This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 13:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

QuestPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20

Preparing Future FacultyIntroductionDaniel M. Landers aa Interim Chair at the Department of Kinesiology ,Arizona State University , Tempe , AZ E-mail:Published online: 20 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Daniel M. Landers (2003) Preparing Future Faculty Introduction,Quest, 55:1, 1-3, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2003.10491783

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2003.10491783

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

48 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

PREPARING FUTURE FACULTY 1

1

Preparing Future FacultyIntroduction

Daniel M. Landers

The theme of the year’s AAKPE conference was “Preparing Future Fac-ulty.” The AAKPE executive committee recommended this theme because of itstimeliness. There are currently many doctoral students who wish to obtain a fac-ulty position in a Research I University. They usually prepare themselves for thesepositions by emphasizing research, but then find that there are very few facultypositions available in the area in which they have prepared themselves. Most ofthe faculty positions are not in Research I universities, and these jobs have lessemphasis on research and most of them place a greater priority on other aspects offaculty work. Lacking a broader preparation, doctoral students often end up bidingtheir time in a temporary position (e.g., post-doctoral researcher, faculty associate,or teaching at the high school or junior college levels) until something becomesavailable at a Research I University. This situation is not unique to our field and isbecoming the norm in many of the natural and behavioral sciences. Of course,there are some doctoral students who are not interested in performing faculty rolesand responsibilities. They may be content with preparing themselves solely forcareers in research outside of a university setting. However, for those who want afaculty position, an important part of their doctoral training would be to preparethemselves in ways that would enhance their chances of obtaining a faculty posi-tion. These ways of preparing doctoral students for future faculty roles make upthe primary theme of the papers herein that were presented at this year’s AAKPEconference.

The keynote address for the conference, and the first paper in this specialissue, is by Jerry Thomas. In this paper, Thomas presents a broad overview ofissues that have been addressed in regard to the national dialog on preparing futureuniversity faculty. The six topics presented in Thomas’ paper are the following: (a)faculty roles and how they vary; (b) the kind of faculty universities are seeking; (c)the role of the doctoral program in preparing faculty; (d) the role of the universityin selecting and mentoring the “right” faculty; and (e) institutional rewards forfaculty that can be used to shape programs. The second paper by Karen DePauwpresents the traditional views of preparing doctoral students (e.g., PhD is a re-search certification preparing students for academics) and more contemporary views

QUEST, 2003, 55, 1-3© 2003 National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education

Daniel M. Landers is Interim Chair at the Department of Kinesiology, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, AZ. E-mail: landers@asu.edu.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

48 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

2 LANDERS

(e.g., the PhD requires broader professional preparation for a variety of careeroptions). Several nationally funded initiatives are presented that show that aca-demic duties for faculty are multifaceted, but DePauw questions whether many ofthe duties (e.g., mentoring, University service) are adequately planned for andtaught to doctoral students who aspire to have faculty positions. She questionswhether doctoral students in kinesiology should continue to be trained in the moretraditional way. Gary Krahenbuhl takes this one step further and discusses thecharacteristics of faculty who have been “difference makers” in institutions ofhigher learning. These difference makers often carry a heavy teaching load anddevote time and energy to their teaching. They may also be scholars who makemajor breakthroughs in the knowledge in their fields. There are also people whoare institutional difference makers in that they are good team builders and favorintegrative research. According to Krahenbuhl, they “lift others” and are “cata-lysts for good.” Having identified the characteristics of difference makers, the ques-tion that remains is how can we prepare doctoral students to be eventual differencemakers?

The next paper in this volume is by Marianne Woods, Grace Goc Karp, andDeborah Feltz. This paper provides data on the disconnect that often occurs be-tween doctoral students’ interest and the job qualifications and responsibilitiesthat are listed in Chronicle of Higher Education job descriptions. They point outthat far more kinesiology faculty positions are available in master’s level institu-tions than in doctoral universities and that candidates for these positions need to beprepared to teach a variety of courses, including courses in subdiscipline areasother than their specialization area. These job descriptions also include responsi-bilities in grant writing, mentoring of graduate students and interns, and collabora-tion with colleagues, agencies, and K-12 school personnel. The next paper by JaneClark focuses on one of the job descriptions that are commonly mentioned in con-temporary kinesiology job descriptions—that of mentoring. In this case, Clarkaddresses ways we can mentor new faculty, who may or may not have had effec-tive mentoring in their PhD programs, on the variety of responsibilities expectedof them. The point is made that new faculty may need multiple mentors—one toguide them in their careers, one to mentor them in their research, one to help themwith their writing, and one to be a role model.

The next paper by Rafer Lutz and Lynda Ransdell deals with the success offormal programs designed to mentor doctoral students for careers as universityfaculty. As part of their doctoral training, both Lutz and Ransdell participated in auniversity-wide program called “Preparing Future Faculty.” This two-year pro-gram was designed to acquaint doctoral students with faculty roles and responsi-bilities at various educational levels (doctoral comprehensive university, commu-nity college, and small liberal arts college). In the second year, students workedwith a faculty member to design an experience in an area in which their doctoraltraining had not given them explicit training. For instance, if the doctoral programprepared the student primarily in research, then the experience to offset the student’sweaknesses might be to design a teaching lesson for a college class. During thequestion and answer period at the AAKPE conference, the question was raised asto whether the time spent in the Preparing Future Faculty program detracted fromthe research that Lutz and Ransdell were conducting. They responded that it didtake a small amount of time away from their research activities, but they both

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

48 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

PREPARING FUTURE FACULTY 3

claimed that the benefits outweighed the costs, since it really helped them afterthey became faculty members.

The remaining papers in this volume focus on programs that are designed toprepare future faculty for the diverse roles they may have to perform. SteveSilverman addresses the importance of preparing faculty to teach. Silverman dis-cusses the benefits of having a teaching practicum and also learning techniques formentoring students in their teaching. He also reports on the results of an informalsurvey of department of kinesiology and physical education and the studentmentoring that takes place in lecture-discussion type courses. Rick Sharp discussesthe relatively new doctoral program at Iowa State University that attempts to givedoctoral students more breadth than exists in most kinesiology doctoral programs.The cross-disciplinary emphasis in this program is to prepare students with twospecialization areas—one in biological bases and the other in the behavioral basesof physical activity. Students must take six credits in cross-disciplinary coursework. The goal of this program is to produce students who can teach in areas otherthan their own area of specialization. The next paper by Phil Martin and BrianUmberger describes an interdisciplinary and integrative graduate training programcalled “IGERT.” This NSF-funded program retains an emphasis on intensive re-search experiences, while incorporating additional experiences to prepare studentsfor the increasingly diverse job market. Martin describes the benefits and chal-lenges of this program that attempts to expose students to state-of-the-art researchmethods and equipment, while at the same time providing for the “students profes-sional and personal skill development (e.g., communication, teaching, andmentoring skills) and career development (e.g., internship, special laboratory, oracademic experiences outside the university).” The final paper in this volume is byEfthimis Kioumourtzoglou, who describes the development of master’s and PhDprograms in Greece. In the preparation of PhD students, there is an expectation oftheir serving as teaching assistants for 10 hours per week. In addition to the teach-ing, the PhD candidate must complete a dissertation, take at least five formal courses,have completed an internship experience, and have at least two international pub-lications in refereed journals.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

48 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014