So I'm writing this mostly to start a friendly debate, but also because it may end up helpful for my academic position, since I teach in both medical and nursing schools and the university is tentatively thinking of creating a DNP program.
There are a lot of questions from folks wondering if a DNP, Ph.D, or EdD is right for them given that the focus is different. Larger universities sometimes only place nurse faculty with PhD into the tenure track "since they're the only ones qualified ". I know other faculty who think something along these lines/are stuck up about non-research doctorates. Furthermore, many times, those teaching in DNP programs are often PhD prepared nurses.
Question: given the difference in focus been the PhD and DNP, what makes the PhD prepared faculty qualified to teach DNP students, since their work is so heavily research, not evidence based?
I'm of the opinion that DNP faculty should be DNP prepared nurses, not PhD nurses, who aren't focused on the translation of research into practice. I don't think they can really relate, especially since they've likely never been in a role that would require performance of practice change projects. I'm a fan of faculty practicing what they preach. The thinking that PhD nurses are prepared to teach everything is somewhat like the old school thinking that FNP allows you to practice wherever, including the acute care environment. Thoughts?