23: THE DNP IN THE ACADEMIC ROLE ■ 511■ PERSPECTIVES FROM DNP CHAIRS: THE LIVED EXPERIENCE
OF DNP-PREPARED ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS
As advanced practice nurses with nearly 60 years of collective experience in clinical
practice, teaching, management, and academic administration the authors of this chap-
ter share their lived experiences related to their career trajectories that prepared them
for their administrative roles in academia in both a medium-sized private Catholic uni-
versity and large research-intensive public university. A model case study of a DNP-
prepared colleague who is serving as an associate dean in a medium-sized private Jesuit
university was eager to share her expertise and successes in service, teaching, and lead-
ership roles. The authors hope to demonstrate that DNP-prepared academic leaders pos-
sess distinctive abilities and skills that make for well-rounded and consistent leaders.
SANDRA BELLINI
The University of Connecticut is a research-extensive institution with a strong focus on
scholarship. Common in many similar institutions, faculty engagement and produc-
tivity surrounding research activities have historically been considered more “valued”
than other forms of scholarship, practice included. Early faculty opinions on whether
the school of nursing (SON) should open a doctoral program with a non-research focus
ranged from strong enthusiasm to strong opposition, typical of many schools over the
past decade. Yet, the decision was made in 2007 by faculty vote that the school would
develop and open a DNP program the following year.
The curriculum for the DNP program was created by a committee and approved
across levels as required by both the state and the university. Given the strong empha-
sis on scholarship within the school, approval from the graduate school was sought
and obtained for the program: the DNP degree would be conferred by the graduate
school on par with PhD graduates from the SON and many other doctoral degrees
across disciplines. In retrospect, the importance of securing this distinction was pre-
scient for the future respect of the program within the research-extensive environment.
To serve as program administrator, the faculty felt it important that the candidate
should be DNP prepared, with a strong background in advanced practice, and ideally
experienced in teaching at the university level. Similar to the early decision to seek gradu-
ate school approval for the program, this second decision that the faculty made, specifically
the desired qualifications for program leadership, was and remains a significant departure
from the norm. It is certainly true that the availability of DNP-prepared graduates with
the potential to develop into strong academic administrators was rare in the early days
of DNP graduates, hence the majority of early DNP program administrators were PhD
prepared. However, in the years that have elapsed, only a small number of schools have
chosen DNP-prepared graduates as program directors (AACN, 2016b). Certainly, there are
deans, associate deans, chairs, and program directors with the DNP credential, but the
numbers remain proportionally small.
This phenomenon gives one pause for consideration given that DNP-prepared
graduates would be unlikely viewed as qualified academically or experientially to guide
the curriculum for a PhD program (Minnick, Norman, Donaghey, Fisher, & McKirgan,
2010). Why then, is a PhD graduate considered academically and experientially quali-
fied to lead a practice-focused degree program when they do not possess that kind of
educational background themselves? To some, the fact that the majority of DNP pro-
grams continue to be guided by faculty without DNP credentials seems incongruous