Wright S W, Slovis C M
Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 1997 Nov;30(5):622-5. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(97)70080-5.
Tenure was designed to guarantee academic freedom through lifelong job security. Productive research, especially in the basic sciences, is the main criterion for tenure at most institutions; therefore faculty in more clinically focused specialties may experience more difficulty obtaining tenure. We examined the relationship between academic emergency medicine and tenure.
We used a questionnaire to survey the directors of all 108 approved US emergency medicine residency programs. The surveyed population was asked whether the program was affiliated with a medical school, the number of full-time faculty, and how many faculty members were tenured or on the tenure track. Follow-up mailings were sent to nonresponders. We also conducted a search of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) database to compare the number of emergency medicine faculty involved in the tenure process in other specialties.
One hundred surveys (93%) were returned. At programs in which faculty were eligible for tenure, 9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4% to 16%) were tenured and 27% (95% CI, 19% to 37%) were on the tenure track. Therefore only 36% of all EM faculty (95% CI, 27% to 46%) were tenured or on the tenure track. Among the 53 residency programs that offered tenure, 45% (95% CI, 32% to 60%) had no tenured faculty. At programs with academic department status, 74% of chairs were tenured, in contrast to only 32% of chiefs at institutions without academic department status (95% CI for difference of 42%, 14% to 71%). The AAMC survey revealed that about one-third as many emergency medicine faculty members were tenured compared with the other specialties. The proportion of faculty on the tenure track, however, was similar between the specialties.
Most eligible emergency medicine faculty members are not tenured or on track to become tenured, and fewer emergency medicine faculty are tenured compared with the more traditional specialties. Emergency medicine may be vulnerable to being considered less academic unless its faculty members gain access to the tenure process.
终身教职旨在通过终身工作保障来确保学术自由。富有成效的研究，尤其是在基础科学领域，是大多数机构授予终身教职的主要标准；因此，专注于临床的专业的教员在获得终身教职方面可能会遇到更多困难。我们研究了学术急诊医学与终身教职之间的关系。
我们使用问卷调查了美国所有108个获批的急诊医学住院医师培训项目的主任。调查对象被问及该项目是否隶属于医学院、全职教员的数量，以及有多少教员获得了终身教职或处于终身教职晋升轨道。我们给未回复者发送了后续邮件。我们还对美国医学院协会（AAMC）数据库进行了搜索，以比较参与终身教职评定过程的急诊医学教员数量与其他专业的情况。
共收回100份调查问卷（93%）。在教员有资格获得终身教职的项目中，9%（95%置信区间[CI]，4%至16%）的教员获得了终身教职，27%（95%CI，19%至37%）的教员处于终身教职晋升轨道。因此，所有急诊医学教员中只有36%（95%CI，27%至46%）获得了终身教职或处于终身教职晋升轨道。在提供终身教职的53个住院医师培训项目中，45%（95%CI，32%至60%）没有获得终身教职的教员。在具有学术部门地位的项目中，74%的主任获得了终身教职，而在没有学术部门地位的机构中，只有32%的主任获得了终身教职（差异的95%CI为42%，14%至71%）。AAMC的调查显示，与其他专业相比，获得终身教职的急诊医学教员数量约为其三分之一。然而，各专业中处于终身教职晋升轨道的教员比例相似。
大多数符合条件的急诊医学教员没有获得终身教职或没有走上获得终身教职的轨道，与更传统的专业相比，获得终身教职的急诊医学教员更少。除非急诊医学教员能够进入终身教职评定过程，否则该领域可能容易被认为学术性较低。
