Sustaining careers: Factors impacting the vitality of non-physician educators in medical faculty development

About twenty-five years ago, medical colleges were provided federal incentives through Title VII to increase the number of trained faculty in family medicine. Many non-physician educators found positions within the medical faculty development programs that grew out of this federal legislation. However, over the years, the federal funds that originally brought many of these educators into medicine have decreased or were targeted to achieve other goals such as care for underserved patients. Despite declining federals funds, many of these educators have continued working in medical education. This study explored factors that impacted the vitality of these medical faculty developers to examine how they sustained their careers through changing times.;This was a descriptive study that utilized two sources of data collection: (1) a survey of 606 non-physician members of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, and (2) telephone interviews with twelve senior faculty developers working in medical education. The interview participants spent at least 20% of their time on faculty development and worked in medical faculty development for ten or more years. Two bodies of literature primarily informed the theoretical framework of this study: (1) the literature on productive faculty and institutional vitality, and (2) the literature on socialization.;Findings include the demographics of vital non-physician faculty developers in medical education. This study also describes how the faculty developers were socialized to the medical culture and their work. Although their socialization is somewhat explained by previous socialization theories, there are unique qualities to medical faculty development. There is no defined entrance point for a career in medical faculty development and no specific training that is universally required. There are no formal opportunities for early anticipatory socialization. Findings showed that a thorough, formalized socialization to medical education is lacking for faculty developers, and most of the faculty developers learned the specific knowledge and competencies of medical faculty development on the job through observation and trial and error as well as through continuing education. Mentors also played a significant role in recruiting new faculty developers. Mentoring was a way that educators learned the competencies needed for working in medicine. Three faculty development roles were defined and explored: (1) Facilitator of Individual Development, (2) Generalist, and (3) Educational Leader. This study also identified cultural/organizational factors and individual factors that positively or negatively impacted the career vitality of medical faculty developers.;Recommendations were made for professional organizations, medical institutions and individuals that might sustain educators' careers in medical education and increase vitality. Twenty-five years of federal funding started careers in medical faculty development for many educators although much of the funding has disappeared. Years later, many of these educators are still working in medical faculty development. This study examines the factors of vitality of the educators who have sustained their careers despite changes in the medical education climate.