Using Academic Side Hustles to Support Leadership Scholars and Research

Developmental networks in translational science

Mini-Editorial Compilation for Special Section

Contemporary leadership scholars suggest the need to develop an interdisciplinary definition and practice of leadership to prepare people for a postindustrial era. Although leadership has been studied from various perspectives, the discipline of communication studies has been overlooked in this effort. In this article, I attempt to integrate scholarly material from the literatures of communication and leadership studies. Within this review, I explicate the texts of predominant leadership scholars to demonstrate theoretical affinity between their views of leadership and a dramaturgical school of communication studies. From this foundation, I construct a dramatistic definition and method of leadership. The author is hopeful that this theoretical synthesis will bring more attention to the neglected relationship between leadership and communication studies.

Career Development of Physician Scientists: A Survey of Leaders in Academic Medicine

State of the Research Enterprise in IR and Recommendations for the Future: Proceedings from the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation Investigator Development Task Force

As social work doctoral programs are undergoing a substantive shift, in the United States, more institutions of higher education are trending towards a resurgence of a doctorate of social work degree (DSW). However, little attention has been given to the experiences of DSW students. The purpose of this cross-sectional study is to explore why students choose DSW education, professional aspirations, and intended contributions to the field of social work. Findings suggest that 85% of participants noted flexibility as a key selling point and that perceived value added includes professional satisfaction, scholarly leadership, and practice-informed research. The DSW offers the added value of producing seasoned clinical professionals who become highly trained in theory, policy, and research.

Introduction to Research in Leadership examines the process and skills required for effectively conducting research on the concept of leadership. Its authors employ a microscope for close analysis and build balconies to see trends and gain perspective. Designed to be imminently practical, it employs concrete examples of fictional graduate students, faculty, and professionals struggling with their own issues to help readers make sense of the world of research and all of its complexities. Filled with personal anecdotes, stories, and even a touch of humor and sarcasm, each chapter weaves in relevant concepts so that those beginning the process of producing scholarship can get started on a productive path and with a positive attitude.This introductory textbook reviews the core philosophies employed in creating new knowledge within a field of research. It describes quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, as well as several concepts that are common across these. The text concludes with chapters focused on critical scholarship in leadership and creating habits that lead to a lifetime of learning.

The intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship: Mutual lessons to be learned

The study sought to answer the extent of implementation of the career development program and the significant relationship between the faculty profiles and the career development programs and processes. The study also wanted to know the challenges and strategies of career development by using a mixed-method research design and randomly picking 125 faculty respondents from different State Universities and Colleges on Samar Island. It was revealed that the lowest career development program extent of implementation was career development counseling and career development coaching and mentoring which both indicated “Moderately Implemented”. It was also shown in the study that there is a significant correlation between career advancement educational background, academic rank, and the number of published research of the faculty. There is also a significant relationship between career development training to international, national, and local training provided and attended. The career development support process has also a significant relationship with the training of faculty internationally and lastly, career development counseling is significantly related to the number of published research. Thematic analysis was also used for providing career development challenges and strategies and it was discovered that the faculty were challenged with three reasons as follows: (1) there are many tasks in Publishing Research; (2) Financial struggle in finishing a Doctorate Degree; and (3) Time constraints because of designation. Subsequently, the career development strategies also revealed the following: (1) Faculty must finish a doctorate to meet the educational requirement; (2) Conduct and publish research to maximize higher possible points; and (3) Study the guidelines of NBC 461 to achieve higher academic rank. Faculty facing challenges in career development makes them initiate self-development in keeping up points in consonance with the NBC provisions and policies, some are still in adjustment to have a culture of research, challenged by finances both education and personal, a problem of which balancing is tough. Encouraging SUC to help faculty career growth and develop a model that effectively does both individual and institutional support. With the results from the research conducted, quantitative and qualitative approaches, and recommendations the researcher generated a model of academic career development which is called “Refuncion’s Academic Career Development Model.”

Information technology and open innovation: A strategic alignment perspective

The national settlement pattern as a political problem∗

11026 Background: The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program currently supports more than 50 leading medical research institutions in the U.S. with the aims of training, promoting and developing future translational science researchers, with particular emphasis on advanced Clinical and Translational Research (CTR) education. No prior studies have evaluated career development in oncologists who have completed CTR training. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of advanced CTR training on career development, return-on-investment and research productivity in Oncology specialties. Methods: With IRB approval, we conducted a survey study of U.S.-based Hematology/Oncology (H/O), Radiation Oncology (RO), and Surgical Oncology (SO) members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology who completed CTR training. Data was anonymized and collected through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). Outcomes were compared using Chi-square test for frequency data. Results: We received 225 survey responses (62.1% H/O, 23.3% RO, 13.2% SO, 1.4% others). About 28.4% (n = 64) of the respondents had a PhD or Master's degree in CTR (Group A) compared to 71.6% (n = 161) with graduate certificates or non-degree granting courses in CTR (Group B). Specialty ratio was equally distributed between both groups. Overall, 79.7% vs 57.5%; P < 0.001 of respondents worked in academia, of which 55.2% had tenure track positions. Over 49 different CTSA Programs throughout the U.S. were represented. In terms of impact with new research projects, the ability to secure funding and opportunities for multidisciplinary collaboration, satisfaction with CTR training was higher among Group A compared with Group B (P < 0.001; P < 0.01; P < 0.01 respectively). In terms of research output, higher satisfaction was seen in Group A (67.2% vs 47.4%; P < 0.01), however total publications per year were not statistically significant (P = 0.135). Usefulness of a CTR degree on career advancement, a difference of 50.0% vs 19.1%; P < 0.001 was noted. Similarly, usefulness regarding new job opportunities and return-on-investment also favored Group A (P < 0.001). Overall satisfaction with training was significantly higher in Group A (73.4% vs 48.7%; P = 0.004). Conclusions: This study is the first to report satisfaction ratings for CTR training among oncology specialties. Although no significant difference was observed in terms of publication output, those with higher levels of advanced degrees were more satisfied with their CTR training, and viewed it as more impactful to career advancement and research productivity. The evidence presented is useful for informing career development for oncology residents and fellows offered CTR degrees during their training.

As with other Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA)-funded institutions, the Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training (CCTST) provides a variety of clinical and translational research services to local investigators: biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design (BERD); biomedical informatics (e.g., data capture via REDCap1 and data warehousing; pilot grant programs; a clinical translational research center; community engagement; research education, training, and career development; and regulatory support. Investigators submit requests to access all CCTST resources via an online portal called Research Central. Requests for consultation on projects are processed within 72 hours, and a meeting is arranged between a CCTST research service provider (e.g., BERD methodologist) and the investigator (trainees and junior faculty are asked to bring their mentor to the initial consultation). After providing the relevant service(s), CCTST faculty and staff record their meeting minutes electronically in Research Central. All requests for consultation are then reviewed at a biweekly meeting of CCTST directors and service provider to ensure that investigators are receiving proper and timely support (Figure 1A). From its inception, consultations through Research Central have been geared to helping people with their specific research projects and most commonly involve BERD or REDCap support. In a given year, approximately 300–400 requests for consultation are processed. While investigators have been quite satisfied with services received from the CCTST via Research Central, many use only limited services. Moreover, follow-up support has taken place only at the initiative of the investigator. Using a medical analogy, Research Central has functioned like an urgent care center, where the patient (investigator) comes to the center and receives episodic care (a single CCTST service) for the urgent problem. The service may be efficient and the patient may be satisfied but there is no follow-up and no attention is paid to the long-term health of the patient. This model of service is driven by requests for services by individual investigators; they determine when, what, and why they need services, and the CCTST is "reactive" to these requests. The urgent care clinic model of supporting a research project lacked a proactive and long-term commitment to investigators by the CCTST. Therefore, in 2013, we developed a new model to better integrate the various core services with a focus on the individual investigator and his or her career or program, rather than merely on his or her specific research project. Because one of the fundamental goals of the CCTST is to increase the quality and quantity of translational research, investing in the professional development and longitudinal support of investigators is important strategically. Our new model is analogous to a "patient-centered medical home," which complements the "urgent care clinic" model. This new model is founded on the collective interdisciplinary expertise of the CCTST core directors and senior investigators who are able to share their wealth of experience in clinical and translational research, and in particular their extensive knowledge of the institution with investigators. The new group, called the CCTST Integration Committee (IC), is coled by two senior investigators and coordinated by a program manager. The committee includes the principal investigators of the CCTST; codirectors from the BERD, biomedical informatics, community engagement, and regulatory knowledge cores; several senior investigators; two evaluators; and invited faculty as appropriate for the investigator being helped. The IC meets three times each month and has four aims: (1) to provide strategic direction to investigators to support both specific research study needs and broad career development needs; (2) to provide proactive ongoing follow-up and support to investigators for their research and professional development; (3) to identify institutional and system barriers to clinical and translational research that need modification to improve the research environment for investigators; and (4) to help investigators to form multidisciplinary research teams. Potential candidates to come before the IC are identified in two ways: (1) members of the IC identify investigators or leaders from other colleges (e.g., Nursing, Allied Health Sciences, Engineering & Applied Science) and refer them to the cochairs or (2) through a consultation conducted through Research Central, it is realized that the investigator seeking project-specific support would benefit from a more holistic view of his or her career goals, opportunities, and barriers to success (Figure 11B). IC leaders convene to review referrals and confirm appropriate fit, and the investigator is then contacted to determine if he or she is interested in presenting his or her current research and career plans to an upcoming meeting of the IC. To date, 100% of invited investigators have accepted. In preparation for the IC meeting, the program manager works with the investigator to obtain a current CV and to prepare him or her for what to expect. Investigators are asked to come prepared to discuss their short-term goals (grants, manuscripts, pilot project ideas, programmatic concepts), long-term goals (next 3–5 years), typical work week (including amount of time available for research), mentoring relationships, and home division/department/college environment, including availability of colleagues and support from the investigator's division or department head. These issues are then discussed in confidence with the investigator at a scheduled 1- to 1½-hour meeting. Typically, 7–15 IC members attend each meeting. Meetings are audiotaped to facilitate recording of action items and strategic direction for the investigator, but all information discussed is considered to be confidential. At the end of the IC meeting, the investigator is assigned to one of the IC members for longitudinal follow-up. This individual is not intended to replace an existing mentor but to help connect the investigator to institutional resources and to proactively follow-up with the investigator to monitor his or her progress. The investigator leaves the IC meeting session with specific recommendations, with the IC's planned actions to support the investigator's research and career development, and with an approximate follow-up date. Following the IC meeting, the program manager documents the proceedings, including stated short- and long-term goals, typical work week, and CCTST core-specific support needed, and uploads the session audio file, meeting minutes, and investigator's CV onto the CCTST's secure Website. The IC then uses a tracking and evaluation tool on the CCTST's website to update information in the form of confidential electronic progress notes for every investigator who receives an IC consultation. Within 30 days of an IC meeting, a CCTST evaluator conducts a short telephone interview about the consultation experience. We are developing an investigator survey to be administered 9–12 months after the initial consultation to assess research and career development progress. We are also designing a qualitative study to analyze the audio transcripts from the IC consultation sessions to identify common themes for supporting investigators' careers. Finally, IC members are asked to report on their assigned investigators informally, and the IC leaders review this follow-up information at their regular meetings. To move beyond the passive, investigator-driven support of numerous seemingly unrelated clinical and translational research projects, we are implementing a process of providing more holistic and active support to high-potential investigators at key points in their careers. The strategic approach to supporting each investigator is guided by our institution's most senior research faculty as well as CCTST directors and core directors. Our initial experiences with the first 20-plus investigators who have come before our IC have been very positive from the perspectives of both the investigators served and the IC members. Investigators have commented on being energized by having a group of senior faculty take an interest in their research and their careers. The experience has also provided the investigators the chance to reflect on their current situation and their career goals, and in some cases adjust either their own or their mentors' expectations. Simultaneously, the IC has provided an efficient method for the CCTST to coordinate its many services and tailor them to investigators' specific needs, and it has raised awareness among CCTST leaders of institutional structural and cultural impediments (or perhaps potential opportunities) for many investigators. The long-term impact of these consultations and follow-ups has yet to be determined, and our ability to use the evaluation data to make changes in the organizational structure and culture remains to be seen. Our expectation, however, is that the IC model will enable investigators to maximize their potential and that common institutional issues identified by IC investigators will provide good targets for future CCTST actions. This publication was supported by an Institutional Clinical and Translational Science Award, NIH/NCATS grant number 8UL1TR000077–05. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Sufficient history now exists to assess the National Institutes of Health Pathway to Independence Award (K99/R00), first offered in 2007 to support the career development of biomedical researchers. The success of K99 (Mentored Phase of the K99/R00) principal investigators in obtaining subsequent grant support was compared with that of principal investigators supported by the long-standing K08 (Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development Award) and K23 (Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award) programs. For cardiovascular K awards initiated in fiscal years 2007 to 2009, K99 principal investigators were more successful in obtaining subsequent grant support than the other groups. Although a bibliometric analysis showed similar publication quality for all groups, the K99 group was most persistent in applying for the next grant. Possible implications of these findings for all K Award principal investigators, their mentors, and institutions are presented. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports a variety of career development or K awards to facilitate the careers of promising investigators through mentorship, salary support, resources, and protected research time with the broad objective of maintaining a skilled cadre of independent biomedical researchers.1 There are several K mechanisms, and each NIH Institute or Center offers those that best support its mission. Assessments of the entire K program both within2,3 and across NIH Institutes or Centers1 and external reviews by working groups of the Advisory Committee to the Director of NIH4 have shaped the overall structure and performance of K Award programs to achieve a diverse and highly productive research workforce. Recently, we have investigated outcomes for the most prevalent mentored K Awards within the portfolio of the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences (DCVS) of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). K08 (Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development Award), K23 (Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Career Development …

In the last chapter, I expressed my affection for the study of leadership as a liberal art. This chapter is an ode to the study of leadership and the humanities. If I had spent all of my career teaching in a philosophy department, I probably wouldn’t have written it. However, teaching in business schools and doing interdisciplinary research in leadership studies, compelled me to write this, because both areas are dominated by the social sciences. Another reason for this chapter is that I have watched with dismay, as the status of the humanities in the university has diminished over the years. Some consider the humanities impractical since they don’t seem to prepare students for jobs when they graduate. Hence, most students in the U.S. want to study business, where, except for business ethics courses, the curriculum is usually devoid of the humanities. Over the years, I have participated in several projects to promote humanities research in leadership studies, including a special issue on leadership and the humanities in the Leadership Quarterly (see Ciulla JB. Leaders Q 19.4:393–395, 2008a) and a collection of original works on leadership by professors, of literature, art, design, music, philosophy, and political theory called Leadership and the Humanities (Ciulla JB (ed) Leadership and the humanities. In: Ciulla JB (ed) (3-volume set editor) Leadership at the crossroads, vol 3, Praeger, Westport, 2008b). In this chapter, I argue that the topic of leadership is a natural part of the humanities and that leadership scholars cannot fully understand leadership without building their research on the humanities as well as the social sciences.