Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.17496/kmer.2019.21.1.41

Current Status and Performance Evaluation Systems of Faculty in Korean Medical Schools  

Yang, Eunbae B. (Department of Medical Education, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
Lee, Tae Seon (Graduate School of Medical Humanities and Social Science, Yonsei University)
Cho, Myung Ja (Graduate School of Nursing, Kyungpook National University)
Publication Information
Korean Medical Education Review / v.21, no.1, 2019 , pp. 41-50 More about this Journal
Abstract
The aim of this study is to analyze the current status and performance evaluation systems of faculty in Korean medical colleges and professional graduate medical schools (called medical schools). We developed a research tool based on previous studies and distributed it to 40 medical schools from July to October 2017. The response rate was 100%. We calculated the number of faculty members and analyzed the faculty evaluation systems and awareness according to national and private medical schools. As of 2017, the number of medical faculty in Korea was 11,111 (4,973 faculty were employed by their alma mater, which is 44.76% of the total), with non-medical doctor faculty accounting for 754 of the total. The medical schools reflect research achievements as most important for re-appointment and screening to promote faculty, and the area of education is secondary excepting clinical faculty of private medical schools. However, important issues in the faculty evaluation deal with the relevance of research achievement and the need for qualitative assessment. Some medical schools revised or have been revising the faculty evaluation system in areas such as minimum standards of education for promotion and separation of promotion and tenure review. Opening non-tenure track lines for faculty show positive effects such as increasing the number of positions for hire and easing the financial burdens of medical schools. Downfalls include inconsistencies between the responsibilities and actual practices of tenure not being available and the instability of faculty's status. In conclusion, medical schools need to prepare a faculty evaluation system that fits the position of faculty members and attempt to establish a reasonable compensation system.
Keywords
Health personnel; Social responsibility; Reference standards; Reward;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Na MJ, Yoon HJ, Kim WJ, Lee SB, Shin IS, Jang JH, et al. Analysis of faculty evaluation system of national universities in Korea. Sejong: Ministry of Education; 2010.
2 Kim SJ, Woo HS. The study on the effects of the external accountability policies on research performances of the faculties. Korean J Educ Adm. 2014;32(2):137-60.
3 Sahlberg P. Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. J Educ Change. 2010;11(1):45-61.   DOI
4 Ohrr H, Yang EB, Chung MH, Lee MS. The study on the faculty evaluation system of teaching ability in Korea. Korean J Med Educ. 1999;11(2):297-312.   DOI
5 Han KS. Faculty performance evaluation, annual salary and student course evaluation. Korean J Appl Stat. 2011;24(2):435-43.   DOI
6 Fleming VM, Schindler N, Martin GJ, DaRosa DA. Separate and equitable promotion tracks for clinician-educators. JAMA. 2005;294(9):1101-4.   DOI
7 Shin JC. Classifying higher education institutions in Korea: a performance-based approach. High Educ. 2009;57(2):247-66.   DOI
8 Oh SE, Yu JH. The difference of higher education institutions' functional types on their accountability: focusing on analyzing faculty member's perception. J Res Educ. 2015;28(2):1-26.
9 Kim HB, Myung SJ, Yu HG, Chang JY, Shin CS. Influences of faculty evaluating system on educational performance of medical school faculty. Korean J Med Educ. 2016;28(3):289-94.   DOI
10 Colbeck CL. Integration: evaluating faculty work as a whole. New Dir Inst Res. 2002;(114):43-52.   DOI
11 Lee YS. Inbreeding in faculties of Korean medical schools. Korean J Med Educ. 2001;13(2):299-308.   DOI
12 Lee YS, Chae SJ, Shin JS. Faculties in Korean medical schools: their specialties and inbreeding. Korean J Med Educ. 2004;16(3):269-79.   DOI
13 Kim YI, Kim JY. Faculty evaluation in Korean medical schools: part I. designing of basic guideline for assessment of faculty activities. Korean J Med Educ. 2000;12(2):153-62.   DOI
14 Seo KH, Lim SM, Lee BI, Park CH, Park YH. A survey on the education, medical practice, research, and fringe benefits of Korean medical school faculty. J Korean Med Assoc. 2012;55(11):1128-41.   DOI
15 Kim WJ, Yun HJ, Rah MJ. A comparative analysis of faculty evaluation systems of national universities in Korea. J Korean Teach Educ. 2012;29(1):143-65.   DOI
16 Hazelkorn E. Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: the battle for world-class excellence. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
17 Park NK. Analyzing the status of the faculty performance evaluation and developing a model for professors' performance by each university. Seoul: Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development; 2006.
18 Kang Mk. How do we evaluate faculty performances: knowledge production and university ranking. Asian Commun Res. 2014;10(1):127-68.
19 Ban SJ. Discussions on improvement of faculty evaluation. Seoul: The Korean Educational Administration Society; 2010.
20 Lee SH. Korean faculty: who are they? what are they doing? Seoul: Hakgisa; 1992.
21 Kim BJ, Na MJ, Park DY, Jung SS, Jung JC, Choi JY, et al. Government finance to enhance educational power of universities. Sejong: Ministry of Education; 2009.
22 Yun HB. A study on the faculties' satisfaction of medical university. Health Policy Forum. 2005;3(1):149-54.
23 Meng KH. Medical education plan for the twenty-first century in Korea: hopes and challenges. Korean J Med Educ. 2004;16(1):1-11.   DOI
24 Association of American Medical Colleges. Medical faculty job satisfaction: thematic overviews from ten focus groups. Washington (DC): Association of American Medical Colleges; 2006.
25 Nyquist JG, Hitchcock MA, Teherani A. Faculty satisfaction in academic medicine. New Dir Inst Res. 2000;(105):33-43.   DOI
26 Kim CH. Analysis research for implement of faculty-evaluation. J Educ. 1995;13:1-42.
27 Bunton SA, Mallon WT. The continued evolution of faculty appointment and tenure policies at U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 2007;82(3):281-9.   DOI
28 Walling A, Nilsen KM. Tenure appointments for faculty of clinical departments at U.S. medical schools: does specialty designation make a difference? Acad Med. 2018;93(11):1719-26.   DOI