This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:1185.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

IN THIS ISSUE of the ARCHIVES, the article "The Otolaryngology Research Paradox" by Naclerio and colleagues¹ is both timely and important. The authors report the results of a survey of chairpersons of otolaryngology departments where residency training is provided.

The questionnaire developed by Naclerio et al surveyed the chairpersons on the status of and attitudes toward, as well as support and training for, research within their departments. The survey yielded worrisome results. On the positive side, most program directors indicated that research was very important to the field of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery. However, among other important findings, the survey results show that relatively little time, effort, training, or resources are devoted to research. While 63% of the clinical faculty surveyed reportedly conduct research, only a half day per week on average is spent on such research. Naclerio et al also cite related research that suggests that (1) most clinical . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLE

The Otolaryngology Research Paradox
Robert M. Naclerio, Supinda Saengpanich, Mary Spainhour, and Fuad M. Baroody
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127(10):1181-1184.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Future of Research in Otolaryngology
Koempel et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128:982-983.
FULL TEXT