Department Chair Position Research Articles

Navigating the white waters with servant leadership

No one ever promised that the university department chair position was going to be an easy one. On any given day, the chair has the responsibility to make a multitude of decisions, with each decision having the potential to impact the department either positively or negatively. Consequently, effective department leaders have developed their own special skill set that helps them to make the right decisions at the right times, relying on research and data to support their decisions.

Women physicians in academic pathology leadership.

To evaluate the gender composition of departmental chairs and program leadership of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited pathology residencies and American Board of Pathology-certified subspecialty fellowships across the United States. In this cross-sectional analysis, we examined the gender of individuals holding leadership positions in academic pathology in the United States. Using publicly available online data, 2 authors independently coded perceived gender (ie, man/woman/other) with 100% concordance. In 144 pathology residency programs, more women hold residency program director positions (52.1% [75/144]). Among 11 pathology subspecialties, women overall hold fewer fellowship program director positions (45.0% [212/471]). Among the residency-associated pathology department chair positions identified, women hold fewer positions (31.8% [42/132]). There is some geographic variation in pathology leadership gender composition when stratified using US Census regions. Women in academic pathology departments are well represented in residency and overall fellowship program leadership but are underrepresented in department chair and certain pathology subspecialty leadership positions. The disproportionate number of women in department chair positions is observed across medical specialties, highlighting the need for improved gender equity among high-level academic medicine positions.

Ophthalmology Faculty Diversity Trends in the US

Enhancing the diversity of ophthalmologists can potentially contribute to diminishing disparities in eye care. To investigate longitudinal trends in the representation of individuals underrepresented in medicine (URiM) and women among ophthalmology faculty compared with other specialties and to assess disparities between ophthalmology faculty demographic characteristics and the US population. In this cross-sectional study, a comprehensive analysis of Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Roster data between 2000 and 2021 was conducted, using data from the US Medical School Faculty report on 56 438 ophthalmology faculty members. The data set was used to differentiate ophthalmology faculty members by gender, rank, and designation as a URiM individual. Outcome measures included changes in URiM and non-URiM faculty proportions, faculty rank, gender, department chair positions, and the US population between 2000 and 2021. A total of 56 438 ophthalmology faculty members (37 511 men [66.5%]) were included in the study. The number of ophthalmology faculty increased from 1820 in 2000 to 3151 in 2021. Across all years, URiM female faculty represented 3.1% of ophthalmologists (1733 of 56 438), while URiM men accounted for 3.5% (1983 of 56 438). Overall, non-URiM men constituted 63.0% of ophthalmologists (35 528 of 56 438), and non-URiM women accounted for 30.5% (17 194 of 56 438). The proportion of URiM male faculty remained stable from 2000 to 2021 (63 of 1820 [3.5%] vs 104 of 3151 [3.3%]), with a small increase in URiM women faculty at junior faculty positions (2000, 40 of 1820 [2.2%]; 2021, 129 of 3151 [4.1%]; difference, 1.9% [95% CI, 0.9%-2.9%]). Proportions of non-URiM men decreased from 71.2% (1295 of 1820) in 2000 to 55.3% (1743 of 3151) in 2021 (difference, 15.8% [95% CI, 13.1%-18.6%]) and proportions of non-URiM women increased from 23.2% (422 of 1820) in 2000 to 37.3% (1175 of 3151) in 2021 (difference, 14.1% [95% CI, 11.5%-16.7%]). In terms of faculty rank, there were increases in representation of women from 2000 to 2021 at assistant professor (from 11.2% [203 of 1819] to 19.7% [622 of 3165]; difference, 8.5% [95% CI, 6.5%-10.5%]), associate professor (from 4.6% [83 of 1819] to 8.6% [271 of 3165]; difference, 4.0% [95% CI, 2.6%-5.4%]), and professor levels (from 2.8% [51 of 1819] to 7.1% [223 of 3165]; difference, 4.3% [95% CI, 3.9%-6.1%]). URiM representation remained stable at most ranks. Compared with other specialties, ophthalmology had among the lowest percentage change in URiM faculty. The expansion of ophthalmology's URiM faculty representation was less than one-third that of the diverse US population. These findings highlight substantial growth in ophthalmology faculty and an increase in women's representation across several faculty ranks. However, URiM representation has remained largely unchanged, despite an increase at the associate professor level. This finding emphasizes the need for continued efforts to enhance diversity in academic ophthalmology.

Gender and Racial Representation Trends Among Internal Medicine Department Chairs from 2010–2020

BackgroundQuality medical education, reduction in health disparities, and healthcare research that includes all members of society are enhanced by diversity in departments of internal medicine (IM). Research on increasing diversity within the academic medicine student body or faculty notes the important role of leadership. Yet, there is a scarcity in research into diversity in leadership.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to go beyond aggregate numbers and answer the question: What is the level of parity representation, by gender and race, at department chair positions in academic IM departments?DesignA cross-sectional analysis of race/ethnicity and gender in IM medical school departments from 2010 to 2020 was conducted using data from the American Association of Medical College’s (AAMC) Faculty Roster. The proportion of IM department chairs to IM faculty by race/ethnicity for each year (2010–2020) was used to calculate the Leadership Parity Index (LPI) in this study. LPI by gender and by gender and race/ethnicity were also calculated for each year.ResultsIn aggregate numbers, Black or African American and Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin faculty remain under-represented in academic IM each making up, on average, approximately 4% of the total IM faculty. The LPI calculations revealed that faculty who identified as White were consistently over-represented as department chairs while Asian faculty were consistently under-represented in leadership and ranked lowest in leadership parity among the ethnic groups studied. The leadership parity index also showed that women faculty across all races were under-represented.ConclusionWomen and Asian faculty encounter a ceiling effect that may be at play in IM departments. While significant progress still needs to be made in the representation of under-represented minorities, the findings of this study show that aggregate data does not provide a true picture of equity and parity in Internal Medicine faculties.

Common pathways to Dean of Medicine at U.S. medical schools.

PurposeWe sought to evaluate common leadership experiences and academic achievements obtained by current U.S. Medical School Deans of Medicine (DOMs) prior to their first appointment as Dean in order to elucidate a common pathway for promotion.MethodsIn April-June 2019 the authors requested a curriculum vitae from each of the 153 LCME-accredited U.S. Medical School DOMs. The authors abstracted data on prior appointments, demographics, and achievements from CVs and online databases. Differences by gender and institutional rank were then evaluated by the Fisher’s exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.ResultsCVs were obtained for 62% of DOMs (95 of 153), with women comprising 16% of the responding cohort (15/95). Prior to appointment as DOM, 34% of respondents had served as both permanent Department Chair and Associate Dean, 39% as permanent Department Chair but not Associate Dean, and 17% as Associate Deans but not permanent Department Chair. There was a non-significant trend for men to have been more likely to have been a permanent Department Chair (76% vs 53%, p = 0.11) and less likely to have been an Associate Dean (48% vs 67%, p = 0.26) compared to women. Responding DOMs at Top-25 research institutions were mostly male (15/16), more likely to have been appointed before 2010 (38% vs 14%, p = 0.025), and had higher H-indices (mean (SD): 73.1 (32.3) vs 33.5 (22.5), p<0.01) than non-Top-25 Deans.ConclusionsThe most common pathway to DOM in this study cohort was prior service as Department Chair. This suggests that diversification among Department Chair positions or expansion of search criteria to seek leaders from pools other than Department Chairs may facilitate increased diversity, equity, and inclusion among DOM overall.

Current status and solutions for gender equity in anaesthesia research.

Despite increasing numbers of women entering anaesthesia, they remain persistently under-represented within academic anaesthesia and research. Gender discordance is seen across multiple aspects of research, including authorship, editorship, peer review, grant receipt, speaking and leading. Women are also under-represented at higher faculty ranks and in department chair positions. These inequities are further magnified for women with intersectional identities, such as those who identify as Black, indigenous and women of colour. Several barriers to participation in research have been identified to date, including a disproportionate amount of family responsibilities, a disproportionate burden of clinical service, gender bias, sexual harassment and the gender pay gap. Several strategies to improve gender equity have been proposed. Increasing access to formal mentorship of women in academic medicine is frequently cited and has been used by healthcare institutions and medical societies. Senior faculty and leaders must also be conscious of including women in sponsorship and networking opportunities. Institutions should provide support for parents of all genders, including supportive parental leave policies and flexible work models. Women should also be materially supported to attend formal educational conferences targeted for women, aimed at improving networking, peer support and professional development. Finally, leaders must display a clear intolerance for sexual harassment and discrimination to drive culture change. Peers and leaders alike, of all genders, can act as upstanders and speak up on behalf of targets of discrimination, both in the moment or after the fact. Gender inequities have persisted for far too long and can no longer be ignored. Diversifying the anaesthesia research community is essential to the future of the field.

Here to chair: Gender differences in the path to leadership

AbstractObjectiveCareer paths leading to department chair positions are elusive. Women represent only 11% of academic emergency department (ED) chairs. It is unclear whether the pathway to chair is different for men and women; the characteristics, achievements, and qualifications among those who become ED chairs is unknown.MethodsThis study is a cross‐sectional analysis of curriculum vitae (CV) of current ED chairs in departments with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)‐accredited residency programs. Former women chairs were included due to paucity of current women chairs. Statistics were calculated using bivariate and multivariate analysis.ResultsOf 163 eligible chairs, 88 CV (54%) were obtained, including six former women chairs. A majority (86.4%) self‐identified as White/Caucasian, 21.5% were women, 46% were chief residents, 28.4% completed additional postgraduate degrees, and 21.8% were fellowship trained. At time of chair appointment, 58% were professor rank, 53.5% held ED operations roles, and 32% served as vice chair. Women were more likely to be in educational (53% vs. 22%) versus operational (26% vs. 61%, p = 0.02) roles. Women obtained more advanced degrees (47% vs. 25%, p = 0.02), were awarded more nonfederal grants (median = 7 vs. 3, p = 0.04), and achieved more national committee leadership (median = 4 vs. 1, p = 0.02). There were no gender differences in fellowship training, awards, leadership training programs, publications, federal grants, or national/international lectures after adjusting for years in practice.ConclusionWhile the majority of chairs held prior leadership roles in ED operations, only one in five women chairs did, suggesting gender differences in the path to chair attainment. These differences in paths may contribute to persistent gender disparities in ED chairs and may be influenced by career path choices, implicit bias, and structural barriers.

A Real-World Discourse on Intellectual Identity, Thought Leadership, and the Black Woman Academic Chair

A Real-World Discourse on Intellectual Identity, Thought Leadership, and the Black Woman Academic Chair Katherine Bankole-Medina (bio) Introduction: … and I Wrote My Name There Professor Cynara Robinson writes poignantly about the challenges and triumphs of Black women educators in segregated Louisiana before the 1960s. Like Black teachers in the South at that time, this was a group of stalwart women, dedicated to students and their own professional development. An impressive feature of these teachers' lives was that they spent the academic year in the classroom and used the summer months to attend college. It took many years for these women to earn their college degrees, but they succeeded.1 They operated from a strong sense of commitment in order to fulfill the needs of the community. Black women scholars, educators, and academics come out of a historical womanist tradition where scholarly excellence and social responsibility are interchangeable terms. They are in fact mutually supportive concepts essential to our survival and progress. Black women have a particular way of knowing and thinking about the world. Their journey is important as I reflect briefly on my own. As a first generation, older, part-time, non-traditional college student, I worked full-time while attending various universities, appreciating the great legacy we share. Over a twenty-year period, I held the various positions of department chair, academic program director, and chair-equivalent positions (i.e., program coordinator). This work involved direct engagement with more than twenty full-time faculty members and countless part-time adjunct professors. This work also consisted of providing administrative support to interdisciplinary faculty (including graduate teaching assistants), facilitating instruction for general education and upper-level history courses, and assisting with undergraduate and graduate student academic and thesis advising. [End Page 134] This essay is in the spirit of writer, educator, and activist Audre Lorde who understood: "It is not difference which immobilizes us, but silence. And there are so many silences to be broken."2 This piece emphasizes the shattering of silences by reflecting upon some of the real-world challenges, insights, and important lessons of a Black woman faculty-administrator in higher education. This is a role that provided groundwork for advancement in the academy and support for critical social justice activism. However, this is not a theoretical or discursive criticism about the department chair's position. This essay is a counter-narrative that considers the overall administrative role based on my professional experience, an exploration into selected literature, and thoughtful observations of the actual work of department chairs. Several interrelated concepts and themes are briefly explored that focus on Black women academic professionals: double-jeopardy, selfless servant leaders, tropes of dominance, race-sex scripts, double standards, and planning for the chairwomanship. The broad impressions contained here (some disquieting) are derived from meaningful encounters and reveal a small but profound part of the department chair's realm from one Black woman's perspective. Consider that among Black women in academia, there are variations in how we perceive our experience; and there are other factors like differing perspectives on forms of oppression, access to professional development, and opportunities for employment at diversity-driven or prestige institutions. These, and other considerations, would result in a different kind of assessment. However, in moving the conversation forward, this reflection yielded an important artifact for Black women aspiring to gain a seat at the chair's table—that, in times of great challenge and triumph, always remember who you are. The Black Woman's Quandary as "Double Jeopardy"—and Beyond The liberatory movements of the 1960s and 1970s (Civil Rights, Black Power, and Feminist) revealed that Black women's lives were deliberately structured to reinforce the negation of racism and sexism. The major contributions Black women made to the progressive development of the American nation had long been marginalized. And at a time when White women's intellectual manifestos were being recognized as foundational feminist texts,3 the intellectual contributions of Black women were thought to be unimaginable. As Alice Walker noted in 1972, for Black women "the freedom to paint, to sculpt, to expand the mind with action...

Surviving the Pandemic as a Department Chair

Surviving the Pandemic as a Department Chair

Investigating Gender Disparities in Internal Medicine Residency Awards

In 2017, for the first time in history women made up the majority of matriculating medical students.1 Despite the improvements in representation that women have seen in academic medicine, the field remains rife with gender disparities: Female faculty members receive lower salaries,2 hold fewer full professor and department chair positions,3,4 and are less frequently awarded research grants than their male counterparts.5 In addition, recent studies have highlighted the lack of female representation in awards from medical professional societies.

Job Perceptions of Community College and University Department Chairs

ABSTRACT Much has been written about the university department chair, but little is known about whether the community college chair position is different. The profile and job perceptions of community college department chairs, and how the job of the community college chair compare to the university chair profile illustrated in the literature remains unclear. Knowing what differences exist would have implications for the selection and training of community college chairs. To investigate this question, survey research was used to gather information about the community college department chair position. Replicating previous survey research on university chairs, the 39-question survey was administered to 178 randomly selected math, science, and social sciences department chairs from community colleges in each state in the United States. Nineteen percent of surveys were completed. Community college chairs differed from university chairs in perceptions of skills, challenges, and tasks. Communication was ranked the most necessary skill, stress was ranked the greatest challenge, faculty tasks were ranked the most pleasant, and the need to justify the viability of the department was ranked the least pleasant. Results indicate that the position of community college chair does differ from the university chair. While similar in demographic profile, satisfaction rates, and reasons for taking the job, findings demonstrate community college chairs face the challenge of higher stress levels and concerns about their department’s viability. These findings suggest the need for specialized training to prepare incoming and current community college chairs to be successful in this unique position.

Life After Being a Pathology Department Chair III: Reflections on the “Afterlife”

The Association of Pathology Chairs Senior Fellows Group provided reflections on activities that have kept them engaged and inspired after stepping down as chair. They offered advice to current chairs who were considering leaving their positions and also to individuals contemplating becoming pathology chairs. A majority (35/41) responded: 60% maintained teaching/mentoring activities; 43% engaged in hobbies; 40% took other administrative positions including deans, medical center chief executive officers, and residency program directors; 31% continued research; 28% wrote books; 20% performed community service; 14% led professional organizations; 14% developed specialized programs; 11% engaged in clinical service; and 11% performed entrepreneurial activities. Most individuals had several of these activities. One-third indicated that those considering becoming chair should be able to place faculty and department needs before their own. One-fourth emphasized the need to know why one wants to become chair, the need to develop clear goals, and the need to know what one wants to accomplish as chair before applying for and accepting the position. More than half (57%) indicated that before stepping down as chair, one should have a clear plan and/or professional goals that can be served by stepping down. Some even suggested that this be in place before applying for the chair. Almost two-thirds (63%) indicated they had no regrets stepping down as chair. These findings may be valuable to those contemplating stepping down from or stepping into any department chair position or other academic leadership role.

Patching Up the “Leaking Leadership Pipeline”: Fostering Mid-career Faculty Succession Management

The research presented here contributes to research and practice focused on faculty leadership development by examining the leadership pipeline for mid-career faculty in a consortium of 13 liberal arts colleges. Research findings revealed that mid-career faculty members are in the leadership pipeline, with the department chair position serving as an entry point. However, leadership aspirations beyond the department chair position decline serving as a source of the leaking leadership pipeline. Differences were found by gender. Further, issues of lack of preparation for current and future leadership roles was connected to few mid-career faculty members aspiring to executive leadership positions. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Hitting the wall.

I landed my dream job: a tenure-track position at a primarily undergraduate institution near my hometown where I would develop a new neuroscience major. I entered that position the way one enters a marriage: expecting it to last forever, assuming I would give it everything I had, hoping that—while it would not always be easy—it would be worth it. Soon, though, something seemed amiss. It felt kind of like sexism—but not exactly. Whatever it was, I experienced it from both women and men, from the department chair to the administrative assistant. It was only after many years and a career upheaval that I learned there was a legal term to describe it. ![Figure][1] ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER Relatively early on, an administrator asked me to meet with every member of the department to tell them about my teaching schedule. It was odd. None of us knew anyone else's schedules, and mine wasn't particularly unusual, just Monday-Wednesday-Friday. Was this just a normal part of being a junior faculty member? If it was, then why didn't I know the schedule of a colleague who started with me? I had just returned from maternity leave. One morning, my 2-year-old son had a serious fall and I needed to take him to the emergency room. When I got to campus the next day, a colleague stopped by. He told me that, at lunch, he had heard about what happened and had said to everyone there, “Hey, if I had a dollar for every time I fell on my head, I'd be a millionaire.” Maybe he thought it was funny. I saw it as suggesting that I had foolishly overreacted and shouldn't have let my son's injury take me away from my academic work. I had seen colleagues go out of their way to cover one another's classes when they needed to take a pet to the vet, go to the dentist, or attend their Friday jazz practice. Why was the reaction to me so different? Later, when the department chair position opened up, I was not invited to apply. I had created and directed one of the most popular science majors on campus and had been unanimously granted tenure. I was also pregnant with my third child at the time. The sustained effort necessary to succeed in the face of this behavior consumed inordinate energy. I learned to seek out colleagues from other departments and look into administrative guidelines when something didn't feel right. I spent a lot of time trying to anticipate where the next challenge would come from. As I gathered my materials to apply for promotion to full professor, I thought, “I cannot do this anymore.” I handed in my resignation. Initially my provost did not accept it. However, another administrator said, “It's time. It's time to be home with your children,” and then circulated an email to that effect. I felt like my career had been derailed, and I didn't understand exactly why, except that—as this last comment made clear—it was related to the fact that I'm a mother. When I regained the mental space to reflect on what happened, and after much research, I finally came upon the term “maternal wall bias,” now broadened to “family responsibilities discrimination.” I learned that some of what I experienced reflected attribution bias, when everyday actions—taking a child to the doctor, choosing one teaching schedule over another—are interpreted through negative stereotypes of parents, and particularly mothers, as scientists. I learned about leniency bias, when the same work standard is applied more strictly to parents. And I learned that the more children one has, the more severe the bias. It was both validating and maddening to confirm why I had been so marginalized. I cannot change what happened to me. But I can share what I learned so that both nonparents and parents will be aware that this kind of discrimination is not only unacceptable—it's illegal. After all, this is our responsibility as scientists: When we learn something that may fundamentally impact the future of our fields, we share it. [1]: pending:yes

The Strategic Value of Succession Planning for Department Chairs.

Most faculty who aspire to be department chairs are unaware of succession processes at their institution. This Commentary highlights the importance of succession planning, emphasizing the general need for transparency. Succession planning provides institutional leaders the opportunity to optimize, renew, and revitalize their organization by ensuring successful leadership transitions. In contrast to leadership pathways in the military, corporate business, and hospital administration, planned succession of medical school department chairs has received little attention. Different approaches to succession planning are essential for emergency and planned transitions. Emergency succession plans should be in place at all times, regularly revisited, and modified as needed. Department chairs should begin considering their planned succession between one and five years after their initial appointment. The succession discussion between a chair and medical school dean requires cautious, thoughtful, and open discussions. Intradepartmental annual faculty performance evaluations permit the chair to mentor potential successors in acquiring future-oriented, institution-based leadership qualities necessary to be considered for a future department chair position. If health and time permit, the successful chair should remain in his or her current position until a successor is named or, preferably, is in place. Appointment of an interim chair as part of succession planning can be useful for on-the-job training of an internal candidate, yet awkwardness might ensue if there is more than one internal candidate.Succession development offers the great advantage of maintaining smooth organizational performance while optimizing talent management and exploring opportunities for transitioning individuals into leadership roles.

Equity in surgical leadership for women: more work to do

BackgroundSex disparity in the Program Director role has not been studied. The goal of this study is to evaluate the percentage of women in Chair and Program Director positions. We hypothesize that there is a higher percentage of women in the Program Director role than Chair role. MethodsAn Internet search identified Chairs, Program Directors, Associate Program Directors, and Division Chiefs. Statistical analysis compared percentages of women in these roles at all institutions, academic/community programs, and regions. ResultsThere is higher female representation in the Program Director position than Chair position (P = .002) in General Surgery, Otolaryngology, and Orthopedics. More women are Associate Program Directors than Division Chiefs (23.6% vs 9.8%, P ≤ .001). Academic and community programs are no different. In the West, a greater percentage of women are Chairs as compared with the other regions (P ≤ .002). ConclusionsThere are higher rates of women in Program Director position than Department Chair position. This discrepancy warrants further investigation.

Teaching, leadership, scholarly productivity, and level of activity in the chiropractic profession: a study of graduates of the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic radiology residency program

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to track the graduates of the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic (LACC) radiology residency program, review their scholarly productivity, and report those involved in teaching and leadership positions. MethodsFormer LACC residents’ career information was identified through publicly available electronic documents including Web sites and social media. PubMed and the Index to Chiropractic Literature databases were searched for chiropractic graduate job surveys, and proportional comparisons were made between the career paths of LACC radiology residency graduates and those of non–residency-trained chiropractors. ResultsOf 47 former LACC residents, 28 (60%) have or previously had careers in tertiary (chiropractic) education; and 12 (26%) have attained a department chair position or higher at tertiary teaching institutions. Twenty-two (47%) have or previously had private radiology practices, whereas 11 (23%) have or previously had clinical chiropractic practices. Often, residency graduates hold or have held 2 of these positions at once; and one, all 3. Chapters or books were authored by 13 (28%). ConclusionRadiology residency LACC graduates are professionally active, particularly in education, and demonstrate scholarly productivity.

Being chair: a 12-step program for medical school chairs

For a medical school-based career academician, the Department Chair position is a frequent, if not constant, focus of attention. There is an undeniable mystique about the position, and many academicians may find themselves wondering: “Maybe I could do this? Maybe I should do this? If it were me, I could do this so much better….”In some respects, the Chair is like any other or many other jobs. But the reality is that a medical school Department Chair is a unique position, with distinctive relationships and responsibilities. The scope of the position can be breathtaking, ranging from oversight of medical student training to maintenance of the highest quality patient care. Despite the importance of this position, there has been little attention in the literature to the realities of chairmanships and virtually nothing in terms of practical advice.For eight years I was a medical school Department Chair. When I look back I can only wonder how anybody manages to do the job. My formal preparation was basically nonexistent. There was, of course, on the job training, but there should be a better way.One way to approach a difficult situation requiring a new set of behaviors is a 12-step program. This approach has been widely utilized for alcoholism and drug addiction, but has also been incorporated in programs involving work behavior for psychiatrists and nurse practitioners.1-3 The principal value of 12-step programs relates to their simplicity and practicality.I have summarized my experience as Chair in the form of a 12-step program. I write this in the spirit of pointing out the pitfalls, landmines, and swamps that are going to be out there for all but the most fortunate Chairs. Let me offer some hard-earned and perhaps idiosyncratic advice. You can decide for yourself whether it qualifies as wisdom. This is what I wish someone had told me before starting as Chair.

On (And Off) the Hot Seat: An Analysis of Entry into and Out of University Administration

The authors investigate economists' decisions to enter and exit department chair positions in research-intensive economics departments of elite universities during the postwar era (1948–1989). They use the American Economic Association Survey of Members as well as phone surveys to determine which, and at what point in their careers, faculty assume administrative positions. The theoretical model predicts and empirical results confirm that a faster rate of knowledge depreciation in an economist's field of study reduces the entry and exit rates for the chair position. Moreover, among those who have exited the position of chair, longer terms of past chair service and faster knowledge depreciation accelerate the timing of movements into upper-level administration. The findings suggest that administrators are to some extent made and not born, and that the growing specialization and technical nature of many professions could affect who chooses administrative careers and at what point in their careers they choose them.

Aktueller Stand und Zukunft des Fachgebietes Anthropologie Schlusscommunique Standortvertretertreffen der Gesellschaft für Anthropologie (GfA), März 2009

The primary goal discussed is to strengthen the scientifically important research discipline of anthropology in the coming years by reinforcing its position in the German university system as a trans-disciplinary field and to edify its image within the public eye. Like many other branches of science, anthropology has witnessed a number of profound changes in the university sphere in recent years. In addition to increased reliance on monetary funding, the fundamental structure of research and teaching in the university sector, the product of centuries-old development, is experiencing a transition phase and progressively operating ever more under the influence of"excellence monitoring" as well as the "Bologna" process. Financial cuts have led to the termination of once fix job positions at all levels, whereby the loss of mid-level positions requisite for a healthy and functional junior academic environment, such as post-doc jobs, is particularly unsettling. The still tangible burden of recent historical events and small number of prominent representatives in the field are problematic, however, the primary concern today involves the seemingly imminent closure of established anthropological centres and discontinuation of department chair positions. Fortunately, this ominous trend does not apply to all leading university departments, many of which are engaged in innovative and novel concepts, and has resulted in their general acceptance and the fortification of anthropology programs. Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure adequate funding for projects from money givers such as the DFG, mainly because of the relatively small size of the field. Specialization within the field at the university level obviously poses a serious problem for such a small holistic discipline (with regards to problem statements and methodology). The definition of anthropology as an entity is complicated by external influences such as newly developing research interests that are arising parallel to the disappearance of specific scientific areas. Yet some of these influences are proving advantageous and offer the potential for future avenues of work. The field's high visibility has led to substantial student registration potentially yielding a large base of young scientists. Within the framework of Bologna, both interdisciplinary cooperation and the methodological diversity offered by the field will allow for an attractive curriculum. The recent introduction of tuition fees has also resulted in new money for anthropology programs.