Issues for Debate Continuing professorial development Roger Watson a, * , David R. Thompson b a Professor of Nursing, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK b Professor of Cardiovascular Nursing, The University of Leicester, Leicester, UK article info Article history: Accepted 14 February 2010 A Response to Betts C (2009) Issues for Debate: The critical practice of professing nursing: A contribution to the professors of nursing debate, Nurse Education in Practice, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp. 288e293 Keywords: Nursing Education Professors Introduction Betts’ opening in his recent contribution (Betts, 2009) to the professors of nursing debate suggests that we are becoming predictable: ‘Yet again’ he says (twice!) and this echoes his ‘not the first time’ in his previous editorial (Betts, 2006) where he initially responded to our expressed views on the nursing professoriate (Thompson and Watson, 2006). Indeed, as also hinted by Betts, we were remiss not to reply to his first editorial and we are very grateful for his thoughtful, thorough and serious attempts to highlight where we are right and where we are wrong. Betts adds a philosophical dimension to our somewhat pugilistic approach to the issue and puts us to shame by his wide use of sources and his ability to illuminate the issue from an alternative perspective. But does that make him right? The issues according to Betts (2009) We were not moved to respond to Betts (2006); we were not convinced about the arguments for ‘nursism’, although we would agree that nursing and the study of nursing are hard to define, varied and, frankly, of little interest to those outside the profession. Nor did we really have arguments against it. Nevertheless, we consider that describing what we do as ‘nursism’ e amusing and profound as that is at the same time e may see us even further marginalised in the academic community. However, the more considered and direct response by Betts (2009) is worthy of comment as it dissects some of our points and challenges us to consider or even re-consider, our position and see how many of our original arguments remain standing. Therefore, our petulance to date and Betts’ persistence thus far have encouraged us to contribute to these pages again. Betts (2009) states that, while we bemoan the ease with which some people gain their professorial title, that what is more important is what is done with the title once it is attained. However, surely what is done with the title once attained is pred- icated on what was achieved to obtain the title. We maintain our position that there are some in the United Kingdom nursing professoriate without publications nor research grants and who have never supervised a PhD student. They proceed to continue in this vein after the award of the title. One imagines that once the title is attained, what incentive is there to perform further? Engagement in research and scholarship e which we further maintain to be the hallmarks of a professor e is a trait, not a state induced by the award of a title; likewise leadership (Watson and Thompson, 2008). Generals become generals because they can lead; they do not become leaders because they are generals and, in the academic community, leadership is best demonstrated by example, because example lends credibility and, without credibility, nobody can lead. If, reductio ad absurdum, Betts’ logic was applied to academic promotions, we could simply make everyone professors at * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: roger.watson@sheffield.ac.uk (R. Watson), drt10@le.ac.uk (D.R. Thompson). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Nurse Education in Practice journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nepr 1471-5953/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2010.02.004 Nurse Education in Practice 10 (2010) 319e321