Observations and update on review of applications for fellowship

Zungolo, Eileen

doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2005.07.005

« PreviousNursing Outlook
Volume 53, Issue 5 , Pages 260-262, September 2005

Observations and update on review of applications for fellowship

Article Outline

Basic criteria
Presentation of the candidate
Curriculum vitae
- Curriculum Vitae
Contributions over and above one’s position
References

In the past, comprehensive and cogent explications of the process of application to fellowship and the subsequent review of the application have been offered by Felton¹ and Schmitt and Sparacino.² The current essay seeks to update and reiterate the directions so ably offered by these colleagues.

Annually, the announcement by the Board of the Academy of those individuals invited to join the fellowship is met with celebration and delight by the successful candidates and their sponsors, and disappointment, rejection, and exasperation by unsuccessful candidates and their sponsors. Subsequently there is a round of concern expressed within the academy regarding the process and composition of the committee, and a general state of angst prevails. Members of the committee and the board receive emails, and phone calls expressing concern and some apprehension about the way in which candidates have been evaluated. Nonetheless a review of the publications by Felton¹ and Schmitt and Sparacino² and two years of service on the committee lead me to the observation that the rhetoric is consistent, the themes recurring; yet the process and outcome remain congruent with the mission of the academy and the function of the committee. The purpose of this paper is merely to elaborate on some of the prior observations and make a few suggestions.

Back to Article Outline

Basic criteria

A minimum requirement of all candidates and their sponsors is that they be members in good standing of the American Nurses Association (ANA), in addition sponsors are required to be in good standing with the academy. This year the initial review of candidates undertaken by the staff to assure compliance with minimal guidelines (sponsor membership, application guidelines in terms of length, etc) revealed that 41 sponsors were not current in their dues. The Board assessed this situation, and a determination was made to invite these sponsors to update their membership. Although the committee knew of the need to alert sponsors to their responsibilities, no member of the committee knew which sponsors needed this reminder. It does point out the importance of sponsors being accountable and meeting the minimum requirements for them to foster a candidate. Furthermore this happenstance points out the additional burden on the staff to screen for essential basic elements.

Back to Article Outline

Presentation of the candidate

Both Felton¹ and Schmitt and Sparacino² address the core importance in presentation of self in the application. Inherent in their guidance is a requirement that the applicant determine which of his/her multiple accomplishments will be the centerpiece of their approach. The Applicant Statement is a crucial component of the application, for therein the candidate identifies the area of research, practice, service, education, etc, in which they wish to be assessed. Clarity in this section is essential to a successful applicant. Furthermore the candidate needs to consider highlighting aspects of this accomplishment that are found in the curriculum vitae (CV). In the ideal situation, the CV will contain numerous illustrations of the candidates’ contributions.

The Sponsors/Sponsor Statement should be focused on the validation and/or elaboration of the statement made by the applicant. Both sponsors need to reinforce this aspect. Yet, a number of applicants this year identified one area of accomplishment and each sponsor elaborated on other areas of accomplishment. As a result of this approach there was limited development of the specific accomplishment the candidate identified. It is easy to understand that the rationale behind such an approach springs from wishing to present the broad range of accomplishments of the candidate. The outcome, nonetheless, was all too often an incomplete “picture” of the candidate’s work and no evaluation of that work by the sponsor. In some instances there were citations of evidence of these accomplishments in the literature in the CV; in others there was not. Previous writers on this topic have noted the importance of a “well-focused” application. Schmitt and Sparacino² stressed the need to be consistent within the application and Felton¹ emphasized the role of the sponsor in providing verification and confirmation of the accuracy of the applicant’s experiences.

In the 2005 reviews the committee noted an overall gap in congruity between some candidates’ statements of accomplishments, the CV and the sponsors’ comments. In some instances candidates would address a set of accomplishments, submit a generic CV in which the accomplishments were very frequently “buried”, and the sponsors addressed another whole set of talents and abilities. As a result in a number of applicants there was no consistent thread across the application, with no external verification of the work and limited evidence of the validity of the accomplishments claimed. In these cases the committee may have no validation of the perceptions of the candidate, particularly if the CV does not mention the noted accomplishments.

Based on this experience, the committee members discussed the need to encourage sponsors to review an application “as if” they did not know the candidate and assess the degree to which the application speaks to the primary accomplishment for which the candidate seeks recognition.

Back to Article Outline

Curriculum vitae

A number of issues arose this year related to the review of the CV. Clearly there are many ways in which a career can be presented on paper. In addition, it is evident that many different agencies and employers have a preferred template. Nonetheless for many of the candidates this year the committee had difficulties filtering through long, and at times, repetitious CVs. Time-consuming, yet ultimately minor, inconveniences stem from the variety of ways in which the CVs are presented—some chronologically, others versus chronology. Some include personal details, whereas others do not. Unfortunately, too many candidates did not present a clear picture of their work, and because sponsors addressed multiple areas of the applicant’s efforts, the review of CVs often led to more questions than answers.

A major concern related to the role of the applicant in identified research. The lack of clarity was at times as simple as whether or not a grant was funded, or as complex as what the role of the candidate was in the identified research. At times it looked as if a candidate was employed as a data collector in the research of a team, whereas that person may have been the primary investigator (PI) on the research team. Following are suggested approaches to these problems that also clarify some of the issues the committee attempted to address.

Curriculum Vitae

1.Each category should be organized starting with most recent activities.

2.For lengthy careers the relevant activities and accomplishments should be highlighted, or the candidate may specify that the CV provides detail for only the last 10 years with abbreviated references to prior time spans.

3.Separate categories should be provided for grants approved and grants funded. Funded grants should specify amount of funding.

4.Applicants should clearly identify their individual role in any grants listed on CV or application (eg, PI, co-PI, data collector, statistician, etc).

5.Applicants who are working on grants should spell out their role in the investigation and their individual contribution to the science and program of research.

6.Applicants who undertake a significant portion of their work in groups must be clear about the nature of the role they occupy in these groups. (In some instances in which candidates were never the first author, or PI, such applications are hard to interpret.)

Consideration of these reminders relative to the CV explicates for the reader the variety of issues the selection committee considers in the review, and clarifies the need for sponsors to be specific and consistent in their validation and support for the accomplishments claimed by the candidate.

Back to Article Outline

Contributions over and above one’s position

There continues to be serious ambiguity about this criterion and, consequently, a degree of subjectivity in its assessment. Unfortunately this is one of those phenomena that are highly evident when it is present, and difficult to define when it is absent. It is often alleged that there is more consensus around the career work of a funded researcher than other domains, an allegation that is hard to refute or confirm given the diversity of fellows and their areas of accomplishment. The very richness and diversity of the areas of endeavor that our colleagues are cause for professional celebration. However, without a clear understanding of the “meaning” of these accomplishments, the assessment of this work is easier said than done.

Although more clarity and consistency in the presentation of the applicant will contribute to improving the assessment of the significance of the contribution, discussion among the members of the academy is needed on this criterion. Felton¹ encouraged an “uncoupling” of the contribution and outstanding job performance, a task increasingly difficult to accomplish. The nature of one’s position has a great deal to do with what a person is able to achieve. It may be that a person in a position of limited power and authority has more freedom and time to develop a comprehensive grant proposal and achieve funding for a 5-year research program, whereas the Vice President for Nursing in a major health care facility has limited support to initiate a program that leads to modest improvements in patient care. Which of these professionals is laying the groundwork for professional advancement?

Schmitt and Sparacino² suggested that because raising money is part of a dean’s job, the mere success in achieving one million dollars in support would not be a significant contribution in and of itself. Depending on the institution and its locale, nationally, raising a million dollars might well be phenomenal, hence the subjective nature of the assessment. Comparable examples might relate to the career researcher who achieves significant outcomes on all funded research efforts, yet the findings have never been implemented in a clinical setting. Has this person made a significant contribution? An open forum on this topic is sorely needed with the goal of developing guidelines for the Selection Committee to use in a consistent and fair review of applicants.

Back to Article Outline