Explore the vast range of titles available.

With the imminent demographic shifts in our society and the need to prepare students for citizenship in a global, knowledge-based society, the role of the academic department chair in creating diverse and inclusive learning environments is arguably the most pivotal position in higher education today. In the United States, increasing minority student enrollment coupled with the emergence of a minority majority American nation by 2042 demands that academic institutions be responsive to these changing demographics. The isolation of the ivory tower is no longer an option. This is the first book to address the role of the department chair in diversity and addresses an unmet need by providing a research-based, systematic approach to diversity leadership in the academic department based upon survey findings and in-person interviews. The department chair represents the nexus between the faculty and the administration and is positioned uniquely to impact diversity progress. Research indicates that more than 80 percent of academic decisions regarding appointment, curriculum, tenure and promotion, classroom pedagogy, and student outcomes are made by the department chair in consultation with the faculty. This book examines the multidimensional contributions that chairs make in advancing diversity within their departments and institutions in the representation of diverse faculty and staff; in tenure and promotion; curricular change; student learning outcomes; and departmental climate. The scope and content of the book is not limited to institutions in the United States but is applicable to academic institutions globally in their efforts to address the access and success of increasingly diverse student populations. It addresses institutional power structures and the role of the dean in relation to the appointment of chairs and their impact on the success of chairs from non-dominant groups, including female, minority, and lesbian/gay/transgendered individuals who serve in predo

Socrates in the Boardroom argues that world-class scholars, not administrators, make the best leaders of research universities. Amanda Goodall cuts through the rhetoric and misinformation swirling around this contentious issue--such as the assertion that academics simply don't have the managerial expertise needed to head the world's leading schools--using hard evidence and careful, dispassionate analysis. She shows precisely why experts need leaders who are experts like themselves. Goodall draws from the latest data on the world's premier research universities along with in-depth interviews with top university leaders both past and present, including University of Pennsylvania President Amy Gutmann; Derek Bok and Lawrence Summers, former presidents of Harvard University; John Hood, former vice chancellor of the University of Oxford; Cornell University President David Skorton; and many others. Goodall explains why the most effective leaders are those who have deep expertise in what their organizations actually do. Her findings carry broad implications for the management of higher education, and she demonstrates that the same fundamental principle holds true for other important business sectors as well.

A practical, accessible handbook for chairing a department. Over the course of a typical academic career, most faculty will serve at least one term as chair of a department. It's a leadership and service role that's at the very heart of faculty satisfaction and student success, yet few receive any training on how to do the job. How to Chair a Department is a practical, accessible handbook for new and prospective chairs, providing both principles and practices for effective departmental leadership. Based on his dozen years of chairing departments, Kevin Dettmar provides invaluable advice on: • hiring tenure-track and visiting faculty • mentoring faculty colleagues at every stage of their careers • working with staff and other departmental administrators • managing department resources and budgets • meeting the needs of students • dealing with stress and conflict • connecting the department to the larger university or college as a whole • overseeing the department's curricula • maintaining a scholarly or creative profile • preparing for career moves after chairing a department How to Chair a Department demystifies this important faculty position and argues that the role of chair, though sometimes seen as a burden, can prove to be a genuine opportunity for personal and professional growth.

The United States Supreme Court's 1954 landmark decision,Brown v. Board of Education, set into motion a process of desegregation that would eventually transform American public schools. This book provides a comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of howBrown's most visible effect--contact between students of different racial groups--has changed over the fifty years since the decision. Using both published and unpublished data on school enrollments from across the country, Charles Clotfelter uses measures of interracial contact, racial isolation, and segregation to chronicle the changes. He goes beyond previous studies by drawing on heretofore unanalyzed enrollment data covering the first decade afterBrown, calculating segregation for metropolitan areas rather than just school districts, accounting for private schools, presenting recent information on segregation within schools, and measuring segregation in college enrollment. Two main conclusions emerge. First, interracial contact in American schools and colleges increased markedly over the period, with the most dramatic changes occurring in the previously segregated South. Second, despite this change, four main factors prevented even larger increases: white reluctance to accept racially mixed schools, the multiplicity of options for avoiding such schools, the willingness of local officials to accommodate the wishes of reluctant whites, and the eventual loss of will on the part of those who had been the strongest protagonists in the push for desegregation. Thus decreases in segregation within districts were partially offset by growing disparities between districts and by selected increases in private school enrollment.

Background: Nursing education across the globe is rapidly evolving in terms of curricular expectations and professional preparation. While there is a plethora of curricular resources and graduate programs in the United States, in some countries, these resources are limited. Methods: The Fulbright Specialist program, the application process, and challenges as well as the benefits of the role are described. The deliverables by the Fulbright Specialist, e.g. demonstrating classroom pedagogical methods, providing access to an online doctoral program, and explaining publication strategies, are noted. Results: Immediate and 2-month follow-up information regarding the Specialist's deliverables are described. The benefits to the Specialist are also detailed. Conclusion: Nursing educators in the U.S. and leaders of nursing schools outside of the U.S. are invited to share pedagogical practices and provide faculty development through the Fulbright Specialist program. The benefits of a collaboration are mutually beneficial. [J Nurs Educ. 2024;63(X):XXX–XXX.]

While mentoring programs have demonstrated success for faculty development, reported rates of formal mentoring programs vary for specific programs as well as academic medical institutions overall. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the overall prevalence of faculty mentoring programs and faculty development offices in anesthesiology departments and at academic medical schools and assess the association between those with mentoring programs and faculty development support and NIH funding. This study used publicly available data from program and institutional websites to record the presence of faculty mentoring programs and faculty development offices in anesthesiology departments as well as both formal and informal mentoring activities and whether there were offices and deans specifically related to faculty development at the institutional level. Data on NIH funding of anesthesiology departments were recorded from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings of medical schools and their departments. Cramer's V was used to evaluate the association between NIH funding and the presence of mentoring programs offered by the department and/or institution. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between total NIH funding of ranked programs (categorized as above or below median of funding) and presence of mentoring programs. The study included 164 US anesthesiology programs, of which 33% had NIH funding. Only 10% of anesthesiology programs had faculty mentoring programs and 29% had offices or leadership positions related to faculty development. At the institutional level, 59% had formal mentoring programs, 73% offered informal mentoring activities, and 77% had offices or deans related to faculty development. Seventy-four percent (74%) of anesthesiology departments offering mentoring resources had NIH funding, compared to only 26% of departments without such resources. For anesthesiology departments with NIH funding, departments in the upper median of funded programs were much more likely to have departmental mentoring resources (OR = 1.429.08; 95% CI: 1.721.03–1.9748.99). Departmental NIH funding was not significantly associated with institutional level presence of formal mentoring programs (OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.0.23–3.65). Our findings suggest an association between the presence of faculty mentoring programs and faculty development support with departmental NIH funding, with the amount of funding associated primarily with department-specific mentoring and faculty development initiatives. Our findings support efforts to create formal mentoring programs and establish offices and other support systems for faculty development and suggest, at least in terms of academic productivity, that efforts should be more focused on department-specific initiatives. •Only 10% of US anesthesiology departments with a core residency had mentoring programs.•Availability of mentoring resources was strongly associated with department NIH funding.•Department resources for mentoring/professional development was associated with NIH funding.•Department NIH funding was associated with department mentoring/faculty development resources.•Findings support departmental creation of formal mentoring programs and faculty development.

Missed appointments reduce the efficiency of the health care system and negatively impact access to care for all patients. Identifying patients at risk for missing an appointment could help health care systems and providers better target interventions to reduce patient no-shows. Our aim was to develop and test a predictive model that identifies patients that have a high probability of missing their outpatient appointments. Demographic information, appointment characteristics, and attendance history were drawn from the existing data sets from four Veterans Affairs health care facilities within six separate service areas. Past attendance behavior was modeled using an empirical Markov model based on up to 10 previous appointments. Using logistic regression, we developed 24 unique predictive models. We implemented the models and tested an intervention strategy using live reminder calls placed 24, 48, and 72 hours ahead of time. The pilot study targeted 1,754 high-risk patients, whose probability of missing an appointment was predicted to be at least 0.2. Our results indicate that three variables were consistently related to a patient's no-show probability in all 24 models: past attendance behavior, the age of the appointment, and having multiple appointments scheduled on that day. After the intervention was implemented, the no-show rate in the pilot group was reduced from the expected value of 35% to 12.16% (p value < 0.0001). The predictive model accurately identified patients who were more likely to miss their appointments. Applying the model in practice enables clinics to apply more intensive intervention measures to high-risk patients.