15 states in the southern region of the United States served as subjects for this study (N = 280). Findings indicate that nurse faculty are more receptive than resistant to the proposal requiring faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure. A high negative correlation exists between receptivity to the proposal and the risk faculty perceived from implementation of the proposal. A measure of the threat to job perquisites correlated moderately with the risk faculty perceive from the proposal, with specific threats and benefits perceived by faculty identified. Implications for administrators and faculty are discussed.

Introduction

Nursing faculty increasingly are being urged to consider the addition of clinical practice to the role expectations in the academic setting. Many positive outcomes of integrating the practice component into the faculty role are cited as the rationale for this move. Enhancing clinical instruction (Chicadonz, Bush, Korthuis, & Utz, 1981; Christman, 1979; Mauksch, 1980; Parsons & Felton, 1987), improving quality of patient care (Christman, 1979; Dickens, 1983; McClure, 1987), strengthening relationships between nursing service and nursing education (Chicadonz et al, 1981; Cook & Finelli, 1988), and giving credibility to the professional role in a practice discipline (Algase, 1986; Royle & Crooks, 1986) are some of the benefits repeatedly cited by nursing scholars. Most significantly, faculty involvement in the clinical setting provides a means for advancing the discipline of nursing by increasing opportunities for testing nursing theory and generating and examining research questions (Chicadonz et al, 1981; Algase, 1986; Spero, 1980; Neely, Truby, Shaughnessy, et al, 1986).

It is for these reasons that leaders and established organizations in nursing have promoted the incorporation of clinical practice into faculty role expectations. In 1979, 13 nursing leaders published a statement of belief regarding faculty practice that included the "legitimization of nursing practice as an integral part of the faculty role" ("Statement," 1979, p. 158). This interest in faculty practice was encouraged by the American Academy of Nursing's 1979 resolution, which supports faculty involvement in clinical practice ("Resolution," 1979-1980). Mauksch (1980) contends that faculty practice is "a professional imperative" and should be a vital role component for nursing educators. The National Commission on Nursing (NCN) supports this contention with its 1983 Recommendation 15, which states: "Faculty in academic institutions should maintain clinical expertise and share a common knowledge base for the development of nursing education, practice, and research" (McCarty, 1983, p. 16). Four faculty practice symposia have been conducted in the interim resulting in scholarly works that illustrate the continued interest in promoting and validating this component of the educator's role (Barnard, 1983; Fagin, 1985; Feetham & Malasanos, 1986; Ford, 1983).

Although the profession is demanding educator involvement in practice, most educational settings do not provide a means to evaluate and reward this new component of the faculty role. In 1987, McClure indicated there were no credits for reappointment, promotion, or tenure within academia that are based on practice. Dickens (1983), surveying administrators in the Southeast, noted that 68% of the administration did not require faculty practice, although they all approved of faculty maintaining clinical practice. Nurse educators face a dilemma when expectations of the university and the nursing profession are incongruent (Millonig, 1986; Royle & Crooks, 1986).

Chicadonz and colleagues (1981) believe that one of the four changes needed to accomplish the incorporation of nursing practice into faculty roles is in recognition of the desired performance. Diers (1980), Kent (1980), and Curtis (1980) suggest that practice be evaluated just as teaching and other scholarly activities are evaluated. The reward system must be shaped to include incentives for practice. One method of providing this recognition and reward is the addition of faculty practice to the requirements for promotion and tenure. Before this option is implemented, however, it is important for administrators to determine how faculty feel about this new role responsibility.

Introduction of faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure constitutes a change; one of the most commonly encountered responses to an advocated change is resistance (Zaltman & Duncan, 1977). Dickens (1983) found a definite reluctance to add practice commitments to other expectations required of faculty members. Although recent reviews of research on nursing faculty practice indicate the scarcity of research that exists, a few pieces provide data that contribute to the understanding of nursing faculty involvement in clinical practice (Chicadonz, 1987; Lambert & Lambert, 1988).

Yarcheski and Mahon (1985, 1986) analyzed receptivity to the proposed introduction of one specific model of faculty practice, the unification of education and service model. The researchers identified significant relationships between status variables and receptivity and risk perceived, but did not elicit specific threats or benefits perceived.

An exploratory study by Anderson and Pierson (1983) ascertained some of the facilitating and/or inhibiting factors that individual nursing members in all NLNaccredited baccalaureate programs perceived when trying to maintain their clinical skills. They found that the majority of respondents engaged in faculty practice were not involved in research or writing activities, which are other role expectations for promotion and tenure in most schools of nursing. Perceived workload was seen as the greatest inhibitor of nursing faculty practice. Barger and Bridges (1987), in a survey of 1,057 nursing faculty members, found that personal factors such as age, marital status, and education affect the extent of practice. Both of these studies identify factors impacting on those faculty engaging in practice, rather than on the concerns of those anticipating the need to integrate faculty practice into the faculty role.

The literature suggests that an organizational members' receptivity is a function of the extent to which he perceives risks to his status both within and outside the organization (Giaquinta, 1975). Seminal research has been conducted using a statue-risk framework of receptivity to study the unification model of faculty practice. Additional status or personal characteristics have been cited in other studies as factors that may be related to faculty practice without linking to the perceived risk explanation

The purpose of this study was to determine faculty receptivity to the proposal of adding faculty practice as an additional requirement for promotion and tenure and to examine factors that affect nurse faculty's receptivity to this proposal. This article gathers information on the risks, threats, and benefits perceived by nurse educators that they feel would result from implementation of such a plan and attempts to answer the following questions:

1. Are nurse faculty receptive to faculty practice as an added requirement for promotion and tenure?

2. What is the relationship between receptivity to faculty practice (as defined) and perceived risk from the introduction of faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure?

3. What is the relationship between perceived risk from faculty practice and the threat to job perquisites from faculty practice?

4. What are the relationships between selected status variables and the risk perceived from introduction of faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure?

5. What threats do nurse faculty perceive from the introduction of faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure?

An exploratory survey was conducted to examine these questions and provide information on the variables of interest.

Method

Subjects

The population for this research was nurse educators from all faculty ranks in public nursing programs in the 15 states in the southern region of the US offering baccalaureate and master's degree programs in nursing accredited by the National League for Nursing. The schools of nursing included in the study did not currently, or in the past year, require faculty practice as a criterion for promotion and tenure. Additionally, the dean of the school must have held the position for one year at the time of data collection. It was believed a recent change in leadership might influence subject feelings about innovation or change.

Data Collection

The 35 deans of the identified schools of nursing were contacted to determine eligibility based on the criteria identified above and interest in participation. Seventeen schools agreed to participate and submitted lists of faculty names with ranks. A stratified random sampling procedure used to reduce the sample size focused on maintaining similar group size based on rank. Stratifying by rank was conducted in accord with the theoretical framework of this study, which suggests that certain status groups (eg, ranks) might be more receptive than others to a given innovation and perceive less risk.

All faculty with a rank of professor (63) were included in the study. Three fourths of associate professors (130), one third of assistant professors (129), and two thirds of instructors, assistant instructors, and specialists (128) were included. The total sample size for this study was 450. A total of 280 valid questionnaires (62%) were used for analysis in this study.

Description of the Sample

The age of respondents ranged from 27 to 65 with a mean age of 37; the highest percentage of faculty fell between the ages of 36 and 45 (41%). The majority of the faculty were married (54%) and 93% were female. Slightly fewer than half of the respondents had dependent children at home (44%).

In examining organizational status characteristics of the respondents, it was found that the faculty were divided relatively evenly with respect to highest degree held, with 44% holding a doctorate and 55% holding a master's degree. The majority of the sample (57%) was non-tenured. Seventy-five percent of the sample taught at the undergraduate level or both the undergraduate and graduate level. It was interesting to note that more than half the sample were currently engaged in clinical practice (52%), although the specific nature of practice was not identified. Twenty-four percent of the respondents were currently in school with 85% pursuing a higher degree.

Instrumentation

The data collection instrument for this research was a questionnaire containing general information questions to gather data about subjects background characteristics, status, and valuation of job perquisites. Two semantic differentials were used to measure receptivity to the requirement of faculty practice and the perceived risk to job after introduction of the requirement.

The following definition and delineation of faculty practice was provided to the respondents for common interpretation: "Those functions performed by faculty within a service setting that have the principal goal of advancing the nursing care of patients/clients. Those faculty who practice clinically do so at times other than when engaged in the clinical teaching of nursing students. The requirements of faculty practice will be added to the criteria for promotion and tenure at your school."

Receptivity to Innovation and Perceived Risk

The semantic differential was chosen as the measure of receptivity and perceived risk for this study because of its effectiveness previously in similar studies (Giacquinta, 1975; Kazlow, 1977). The semantic differential method is widely used for measuring the meaning of an object or a concept to individuals. Subjects are provided with a concept and a brief definition, in this case, faculty practice and its description was utilized to measure receptivity. For a measure of perceived risk, subjects were asked to report their feelings about "my job after introduction of faculty practice." Eight adjective pairs with opposing descriptors on a 7-point scale were utilized to elicit responses. Examples of descriptors include progressive/regressive, ineffective/effective, and beneficial/detrimental. A factor analysis was completed for the semantic differentials to arrive at a single evaluation score loading on the evaluative dimension. Scoring on the semantic differentials produced a receptivity score with the higher score indicating greater receptivity and a risk score with the higher score indicating greater risk perceived. Both measures had a possible range of 8 to 56 with a midpoint of 32. The reliability coefficients for the semantic differentials used in this study were .97 for receptivity and .95 for perceived risk.

Table

TABLE 1DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THREAT TO JOB PERQUISfTES SCALE ITEMS

TABLE 1

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THREAT TO JOB PERQUISfTES SCALE ITEMS

Threat to Job Perquisites

The scale for the perceived threat to job perquisites is a measure of the perceived threat to specific job attributes by the introduction of faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure at the subject's school. To determine the perquisites faculty perceive as threatened, subjects were asked to respond to a list of 10 job perquisites using a five-point Likert rating scale. The list was developed based on findings in the literature and piloting on a group of nurse educators (Table 1). Subjects indicated the extent to which the perquisites would increase or decrease with introduction of the innovation, with 1 indicating a large increase, 5 a large decrease, and 3 no change. A total score was obtained by summing the scale item scores. A possible range of scores from 10 to 50 resulted with a midpoint of 30. Cronbach alpha coefficient for the scale was .86.

Data Analysis

Simple Pearson product moment correlations were computed to determine the relationship between variables of interest for this study. Analysis of variance was used to analyze the impact of status variables on perceived risk from faculty practice.

Table

TABLE 2ANOVA FOR RESPONDENT VARIABLES AND PERCEIVED RISK FROM FACULTY PRACTICE

TABLE 2

ANOVA FOR RESPONDENT VARIABLES AND PERCEIVED RISK FROM FACULTY PRACTICE

Results

Question 1: Are nurse faculty receptive to faculty practice being added as a requirement for promotion and tenure?

The mean receptivity score for faculty practice was 39.9 (SD =10.23). The faculty responding to this survey had a tendency to be more receptive than resistant to the proposed requirement of faculty practice as a criterion for promotion and tenure.

Question 2: What is the relationship between receptivity to faculty practice (as defined) and perceived risk from the introduction of faculty practice?

The Pearson correlation coefficient for receptivity to and perceived risk from faculty practice was .70 (p=s.05), suggesting a very high negative correlation. Thus, the greater the perceived risk the lower the receptivity. These findings are in accord with those of Yarcheski and Mahon (1985), who identified a high correlation between perceived risk and receptivity to the unification model of service and education.

Question 3: What is the relationship between perceived risk from faculty practice and the threat to job perquisites from faculty practice?

A significant positive correlation was found between perceived risk and threat to job perquisites (r = .51, p≤.05). Although the relationship is not as strong as that between risk and receptivity, this finding does substantiate a significant relationship between one's perception of risk and specific job attributes that may be threatened. The findings do suggest that there are other factors making up the risk component that are not identified by the threat to job perquisites scale. Considering that the sample was almost entirely female, with 45% married and 44% with dependent children, the possibility of non-job related risk factors must be considered and is an area for further exploration and consideration by administrators when assessing threats from an innovation.

Question 4: What are the relationships between selected status variables and perceived risk from the introduction of faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure ?

Findings indicate a number of personal and organizational status variables that are significantly related to the risk perceived from the introduction of faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure: age, tenure, engaged in clinical practice, marital status, rank, highest degree held, level of teaching, and number of publications in the past 5 years, !able 2 provides data on the significant (p^. 05} variables. The variables of length of tenure at the institution, administrative rank, number of offices held in professional organizations, and current school status were not significant in the analysis related to perceived risk.

When analyzed by rank, subjects with the rank of instructor perceived the most risk from faculty practice. Assistant professors and professors were the groups perceiving the next greatest risk. Associate professors perceived the least risk. It was believed the faculty at lower ranks might see the addition of this requirement as an additional role expectation that might threaten their ability to achieve tenure and promotion. This held true for instructors and assistant professors. The finding that professors perceived more risk than associate professors raises questions; a possible explanation stems from the actual innovation definition provided to the questionnaire respondents. The differentiation in threat by rank was based on specific requirements attached to faculty practice, It is possible that individuals responded to the concept of faculty practice itself rather than to the innovation as a requirement for promotion and tenure.

An interesting pattern of risk was found when examining the breakdown of scores by age. Individuals in the age group 27 to 35 perceived the most risk from faculty practice. Surprisingly, the eldest group (56 to 65 years of age), those most likely tenured, was ranked next with individuals falling between these two perceiving the least risk. It is understandable that those individuals between 27 and 35 who are in the peak years of pursuing promotion and tenure, establishing their professional careers, and are more likely to have young children and be going to school, feel greater risk. However, the risk perceived for the eldest group is not clearly explained. Perhaps they are responding to the addition of practice to their workload and feel insecure in their clinical skills or are reacting to the increased energy requirements for practice.

Those holding a master^ degree perceived much greater risk than those holding a doctorate. Relating to the findings on age, one might postulate that those faculty with master's degrees are more likely to be younger than those with doctorates and possible seeking to continue their education and meet other requirements for promotion and tenure.

Breakdown of perceived risk by tenure revealed similar tendencies. Non-tenure track faculty perceived the greatest risk from faculty practice, followed by non-tenured faculty. Tenured faculty were the least threatened from introduction of faculty practice. Because faculty practice was added to requirements for promotion and tenure, the author believed tenured faculty would perceive less risk from the requirement, as indeed they did. It is likely that many of the non-tenure track faculty, who experienced the greatest risk, are anticipating a tenure track position eventually and may be reacting to the future job requirement of faculty practice.

Individuals currently engaged in clinical practice perceived much greater risk than those not engaged in practice. Considering that those practicing may be current in their skills and already involved in the activities that would be expected for promotion and tenure, this finding raises questions. Perhaps these individuals are more aware of the time demands and expectations the clinical practice role requires. It should be noted that the question regarding current clinical practice was positioned in the questionnaire before the definition for faculty practice was provided. Since faculty practice has been denned in many ways, it is possible faculty may have responded positively to this item even if they were only teaching nursing in a clinical setting.

Those faculty currently separated from their spouses showed much less risk perception than those in other arrangements; those who were single and widowed showed the most perceived risk from faculty practice, and those who were married and divorced ranked in the middle. As Giaquinta (1975) indicates, ones status outside the organization can have an impact on one's receptivity or the risk perceived from an innovation. Apparently, the personal situations related to marital status contributes to the individual^ view of the innovation. It is not clear to the researcher what might explain the separated individual's low risk perception, since it would seem these individuals would be facing many Stressors and would resist an additional requirement for promotion and tenure. Differentiation between single and divorced status response is also unclear.

Faculty teaching in the undergraduate program perceived greater risk than those teaching in the graduate program or both. Undergraduate faculty may be engaged in doctoral study and/or attempting to fulfill the other criteria for promotion and tenure, thus perceiving an overload with the addition of yet another criterion. They may also be experiencing major time and energy demands of clinical teaching in an undergraduate program.

Individuals with less than four publications in the past 5 years perceived greater risk than those with five or more. A potential explanation for this finding is that those faculty prolific in scholarly writing may not be as concerned about productivity in that arena and thus be less threatened by other expectations.

Question 5: What threats do nurse faculty perceive from the introduction of faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure?

Table 1 provides data on the threats to job perquisites subjects perceived would occur with the introduction of faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure. Examination of the mean scores for each item reveals that time for scholarly productivity is the perquisite respondents felt would be most threatened. Other researchers have found evidence to support this perception (Anderson & Pierson, 1983; Rosswurm, 1981). Time constraints would appear to be a primary focus of concern when anticipating the introduction of this innovation.

The means for other scale items fell between 2.0 and 3.0, which indicates perceptions from moderate increases to no change in these perquisites. Subjects perceived intellectual gratification, interactions with others, and professional esteem as perquisites that would increase moderately at the introduction of the faculty practice requirement. This information is valuable for administrators when assessing the benefits and risks of implementing the faculty practice requirement. Although the innovation will require some risk to an individual, it is possible the administrator or faculty member can offset the risks by emphasizing and building on the positive aspects resulting from the change.

Conclusions and Implications

The results of this study indicate that nursing faculty are somewhat receptive to the introduction of faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure. This finding should inspire those espousing the value of incorporating faculty practice into the academic role.

The high correlation between faculty's receptivity and perceived risk toward the innovation lends support to the contention of Zaltman, Florio, and Sikorski (1977) that risk is a critical variable in initiating organizational change. Because of the high correlations between receptivity and perceived risk, emphasis would best be placed on assessing the risks perceived by individual faculty members in an organization prior to determining a plan or strategy for introducing and implementing such as innovation. Developing an awareness of risks perceived by individuals facing the innovation should be a positive early step in facilitating acceptance of organizational change.

Although selected status variables were significantly related to the risk perceived from this innovation, specific responses by level of status cannot be predicted. A profile of individuals perceiving the least risk from the introduction of faculty practice can be identified. Individuals perceiving the least risk were aged 46 to 55, tenured, held a doctorate, were associate professors, taught in the graduate program or both graduate and undergraduate, had an established publication record, were not currently engaged in clinical practice, and may have been separated from then" spouses. Although this profile is representative of only the subjects in this study, administrators may want to consider these demographics when planning to introduce such a requirement in their institution.

Findings from analysis of job perquisites illustrate that other factors impinge on the individual's perception of risk. Other job-related perquisites not identified in this study may contribute to the risk faculty perceive. As Giaquinta (1975) identifies in his status-risk explanation, risk may result from threats to a combination of organizational and personal status. Other personal roles such as parent, child, significant other, or friend may have a significant bearing on the individual's valuation of a change in job requirements and therefore merit consideration.

Of the specific threats to the job perquisites assessed in this study, it seems clear that nurse educators most fear that the time for scholarly productivity would be constrained. When considering the increasing significance of research and writing activities in achieving tenure, it is clear that time constraints become a major concern and one that administrators must acknowledge before trying to implement such a requirement. Exploration of innovative methods to integrate faculty practice into the scholarly expectations of the faculty role is essential. Within the constraints of time, administrators and faculty must work together to establish realistic expectations for achievements in each of the areas of practice, teaching, research, and writing.

Although threats to job perquisites were examined, several perquisites were actually seen as potentially enhanced by the introduction of the requirement for faculty practice. These included emphasizing the aspects of increased intellectual gratification, interaction with others, and professional esteem. Since these intrinsic rewards may not be valued by all faculty, identification of job perquisites valued by individual faculty members would be an important task for administrators prior to implementing such a change.

The results of this study are obviously subject to the limitations of relying on self-report indicators. It is possible that those individuals returning the questionnaire are more receptive than those failing to respond. It is also important to note that this study is focused on individual's statements of receptivity and perceived risk, which may not correlate with actual behavioral responses to the implementation of the faculty practice requirement. However, the focus of this study was to determine what faculty identify as attitudes and threats if their organization were to institute such a requirement.

Another consideration as a limiting factor of this study relates to the concept of faculty practice as an innovation. Although the population was delimited to faculty not currently required to include faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure, efforts were not made to assure that subjects had never been employed by another institution in which such a policy may have existed. Although the data were collected from 17 different schools and 280 faculty, the problem of external validity still exists when analyzing the findings.

Despite these limitations, the research results have potential value for administrators and educators in nursing. Attitudes of nurse educators toward the addition of faculty practice as a requirement for promotion and tenure have been illustrated. The threats and benefits identified should provide the administrator with insight into the perceptions of faculty regarding promotion and tenure requirements. Administrators should explore ways to support or modify these perceptions to create a positive attitude before implementation of such a proposal.

References

  • Algase, D. (1986). Faculty practice: A means to advance the discipline of nursing. J Nurs Educ, 25, 74-76.
  • Andersen, E.R., & Pierson, P. (1983). An exploratory study of faculty practice: Views of those faculty engaged in practice who teach in an NLN accredited baccalaureate program. West J Nurs Res, 5, 129-143.
  • Barger, S.E., & Bridges, WC. (1987). Nursing faculty practice: Institutional and individual facilitators and inhibitors. J Prof Nurs, 3, 338-346.
  • Barnard, K (1983). Structure to outcome: Making it work. Kansas City, MO: American Academy of Nursing.
  • Chicadonz, G.H., Bush, E.E., Korthuis, K, & Utz, S. (1981). Mobilizing faculty toward integration of practice into faculty roles. Nurs Health Care, 2, 548-553.
  • Christman, L. (1979). The practitioner-teacher. Nurs Educ, 4, 8-11.
  • Cook, S.S., & Finelli, L. (1988). Faculty practice: A new perspective on academic competence. J Prof Nurs, 4, 23-29.
  • Curtis, M. (1980X Evaluating the clinical performance of faculty: Fact or fantasy? In Cognitive dissonance: Interpreting and implementing faculty practice roles in nursing education (pp. 27-32). New York: National League for Nursing (Pub. No. 15-1831).
  • Dickens, M.R. (1983). Faculty practice and social support. Nurs Leader, 6, 121-127.
  • Diers, D. (1980). Faculty practice: Models, methods, and madness. In Cognitive dissonance: Interpreting and implementing faculty practice roles in nursing education (pp. 7-15). New York: National League for Nursing (Pub. No 15-1831).
  • Fagin, C.M. (1985). Institutionalizing practice: Historical and future perspectives. In K.E. Barnard & G.R. Smith (Eds.), Faculty practice in action (pp. 1-17). Kansas City, MO: American Academy of Nursing.
  • Feetham, S., & Malasanos L. (Eds.). (1986). Translating commitment to reality. Kansas City, MO: American Academy of Nursing.
  • Ford, L. (1983). Organizational perspectives on faculty practice: Issues and challenges. In K Barnard (Ed.). Structure to outcome: Making it work (pp. 13-29). Kansas City, MO: American Academy of Nursing.
  • Giacquinta, J. (1975 ). Status, risk, and receptivity to innovations in complex organizations: A study of four groups of educatore to the proposed introduction of sex education in elementary school. Soc of Ed, 48, 38-58.
  • Kazlow, C. (1977). Faculty receptivity to organizational change: A test of two explanations of resistance to innovation in higher education. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 10, 87-98.
  • Kent, N.A (1980). Evaluating the practice component for faculty rank tenure. In Cognitive dissonance: Interpreting and implementing faculty practice roles in nursing education (pp. 43-47) New York: National League for Nursing (Pub. No 15-1831).
  • Lambert, C.E., & Lambert, VA. (1988). A review and synthesis of the research on role conflict and its impact on nurses involved in faculty practice programs. J Nurs Educ, 27, 54-59.
  • Mauksch, I. (1980). Faculty practice: A professional imperative. Nurs Educ,5, 21-24.
  • McCarty, P. (1983). Commission recommends 18 actions for progress. Amer Nurse, 15, 16.
  • McClure, M.L. (1987). Faculty practice: New definitions, new opportunities. Nurs Outlook, 35, 162-166.
  • Millonig, V. (1986). Faculty practice: A view of its development, current benefits, and barriers. J Prof Nurs, 2, 166-172.
  • Neely, C.A, Truby, S.R., Shaughnessy, J.A, Barker, E.R., Burkhardt, M.A, Nagai-Jacobson, M.G., et al. (1986). Professional role synthesis for nursing faculty: A redefinition of faculty practice. J Nurs Ed, 25, 345-348.
  • Parsons, M-A,. & Felton, G. (1987). Practice: A sanctioned faculty role. J Nurs Ed, 26, 123-125.
  • Resolution on unification of nursing service and nursing education. (1979-1980). American Academy of Nursing Newsletter, 1, 4.
  • Rosswurm, M.A (1981). Characteristics of 23 faculty group practices. Nurs Health Care, 2, 327-330.
  • Royle, J., & Crooks, D. (1986). Clinical practice: A dilemma for nurse educators. Nurs tbpers, 18, 27-39.
  • Spero, J. (1980). Nursing: A professional practice discipline in academia. Nurs Health Care, 1, 22-25.
  • Statement of belief regarding faculty practice. (1979). Nurs Outlook, 27, 158.
  • Yarcheski, A., & Manon, N.E. (1985). The unification model in nursing: A study of receptivity among nurse educators in the United States. Nurs lies, 34, 120-125.
  • Yarcheski, A, & Mahon, N.E. (1986). The unification model in nursing: Risk-receptivity profiles among deans, tenured, and nontenured faculty in the United States. West J Nurs Res, 8, 63-81.
  • Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change (p. 59). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Zaltman, G., FIorio, D., & Sikorski, L. (1977). Dynamic educational change. Models, strategies, tactics, and management (p. 136). New York: The Free Press.

TABLE 1

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THREAT TO JOB PERQUISfTES SCALE ITEMS

TABLE 2

ANOVA FOR RESPONDENT VARIABLES AND PERCEIVED RISK FROM FACULTY PRACTICE

10.3928/0148-4834-19891001-05

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents