A two-decades-long study of scholarship by clinical laboratory science faculty.

To compete successfully in academia, clinical laboratory science (CLS) faculty members must actively engage in research and scholarly activities. Without research, some CLS educators may experience difficulty in the promotion and tenure process or even find their educational programs threatened with closure. Thus began a national study, spanning the years 1985, 1996, and 2008: to compare CLS faculty demographics, their scholarship, and their perceptions of the research environment. Since 1985, faculty members with doctorates have increased from 26% to 52% and senior faculty at the rank of associate and full professors have improved from 38% to 54%. Over time, the data show CLS faculty are providing more refereed publications (in the 2008 study, 19% had 11 or more publications) and more presentations (in the 2008 study, 34% had 11 or more presentations). Grant monies garnered included $62 million in the latest study. On the other hand, there are more faculty in non-tenured track positions. In addition, in both the 1996 and 2008 studies, the average number of faculty per program remained the same (4), as did hours spent each week in teaching (22). For all three studies, faculty perceived the top two research environment characteristics the same: i.e., 1) research is important for promotion and tenure and 2) computer accessibility is present. The lowest ranked characteristic of the research environment for all these studies-time available for research.

Research and scholarship of clinical laboratory science faculty members.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the research and scholarly productivity of faculty in four-year college and university clinical laboratory science (CLS) programs. To identify hours spent in research, numbers of presentations and publications, and external funding. DESIGN: In 2008, a national study involving 106 college and university CLS programs was conducted to determine whether faculty were participating in research. A questionnaire, in electronic format, was distributed to 448 faculty members. Data from 2001 to 2008, and from 275 respondents (61% response) representing 93 of 106 (88%) CLS programs were analyzed. SETTING: The study took place at The Ohio State University with collaboration from the University of Minnesota. PARTICIPANTS: All CLS faculty within a four-year university or college sponsoring a NAACLS-accredited CLS program were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To determine whether CLS faculty scholarly activities have been strengthened in the past decade. To quantitate scholarship productivity. To assess faculty perceptions of their employment environments. RESULTS: Data indicate that faculty who possess earned doctorates have higher levels of research productivity. While 52% of CLS faculty hold doctorates and 45% are tenured, 36% of all CLS faculty members have not published a research paper or abstract since 2001. On the other hand, 19% have published 11 or more times. CLS faculty were also awarded a total of $62 million in external funding, 83% from government sources. Teaching remains a primary responsibility of many faculty members. CONCLUSIONS: In the past decade, and generally speaking, CLS faculty have made some progress in scholarship including highest degree obtained, publications, presentations, and grantsmanship.

Graduate education in clinical laboratory science is the glass half full or half empty?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 2007 and 1990 data on the number and characteristics of programs offering graduate level degrees in Clinical Laboratory Science. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANT: Data were collected from published sources (Directory of Graduate Programs for Clinical Laboratory Practitioners) and analyzed at the University of Minnesota. Specific data regarding the kinds of advanced programs and the number of graduates per year, the number of program openings and closures, program requirements were collected, as well as data regarding the number and employment of graduates of Master's degree programs at two long-standing public institutions. INTERVENTION: Not Applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The tabulation of degree, program, and graduate data, together with the first position taken by graduates of two M.S. programs. RESULTS: The numbers of graduate level programs and graduates decreased between 1990 and 2007, from 39 to 28 identified Master's level programs, but with only a slight increase from two to five doctoral programs. Several prominent and historically important Master's level programs have closed since the first edition (1990) of the Directory. Detailed analysis of the data from two Master's level programs showed that the first positions for graduating students were predominantly research related and in the same state as the degree-granting institution. CONCLUSION: The number of advanced programs and graduates are relatively small in clinical laboratory science; however M.S. graduates are successful in obtaining positions. These positions are predominantly geographically related to the degree-granting institution, indicating an intellectual and economic impact of the programs in the regions they are located.

Scholarly activities of the most productive CLS faculty and schools in the U.S.A.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the research and scholarship of the most productive clinical laboratory science faculty and schools in the United States. DESIGN: In 2008 a national study involving 106 college and university CLS programs was conducted to determine which faculty members were most productive in research activities. A questionnaire was sent electronically to all faculty (n=448) of 106 NAACLS accredited programs. Data from 275 respondents (61%), from 93 programs (89%) were analyzed. SETTING: The study took place at The Ohio State University with collaboration from the University of Minnesota. PARTICIPANTS: Clinical laboratory science faculty within a four-year university or college sponsoring a NAACLS-accredited CLS program, were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To quantitate faculty scholarly productivity by point assessment, to assess the top 10% of faculty based on funding, publications, abstracts, presentations, books and chapters, and to identify the 15 highest ranking institutions in terms of their collective faculty research contributions. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10% of clinical laboratory science faculty (n=28) are performing almost 50% of scholarship in the profession, with major contributions in funding garnered and international presentations. These individuals also generally hold a doctorate, are full professors and tenured. Among the 15 highest ranked colleges and universities with CLS programs, and by cumulative faculty contributions, most are classified as research institutions.