Academic health centers have invested in academies and related institutional structures to foster educational scholarship in health professions education (HPE). Despite these investments, many institutions report difficulty sustaining vibrant, ongoing scholarly communities. The study summarized here aimed to identify lessons for building and sustaining such communities by examining the experiences of leaders who direct academies or similar structures devoted to educational scholarship.
The investigators used a constructivist qualitative approach and developed an interview guide informed by the Communities of Practice theoretical framework. Inclusion criteria required that participants direct an academy or other institutional structure intended to promote educational scholarship and that they could speak to building and sustaining scholarly communities of practice in their local context.
Interviews were conducted in 2025 with leaders representing all four geographic regions of the United States. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, de-identified, and analyzed using a six-phase thematic analysis process. The study methods emphasized participant perspectives on leadership activities, organizational supports, cultural practices, and practical strategies that shaped sustainable scholarly communities.
Participants (n = 21) described five interrelated forms of leadership work that collectively shaped sustainable scholarly communities in HPE. These forms of work reflect both structural and relational components leaders used to develop and maintain scholarship-focused communities.
Leaders emphasized the need to secure institutional investment and leadership buy-in to establish the legitimacy of educational scholarship as a valued domain. Foundational work included deliberate succession planning and adopting guiding frameworks that clarify the academy’s mission and scope. These structural elements provided a stable base from which other activities could grow and signaled to the broader institution that educational scholarship merited formal support and recognition.
A recurrent theme was the importance of creating psychologically safe, inclusive spaces where educators and scholars could connect. Participants described cultivating a scholarly sanctuary—a community of relational support that reduced isolation and fostered collaboration. Inclusive practices and attention to psychological safety were presented as critical to retaining members and encouraging open intellectual exchange.
Leaders described strategies to make participation in scholarship realistic given common constraints such as limited time, competing productivity expectations, and insufficient infrastructure. Approaches included creating low-barrier entry points for novice scholars, translating the value of educational scholarship to institutional leaders in language that resonated with local priorities, and addressing operational barriers to productivity. These tactics aimed to lower the threshold for engagement and align scholarship activities with institutional incentives.
Rather than relying on a single intervention, participants described layered development strategies that incrementally built scholarly capacity. Examples included cohort-based programs, consultation services, mentoring networks, internal grant mechanisms, and flexible participation options. This incremental approach allowed academies to nurture scholars at different developmental stages and to scale supports over time.
Visibility and recognition were identified as essential for sustaining community momentum. Leaders reported using recognition programs, dissemination opportunities, and outcome tracking to demonstrate impact and to elevate the status of educational scholarship within their institutions. Making work visible helped justify continued investment and reinforced the message that educational scholarship contributed meaningfully to institutional missions.
Interpreted through the Communities of Practice lens, the themes illustrate how leaders cultivated three interdependent elements: a shared domain that legitimized educational scholarship, a community offering relational support and psychological safety, and a practice consisting of tools, routines, and developmental infrastructure. The analysis highlights that sustainable communities of practice did not arise from a single academy model; rather, sustainability depended on context-sensitive alignment of structure, culture, and incentives.
Based on participants’ accounts, the study suggests actionable directions for institutions seeking to strengthen HPE scholarship:
Invest in foundational resources and secure leadership buy-in to legitimize educational scholarship.
Cultivate psychologically safe and inclusive communities to counter isolation and encourage collaboration.
Create low-barrier entry points and align scholarship activities with institutional priorities to make work feasible amid competing demands.
Adopt layered, incremental development strategies (cohorts, mentoring, consults, grants) to support scholars across career stages.
Establish recognition, dissemination, and outcome-tracking mechanisms to make educational scholarship visible and valued.
The study received ethical approval from the George Washington University Office of Human Research (letter dated December 17, 2024). The authors declared no competing interests. De-identified interview data collected in this study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
This summary reflects findings reported in the preprint; the article had not been peer reviewed at the time of posting. Specific interview excerpts, participant demographics beyond geographic representation, and detailed analytic coding decisions were not reported in full in the abstract and therefore are not presented here. Readers interested in the full methods and data are referred to the preprint and the authors for additional materials.