Leadership in Doctoral Nursing Research

Programs
Ann F. Minnick, PhD, RN, FAAN; Linda D. Norman, DSN, RN, FAAN;
Beth Donaghey, MA; LTC Linda W. Fisher, RN, MHA, FACHE; and
Irene M. McKirgan, MSM, CHES

ABSTRACT

The expansion of U.S. doctoral nursing research programs and transitions based on demographic distribution
of the nursing academic workforce raises questions about
the preparation for leadership transition planning. The
purpose of this study was to describe the program leaders,
job conditions, and status of transition efforts. A survey
of U.S. nursing research doctoral programs (N = 105) was
conducted in 2008. The response rate was 84.8%. A Web
search of nonresponding schools provided some data from
all programs. Most research doctoral program leaders
hold additional responsibilities (mean = 4.2). The mean
budgeted leadership time was 32.9% (SD = 21.4). Among
programs in which the directors age was at least 60 years,
59% had no succession plan. Continuing improvement of
the quality of doctoral nursing research programs could be
compromised by leadership transition issues. To produce
Received: October 23, 2009
Accepted: April 7, 2010
Dr. Minnick is Chenault Professor of Nursing, Dr. Norman is Professor of Nursing, Ms. Donaghey is Research Program Manager, Ms.
Fisher is PhD candidate, and Ms. McKirgan is PhD Administrative
Manager, Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, Tennessee. Ms. Fisher is also from the Nursing Research Service, Madigan
Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington.
The authors thank Dr. Mary Dietrich for reviewing their statistical
analyses.
The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the materials presented herein. The views expressed in the article are those of
the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of
the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Address correspondence to Ann F. Minnick, PhD, RN, FAAN,
Chenault Professor of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Godchaux Hall,
Room 424, 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37240; e-mail: Ann.
Minnick@vanderbilt.edu.
doi:10.3928/01484834-20100820-02

504

JNE0910MINNICK.indd 504

research-competitive graduates, continued support and

attention to leadership of these programs is essential.

eadership is a key factor in an institutions attainment of quality (Blouin, McDonagh, Neistadt, &
Helfand, 2006; Redman, 2006). Attending to leadership training and succession planning may contribute
to organizational success (Blouin et al., 2006; Redman,
2006). The education literature is replete with examples
of the importance of strong leadership at the department
or program level to the success of the faculty and students,
and the need for preparation for the role (Chu, 2006; Lees,
2006; Lucas & Rice, 2000; Wheeler, Seagren, Becker, Kinley, & Mlinek, 2008). Multiple authors have indicated that
the department chair or program director is a key element
in achieving the strategic initiatives of the program (Abbassi, 2008; Brown & Moshavi, 2002; Morris, 2009; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). This study describes U.S. doctoral nursing research leaders in terms of the employment
responsibilities of the program leader, the leaders preparation and experiences, and leadership transition efforts.
There are three major reasons why such a description is needed. The first concerns the aging of the nursing academic workforce, a well-documented phenomenon
(American Association of Colleges of Nursing [AACN],
2008). Although there is little reason to believe that doctoral programs have been immune to this trend, statistics are needed to determine whether this is in fact the
case and what measures are being taken to address directorship transitions. Adams (2007) described the lack
of faculty interest in assuming nursing academic administration roles. If administration of these programs is to
change hands soon, identifying effective ways to recruit
and train potential incumbents is more important than
ever. As Bolton and Roy (2004) discussed, the goal of succession planning is not only to fill positions but also to
Copyright SLACK Incorporated

8/23/2010 11:14:54 AM

Minnick et al.

ensure a robust match of qualifications and competencies

or equal to 1980, 1981 to 1990, 1991 to 2000, and 2001 to
in candidates.
2007 based on the distribution of the programs reported
A second reason lies in the demands that must be met
initiation years) were also collected.
to execute a program of high quality. These demands have
Three mailings, 2 weeks apart, encouraged parbeen noted in documents that describe the essentials of
ticipation either by paper or online. Fewer than 10 redoctoral research education and include building research doctoral programs indicated they were parts
search faculty and doctoral programs (AACN, 2002; Kim,
of consortia. Consortial programs were analyzed as a
McKenna, & Ketefian, 2006) and by the accounts of cursingle program if coordinated governance and a single
rent administrators giving advice to deans, such as in the
set of requirements were reported. Programs that inseries by Pressler and Kenner (Kenner & Pressler, 2008;
dicated that the only shared activities were course ofKenner, Pressler, & Loving, 2007; Pressler & Kenner,
ferings were counted individually. Two programs did
2008). Leadership in a research doctoral program must
not offer a research doctoral degree and were omitted.
address faculty, staff, students, resources, and evaluation
Adjustment for consortia and removal of the two nonissues within the overall mission and philosophy of the
research doctoral programs in the denominator reorganization. Program directorship influences all of these
sulted in a response rate of 84.8%. The most common
aspects.
respondent was the program leader, followed by the
Finally, the rapid growth in the number of doctoral reschools dean. To obtain information about every program
search nursing programs (from 79 in 2002 to 102 in 2007)
and its director(s), we conducted reviews of the remaindemands leaders who can set a solid base in each of these
ing institutions Web sites. If the data were not found at
areas to ensure that every doctoral program makes the
the Web site, the items were coded as missing.
best use of expensive and scarce resources (AACN, 2007;
The Carnegie classification was the PhD programs
Minnick & Halstead, 2002).
parent institutions class
Although program leaderdesignation in 2006. Nursing
ship is not a sole function of
research doctoral programs
the named director and othwere distributed among six
Leadership in a research doctoral
ers can have leadership roles,
of the defined Carnegie catunderstanding the workload,
egories (Carnegie Foundaprogram must address faculty, staff,
preparation, and experience
tion, 2001). Four programs
of the director is important.
were in masters large and
students, resources, and evaluation
The director has opportunione in masters medium.
ties to represent the program
The Carnegie classification
issues within the overall mission and
in a variety of important
defines masters institutions
venues, make final decisions
as those that award at least
philosophy of the organization.
regarding implementation,
50 masters degrees and
and recommend strategies
fewer than 20 doctoral deto higher levels of academic
grees per year. Size designaadministration. Criteria for
tion (large, medium, small)
leading research doctoral programs are not specified by
is based on the number of masters degrees awarded.
the AACN. Statistics for leaders of these programs are
Most programs were in one of three Carnegie
combined within a general administrative category in
doctorate-granting university categories: research unimost studies of schools of nursing (AACN, 2002). Separate
versity very high (RUVH) (44%), high research (RUH)
studies of research program directors and succession plan(28%), and doctoral research (DRU) (11%). A doctoratening have not been reported in this decade.
granting university is one that awards at least 20 doctoral degrees per year, excluding professional degrees. The
Method
research level is dependent on a variety of funding and
activity variables. Thirteen institutions were Carnegie
The data collection method and items have been despecial focus (SF) institutions, awarding baccalaureate
scribed in more detail in an earlier publication about
or higher level degrees where a high concentration of
doctoral program capacity (Minnick, Norman, Donaghey,
degrees is in a single field or set of related fields (e.g.,
Fisher, & McKirgan, 2010). The following is a brief dehealth sciences). The scholarship activities and rescription. The investigators mailed a 30-item survey to
search rankings of these 13 schools met the research
the deans of all nursing schools (N = 105) listed as oflevel of RUVH schools, resulting in a decision to include
fering research doctoral programs as of the beginning of
these schools in a very high research activity category
2007 (AACN, 2007). Items were tested with three nursing
(RUVH/SF).
education administrators involved in doctoral research
Employment responsibility was operationalized as
education. Ownership status (public or private), location
responsibilities (e.g., teaching by program type; admin(state and geographic region based on U.S. Census Bureau
istration of other educational, clinical, or service prodelineation), and program age (categorized as less than
grams; leadership of grants; participation in grants) in
Journal of Nursing Education Vol. 49, No. 9, 2010

JNE0910MINNICK.indd 505

505

8/23/2010 11:14:55 AM

Doctoral Nursing Research Programs

Research
Universities
(Very High
Research
Activity/Special
Focus) (n = 50)

Research
Universities
(High Research
Activity)
(n = 25)

Doctoral/
Research
Universities
(n = 10)

All Programs
(n = 88)a

Direct > 1 other

academic program**

36

72

22.2

42.7

Principle Investigator >

1 research grant**

66

30.4

33.3

52.9

alpha level. For shared statistically significant findings (i.e., if program age
and Carnegie classification
showed statistically significant differences in a particular variable), adjusted
effects of the two program
characteristics were tested
using nonparametric multiple regression analyses.
The statistical significance
was assessed using the 0.05
level.

Principle Investigator >

1 training grant

49

52.2

33.3

47.7

Results

Table 1
Additional Responsibilities of the Research Doctorate Director
Program Carnegie Classification (%)

Additional
Responsibilities

Data Source
and Program
Includes those in the listed Carnegie classifications plus those in institutions categorized as a masters type.
Characteristics
Masters type data are not presented separately because n is < 5 for each variable. The n varies slightly by
Distribution comparivariable because of institutions omission of some data.
** p < 0.01.
sons indicated there were
no significant differences
in location, ownership status, Carnegie classificaaddition to leadership of the doctoral research program.
tion, or program age between the responding schools and
The rationale for this approach was to describe areas of
nonresponding schools from whom Web-based information
responsibilities that may complement or compete with
was collected.
the role, rather than with individual administrative tasks
within a research doctoral directorship. An item was also
Ages of Directors
included to allow respondents to indicate the amount
Of the 86 programs for which director age was
of time allotted in the budget for the research doctoral
reported, 33.7% reported director age to be between
program leadership.
60 and 64 years. Fifteen percent of programs were led
Preparation and experience items included those reby directors ages 65 years or older. Thirty percent of
lated to administrative (educational, general, or busiprograms were led by directors younger than age 55
ness) training, as well as items that explored previous
and 20.9% by directors ages 55 to 59. Director age was
research experiences that provide a reality-based undernot associated with program characteristics, including
standing of the elements of doctoral level research and
Carnegie classification.
training (e.g., leadership of major grants, leadership of
research training grants, mentorship of predoctoral and
Leadership: Conditions of Employment
postdoctoral students, mentorship of junior faculty trainThe titles for leaders of doctoral research programs
ing efforts such as K awards, publications, and reviewervaried widely (n = 82 titles). Twenty-nine titles contained
ship). Tenure in current position and experience in other
the phrase associate or assistant dean, seven involved
administrative roles were the bases for additional expethe word chair, and almost all of the remainder included
rience items. Transition effort items allowed the responthe words director or co-director. In 16 titles, respondent to select both formal and informal strategies.
dents used the words graduate programs/studies; in 25
Using SPSS version 15 software, we tested all data for
cases, the title specified the PhD program and no other.
outliers and conducted random checks for paper survey
Other titles made no specification of position scope, redata entry errors. Comparisons among individual program
ferred to academic affairs, or combined functions such as
descriptors (e.g., ownership status, location, program age,
academic affairs and advance practice. One referred to
Carnegie classification) for nominal variables were cona shared model of administration and did not provide a
ducted using chi-square tests of independence. Ordered
title. To provide consistency, we use the term director in
and extremely skewed variables were subjected to ordinal
discussing all subsequent results.
comparison methods. Ownership status comparisons were
In 8% of programs, the director held the position temconducted using Mann-Whitney tests; the other compariporarily because the position rotated on a specific schedsons used Kruskal-Wallis tests. Post hoc tests of statistically
ule, usually 2 or 3 years. Twenty-one percent of the 91
significant Kruskal-Wallis findings were conducted using all
programs were reported to be led by two directors. The
possible pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni-adjusted
workload effort allotted for program leadership varied
a

506

JNE0910MINNICK.indd 506

Copyright SLACK Incorporated

8/23/2010 11:14:55 AM

Minnick et al.

Table 2
Experience of the Research Doctorate Director
Program Carnegie Classification (%)
Research
Universities (Very
High Research
Activity/Special
Focus) (n = 50)

Research
Universities
(High Research
Activity) (n = 25)

Doctoral/
Research
Universities
(n = 10)

All Programs
(n = 88)a

Administration experience and training

Prior PhD program leadership*

2.0

21.7

11.1

9.2

81.4

93.1

81.8

84.8

Formal administration training **

57.6

93.1

90.9

72.4

MeanSD (median) no. of publications**

49.334.8 (40.0)

34.923.2 (30.0)

20.613.6 (20.0)

42.932.6 (32.0)

MeanSD (median) no. of major research

grants of the principle investigator**

3.54.9 (3.0)

1.11.7 (1.0)

0.60.7 (0.5)

2.74.5 (1.0)

MeanSD (median) no. of graduate level

training grants of the principle investigator

2.33.0 (1.0)

4.25.2 (2.0)

5.58.3 (3.0)

3.44.8 (2.0)

MeanSD (median) no. of predoctoral and

postdoctoral fellows mentored*

8.810.0 (5.0)

4.67.6 (0.0)

1.82.2 (1.0)

7.09.1 (3.0)

MeanSD (median) no. of junior faculty

mentored for research training awards

0.81.2 (0.0)

0.91.1 (0.0)

0.30.8 (0.0)

0.81.1 (0.0)

> 1 prior administration position

c

Scholarship/research experience

Includes those in the listed Carnegie classifications plus those in institutions categorized as a masters type. Masters type data are not presented
separately because n is < 5 for each variable.
b
Includes respondents who indicated any of the following: research doctorate leader at another school, administrator of masters or baccalaureate at
current or another school, administrator of research component in nonacademic setting, administrator of a clinical component, or other office or agency.
c
Includes respondents who indicated any of the following training: MBA, MSN in administration, MSN in education, EdD or PhD in educational
administration, graduate level education administration courses, administrative fellowship/formal mentorship, or other administrative training.
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

from 0% to 100% of a full-time position (mean = 32.9%,

SD = 21.4). The average number of faculty reported to
be involved in the research doctoral program and thus a
responsibility in whole or in part of the director was 19
(SD = 11.8).
Approximately 43% of the administrative heads of research doctoral programs were responsible for some or all
administrative aspects of at least one other educational
program (Table 1). Ten directors administered a baccalaureate program, 33 led a masters program, and 16 were
responsible for a practice doctorate. Seventy-seven percent were responsible for teaching in the PhD program,
and 40% taught in other nursing programs. Eleven directors taught in the baccalaureate, 30 in the masters,
and 9 in a practice doctorate program. Sixteen percent of
directors also functioned as the schools research leader
with a title such as Director for Research. Forty-six
directors indicated they were currently the principal
investigators of at least one RO1 level grant, and 41
were the leaders of at least one program or training
grant. Thirty-nine were the co-investigators of at least
one RO1 level grant, and 17 performed these duties
Journal of Nursing Education Vol. 49, No. 9, 2010

JNE0910MINNICK.indd 507

for a program or training grant. Twenty-four respondents

had additional duties such as center directors within
the school, university, or clinical facilities. The average number of teaching, clinical, research, or administrative responsibilities held by a director in addition to
the administration of the research doctoral program
was 4.2 (SD = 2.4; range = 0 to 15).
Preparation and Experience
Approximately 72% of leaders indicated some kind of formal
educational administrative training (Table 2). The two most
common types of preparation were other (32.2%) or graduate level education administration courses (24.1%). Other
was usually short courses or intensive programs in administration. Eighty-five percent of respondents indicated they had
held at least one prior administration position. Nine percent
had experience as leaders at another doctoral program, and
43% had been administrators in other kinds of educational
programs. The mean length of time in the current leadership position was 4.1 years (SD = 4.3). Overall, the years of
experience as any sort of educational administrator was 12.1
(SD = 11).
507

8/23/2010 11:14:56 AM

Doctoral Nursing Research Programs

Research and Scholarly Productivity

mechanism was informal mentorship followed by interThirty-two percent of programs (based on 78 responnal leadership development. Determining the nature of
dents) were led by directors who have no experience as
execution of these mechanisms was beyond the scope of
the principal investigator of a major externally funded rethis study.
search grant such as a federally supported RO1 or large
privately funded study (Table 2). Thirty-eight percent of
Influence of Organizational Characteristics
leaders reported they never mentored a predoctoral or
Differences by Carnegie classification are noted in
postdoctoral fellow, and 62% have had no experience as a
Tables 1 and 2. The only statistically significant asmentor for junior faculty members development grants.
sociations of program location, ownership status, and
Although the average number of publications was 43
program age, with the variables found to differ by Carn(SD = 32.6), there was wide variation (range = 0 to 160;
egie classification, were in numbers of directors publin = 82 respondents), with 12% reporting 10 or fewer cacations and numbers of postdoctoral fellows mentored.
reer total publications. Eighty-two percent reported expeGiven that the age of the director may be a confounder
rience as a participant on an editorial board. Leadership
in these relationships (greater age equaling longer time
of a research training grant varied, with 23% reporting
to have written or mentored), we adjusted for this. The
no experience and 8.6% reporting 10 or more such experiresults remained the same: differences by Carnegie clasences. Director age was not found to be associated with
sification were statistically significant (number of agegrant experience and only weakly and not statistically
adjusted publications, p = 0.011; number of age-adjusted
significant (< 0.2) with publication or mentorship experipostdoctoral fellows mentored, p = 0.035). Other organience. Holding program director and dean of research titles
zational characteristics, including program age, were not
simultaneously was not staassociated with publication
tistically associated with the
and mentorship experience.
number of experiences and
The number of research
mentoring of junior faculty
doctoral students was not
through K awards and simiassociated with leader exThe programs internal priorities, as
lar mechanisms.
periences, preparation, or
An attempt to mathematischolarly productivity.
well as those of the overall academic
cally define leaders overall
research experience by addDiscussion and
enterprise, may explain differences in the
ing five experiences (principle
Recommendations
investigator of a large exterstructuring of responsibilities.
nal research grant, principle
Are director workload
investigator of a training
and position stability regrant, journal editorial board
lated to program outcomes?
membership, predoctoral and
The multiple responsibilipostdoctoral
mentorship,
ties of most directors are
mentorship of a junior faculty during a research developwell documented by this studys results. Our design
ment grant) involved assigning a program director a score
cannot provide information about how these multiple
of 0 if his or her reported number fell in the lower quarresponsibilities influence strategic planning, activity pritile of respondents and a 1 if the number was above the
oritization, and delegation of responsibilities within the
lowest quartile for each experience. (The rationale for this
research doctoral program. The programs internal prioriapproach was based on the distribution of the experiences
ties, as well as those of the overall academic enterprise,
showing discontinuity between the first and second quarmay explain differences in the structuring of responsitiles.) Of the 56 program directors who provided complete
bilities. What remains to be explored is how the leaders
information, the average score for research experiences
workload and tenure in the position may influence prowas 2.75 (SD = 1.5) of a possible score of 5. Forty-one pergram outcomes for faculty and students.
cent of program directors had two or fewer experiences,
The finding regarding rotating directors also de27% had three, and 32% had four or five total research
serves further study. Changing leadership every 2 years
experience components.
is something baccalaureate and masters nursing programs try to avoid to ensure consistency in transmitLeadership: Succession Planning and Training
ting their strategic missions and executing the tactics
Sixty-two percent of schools reported having no sucneeded for mission achievement. Determining why a
cession plan. Among schools in which the director was
rotation schedule is used in research doctoral programs
age 60 or older (n = 41), 59% reported no plan. Three promay help determine whether it is a reflection of the lack
grams were reported to have plans that involved formal
of desirability of the position, an attempt to save adminmentorship, 11 involved informal mechanisms. Almost
istrative overhead, a step to maximize different leaderone tenth (9.8%) of program respondents indicated usship strengths, or something else. Stability in a posiing more than one mechanism. The most commonly cited
tion allows a leader to develop and implement strategic
508

JNE0910MINNICK.indd 508

Copyright SLACK Incorporated

8/23/2010 11:14:56 AM

Minnick et al.

initiatives (Bossidy, Charan, & Burck, 2002; Graham,

1989).
The percent of effort allocated to directorship indicates
that the position is usually deemed worthy of only parttime effort. Our analyses indicated effort allocation was
not driven by program size (number of faculty or number
of students) or by Carnegie classification. The relationship of effort allocation and outcomes such as faculty and
graduates research trajectories should be explored. Without these data, it is not possible to suggest a desirable
workload allocation for program leadership. A qualitative
exploration conducted with current directors could lay the
foundation to discover the role-specific opportunities and
barriers that additional responsibilities and workload allocation play in executing the director role.
Overall, the small proportion of time allocated to direction, the sheer number of other responsibilities assigned
to directors, and the reliance of some programs on rotating
leadership could be indicators of these programs priority
within schools of nursing. Monitoring the allocations of
leadership effort for these programs versus other degreegranting programs, including the doctorate in nursing
practice, could help determine whether this is indeed
the case. It may also help determine whether the current
work responsibilities make the research doctoral program
directorship less appealing than other school of nursing
administration positions.
The data indicate succession plans for the director are
nonexistent or amorphous at most schools, even those
with directors whose ages indicate that retirement within
5 years is likely. This may be because of an emphasis on
dean, rather than director, transitions. Many deans of
schools of nursing are also approaching an age at which
retirement may be expected. Preparing for that transition
may take precedence over succession planning for their
direct reports. The uncertainty of the incumbents retirement timetables may also be a reason. This survey was
conducted in 2008, before the economic turmoil of the autumn occurred. It may be that current directors will extend their working lives to counteract the effects this had
on their projected retirement income. Interacting with
this phenomenon is the competitive market for senior researchers. This may lead to the adoption of an attitude by
deans and senior university officials that even designated
successors are likely to leave while waiting for the unascertainable date at which the incumbent will leave. Finally, there may be a belief that succession planning makes
little difference to program outcomes.
Overlapping all of these possibilities is the fact that few
directors are the holders of only a single responsibility. It
is daunting to consider how one could plan succession for
a holder of multiple positions with a breadth of varied responsibilities. In addition, higher administrators may be
planning a different mix of responsibilities for the next director and be unable to announce this, given administrative
sensitivities and tensions. Future research should explore
the outcomes of institutions that have embarked on succession interventions and compare them with those that have
Journal of Nursing Education Vol. 49, No. 9, 2010

JNE0910MINNICK.indd 509

not. Determining the extent to which these efforts produce

intended outcomes, as well as unintended consequences,
will guide others. In the interim, the very real finding that
directorships in the majority of nursing research doctoral
education programs can be expected to change within the
next 3 to 5 years (if most directors retire between ages 65
and 70) deserves attention. Although there have been programs such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Nurse
Faculty Scholars and Nurse Executive Program to prepare
leadership in nursing, particular attention to this type of
program may be warranted given the scarcity of potential
directors who hold the scholarship, research, and administrative credentials schools might desire.
What research and scholarly credentials are important for a director? If this question is not answered, those
conducting succession training programs or program director searches will have few, if any, objective reasons to
specify any credentials other than to ensure the new director is seen as an intellectual peer by program faculty
and other university administrators. (This latter consideration is not a small one, but one that some schools have
not previously addressed based on our finding that in
approximately one third of programs, the research experience and leadership training of current directors were
minimal.) As researchers, we suggest this question must
be answered in terms of the relationship of credentials
to program outcomes. Causality between the program
directors research and administrative experiences and
program outcomes cannot be tested within this studys
design but should be pursued in future work. Information
about quantity and quality of experience is needed. For
example, there is currently no evidence to suggest that
a director with five RO1 principal investigator experiences will produce better outcomes than a director with
one. However, it may be difficult for a program director to
support research-active faculty if he or she does not have
the knowledge or experience that comes from building a
program of research.
Leadership of research may be enabled through familiarity with the scientific enterprise afforded by experiences beyond ones own basic doctoral education. Determining
whether nursing education accepts this position but does
not act on it because of a shortage of qualified scholars
will give direction to faculty and program director development.
Conclusion
One way to address the issues facing doctoral nursing
research programs is to ensure directors can plan and execute programs that respond to nursings aspirations to
increase the number of nurse researchers while improving program quality. Continuing to explore how the overall work responsibilities and qualifications of directors
are related to program outcomes is important. The rate at
which program leadership is projected to change requires
the nursing academic leadership community act now to
prepare incumbents for these positions.
509

8/23/2010 11:14:57 AM

Doctoral Nursing Research Programs

References
Abbassi, M. (2008). A comparative analysis of the perceptions of
department success between department chairs and faculty at
a south Texas college in the lower Rio Grande valley. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social
Sciences, 68(7-A), 2777.
Adams, L. (2007). Nursing academic administration: Who will
take on the challenge? Journal of Professional Nursing, 23,
309-315.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2002). Indicators
of quality in research-focused doctoral programs in nursing.
Journal of Professional Nursing, 18, 289-294.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2007). Institutions
offering doctoral programs in nursing and degrees conferredfall 2007. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2008). Nursing faculty shortage fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.
edu/Media/factsheets/FacultyShortage.htm
Blouin, A.S., McDonagh, K.J., Neistadt, A.M., & Helfand, B.
(2006). Leading tomorrows healthcare organizations: Strategies and tactics for effective succession planning. Journal of
Nursing Administration, 36, 325.
Bolton, J., & Roy, W. (2004). Succession planning: Securing the
future. Journal of Nursing Administration, 34, 589.
Bossidy, L., Charan, R., & Burck, C. (2002). Execution: The discipline of getting things done. New York, NY: Crown.
Brown, F.W., & Moshavi, D. (2002). Herding academic cats: Faculty reactions to transformational and contingent reward leadership by department chairs. Journal of Leadership Studies,
8, 79-93.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2001).
The Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/
classifications/index.asp
Chu, D. (2006). The department chair primer: Leading and managing academic departments. Bolton, MA: Anker.

510

JNE0910MINNICK.indd 510

Graham, R. (1989). Project management as if people mattered.

Bala Cynwyd, PA: Primavera Press.
Kenner, C., & Pressler, J.L. (2008). The ripple effect: Advancing
faculty research? Nurse Educator, 33, 97-98.
Kenner, C., Pressler, J.L., & Loving, G. (2007). New age literacy:
Expectations for deans. Nurse Educator, 32, 97-99.
Kim, M.J., McKenna, H.P., & Ketefian, S. (2006). Global quality criteria, standards, and indicators for doctoral programs in
nursing; literature review and guideline development. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43, 477-489.
Lees, N.D. (2006). Chairing academic departments: Traditional
and emerging expectations. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Lucas, A.F., & Rice, R.E. (2000). Leading academic change: Essential roles for department chairs. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Minnick, A.F., & Halstead, L.A. (2002). A data-based agenda for
doctoral nursing education reform. Nursing Outlook, 50, 2429.
Minnick, A.F., Norman, L.D., Donaghey, B., Fisher, L.W., &
McKirgan, I.M. (2010). Defining and describing capacity in
US doctoral nursing research programs. Nursing Outlook, 58,
36-43.
Morris, A.A. (2009). Leadership role of the department chair in
private colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International Section
A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 69(9-A), 3478.
Pressler, J.L., & Kenner, C. (2008). Avoiding Too little, too late
in supporting faculty research. Nurse Educator, 33, 187-189.
Redman, R.W. (2006). Leadership succession planning: An evidence-based approach for managing the future. Journal of
Nursing Administration, 36, 292.
Robinson, V.M.J., Lloyd, C.A., & Rowe, K.J. (2008). The impact
of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 44, 635.
Wheeler, D.W., Seagren, A.T., Becker, L.W., Kinley, E.R., & Mlinek,
D.D. (2008). The academic chairs handbook. San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley and Sons.

Copyright SLACK Incorporated

8/23/2010 11:14:57 AM

Copyright of Journal of Nursing Education is the property of SLACK Incorporated and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.