Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 128
6. NURSING RESEARCH PERSONNEL
INTRODUCTION
In its 1977 report, the Committee made its initial rec-ommenda-
tions concerning the direction the HRA's Division of Nursing-
should take-in developing its program of NRSA support.1
Recognizing nursing research to be a distinct area of
scientific inquiry, the Committee defined nursing research as
follows: ' '
' Nursing research focuses on the role of
nursing care in the prevention of illness,
care of the sick, and the promotion and
restoration of health. Although it relies
upon and utilizes the substantive scientific
information and methodology provided by the
other biological and behavioral sciences, it
differs'from those other scientific areas in
that it focuses on their relevance to nursing
rather than other aspects of health care. (NRC,
1975-77: 1977 report, p. 152)
The Committee devoted much of its assessment in that report
to a review of those trends in nursing research that have given
rise to the emergence' of an interest in and need for doctoral
education in this health profession. Findings from a survey of
500 nurses who had completed their doctoral training between 1971
and 1975 were reported. These findings led the Committee to
conclude that the market for doctorally trained nurses i s quite
large, and that the obvious demand for teachers and researchers
with graduate training "makes' it likely that training funds could
be productively used for the next several years on an expanding
basing (NRC, 1975-77 : 1977 report ~ .
Because the extension of the NRSA authority in 1976 to in-
clude the Division of Nursing actually revitalized a program of
research training that then was providing support for 35 indi-
viduals (NRC, 1975-77: 1977 report), the Committee's recommen-
dations had to address, in part, changes in research training
emphasis, given the thrust of the new training authority.
Specifically, the Committee noted that predoctoral research
training continued to be the appropriate level of training to
meet the urgent need for doctorally trained individuals capable
of providing research and teaching leadership. Whereas past
128
OCR for page 129
training opportunities provided by the Division of Nursing almost
exclusively resulted in predoctoral support (Bourgeois, 1975),
the Committee proposed that up to 15 percent of the total number
of awards could be made at the postdoctoral level as "properly
qualified candidates present themselves" (NRC,-1975-77: 1977
report). Opportunity for postdoctoral training was considered
appropriate by the Committee, since nurses who had completed
their doctoral training in prior years might wish to update their
research skills to keep up with recent advances in nursing re-
search.
The Committee also called for a significant reorientation of
the program of fellowship support. It was noted that fellowship
support in the past had been used for doctoral training in such
fields as education and administration, as well as in'the biolog-
ical and behavioral sciences. The Committee recommended a sub-
stantial reduction in the number of fellowships for study in
conscience departments and emphasized that training under the
NRSA authority should be in research and not in professional
fields. -
The Committee recommended an expansion of institutional
training awards to permit the development of nursing research
through interdisciplinary training and recommended such grants be
given to schools of nursing to establish programs for nurses in
cooperation with university departments in the biological, phys-
ical, or behavioral sciences. Similar to the Nurse Scientist
Training Program of 1960's (Matarazzo, 1971),'these institutional
arrangements would give traineeships to nurses for study in basic
science departments that had established relationships with
schools of nursing, although the details of this approach would
have to be developed to meet the provisions of the NRSA author-
,
ity.`
The Committee also recommended that a few institutional
awards be made available for training in graduate departments in
we11-qualified schools of nursing. Recognizing the advances that
have been made in nursing research in recent years, the Committee'
suggested that a few nursing faculty might provide quality train-
ing in nursing research tinder' the auspices' of the NRSA authority.'
Given the innovative thrust of these recommendations, the '
Committee set as its goals for this report a review of the 'NRSA
program development by the Division' of Nursing. A summary of the
recent developments in doctoral training opportunities in nursing
research is a~so'provided. ~
The Committee acknowledges the valuable contributions made by
the representatives of the nursing community who provided infor-
mation to the Committee either et' its public meeting convened'
earlier this year or through private communications. These'ob-' '
servations have greatly assisted the Committee in its de~ibera-
tions. ' '
Findings from the NRC Surveys of Doctoral and Pending
Doctoral Programs for Nurses are also presented in taxis report.
129
OCR for page 130
This series of interviews and site visits has provided the
Committee with important information regarding the current
climate for research training in schools of nursing.
TRENDS IN DOC TORAL EDUCATION
FOR N URS ES
Today there are over 1,400 programs in the United States offering
training for registered nursing. Of these, more than 350 offer a
nursing diploma after training at a hospital, about 640 offer an
associate of arts degree after coursework in a community or jun-
ior college, and about 340 offer a baccalaureate or higher de-
gree. In addition, there are over 100 nursing programs that
offer a masters degree and 16 that offer the doctorate (National
League for Nursing, 1977a and b).
The changing status of doctoral education in nursing is
evident not only in the proliferation of doctoral programs in
schools of nursing in recent years (Leininger, 1976) but also
in the fact that nearly half of the 1,800 nurses with doctoral
training earned these degrees some time in the last decade.
Doctoral programs have been established in schools of nursing
in response to a variety of local as well as national needs. Be-
cause the Committee's recommendations for NRSA program develop-
ment are based on the demand for doctorally trained personnel,
the following review of doctoral programs in nursing serves as a
useful background to the survey findings subsequently reported in
this chapter.
At the present time nursing education is influenced by the
presence of four major regional education authorities. These
include: -
0 the New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE),
established in 1955 by formal agreement among six
member states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont);
o the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) formed
in 1948 for regional planning among the following 14
member states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North and
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West
Virginia;
the Western Interstate Commission for H igher
Education (WICHE), formed most recently ~ 1955 ~ to
coordinate ed ucational planning among 13 member -
states (Alaska, Arizona, Cal i fornia , Colorado ,
Hawaii r Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming).
130
OCR for page 131
OCR for page 133
OCR for page 134
OCR for page 135
OCR for page 136
OCR for page 137
OCR for page 138
OCR for page 139
OCR for page 140
OCR for page 141
OCR for page 142
OCR for page 143
OCR for page 144
Representative terms from entire chapter:
nursing research
o the Committee on Institutional Cooperation ~ CIC ),
formed in 1962 in the Midwest to coordinate
educational planning and resources among the
" Big Ten" universities. (At the present t ime a
feasibi~ ity study is under way to develop a
Midwest Alliance which would encompass 13 mid-
western states, thereby expanding the planning
endeavors in the greater Midwest region ~ .
These regional planning boards have pl eyed an important rot e
in identifying the needs and resources in schools of nursing, in
promos i ng re sear ch through the ava i ~ ab i ~ i ty 0 f " se ed money" , and
in helping institutions study problems in nursing education that
might require interstate assessments (NEBHE, ~ 975; SREB, - 1975;
CIC, 1976; WCHEN, 19751.
As data from the Survey of Doctoral and Pending Doctoral Pro-
grams for Nurses reveal, the availabil ity of regional coordinat-
ing authorities has determined to some extent the location and
emphasis of doctoral programs for nurses.
FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEYS OF D~TO=L AND
PENDING DOCTORAL PROGRAMS FOR NURSES
As a part of the continuing ef fort to provide the Committee with
information describing developments in graduate education for
nurses, the Ad Hoc Advi very Group on Nursing Research Personnel
conducted two surveys of a selected number of schools of nursing
which either provide doctoral programs for nurses, or are devel -
oping doctoral programs at this time. Site visit interviews wi th
the deans were arranged to gain a better understanding of the
factors influencing the development of the programs at the in-
stitutions surveyed.
As of October 1977, 16 schools of nursing offered doctorates
(Table 6. ~ and Figure 6.~) . Because it was not feasible e to visit
all doctoral program sites, 10 were chosen (Table 6. 2) . These
varied with respect to type of degree offered, age/si ze of the
program, and regional location.
The Ad Hoc Advisory Group also identified f ive institutions
where preparations to initiate doctoral programs were under way
Stable 6.2~.
The que st donna ire developed for the Survey of Doctoral Pro-
grams for Nurse s ~ Append ix I ~ sought in format ion in four cate-
gories: graduate program development ~ incl uding enrollments,
number of degrees awarded, and criteria for admission); sources
of doctoral/postdoctoral support for training; faculty charac-
teristics; and amount and type of research act ivities by the
faculty. A similar form was
TABLE 6.1 Schools of Nursing with Doctoral Programs, 1977-78a
Location
Institution
Alabama (Birmingham)
Arizona (Tucson)
California (San Francisco)
University of Alabama
University of Arizona
University of California, San Francisco
Washington, D.C. Catholic University
Illinois (Chicago)
Massachusetts
Michigan (Ann Arbor)
(Detroit)
New York
Ohio (Cleveland)
Pennsylvania
Texas (Demon)
(Austin)
Utah (Salt Lake City)
Rush University
University.of Illinois, Chicago
Boston University
University of Michigan
Wayne State University
New York University
Col~hia, Teachers University
Case Westerns Reserve University
University of Pittsburgh
Texas Woman's College
University of Texas, Austin
University of Utah
From National League for Nursing (1977a).
132
At
o
0
a
In
o
s
In
to
.
ID
m
a
at.
o
0
n.
-
O ~ N N
O
IS
~0
.
~ a .
U] ·
· s
C:
-
0
0
0
-
~ .
E ~ A:
n 0 O
(o ~ ~
$¢ 3
q4 Q.
O
U]
IS ~
O
~ N
P A:
-
~ _
hI k
0
En
_ _
U]
DO
US
In
o
C'
~ O
O ~ O
hi
O
~ o ~
v ~ ~
114 ~
o o o o
~ ~ 3
a
n, ~ ~
:} 3 :D
g
m
v
0 ~
~n
~
E~
-
0
~4
-
.
a a a ~ a
· · · · ~
s ~ £ ~ £
-
0
tR ~n
~0
:: P
_
_ o .
~ s
_ _ _
.o
In
C) 0
P
o
U]
.
-
·rl
o
a
-
U]
0 ~ ~
`: ~ ~
eC aC
)
£ X:
-
~U
-
·
a a
· ~
~ ~C
o
_ ~
~n
u
tn
0
:}
~C,
0 ~
3
-
. ~
O 0?
3 [So
Z ~
_ _
Z ~
CP
0
-
~'
·^
|;;
0
· _
.
· ·
· S S eC
a ~ a4 ~
0 ~
U}
133
. . ~
h
0
~Q
C~
~Q
X
E~
tU ~ ~
O O O
.
~C
D ~
o
3 ~ 3 ~
In ~n 0 ~n
~ h
~ ~ ~ g ~
C) ~ ) 3
-
~S
_ S
~ —
-
O
S
O
-
U
~n
~:
_ U)
-
~n
~ S
X ~
s
u)
s
0
;~
0
~n
o
u
~a
0
p'
c)
8
, o
U]
1
Z
·.
o
U]
~~ -
~ to
- -
.
-
W--
o
.
.
· Doctoral Sites ~ f
O Pending Sites ~
~ Jo
.
.
FIGURE 6.1 Schools of nursing with doctor;`! or pending doctors programs, 1977-78. Drawing based on unpublished
data from American Association of Colleges of Nursing, Washington, D.C., 1978, and NRC, Surveys of Doctoral and
Pending Doctoral Programs for Nurses, Washington, D.C., 1978.
The surveys and site vi sits were conducted between December
1977 and April 1978. The following high] ights are derived from
the summary tables found in Appendix I:
0 Both master and doctoral program enrollments in
schools of nursing have increased since 1974, with
proj ect ions showi ng continued growth through 1982-83
~ Append ixes I 1. l-I 2 ~ .
Some institutions, especially those in the West and in the
Northeast, reported plans to stablize master's degree enrollments
in order to permit development of doctoral programs (Appendix I
1.2), while the remaining institutions anticipated growth at both
levels of train) ng through 1982-83 . No institution reported a
curtailment in master's degree enrollments to permit the exclu-
sive development of doctoral training.
O In 1977 - 78 more doctoral st udents in nursing research
received stipend support than in 1974-75 in every
category of support (Appendix ~ 3~.
It appears that institutional commi tment to doctoral program
development at a school of nursing is reflected in part in the
increased support provided from state and institutional sources
for doctoral students. Similarly, the expanded federal commit-
134
ment to doctoral education for nurses has permitted an increasing
number of stipends in some institutions.
While doctoral enrollments and available student support have
expanded in recent years at almost every institution surveyed, a
comparison of the research environments reveals a high degree of
variability among the institutions at this time. Over half the
institutions with doctoral or pending doctoral programs reported
fewer than 20 faculty members engaged in at least one research
project in October 1977 (Appendix I 4.1). Research projects
which were funded typically were funded at a level well below
$100~000 per fiscal year (Appendix I 6.1).
A number of institutions, it must be added, are strengthening
research activities through research development support (Appen-
dix I 7.1-I 7.2). However, most deans believe their single
greatest need at this time to be research faculty (Appendix I
8.1). This response was unanimous for institutions located in
the Northeast (Appendix I 8.2).
Table 6.3 summarizes the survey findings with respect to the
variability of the research climate among the schools of nursing
with doctoral programs included in this survey:
o Over half the institutions had more doctoral
students than the number of faculty engaged in
at least one research project. This ranged from a
ratio of 200 doctoral students to four research
faculty at one institution, to five doctoral
students to 35 research faculty at another
(Table 6.3~.
O On average only seven faculty members were
engaged in more than one research project at
each institution providing doctoral training,
although this number varied from zero at two
institutions to 18 at another (Table 6.3~.
O Of the 10 schools of nursing with doctoral programs
included in this survey, seven had been awarded
federal research grants or contracts, ranging from
one grant at one site to 12 at another (Table 6.3~.
Half the institutions with doctoral programs
held federally funded research development
grants or contracts in October 1977 (Table 6.3~.
While the variability in these research components can be
attributed in part to the age of the doctoral program and dif-
ferences in training emphasis, it is clear that certain programs
possess a greater number of attributes that make up a sound doc-
toral training experience than others.
Because a strong research climate is essential to the produc-
tion of doctorates in every area of scientific inquiry, the Com-
135
o
a]
e
A.
o
5
3
2
5
Q
~ C,
it_
0.
O
O ~
PI
b ~
&5
to ~
llt
§~l
Al b ~ ~
D 0 ~ b
1~ ll; to
~ g
-t b ~
·.
IQ
BOY
C,
O
0
'~
if-'
as
~ O
4
Gil
.:a,
' ~ t~
0~9
B
~ o o ~ o . o ~ o
o o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0
U' U' ~ o o ~ o ~ Cat
.
Or ~ ~ ~ 0
~ o, ~ U) o ~ ~ ~ CD
Q ~ ~ 0` ~1
~ ~ Or to ~
Be ~ c, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
136
o
0
3
3
4
a
-
!
Hi.
O ~
3= ~
3¢ 3
'-
i]
-¢
o
.~
l'~
~ o
c
'9
~ ~ o
=~
o~o
0 ~
N] ~
4.]
· a
~ o
u
~:
z
b,
~:
~Q
0
.
C)
C]
mittee and its Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Nursing Research believe-
that a unified effort to strengthen existing and proposed'doc-
toral training programs in schools of nursing with respect to ~
research involvement by the faculty is critical at this time. -In
fact, the Commmittee would urge the professional community of
nursing to give serious consideration to slowing voluntarily the
proliferation of new programs for doctoral training in nursing
until existing programs acquire greater strength in those aspects
which contribute to quality doctoral education: a high propor-
tion of faculty actively engaged in research; adequate research
facilities; research grant and contract support; and provision of
opportunities for students to gain research experience in addi-
tion to basic clinical and administrative skills.
A number of factors seem to be contributing to the variation
in research climate noted among those institutions surveyed.
Some of these factors can be addressed locally, while others
require direct federal involvement.
o As doctoral programs have developed, faculty often
have been required to shift their emphasis from
teaching/administration to research. In many
instances, doctorally trained faculty who had
not been actively involved in research have been
given little opportunity to update their
research skills.
Some institutions have adored "research coordinators" to graduate
program staff. These individuals primarily serve as advisors to
faculty interested in developing research proposals or coordinate
research efforts with other staff or departments. These research
coordinators also convene seminars and workshops to review re-
search ideas, provide refresher courses, or plan research strat-
egies.
0 In some institutions, federal policies relative to
the renewal of research development funding have
disallowed certain institutions from continuing to
receive needed support.
Deans, for example, have indicated that faculty turnover in
recent years and the addition of new faculty with active research
interests lead to changing research development needs. Some doc-
toral training institutions that have received up to lo years of
development support through such programs as the Faculty Research
Development Grants program of the Division of Nursing (Gortner,
1973; NRC, 1975-77: 1977 report) find that they are now ine~igi-
ble for further research development support despite the fact
that this continues to be a need at their institutions.
In view of the urgent need to upgrade the research climate in
schools of nursing that now are engaged in doctoral training or
137
shortly will be, it is clear that a review of federal regulations
for research development support in schools of nursing is needed.
Such a review hopefully would lead to a resolution of the current
dilemmas discussed here.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It has been only 2 years since the NRSA authority was extended to
include the predoctoral and postdoctoral research training pro-
grams offered through the Division of Nursing (NRC, 1975-77: 1977
report). Since that time the Division has completed 1 year of
NRSA program support (FY 1977) and has continued to develop this
program generally along the lines suggested by the Committee in
its recommendations announced last year (Gortner and Bourgeois,
1978). The Committee and its Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Nursing
Research have had the opportunity to consult with representatives
from the Division of Nursing about these Commmittee recommenda-
tions. These discussions have been beneficial in monitoring NRSA
program development by the Division and in guiding the Commit-
tee's deliberations this year.
The Committee has seen no evidence from the Division of
Nursing, from NRC survey activities or from the professional
community suggesting that either the scope or direction of NRSA
program development recommended by the Committee is inappro-
priate. The Committee has devoted its attention this year,
therefore, largely to a refinement of its previous recommenda-
t~ons e
The Committee recognizes, of course, that the recommendations
it is making may require modification as the Division of Nursing
undertakes its initial implementation in FY 1979.
The Committee sees no need to review these recommendations
annually, since a period of time must elapse before their full
impact on the development of doctoral education in nursing will
be evident. The Committee reserves the right, of course, to
comment in the future on the general direction of NRSA program
development by the Division of Nursing but generally views this
year's recommendations as guidelines for NRSA program development
beyond FY 1982.
Predoctoral/Postdoctoral Training
In its 1977 report, the Committee suggested that up to 15 percent
of the total number of awards made by the Division of Nursing be
made at the postdoctoral level "as properly qualified candidates
present themselves" (NRC, 1975-77: 1977 report).
AS figures for FY 1977 (Table 6.4) reveal, the ratio of pre-
doctoral to postdoctoral awards by the Division are well within
the guidelines suggested by the Committee for FY 1979.
138
IN
co
hi
0
o
~3
In
o
a;
o
o
a.
all
al
Is
o
c
o
a
' 0
a,
lo
a)
a,
In
:- 1 ~ ~
as
a
c
o
.,,
a;
a
c)
a?
a;
ho
C)
. ~
In
fir ¢:
.
~o
ai
E~
~Q
·,1
c
00 ~ Q
h
l'l?
~ C) ~
C ~ O
ai
0m
0 I
t
U)
U) ~-
a~ a~
~0 0 0 0 0 0
~1. ~ t~ ~ d
O ~ U~ O U' U.
O ~ q~ O
CN ~ ~ ~
U~
a' ~
~' C
O O
.,~ -1
~q C
~ 8 - ~
~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3 0 4 ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ O
u E~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P' P4 ~ E~ ~ P'
139
a~
~o
o
o
U1
Q
P4
C
U
0
U~
o
o
C]
~4
o
C
o
,'
.u
4)
.
U~
· ~
_'
C,
U
o
·~ ~
O
~n ~
~4
~ 0U
C
O
a~
Supplementary data received by the Committees reveal,
however, that this proportion is not evident when traineeships
and fellowships are assessed independently. Instead, the Com-
mittee notes that six of the seven institutional trainees sup-
ported in FY 1977 were postdoctoral appointees.
The Committee would like to clarify its recommendation
regarding postdoctoral research training support in nursing re-
search . There is a real need to expand the pool of doctorally
trained research personnel in nursing to provide research faculty
for the rapidly proliferating doctoral programs in nursing.
Primary emphasis, therefore, should be placed on predoctoral re-
search training at this time. To meet these needs, the Commit-
tee emphasizes, therefore, that no more than 15 percent of the
institutional traineeships and 15 percent of the individual fel-
lowships are to be made available for postdoctoral research
training as qualified candidates present themselves. This leaves
the majority of awards at the predoctoral level for both mech-
ani sms of support .
Recommendation. The Committee recommends that up to 15
percent of the total number of research training awards made
available by the Division of Nursing be made at the postdoctoral
level as qual i f fed cand idates present themselve s.
. .
Tra ineeships
In its 1977 report, the Committee recommended that training
grants be given primarily to schools of nursing to establish in-
terdisciplinary programs for nurses in cooperation with univer-
sity departments in the biological, physical, or behavioral
sciences. Acknowledging that nursing research has become a
distinct area of scientific inquiry, the Committee recommended
that a limited number of institutional grants be provided for
research training in graduate departments of well-qualified
schools of nur s i ng .
Until a greater number of schools of nursing with doctoral
programs can demonstrate a capacity to provide a strong research
environment for doctoral candidates, the Committee reaffirms its
recommendation that the ma jority of institutional awards should
be given to nursing schools for training doctoral candidates in
basic science departments that have established relationships
with schools of nursing in the pattern of the former Nurse Scien-
tist Training Program. The Committee recognizes, of course, that
restrictions such as the limit on the proportion of funds avail-
able for institutional costs under the NRSA authority will re-
quire a new approach to this former program of institutional
training arrangements.
140
The Committee recommends not restricting NRSA i nsti tut tonal
awards to graduate departments in school s of nursing. At a t ime
when substantial Hi f ferences in the qual ity of the research en-
vironment exist in the various schools of nursing engaged in doc-
toral education, the approach described above would assure the
production of we~-qualified investigators.
- Recommendation. The Committee recommends that the program of
inst i t ut iona, tr a i n ing gr ant suppo r t i n nur s i ng re sear ch cont i nue
to be expanded at the rate specified in Table I. 2. The Committee
recommends that institutional awards be made primarily for train-
ing nurses in basic science departments that have establi shed re-
lationships with schools of nursing, in the pattern of the former
Nurse Scientist Training Program, and that only a limited number
of training grants be provided for research training in graduate
departments in well-qualified schools of nursing.
Fe] 1 owsh i ps
In its ~ 977 report, the Committee called for ~ ma jar reorienta-
tion of fellowship support so that a substantial reduction would
occur in the number of ind ividuals rece iving fellowships in non-
science departments (NRC, 1975-77: 1977 report).
Data from the Division of Nursing reveal that a signif leant
step in this direction has been taken in the past year. Of the
total number of fell owship applications approved during FY ~977
through January 19 7 B. only 2 5 pe rcent repr e sensed f i eld s other
than the ba s i c b i omen i c al, behavi or al, and cl i n i cal sc i e nce s
( Gortner and Bourgeo i s, 19 7 8 ) .
In view of the fact that this change in program emphasis is
continuing, the Committee recommends that the total number of
fell owship awards remain at 175 through FY 1982 when f urther as-
se ssment of the dev e l opme n t of th i s pr og r am wi ~ ~ be mad e ~ Tabl e
1.2) .
.
Recommendat ion. The Commi ttee recommends that the annual
, . . .
number of fellowship awards by the Division of Nursing remain at
175 through FY ~ 982, while the shift to training in nursing
research i s compI eted .
141
Midcareer Research Training
The Commi ttee and its Ad Hoc Advi very Group on Nur sing Research
Personnel note that there are a number of doctoral ly trained
nurses who may need to have their research skills upgraded be-
cause of advances in nursi ng research. There also are nurses
whose employment experiences have prepared them to pursue doc-
toral training as a midcareer development.
This pool of potential investigators represents a promising,
yet largely untapped, resource for nursing research.
It is clear that the current NRSA stipend level i s inadequate
to attract such personnel into research careers. It is less
clear whether the payback provi signs are suf f iciently flex ible to
encourage these ind ividuals to -seek NRSA support .
Because opportunities for mi`3career research training would
enrich the rapidly expanding nursing research labor ~force, in the
coming year the Committee will assess the means by which training
support should be made available to recruit research personnel at
this stage of their professional career development.
1
142
FOOTNOTES
I. The Heal th Research and Health Services Amendments of 1976
~ P. L. 94-278 ~ extended the NRSA authority to include the programs
of research training offered by the HRA Divi sion of Nursing . The
1977 Committee report was the first attempt to address training
needs in nursing research.
2. In addition to payback requirements, such provisions as the
period of support and the amount of institutional allowance are
unique to the HRSA program and would require a reformulation of
the former Nurse Scient i st Tra ini ng Program.
3. Correspondence from Dr. Susan Gortner, BRA Division of
Nursing, to Pamela Ebert-Flattau, Committee staff, March 20,
1978.
l
143
