| Course | NURS 8540 Academic Nursing Faculty Role Development |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion post with two peer replies |
| Length | About 570 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 8540 Week 1
Week 1 Discussion: Initial Post
Not Only the Salary: Why Nursing Programs Lose New Faculty to Work That Fills the Week and Leaves No Trace in the Review File
Discussions of vacant nursing faculty lines usually start and end with pay, and pay matters: a nurse practitioner can often earn more in practice than as an assistant professor. But pay does not explain why programs lose people after they arrive. I want to argue that many new faculty leave because the work that fills their week, advising, course coordination and committee service, leaves almost nothing in the record a review panel later reads.
Reviews of the nursing faculty shortage name several causes, including an aging faculty, salaries below clinical practice, heavy workloads and the time needed to earn doctoral credentials (Nardi & Gyurko, 2013; McDermid et al., 2012). Workload appears in both, but it is often treated as a matter of hours. I think the more damaging problem is the kind of hours.
Consider a composite new assistant professor at a regional state university. In her first year she is assigned sixty undergraduate advisees, coordination of a large clinical course with eight adjunct instructors and seats on the curriculum and admissions committees. Each of these is necessary work. Each also consumes hours that produce no publication, no grant and often no document that shows up in her annual review beyond a line on a form. Her third-year review panel will read her teaching evaluations and her scholarship. It will not see the evening she spent resolving a clinical placement crisis for twelve students. A phenomenological study of full-time nursing faculty described how the demands of the role, including service and student needs, competed with scholarship and created strain for new faculty (Gazza, 2009).
Boyer (1990) argued that academic institutions should recognize several forms of scholarship, including the scholarship of teaching and of application, rather than equating scholarship with research publication alone. Many nursing programs endorse that view in principle but still review faculty mainly on traditional products. The result is a mismatch: the work the program most needs from new faculty is the work its review system least rewards.
My claim: programs lose new faculty not only because practice pays more, but because the first years are filled with work that the review system does not count, so capable people conclude they cannot succeed there. Question for the thread: does your program document advising and coordination in a way a review panel can actually read?
Reply to Kendra
Kendra, you argued that raising salaries would solve the problem, since the gap with practice is large. It would help recruitment, and I would support it. But it would not change what the third-year review reads. A new faculty member paid more but still unable to show scholarship after three years of heavy service would face the same review. I think salary and the review system both need attention, and the second is cheaper to change.
Reply to Marcus
Marcus, you pushed back that service is part of the job and faculty should expect it. I agree, and I am not arguing that new faculty should do less service. I am arguing that the program should make it visible. If coordination of a clinical course were documented as a scholarship of application project, with a written account of problems solved and outcomes, it could count in review, which is closer to what Boyer (1990) proposed.
References
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Gazza, E. A. (2009). The experience of being a full-time nursing faculty member in a baccalaureate nursing education program. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25(4), 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2009.01.006
McDermid, F., Peters, K., Jackson, D., & Daly, J. (2012). Factors contributing to the shortage of nurse faculty: A review of the literature. Nurse Education Today, 32(5), 565-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.01.011
Nardi, D. A., & Gyurko, C. C. (2013). The global nursing faculty shortage: Status and solutions for change. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 45(3), 317-326. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12030
NURS 8540 Week 1 instructions, in plain terms
The opening thread in this faculty role course typically invites you to explain why nursing programs struggle to fill and keep faculty positions. Your initial post should run close to five hundred words, and two classmates should hear back from you. Take the explanation most people give and test it rather than repeating it. Offer a second explanation that the literature supports, and ground it in one concrete appointment, described as a composite. Tie the explanation to what review panels actually read, since retention depends on whether new faculty can succeed there. End by inviting peers to examine how their programs record the work new faculty do, so the thread can compare practices.
How this NURS 8540 Week 1 example is built
The first paragraph grants that pay matters and states the retention claim. The second summarizes causes named in reviews by Nardi and Gyurko and by McDermid and colleagues. The third describes a composite assistant professor's first-year assignments and what her third-year panel will and will not see, citing Gazza on competing demands. The fourth introduces Boyer's case for recognizing teaching and application as scholarship and names the mismatch between what programs need and what reviews reward. A highlighted fifth paragraph states the claim and poses the question. The reply to Kendra supports higher salaries while noting they leave the review problem untouched. The reply to Marcus proposes documenting clinical coordination as scholarship of application.
Reading the NURS 8540 Week 1 rubric
Graders in this thread look for a claim that goes beyond the obvious explanation, evidence from the faculty shortage literature, a concrete illustration and replies that engage. A post earns more when it names what the usual explanation leaves out and argues for it with sources rather than impressions. The illustration is credited when it shows specific assignments and their consequences for review. Using Boyer or a similar framework to explain why service work goes unrecognized adds depth. Good replies grant the fair point in a classmate's view and then build on it or correct it. Correct APA citations and punctual posting account for the remaining marks. Instructors often reward posts that point toward a change a department could make.
NURS 8540 Week 1 help from the desk
Opening posts in this course lose marks when they list shortage causes from a report without arguing for any of them. Another weakness is a post about faculty shortages that never mentions the people already hired. Some posts blame administrators in general terms, which gives classmates nothing to discuss. Others propose higher salaries as the whole answer, which the literature does not support. Pick one explanation beyond pay, support it with sources, show it in a composite appointment and suggest what a department could change. The desk can draft a post around the faculty setting you know best, described as a composite. Before writing, list every task a new faculty member in your program does in a week, then mark which ones appear in a review file.
Get a NURS 8540 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Paste in the Week 1 thread starter with your section's participation rubric and any source minimum, and the desk returns a NURS 8540 opening post plus both replies. First custom one free, 24 to 48 hours. Include the word range your section set, since a post written to the wrong length loses points before its argument is read.
More NURS 8540 papers and DNP samples
- NURS 8540 Week 2: Faculty Role Analysis Paper
- NURS 8540 Week 3: Position Description Analysis
- NURS 8540 Week 4: Faculty Workload Analysis
- NURS 8540 Week 5: Education Philosophy Statement
- NURS 8540 Week 6: Faculty Scholarship Plan
- NURS 8540 Week 7: Peer Teaching Review Memo
- NURS 8540 Week 8: Faculty Mentorship Plan
- NURS 8540 Week 9: Faculty Incivility Post
- NURS 8540 Week 10: Promotion Narrative
- NURS 8540 Week 11: Faculty Career Development Plan
- NURS 8512 Week 1: DNP Project Milestone Map
- NURS 8310 Week 1: Epidemiologic Measure Post
- NURS 8301 Week 1: Improvement History Post
- NURS 8600 Week 1: DNP project baseline summary
NURS 8540 Week 1 questions, answered
Can the post be written about the program I teach in?
The example runs on a composite program for a reason. Internal search records, and whatever colleagues said on their way out, are the institution's to hold and not ours to imitate. A thread argument travels perfectly well on published national data, which is also what a doctoral reader expects to find cited in the first place.
Where can I find a free NURS 8540 Week 1 sample paper?
The initial post, its two peer replies and all four sources appear here, free. A post built around the faculty setting you know can be requested.
What second cause of faculty loss does the NURS 8540 Week 1 post argue?
That advising, coordination and committee work fill a new faculty member's week while leaving little that a review panel reads, so capable people conclude they cannot succeed.
Why does the post cite Boyer?
Because Boyer argued that teaching and application count as scholarship, which would let programs recognize the service work that new faculty actually do.
What change does the post suggest to departments?
Documenting work such as clinical course coordination as scholarship of application, with a written account of problems solved, so it can count in review.