What did we learn about the impact on university-based faculty?

Meeting the objectives and requirements of the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project had positive and negative effects on the university-based basic science and clinical faculty, which have been divided into four categories: boundary issues, collaboration, teaching, and development. The specific experiences of two schools, the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine and the Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine at Marshall University, are compared against the experiences of the ten schools as documented in the IGC Project external evaluation team's final report. Boundary issues regarded as negative effects of the IGC Project included perceived encroachment on the time devoted to basic science education, loss of the unique identity of the university-based faculty as academicians, and reduced prominence of subspecialist clinical faculty. Effects of the IGC Project in the other areas were, for the most part, positive. The increased collaboration yielded a net benefit to the university-based faculty at large. The clinical faculty experienced more opportunities to teach. Introduction of teacher development programs were of benefit to both clinical and basic science faculty. The other arm of development, professional development, was evidenced by increased stature and promotions of IGC faculty directors. In conclusion, changes within the university-based faculty occurred in stages as faculty realized that the design of the IGC Project enhanced the educational experience of the students.