Role of the NATA Curriculum Director As Clinician and Educator

UNCG Author/Contributor (non-UNCG co-authors, if there are any, appear on document)
David H. Perrin, Former Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor (Creator)
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG )
Web Site:

Abstract: The NATA curriculum director faces a unique challenge when occupying a position as both an educator and a clinician. The purpose of this paper was to determine the academic credentials, faculty rank, and clinical involvement of those athletic trainers directing NATA approved curriculums at either the undergraduate or graduate level. The implication of the academic tenure process on the curriculum director's role as educator and clinician was also explored. Directors of all NATA approved curriculums were surveyed. Ninety-three percent of the curriculum directors responded. Over 80% of the directors were clinically active. Twenty percent ( I graduate, 13 undergraduate) of the directors were tenured, while 39% (4 graduate, 23 undergraduate) held tenure-track appointments. Fourteen percent of the directors had been denied tenure. In general, teaching, research, and publication surfaced as the most important criteria for promotion and tenure. Clinical involvement of the curriculum director was predominant. However, the feasibility of working as both a traditional clinician and as an educator may be in question. Institutions that are committed to quality athletic training education should consider creatively structuring positions for curriculum directors and/or should weigh athletic training service heavily when making promotion and tenure decisions. Furthermore, athletic trainers seeking curriculum director positions should recognize the difficulty associated with the combined responsibilities of being an educator and a clinician.

Additional Information

Athletic Training, 23, 41-43
Language: English
Date: 1988
NATA curriculum director, Educator, Clinician

Email this document to