7: REFLECTIVE RESPONSE ■ 199roles; and nurses who prepare the workforce and the next generations of professional
“practice” in educator roles.
Thus, one can argue that all nurses who “practice” need to be prepared for the par-
ticular role in which they will engage; and if they desire to practice at an advanced level,
they need to pursue graduate education, integrate a specialized body of knowledge
and specialized skills, and be able to articulate their unique contributions to intra- and
interprofessional teams and to the profession. Given this perspective, the nurse educa-
tor role clearly needs to be defined as an “advanced practice” role and acknowledged
as a critical component of the health and viability of our profession. As noted by the
authors of this chapter, this is the role on which all other nursing relies, and without
nurse educators, none of the initiatives related to strengthening nursing’s contributions
to health care can be actualized.
■ PERPETUATING TRADITIONAL WAYS OF THINKING
Not only do we perpetuate traditional ways of thinking about what “practice” means,
we also perpetuate traditional ways of thinking about academic practices and standards
for promotion and tenure. For example, despite the complexities of the world around
us and the reality that an individual cannot be all things to all people, the academic
environment continues to insist that only those who are accomplished scientists with
extensive external funding and long lists of peer- reviewed publications are worthy of
tenure and promotion.
Is it not possible to consider schools of nursing where some faculty are accom-
plished scientists and researchers, others are exceptional teachers, and others are pro-
viding internal leadership and service that helps the school develop, implement and
evaluate new initiatives so they remain on the cutting edge as a school? This comple-
mentary cadre of faculty also would include individuals who are actively involved
in practice and bring that expertise to the classroom, research agendas, and projects
that engage the school with the community to address “grand challenges” that could
enhance the health of that community.
Is it not possible that tenure could be awarded to faculty whose expertise is in
education or practice and who have a sustained record of scholarly accomplishments
in those areas, whose scholarly contributions have had an impact on educational or
clinical practices, who have made significant contributions to the health and growth
of the school and university, and who have the potential to continue such important
contributions? Tenure was put in place in 1915 to protect academic freedom (American
Association of [AAUP], 1940). Does it still serve that purpose?... Is it needed to pro-
tect academic freedom?... Are there other systems and resources in place to protect it?
Tenure was not created, however, only for those who have active, externally funded
programs of research, so why do today’s environments seem to limit this honor only to
such faculty? We need to think differently about the nature and various forms of schol-
arship (Boyer, 1990)— one that recognizes the full range of scholarly activity by faculty,
questions the existence of a reward system that pushes faculty toward research and
publication and away from teaching, and challenges the existing notions that faculty
who have made less traditional forms of contributions to the school, the university, and
their profession are not eligible for tenure.
Is it not possible to have schools with a diverse mix of ways and places where fac-
ulty were educated? PhD- prepared faculty would provide leadership in building the
science of clinical nursing practice, the science of nursing education, and the science