Academic incentives for enhancing faculty engagement with decision-makers—considerations and recommendations from one School of Public Health

In academia, faculty are bound by three pillars of scholarship: Teaching, Research and Service. Academic promotion and tenure depend on metrics of assessment for these three pillars. However, what is and is not acceptable as service is often nebulous and left to internal committees. With evolving funder requirements to demonstrate wider impacts of research, the authors sought to understand financial and non-financial incentives for faculty to engage in knowledge translation and research utilization. Between November 2017 and February 2018, 52 faculty from one School of Public Health were interviewed. Data were analyzed using Atlas.ti and framework analysis. The appeal of incentives varied by values, experience, policy relevance of research, and capacities, ranging from support to resistance. Suggested incentives clustered into four categories: (a) Monetary Support, (b) Professional Recognition, (c) Academic Promotion, and (d) Capacity Enhancement. Concerns included adverse incentives, disadvantaging less prepared faculty, risk that efforts go unnoticed, vague evaluation metrics, and the fact that engagement often occurs outside traditional grant cycles. As funders increasingly request evidence of social return and as attention to research use grows, Schools of Public Health must consider implications of enhancing the service pillar alongside teaching and research. The role of incentives is neither simple nor universally ideal. A tempered approach aligning with faculty aspirations, required capacities, organizational culture, funder conditions, and institutional mission is critical. A broader culture shift is needed from incentivizing engagement-inclined individuals to building engagement-ready institutions, without penalizing faculty who are choice-disengaged.

Nasreen S. Jessani, Akshara Valmeekanathan, Carly M. Babcock, Brenton Ling