Inspire. Lead. Engage. Unraveling the Career Conundrum: Faculty Agency in collaborative Undergraduate nursing Programs Michele Drummond-Young NERU Pilot Project Funding 2008 SON, McMaster University

Inspire. Lead. Engage. Introduction Context  Looming Faculty shortage  Steady state of collaborative nursing programs  Complexity of collaborative partnerships: disjunction among institutional expectations, CASN expectations, & teaching & career development Literature  At the outset to set the context & purpose  As an inductive process

Inspire. Lead. Engage. Introduction cont’d Agency  The power to enact on ones own behalf  Ability to control events that affect your life  Exerting influence in spheres over which you have some control (Bandura, 1997)

Inspire. Lead. Engage. Research Question  How do junior faculty & mid careerists teaching in integrated collaborative partnerships manage the concurrent, dual expectations for teaching & career development established by their employers, the collaborative program & CAUSN?

Inspire. Lead. Engage. Objectives  To develop an understanding of how junior faculty manage the the competing commitments of teaching & career development  To understand these experiences within the constraints & supports provided in the settings  To develop a rich & thick substantive explanatory theory to inform our understanding of junior faculty work life

Inspire. Lead. Engage. Research Design Grounded Theory  Interpretive Tradition…what is theory? »Emphasizes understanding rather than explanation »Priority is to show patterns & connections rather than linear reasoning  constructivist approach »Sees both data & analysis as created from shared experiences »The researcher’s intimacy with the experience is believed to enhance sensitivity to the meaning of the data »Acknowledges the researchers role as having an impact on the interpretation of the data & construction of concepts (Bryant 2002; Charmaz, 2007)

Inspire. Lead. Engage. Participants & Setting  Notification of the study to the 14 English language Collaborative Bacc. Nsg Programs in ON  Inclusion criteria: –Full time, part time & clinical faculty/professors with primary responsibility for teaching theory, science &/or clinical courses in the undergraduate program –Holding junior faculty (5 years or less) or mid careerist (5-15 years) positions – Faculty who self select to respond to the demographic survey

Inspire. Lead. Engage. Sampling Strategies  Purposive sample, data rich participants  Initial interview begin to identify preliminary codes that generate questions that guide the direction of the next interview (theoretical sampling)  Sampling is responsive to the data rather than being predetermined at the outset. Theoretical sampling dictates & directs the research design from the start.

Inspire. Lead. Engage. Concurrent Data Collection & Analysis  Primary method in depth, 1:1, face-to-face interviews, 1hr – 90 minutes (field notes)  Interviews will be audio recorded & transcribed verbatim  Open-ended questions generated by prior analysis (theoretical sampling)  Memos & diagrams  Keep track of cumulative thinking  Force the analyst to work with concepts rather than raw data

Inspire. Lead. Engage. Phases of Theory Development  Reflect on presuppositions, suspend a literature search until you have developed a rich & thick story line  Initial rudimentary representation of thought will grow in complexity, density, clarity & accuracy as the researcher engages with the data  Utilize constant comparison throughout the theory development  Review former memos & raw data, write summary memos as you gain theoretical sensitivity (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, Charmaz, 2007; Goulding, 2006))

Inspire. Lead. Engage. Phases of Theory Development  Inductive approach –introduction of literature to assist with abstracting the concepts, filling in categories & checking for gaps in the logic  Member checking –To validate or negate researchers interpretation –May need to go back to new or old sites (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Charmaz, 2007; Goulding, 2006) (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, Charmaz, 2007; Goulding, 2006))

Inspire. Lead. Engage. Limitations of Grounded Theory  Premature literature search imports perspectives into the early analysis & distorts what the data is saying  Contentious to some thesis committees & ethical review boards since the methods of data collection are quite loose which makes the parameters of the study hard to predict at the outset.  Premature closure not going beyond describing the data. Analysts must lift the ideas from the data & explain them theoretically in order to provide meaning & explanation for the behaviour. The concepts must be dimentionalized & most salient facts identified, abstract concepts & look for theoretical meaning. (Charmaz, 2008; Goulding, 2007)