11: REPORT ON A NATIONAL STUDY OF DOCTORAL NURSING FACULTY ■ 273SUCCESSION PLANNING AND FUTURE VISION
Consistent with the survey in 2012, the final section of this survey was intended to
address issues surrounding succession planning in doctoral education and their views
related to ability of graduates from DNP programs to lead scholarship and research in
nursing through high- quality work. To the question regarding conversation surround-
ing succession planning, once again the findings from this 2016 survey differed consider-
ably from that of 2012. In 2012, more than half of the responses indicated that discussion
surrounding succession planning was either “visible” ( N = 231, 37%) or “very visible”
( N = 123, 20%) at their work. Less than one tenth of the respondents indicated that there
was no discussion about succession planning at all at their workplace ( N = 57, 9%). In
sharp contrast, in the current survey, close to half the respondents ( N = 327, 43%) indi-
cated that succession planning was “not very visible” at all in the workplace. The final
question in this section asked their current view on “How possible is it going to be for
future doctoral nursing faculty, particularly those teaching in DNP programs to be ten-
ure track, pursue substantive scholarship and maintain clinical hours for certification?”
Once again, responses to this question were similar in the current survey to that of 2012.
In the current survey, the most common responses were “More challenging than it has
been in the past” ( N = 317, 42%) and “near impossible” ( N = 208, 27%). These responses
are similar to the ones in 2012 when most respondents selected “more challenging than
it is today” ( N = 274, 44%) or “nearly impossible” ( N = 154, 25%). Finally, “What best
reflects your point of view about the future of doctoral nursing education?” were mostly
“optimistic” among faculty teaching in DNP- only (82%), in PhD- only (70%), and in both
programs (76%).
■ DISCUSSION
The landscape of doctoral nursing faculty has undergone some significant changes
since 2012. The number of doctoral nursing faculty that are teaching exclusively in PhD
programs has declined by 50% and the majority of doctoral nursing faculty (45%) are
now teaching exclusively in DNP programs. The number teaching in both PhD and
DNP programs remains stable. This shift is not surprising given the tremendous growth
in the number of DNP programs since 2006. The AACN (2015b) reports that in 2014
an additional 23 new DNP programs were introduced, raising the total to 269 schools,
resulting in an enrollment growth of “26.2%, with 18,352 students enrolled in DNP pro-
grams nationwide” while “enrollment in PhD nursing programs increased by 3.2% over
the previous year with 5,290 students currently enrolled” (pp. 23– 24). As in 2012, the
majority of respondents were teaching at public/ state- supported universities.
As noted previously, the number of tenured/ tenure- track faculty has dropped
since the 2012 survey. The drop in tenure rates for this sample in comparison to the
previous sample could be attributed to retirement. Of more notable concern was the
significant drop (22%) in the number of tenure- track doctoral faculty since 2012. In 2012,
we noticed this trend and voiced our concern that doctoral nursing faculty may become
predominantly untenured and on a non- tenure track (NTT). This seems to be becom-
ing a reality and would have clear negative implications for individual doctoral fac-
ulty and programs in colleges and universities where tenured faculty overwhelmingly
comprises the bulk of leadership in the academy. Research has demonstrated that NTT
faculty report greater dissatisfaction with personal interaction with colleagues, com-
plain of disenfranchisement within academia, and a perception of being second class
citizens (Kezar, 2012; Ott & Cisnerso, 2015). An analysis of our data has indicated that