The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
that deans were weighing faculty scholarship more heavily and that a successful bid for tenure required a considerably higher level of publications than in the past (Scheetz and Mendel, 1993).
Common obstacles to increased dental school involvement in research and research training include limited discretionary funds for research training; heavy time demands on faculty for "intensive, direct, and constant supervision" of students engaged in often irreversible clinical procedures; a technique-oriented culture; and lack of mentors and role models for young investigators (IOM, 1994b). Many established programs also face the perennial financial burden of modernizing or replacing facilities or equipment outdated by time and technological advances. As noted in an earlier IOM report, unsuitable research facilities hamper both research performance and research education (IOM, 1990d). That report argued generally for the development of a coherent federal policy to set priorities for renewing and expanding the health sciences research infrastructure.
For schools that do not now have a significant research program, initiating such a program is a formidable undertaking. It requires concentrated groundwork related to several major questions (McCallum, 1983; Ranney, 1989) including the following: (1) What funds are available to recruit a critical mass of new faculty and establish a sustainable research group? (2) Does any existing discipline or department within the school offer a core research capacity? (3) Can visiting or other short-term appointments help stimulate research activity? (4) Does the organization of the basic science and clinical departments obstruct wider research capacity? (5) What collaborative or other resources can be found elsewhere in the university or academic health center?
Answering these questions and implementing a developmental strategy demand leadership from the level of the department chair through the dean to the senior levels of the university and academic health center. Department chairs, however, may be unwilling or unable to provide leadership unless they have strong research backgrounds. Deans may be willing but not able to lead without outside support. And university officials may be capable of leading but unwilling to commit their attention and resources. If they are willing to lead, university officials can support the dean financially and politically in working through or around obstacles to change.
Given the expense and complexity of pursuing important research topics, Ranney (1989, p. 80) argues that "dental schools in and of themselves will not be able to develop the manpower and