Research Resources Survey

Radiology Junior Faculty Development

Elizabeth A Krupinski, John R. Votaw

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess resources available to junior faculty in US academic radiology departments for research mentorship and funding opportunities and to determine if certain resources are more common in successful programs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey covering scientific environment and research mentorship and was sent to vice-chairs of research of radiology departments. Results were evaluated to identify practices of research programs with respect to mentorship, resources, and opportunities. Academy of Radiology Research's 2012 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and awards list was used to determine if environment and practices correlate with funding.

RESULTS: There was a 51% response rate. A greater fraction of clinical faculty gets promoted from assistant to associate professor than research faculty. Research faculty overall submits more funding applications. Most programs support start-up costs and K-awards. Over half of the departments have a vice-chair for faculty development, and most have formal mentorship programs. Faculty members are expected to teach, engage in service, publish, and apply for and get research funding within 3 years of hire. Top-tier programs as judged by NIH awards have a combination of MDs who devote >50% effort to research and PhD faculty. Key factors holding back both clinical and research junior faculty development were motivation, resources, and time, although programs reported high availability of resources and support at the department level.

CONCLUSIONS: Better marketing of resources for junior faculty, effort devoted to mentoring clinical faculty in research, and explicit milestones/expectations for achievement could enhance junior faculty success, promote interest in the clinician–scientist career path for radiologists, and lead to greater research success.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)918-932
Number of pages15
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume22
Issue number7
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Radiology
Research
Mentors
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Surveys and Questionnaires
Organized Financing
Marketing
Motivation
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Research Resources Survey : Radiology Junior Faculty Development. / Krupinski, Elizabeth A; Votaw, John R.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 22, No. 7, 01.07.2015, p. 918-932.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9f825f563b754aeea751050b41e3090b,
title = "Research Resources Survey: Radiology Junior Faculty Development",
abstract = "RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess resources available to junior faculty in US academic radiology departments for research mentorship and funding opportunities and to determine if certain resources are more common in successful programs.MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey covering scientific environment and research mentorship and was sent to vice-chairs of research of radiology departments. Results were evaluated to identify practices of research programs with respect to mentorship, resources, and opportunities. Academy of Radiology Research's 2012 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and awards list was used to determine if environment and practices correlate with funding.RESULTS: There was a 51{\%} response rate. A greater fraction of clinical faculty gets promoted from assistant to associate professor than research faculty. Research faculty overall submits more funding applications. Most programs support start-up costs and K-awards. Over half of the departments have a vice-chair for faculty development, and most have formal mentorship programs. Faculty members are expected to teach, engage in service, publish, and apply for and get research funding within 3 years of hire. Top-tier programs as judged by NIH awards have a combination of MDs who devote >50{\%} effort to research and PhD faculty. Key factors holding back both clinical and research junior faculty development were motivation, resources, and time, although programs reported high availability of resources and support at the department level.CONCLUSIONS: Better marketing of resources for junior faculty, effort devoted to mentoring clinical faculty in research, and explicit milestones/expectations for achievement could enhance junior faculty success, promote interest in the clinician–scientist career path for radiologists, and lead to greater research success.",
author = "Krupinski, {Elizabeth A} and Votaw, {John R.}",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "918--932",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Research Resources Survey

T2 - Radiology Junior Faculty Development

AU - Krupinski, Elizabeth A

AU - Votaw, John R.

PY - 2015/7/1

Y1 - 2015/7/1

N2 - RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess resources available to junior faculty in US academic radiology departments for research mentorship and funding opportunities and to determine if certain resources are more common in successful programs.MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey covering scientific environment and research mentorship and was sent to vice-chairs of research of radiology departments. Results were evaluated to identify practices of research programs with respect to mentorship, resources, and opportunities. Academy of Radiology Research's 2012 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and awards list was used to determine if environment and practices correlate with funding.RESULTS: There was a 51% response rate. A greater fraction of clinical faculty gets promoted from assistant to associate professor than research faculty. Research faculty overall submits more funding applications. Most programs support start-up costs and K-awards. Over half of the departments have a vice-chair for faculty development, and most have formal mentorship programs. Faculty members are expected to teach, engage in service, publish, and apply for and get research funding within 3 years of hire. Top-tier programs as judged by NIH awards have a combination of MDs who devote >50% effort to research and PhD faculty. Key factors holding back both clinical and research junior faculty development were motivation, resources, and time, although programs reported high availability of resources and support at the department level.CONCLUSIONS: Better marketing of resources for junior faculty, effort devoted to mentoring clinical faculty in research, and explicit milestones/expectations for achievement could enhance junior faculty success, promote interest in the clinician–scientist career path for radiologists, and lead to greater research success.

AB - RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To assess resources available to junior faculty in US academic radiology departments for research mentorship and funding opportunities and to determine if certain resources are more common in successful programs.MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous survey covering scientific environment and research mentorship and was sent to vice-chairs of research of radiology departments. Results were evaluated to identify practices of research programs with respect to mentorship, resources, and opportunities. Academy of Radiology Research's 2012 National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and awards list was used to determine if environment and practices correlate with funding.RESULTS: There was a 51% response rate. A greater fraction of clinical faculty gets promoted from assistant to associate professor than research faculty. Research faculty overall submits more funding applications. Most programs support start-up costs and K-awards. Over half of the departments have a vice-chair for faculty development, and most have formal mentorship programs. Faculty members are expected to teach, engage in service, publish, and apply for and get research funding within 3 years of hire. Top-tier programs as judged by NIH awards have a combination of MDs who devote >50% effort to research and PhD faculty. Key factors holding back both clinical and research junior faculty development were motivation, resources, and time, although programs reported high availability of resources and support at the department level.CONCLUSIONS: Better marketing of resources for junior faculty, effort devoted to mentoring clinical faculty in research, and explicit milestones/expectations for achievement could enhance junior faculty success, promote interest in the clinician–scientist career path for radiologists, and lead to greater research success.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027919687&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027919687&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 918

EP - 932

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 7

ER -