Misalignments: Challenges in cultivating Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES) in your department

Background/Question/Methods

Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES) are faculty-level scientists who take on specialized roles in science education within their scientific discipline. The increasing numbers of SFES being hired across the U.S. provide evidence that the SFES phenomenon is widespread and growing. However, little is known about the motivations for increased interest in hiring SFES. To find out what SFES themselves perceive is driving the SFES phenomenon, we conducted a national survey of SFES across the U.S. (n = 289) at primarily undergraduate, masters-granting, and PhD-granting institutions. In open-ended questions, we probed SFES on their perceptions of: 1) Why are science departments hiring SFES?, 2) What professional contributions could SFES make?, 3) What contributions do SFES actually make?, and 4) What advice do SFES offer for both current and aspiring SFES? The four questions were analyzed using grounded theory analysis. Multiple researchers examined all responses for each question, determined emergent themes independently, and then agreed upon a common set of thematic coding categories. Each researcher independently coded responses into these categories and determined a percentage of respondents who offered evidence in each category. Interrater reliability (IRR) was calculated between at least two researchers. 

Results/Conclusions

Strikingly, the categories of reasons reported for hiring SFES were poorly aligned with the perceived potential and actual contributions reported by SFES themselves. The top two categories for hiring SFES were the preparation of future teachers (39.8%) and the need to fulfill a particular teaching role in the department (32.8%), while the most common responses for potential and actual contributions highlight instead that SFES could be a pedagogical resource (potential 39.2%; actual 31.7%) and contribute to course or curriculum development and reform (potential 35.1%; actual 34.1%). Perhaps not surprisingly, given their diverse contexts and contributions, advice from SFES was also divergent. Misalignments in how a science department values the activities required for a SFES position, and how the activities count or do not count toward tenure and promotion may be at the root of the 30.4% of SFES who were considering leaving their current position. The elucidation of these misalignments can inform the ongoing conversations on how to maximize the impact of the SFES phenomenon in the U.S. The findings can be of value to current and aspiring SFES, their employing science departments and institutions, and policy makers interested in science education reform from within the scientific disciplines.