Factors Influencing Pursuit and Satisfaction of

Academic Dentistry Careers: Perceptions of

New Dental Educators
Kathi R. Shepherd, R.D.H., M.S.; Patricia Nihill, D.M.D., M.S.; Ronald W. Botto, Ph.D.;
Melanie W. McCarthy, B.S.D.H., M.S., C.H.E.S.
Abstract: New dental educators (n = 280) with zero to five years full-time teaching experience were surveyed to ascertain their
perceptions regarding salary, work environment, and workload to determine the impact of these factors on faculty recruitment and
retention. Work environment was the most frequently reported factor for considering and maintaining an academic dentistry
position. Educational resources, facilities, salary, and benefits were ranked as moderately important for considering an academic
position. Mentoring, startup funds for research, and external private practice opportunities weren also reported as moderately
important for maintaining a position. Other factors of concern to new faculty included quality of administration and leadership,
reputation of program, professional development opportunities, faculty autonomy, and reasonable criteria for tenure and promotion. These findings suggest that resources, strategies, and formal mentoring programs that provide direction and guidance in the
areas of teaching, promotion, and tenure for new educators should be considered for implementation in our dental schools.
Ms. Shepherd is Associate Professor, Department of Periodontology and Dental Hygiene, University of Detroit Mercy School of
Dentistry; Dr. Nihill is Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago
College of Dentistry; Dr. Botto is Associate Professor, Department of Growth, Development, and Structure, Southern Illinois
University School of Dental Medicine; and Ms. McCarthy is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry,
University of Detroit Mercy School of Dentistry. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Ms. Kathi R. Shepherd, 8200
W. Outer Drive, P.O. Box 19900-Box 69, Detroit, MI 48219-0900; 313-494-6693 phone; 313-494-6697 fax;
shephekr@udmercy.edu.
Key words: dental education, dental faculty, faculty recruitment, faculty retention
Submitted for publication: 3/13/01 accepted: 7/18/01

erious concerns have been expressed within

the health professions education community
regarding faculty shortages. This problem is
compounded by the fact that academic dentistry is
functioning in an environment of societal and technological change.1-13 These changes are believed to serve
as deterrents to an academic dentistry career. 1-6,8,11
A more favorable academic work environment must
be created to reduce existing deterrents to the satisfactory pursuit of a career in academic dentistry. The
issues of salary, work environment, and workload
have been reported as critical to faculty recruitment
and retention.1-6,10,11,14-20,23-26 Gaining knowledge of
new educator perceptions regarding these issues will
aid in structuring academic dentistry, so that appropriate incentives can be put in place to facilitate the
achievement of both professional and personal goals
leading to enhanced recruitment and retention.
The 1999 report of the American Association
of Dental Schools (AADS, now American Dental
Education Association, ADEA) Presidents Task
Force on Future Dental School Faculty showed that
the actual number of full- and part-time dental school

September 2001

Journal of Dental Education

faculty has decreased from 12,492 in 1990 to 11,627

in 1997.2 Although some of the decrease can be explained by the closure of two dental schools between
1990 and 1994, downsizing of enrollments in others, and the decrease in part-time faculty, the average number of faculty per dental school between 1990
and 1997 has declined 5.4 percent. From 1986 to
1997, the average number of faculty declined 17.9
percent.2
The future of dental education is largely dependent on the continued existence of a sufficient
number of dental faculty who possess content knowledge, pedagogical expertise, and commitment.1 In
1995, Kennedy stated: The approximately 3,800
full-time clinical, basic science and behavior science
faculty at our nations dental schools represent a valuable and absolutely essential resource if dental education and oral health research are to continue the
advances made over the past two decades.11
Those advances, however, are being jeopardized by the reduction of dental educations most
valuable resourceits facultyas fewer graduates
enter academia and fewer faculty remain in academia.

841

Factors contributing to the shortage of faculty include

increasing positive prospects for entering private
dental practice, the changing expectations of academic dentistry, time required for academic dentistry
preparation, income differential between academic
dentistry and private practice, the changing nature
of academic appointments, and indebtedness of dental graduates.1 Another factor that may contribute to
a potential faculty shortage is the graying of dental school faculty. While the number of retirements
remained stable in the 1990s, retirements in the next
decade are expected to increase rapidly.2 It is the opinion of Kennedy and Hunt that leaving these deterrents unaddressed could adversely influence the decision of dental faculty not only to pursue but also
remain in academic dentistry.1
The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report noted
major changes over the past twenty years in U.S. society that impact academic dentistry.4,8 These changes
include demography, disease patterns, management
of health care, international immigrations, the advent of a global economy, pedagogy, technology and
customer demands for efficiency, accountability, and
evidence of effectiveness. The rapidly changing and
highly sophisticated scientific environment have
made it difficult for faculty to generate revenue
through patient care, be a highly effective teacher
employing the latest pedagogical strategies, and be
at the cutting edge of basic research.11
Cohen has summarized changes that have taken
place in academic institutions over the past five
years.4 These changes include more ambitious objectives; greater frequency of novel, unprecedented
problems; and more time spent dealing with difficult people. In addition, faculty are spending more
time in committee and other professional meetings
and experiencing more forced change, more travel,
and greater stress in their positions.4 These changes
have led to shifts in the nature of academic appointments, different expectations of academic dentistry,
and a greater amount of time needed to prepare for
academic dentistry careers. Finally, studies show
there is a demand for increased participation of faculty in scholarly activity and the competition for
grants.14,15 Cohen suggests that these changes in institutions serve as deterrents to pursuing an academic
dentistry career.4
Although the seriousness of the faculty shortage problem has been identified, no data currently
exists that identifies the reasons new educators enter
academia or the factors contributing to their satis-

842

faction and, therefore, the likelihood of their remaining in academia. The purpose of the present study
was to identify the factors that influenced new dental educators to accept an academic position and factors that influenced new dental educators to maintain an academic position. New educators
perceptions of their schools efforts to meet their
needs were also evaluated.

Methodology
New full-time dental educators in the sixty-four
U.S., Canadian, and Puerto Rican dental schools with
zero to five years full-time teaching experience were
invited to participate in this study. These individuals
were identified by the Associate Academic Dean in
each school.
Twenty survey instruments were mailed to each
academic dean for distribution to new dental educators. The survey was eight pages long and consisted
of thirty-three questions. In the first section of the
survey, respondents were queried for demographic
background information including gender, academic
rank, years of teaching experience, and discipline,
as well as responsibilities. In the second section of
the survey, subjects were asked to rate the importance of salary, work environment, and workload factors in their decision to a) accept and b) maintain an
academic dentistry position utilizing a Likert-scale
format. The Likert-scale included four response options ranging from zero (not at all important) to three
(very important). Utilizing the same Likert-scale, the
third section asked respondents to what extent they
feel their needs for the same salary, work environment, and workload factors were satisfied by their
institution.
The survey was based on a 1998 study of issues associated with retention for dental hygiene faculty in 210 U.S. dental hygiene programs.16 The surveys were modified to address dental educators. The
modified surveys were pilot-tested with new dental
faculty at the University of Detroit Mercy School of
Dentistry.
A cover letter and consent form describing the
purpose of the study and assuring confidentiality, as
well as a self-addressed stamped envelope, accompanied each survey. Six weeks following the initial
mailing, nonrespondent dental schools were sent a
reminder e-mail and a second copy of each survey.

Journal of Dental Education Volume 65, No. 9

Results
Forty-seven of the sixty-four dental schools,
or 73 percent, returned surveys from new dental educators (n = 280). No regions were found to be
underrepresented in the final sample of new educators. The mean number of full-time teaching experience was 3.7 years, while the mean number of years
in their current position was 2.1 years. Seventy-four
percent of faculty participants reported teaching in a
predoctoral D.D.S./D.M.D. program, 27 percent in a
graduate specialty program, and 5 percent in an
AEGD/GPR program. Some faculty noted multiple
teaching assignments. The discipline most frequently
reported was restorative dentistry followed by prosthodontics, biomedical sciences, oral surgery, periodontics, and oral diagnosis. In both tenure and
nontenure tracks, the majority of faculty (75 percent)
reported assistant professor rank, 18 percent associate professor, 3 percent clinical instructor, 1 percent

clinical professor, and interestingly enough, 1 percent responded as full professor.

Table 1 shows the mean ratings of new dental
educator respondents for factors related to the decision to accept an academic position. The factors are
arranged in descending order based on the mean rating of importance. Departmental working environment had the highest mean rating (2.48). Other factors associated with working environment such as
educational resources and facilities (2.28), quality
of leadership and administration (2.28), and opportunities for professional development (2.24) also were
ranked in the five most important factors for accepting a position. Benefits (2.33), a factor that is a component of salary, was rated the second highest. It was
the only mean rating, which was not a work environment factor ranked in the five most important factors.
Salary (2.14) was rated as the seventh most
important factor for accepting a position. Factors
rated as the next five most important were associated with workload or work environment. These fac-

Table 1. Mean ratings and standard deviation for factors related to the decision to accept current full-time faculty
position
Reasons for Accepting a Position
1. Departmental working environment
2. Benefits
3. Quality of the leadership and administration
4. Educational resources and facilities
5. Opportunities for professional development
6. Reputation of the program or faculty
7. Salary
8. Faculty autonomy
9. Attainable criteria for promotion and tenure
10. Faculty workload
11. Faculty or staff of my background
12. Quality of students
13. Geographical location
14. Availability of colleagues for research
15. Teacher to student ratio
16. Raise academic rank of position
17. Opportunities for being mentored by senior faculty
18. Availability of travel funds
19. Availability of start-up funds for research
20. Provide research equipment
21. Grant tenure status
22. Provide research lab space
23. Grant years toward tenure
24. Recreational opportunities
25. Job is close to family
26. Pay for moving expenses
27. Pay for professional journal dues
28. High quality K-12 schools in area
29. Support (time, financial) for advanced degree
30. Pay for professional journal subscriptions
31. Employment available for spouse/partner
32. Provide off-site computer
33. On-site child care or adult care

Mean
2.48
2.33
2.28
2.28
2.24
2.18
2.14
2.08
2.07
2.05
1.95
1.94
1.93
1.93
1.79
1.78
1.74
1.68
1.55
1.54
1.51
1.49
1.44
1.41
1.32
1.23
1.14
1.13
1.09
1.06
1.04
1.04
0.43

Standard Deviation
0.73
0.77
0.81
0.74
0.83
0.87
0.84
0.89
0.96
0.87
0.99
0.82
0.98
0.95
0.93
1.12
1.03
1.01
1.05
1.15
1.22
1.15
1.21
0.94
1.18
1.2
1.14
1.24
1.11
1.1
1.21
1.11
0.81

Responses were on a four-point Likert scale (0=not important, 3=very important).

September 2001

Journal of Dental Education

843

tors included reputation of the program or faculty

(2.08), faculty autonomy (2.08), attainable criteria
for promotion and tenure (2.07), and faculty workload
(2.04). Thus, eight of the top ten rated factors were
related to work environment or workload, while only
two were related to salary.
The importance of salary, work environment,
and workload for maintaining a position in dental
academia as perceived by new educators is presented
in Table 2. A positive departmental working environment (2.78) was rated as the most important factor. Opportunities for professional development
(2.64) and educational resources and facilities (2.64)
were also rated in the top five most important factors. The other two factors were components of salary: benefits (2.52) and increased salary (2.51). The
next five factors rated were availability of colleagues

for research (2.27), opportunities for being mentored

by senior faculty (2.13), startup funds for research
(2.06), flexibility in work hours (1.95), and opportunity for extramural private practice (1.82). Of the ten
most important factors for maintaining a position in
dental academia, seven were related to work environment or workload and three with salary. Loan forgiveness was rated as seventeenth in importance, only
more important than on-site child or adult care.
Table 3 indicates the new educators satisfaction with the institutions efforts to meet their needs.
Factors associated with salary, work environment, and
workload were again rated. New educators were most
satisfied with benefits (2.32). Other factors rated as
satisfying by new educators were flexibility in work
hours (2.2), departmental working environment

Table 2. Mean ratings and standard deviation of the importance of maintaining academic position
Importance of Maintaining Academic Position

Mean

Standard Deviation

Positive departmental working environment

Opportunities for professional development
Educational resources and facilities
Benefitsmedical, retirement
Increased salary
Availability of colleagues for research
Opportunities for being mentored by senior faculty
Start-up funds for research
Flexibility in work hours
Opportunity for extramural private practice
Less service demands
Shorter work week
Less student contact time
Opportunity for telecommuting
Contract flexibility, e.g., job-sharing
Extension of pre-tenure probation period
Loan forgiveness
On-site child care or adult care

2.78
2.64
2.63
2.52
2.51
2.27
2.13
2.06
1.95
1.82
1.29
1.22
1.03
1.07
1.01
0.96
0.89
0.70

0.52
0.85
0.59
0.73
0.78
0.91
1.01
1.07
0.85
1.18
0.95
0.99
0.95
1.0
0.98
0.97
1.17
1.02

Responses were on a four-point Likert scale (0=not important, 3=very important).

Table 3. Mean ratings and standard deviation of faculty satisfaction with respect to the institution meeting their
needs
Satisfaction of Institution Meeting Needs
Benefits-medical, retirement
Flexibility in work hours
Positive departmental working environment
Educational resources and facilities
Opportunities for professional development
Opportunity for extramural private practice
Opportunities for being mentored by senior faculty
Shorter work week
Less student contact time
Less service demands
Opportunity for telecommuting
Contract flexibility, e.g., job-sharing
Availability of colleagues for research
Start-up funds for research
Extension for pre-tenure probation period
Increased salary
On-site child care or adult care
Loan forgiveness

Mean

Standard Deviation

2.32
2.20
2.11
2.04
1.85
1.74
1.60
1.53
1.53
1.51
1.48
1.40
1.39
1.39
1.27
1.18
0.80
0.53

0.67
0.8
0.94
0.77
0.82
1.12
1.0
1.03
0.88
0.83
1.02
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.98
0.9
1.04
0.81

Responses were on a four-point Likert scale (0=not satisfied, 3=very satisfied).

844

Journal of Dental Education Volume 65, No. 9

(2.11), educational resources and facilities (2.04), and

availability of colleagues for research (1.88).

Discussion
Work Environment
This study revealed that new educators considered work environment as the most important factor for both accepting and maintaining a full-time
academic position. Opportunities for professional
development, quality of the leadership and administration, and educational resources and facilities were
other work environment factors cited as important.
These findings are consistent with much of the literature. Many authors suggest positive work environment strategies as a means of enhancing the longevity of junior faculty.1,2,4,5,6,11,17,18
It has been suggested that retention of new faculty is directly connected to the problems and concerns they experience in the first years of their appointments.18 The entry period has been described
as an exciting time, but also a time of perceived intense pressure and considerable growth. This phenomenon has been noted as a period of adjustment
and disillusionment.19 While lack of collegial support, workload, and time constraints are concerns of
new faculty, feelings of loneliness and isolation have
been frequently reported as two of the most significant problems faced by new faculty.4,16,18,19 Lack of
understanding of others expectations of them, personal commitments, and lack of opportunities to meet
other new faculty also contribute to pressure experienced by new faculty. Developing a sense of relationship and community among coworkers is an important expectation of employees.4,5 These challenges
are often successfully met through a supportive
mentoring relationship with other faculty members
who have more experience in the academic environment. Mentoring integrates the new educator with
the faculty community, provides opportunities for
professional development, and provides opportunities to meet other faculty with similar interests.18
Mentoring was rated in the present study as the seventh most important factor for maintaining an academic position.
Logan stated, Retention is spelled mentoring.18
He described mentoring as an enrichment strategy
for transitioning new faculty into the culture of a
department and/or college. The following guidelines

September 2001

Journal of Dental Education

for implementing a formal mentoring program17 have

been suggested:
The institution must conduct a needs assessment
to determine the value and need of a mentoring
program.
Mentors should then be recruited and trained with
respect to: 1) giving advice, guidance, and emotional and logical support, 2) providing direct assistance with career and professional development,
and 3) role modeling.5,17 The mentor must have
the skills and insight to be helpful and be interested in helping another person.
Mentors are then matched with protgs.
Satisfaction and outcomes of the program should
be evaluated on a regular basis to determine the
effectiveness of the program.
Haden et al. suggest that mentors are the most
important influence for many current dental educators in their choice of an academic career.5 They note
formal mentoring programs as the single most important strategy for creating a dental school culture
that promotes and supports academic dentistry.5 The
University of Texas-Houston Dental Branch established an Office of Professional Development in
November 1996 to provide such support. The goal
of the Office is to encourage a positive work environment that is supportive of faculty. New faculty
are given direction in their endeavors to improve the
quality of teaching and to develop and enhance leadership, communication, professional relationships,
research, and academic skills. The office has also
initiated a New Faculty Orientation Program, which
includes a formal mentoring program.20 The University of Texas-Houston Dental Branchs program may
serve as a model for other institutions to achieve a
positive working environment in order to attract and
retain more dental faculty.

Salary
In addition to new faculty frustrations related
to work environment noted in the literature, salaries
may also contribute to ones decision to leave
academia. Salaries in academic dentistry are considerably lower than salaries in private practice and often cited as the primary cause of the faculty shortage. In 1996-97, the mean guaranteed salary for an
associate professor in the clinical sciences was the
annual equivalent of $77,300, while his or her counterpart in private practice had an average nominal
net income of $134,590.21,22 Faculty income reflects

845

only guaranteed annual salaries and does not include

income from intramural private practice, consulting,
etc. Kennedy and Hunt, however, say the potential
earnings from these outside sources is not sufficient
to make up the difference in salary between academia
and private practice.1 Furthermore, dental faculty
have limited time to devote to activities other than
didactic and clinical instruction.1
The income differential combined with dental
student educational debt upon graduation may serve
as a deterrent to academia. According to the ADEA
Trends in Dental Education 2000 report, dental student education debt upon graduation averaged almost
$84,000 in 1998.3 The average debt of graduates from
public schools was $70,750; for students from private/state-related schools, it was almost $97,700; and
it was $108,250 for students from private schools.3
The 1998 ADEA survey of dental school seniors
(4,041 graduates) revealed 51.2 percent students intended to enter private practice. Of these students,
28.9 percent identified educational debt as the main
reason.23 Only 0.5 percent graduates had immediate
plans to pursue academic careers. In 1999 the number rose to 1.3 percent.5 This range has remained
constant since 1980.
Loan forgiveness is noted in the AADS
Presidents Task Force on Future Dental School Faculty report as a mechanism for enticing new dental
school graduates to forgo extramural private practice to become dental school faculty. New faculty in
the present study indicated that loan forgiveness was
of minor importance with respect to maintaining a
position. Hence, it appears that exclusive focus on
loan forgiveness may be misguided. Haden et al. suggest loan forgiveness combined with other salary
supplements as an alternative.5 Another alternative
may be an extramural practice to augment the academic salary.1 Kula et al. support such a suggestion
in their discussion of orthodontic faculty shortages.6
The recent study of orthodontic faculty by Kula
et al. found that while faculty enter academia for altruistic reasons, they tend to leave for primarily monetary ones.6 What seems to be occurring is that individuals become faculty members for the traditional
reasons that most people enter the profession. However, when these faculty members become dissatisfied because work environment needs are not fulfilled, they become frustrated and decide to leave,
citing finances as the primary reason. Indeed, Kula
et al. state, When the altruistic aura of education
dims for young faculty, they realize that they can

846

make more money in practice without the same problems of education.6

The findings of our study support this conclusion. As stated in the results, benefits are fourth and
increased salary is fifth in importance in terms of
maintaining an academic position. Work-related issues such as departmental environment, professional
development, and educational resources all rate
higher. Of the eight items rated as moderately important or higher for maintaining an academic position, only 38 percent of new educators rated their
schools effort to meet their needs in these areas as
moderate or higher.
Interestingly, while our study and others found
that environmental factors are critical to maintaining faculty, a recent survey of dental school deans
found that salary is the most critical factor.5 As a
result, Haden et al. recommend a priority be placed
on increased funding and loan forgiveness.5 The
majority of studies, including this one, suggest that
monetary factors are not the primary reasons that
faculty enter academia. It may well be that economics is the most critical factor for those who do not
enter academia, although that has yet to be examined. One may question, however, if by appealing to
economics, academia will be attracting the type of
individual who is philosophically (and historically)
desired.
ADEA has suggested that greater emphasis
should be placed on the benefits of academia, both
economic and lifestyle.2 Our study supports such an
emphasis. The report of the AADS Presidents Task
Force on Future Dental School Faculty stresses the
financial rewards of an academic career over a lifetime.2 Salary projections alone may be misleading
when considering the aspects of academic life. Retirement and other benefits may compare favorably
to private practice. Unlike private practice, the faculty member does not bear the responsibilities associated with operating a for-profit business and clinical enterprise. Academia provides a predictable,
stable source of income and benefits that increase
over time. Thus, income comparisons over time
should be stressed to potential and new faculty so
they can appreciate the full picture of academic compensation versus private practice.2 It has also been
noted that many full-time faculty in dental schools
consider the social and intellectual interaction with
colleagues to be one of the major benefits that offset
the financial sacrifices of an academic career.26

Journal of Dental Education Volume 65, No. 9

Workload
The present study revealed that workload and
attainable criteria for promotion and tenure ranked
moderately high as important issues for accepting a
position by new dental faculty. Logan noted that new
faculty consistently comment on the lack of time in
nearly every aspect of their academic responsibilities.19 Several studies have reported an increased
emphasis for undertaking research in addition to
numerous teaching responsibilities.1,14,15,25,26 In 1998,
Sinkford stated that this increased emphasis on dental research could affect the hiring of new faculty
and faculty development activities. The number of
publications has also been found to increase as the
academic rank increases.14 The survey by Sheetz and
Mendel14 showed that assistant professors in dental
schools have 0-10 publications; associate professors
have a cumulative total of 11-15 publications; and
full professors have 11-20 publications. At all academic ranks, publication has increased. This increased emphasis on research increases the workload
of faculty members. Research and writing take time,
which takes away from the time needed for planning,
providing, and evaluating education.26
Increased departmental teaching loads are not
supported by a commensurate increase in the number of faculty. In fact, on the contrary, as faculty numbers decrease, the workload of remaining faculty increases dramatically. Rarely, if ever, is that increase
associated with greater compensation or reduced research demands or expectations.
Kennedy and Hunt recommend a
reconceptualization of the dental school beginning
with a shift in the unit of measure of productivity
from the individual to at least the department if not
the entire school.1 They describe a mechanism to
achieve this goal that involves developing clearly defined faculty career tracks that take into account the
multiple dimensions of a dental school mission.1 The
question of whether any, all, or some of these tracks
should be academic appointments, lead to tenure, or
be nontenure or fixed-term contracts would depend
on variables ranging from the tenure policy of the
parent institution to the source of the compensation.
Haden et al.5 also suggest considering alternatives to
the traditional tenure-track system. Caution, however,
must be exercised to make certain that the traditional

September 2001

Journal of Dental Education

tenure system is not undermined without careful examination of the implications to the academic environment.

Conclusion
Researchers agree that salary is an important
issue for most faculty. If, however, the faculty member is satisfied with the work environment and is part
of a mentoring program that will allow for professional development, salary may not become an issue. Mentoring is important for the retention of new
faculty and is a means for professional development
that could enhance career satisfaction among existing faculty. Researchers agree that, without a formal
mentoring program in place, a threat to successful
retention of faculty will exist. Workload is a stressful situation for dental faculty. The expectation for
increased scholarly activities by faculty members can
become a retention issue if the faculty member is
overworked. The present study is one of the few studies that reports the perceptions of new educators. As
such, the information gathered from this study could
provide a foundation for future studies aimed at assessing the needs of new educators in other health
disciplines and thereby enable academic health centers to successfully recruit and retain faculty. A study
of tenured faculty may also reveal factors related to
satisfaction in the work environment. The authors are
currently examining the perceptions of academic
deans and the strategies in place at their institutions
to address the issues of faculty recruitment and retention. The 1999 report of the AADS Presidents
Task Force on Future Dental School Faculty states:
The ability of dental education to prepare dental
health professionals for the next millennium is built
on the pillars of a well-qualified faculty.2
Unless interventions to recruit and retain faculty occur soon, faculty shortages will affect the quality of dental education and the ability of dental
academia to produce an adequate number of practitioners to meet the oral health needs of the public.
New research linking oral health to systemic health
indicates an even more prominent place for oral
health care in the eyes of the public and on the agendas of policy makers and funding agencies.2

847

Acknowledgments
This project was conducted on behalf of the
ADEA Career Development for the New Dental Educator Special Interest Group. This study was funded
by American Dental Education Association grant,
Council of Sections Project Pool. The authors wish
to thank the ADEA Council of Sections for making
this study possible.

REFERENCES
1. Kennedy JE, Hunt RJ. Meeting the demands for future
dental faculty. Leadership for the future: the dental school
in the university. Washington, DC: American Association
of Dental Schools, 1998.
2. American Association of Dental Schools. Future of dental school faculty: report of the presidents task force.
Washington, DC: American Association of Dental
Schools, 1999.
3. American Dental Education Association. Trends in dental education 2000: the past, present, and future of the
profession and the people it serves. Washington, DC:
American Dental Education Association, 2000.
4. Cohen PA. Expectations, assessments, and rewards: dental hygiene directors as leaders. Presentation given at the
ADEA Council of Allied Program Directors meeting, June
20, 1999. Keystone, CO.
5. Haden NK, et al. An update on future dental school faculty. J Dent Educ 2000;64:657-73.
6. Kula K, et al. Reasons that orthodontic faculty teach and
consider leaving teaching. J Dent Educ 2000;64:755-62.
7. Graber DR, et al. Academic deans perceptions of current
and ideal curriclum emphases. J Dent Educ 1998;62:911-8.
8. Field MJ. The future of dental education: a report from
the Institute of Medicine. J Am Coll Dent 1995;62:6-12.
9. Froeschle ML, Gobetti JP, Donahue PM. Faculty attitudes
and perceptions about the Institute of Medicine report. J
Dent Educ 1999;63:339-45.
10. Kennedy JE. Faculty status in climate of change. J Dent
Educ 1990;54:268-72.
11. Kennedy JE. A fifteen-year perspective on dental school
faculty. J Dent Educ 1995;59:578-83.
12. National Academy of Sciences. Meeting the nations needs
for biomedical and behavioral scientists. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 1994:65-71.
13. National Research Council. Meeting the nations needs
for biomedical and behavioral scientists: oral health research personnel. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 1994:87-95.

848

14. Scheetz JP, Mendel RW. Update on scholarship among

dental faculty. J Am Coll Dent 1993;6:36-40.
15. Sinkford JC. Dental educationissues and trends. J Am
Coll Dent 1998;65:39-42.
16. Harrington M. Trends in faculty recruitment and retention in allied dental education programs. Presentation
given at American Association of Dental Schools Annual
Conference. March 6, 1999. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
17. Taft TB. Faculty recruitment, retention, development: finding solutions that work. Presentation given at the ADEA
Council of Allied Program Directors meeting, June 20,
1999. Keystone, CO.
18. Logan NS. Promoting the recruitment and retention of
minority faculty. J Dent Educ 1997;61:273-6.
19. Baldwin RG. Faculty career stages and implications for
professional development. In: Schuster JH, Wheeler DW,
eds. Enhancing faculty careers: strategies for development
and renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
20. ONeill P. University of Texas-Houston Dental Branch
Faculty Mentoring Guide; 2000.
21. American Association of Dental Schools. Faculty salary
survey 1996-97: survey of predoctoral dental education
institutions, faculty and support. Washington , DC: American Association of Dental Schools, 1996.
22. Brown LJ, Lazar V. Net income, gross billings and practice expenses of independent dentists. J Am Dent Assoc
1998;129:1031-5.
23. American Dental Education Association. Survey of dental school seniors 1998. Washington, DC: American Dental
Education Association, 2000.
24. Solomon E. Dental school faculty attrition during academic years 1982/83 to 1983/84. J Dent Educ
1984;48:116-7.
25. Whiton JC, Solomon ES. Characteristics of U.S. dental
school faculty, 1987-88, by work status. J Dent Educ
1988;52:318-20.
26. Smith RJ. Requirements for faculty scholarship in universities and dental schools: implications for promotion,
tenure, and the dual-track system. J Dent Educ
1984;48:500-5.
27. Kelley W, Randolph M, eds. Careers in clinical research:
obstacles and opportunities. Appendix B report of the task
force on clinical research in dentistry. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, 1994.
28. Ismail A. Dental education at the crossroads: the crisis
within. J Dent Educ 1999;63:327-9.
29. Libert EM. Effecting change-principles for the process. J
Dent Educ 1996;60:440-3.

Journal of Dental Education Volume 65, No. 9