Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320209599685

(1)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20

Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 13 January 2016, At: 00:30

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Perspectives on Tenure: Tenured Versus

Nontenured Tenure-Track Faculty

Shane R. Premeaux & R. Wayne Mondy

To cite this article: Shane R. Premeaux & R. Wayne Mondy (2002) Perspectives on Tenure: Tenured Versus Nontenured Tenure-Track Faculty, Journal of Education for Business, 77:6, 335-339, DOI: 10.1080/08832320209599685

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599685

Published online: 31 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 45

View related articles

(2)

Perspectives on Tenure:

Tenured Versus Nontenured

Ten

u

re-Trac

k

Fac

u

I

ty

SHANE R. PREMEAUX

R. WAYNE MONDY

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

McNeese

State University

Lake

Charles, Louisiana cademic tenure is the one perk that

A

only faculty members enjoy, and one that the majority of tenured faculty members are not willing to relinquish. Some believe that tenure originally began as a protection mechanism allow- ing professors who teach and publish controversial ideas to practice their pro- fession without fear of losing their jobs (Lataif, 1998). Some researchers have stated that “faculty are underproductive, esoteric technophobes who teach obso- lete notions about business practice under the protection of an arcane tenure system” (Pearce, 1999). Approximately 90% of all 4-year institutions and 99% of 4-year public universities have tenure systems, and estimates show that 60% of all professors nationwide are tenured (Brown, 1999). James F. Carlin, chair- man of the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education, “has attacked the most sacred of all the sacred cows of academia: tenure, faculty control, light teaching schedules, and the ‘publish or perish’ mania” (Sowell, 1998).

A recent study by the National Edu- cation Association indicated a decrease in full-time, tenured faculty in colleges across the nation (Smith, 2000). It could be that more and more colleges and universities are using adjunct or part-time faculty members as opposed to placing faculty in a tenure-track position

(McGinn

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

& Blake, 2000). Tenured faculty members are often the most expen-

sive to keep, and persistent cost-cutting efforts by administrators have tended to

ABSTRACT. In this survey of

1,306 professors at 307 AACSB-accredited

schools in 48 states and Canada, the authors examined a broad range of respondent opinions on tenure-related issues. Both tenured and nontenured

tenure-track university professors at

business schools accredited by the International Association for Manage-

ment Education (AACSB) agreed that tenure is necessary. Survey results indicate that mean ratings for 13 of the

20 tenure issues investigated differ sig-

nificantly between tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty members. focus on eliminating highly paid, tenured faculty (Jackson, 1998). Oppo- nents of tenure contend that it protects lazy and unproductive professors, there- by limiting the resources available needed for offering the best education possible (Isfahani, 1998).

Despite elimination efforts, tenure remains a strong shield of lifetime faculty protection at virtually all universities (Strauss, 2000). Tenure advocates argue that higher education is not the only field that offers job security. Many other professions that require extensive

education offer

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

de fucto

tenure, such as law and medicine. Even government

employees are virtually guaranteed lifetime employment after a probationary period. Others believe that tenure is necessary to attract well-qualified indi- viduals to the academic world, because without job security protection many would opt for higher paying, private- sector jobs. Also, tenure may even help cap faculty salaries, which are lower

than the average compensation for other highly educated professionals (Finkin, 1996).

Regardless of which viewpoint is cor- rect, understanding faculty perspectives is essential to gaining an appreciation of the current nature of academic tenure. In this study, we sought to (a) investi- gate the perceptual differences between tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty with regard to tenure and (b) determine the significant differences in agreement that exist between tenured and nontenured faculty regarding tenure’s impact on higher education. A nontenured tenure-track faculty member is a professor who is on a track to be considered ultimately for tenure, as opposed to part-time or adjunct professors, who may be terminally qualified but are not on a tenure track. Estimates show that these part-timers now make up almost half of the faculty in the Unit- ed States (Worth, 1999). If agreement on tenure-related issues is the norm, faculty solidarity may well preserve many aspects of traditional tenure; if disagreement is the norm, tenure’s evo- lutionary process could be facilitated.

Method and Demographic Data

There are 398 AACSB-accredited programs, of which 385 are in North America (376 in the United States, 7 in Canada, and 2 in Mexico), 6 in Europe, 3 in Asia, 1 in the Middle East, 1 in Central America, and 2 in South Ameri-

July/August

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

2002 335

(3)

ca. The AACSB is devoted to the pro- motion and improvement of higher education in business administration and management (International Association for Management Education [AACSB], 2000). This devotion has led to the establishment of standards that all accredited schools must meet to earn AACSB accreditation. Meeting these standards means that, among other achievements, faculty members must distinguish themselves, particularly in the areas of teaching and research. Fac- ulty members at AACSB-accredited schools are subject to similar performance expectations and should there- fore be fairly well informed regarding the questions posed in this study.

All AACSB-accredited schools in the United States and Canada were included in the mail survey. Six faculty member surveys were mailed to the deans of every AACSB-accredited school, for a total of 2,298 faculty member surveys. The deans were requested to distribute two surveys to full professors, two to associate professors, and two to assistant professors. A postage-paid envelope was included for each of the respondents to return the completed questionnaire directly. Response was extremely high, with 1,306 faculty members from 307 schools responding. Forty-eight of the 50 states and Canada were represented in the response group.

We included only faculty members from AACSB-accredited schools in this survey because we assumed that the environments in which they work, in terms of expectations for teaching, research, and service, would be similar. Additionally, we assumed that the rig- ors of earning tenure would be some- what similar for all faculty members in the group. Though the actual requirements may differ in terms of numbers, percentages, and perceived quality, certainly all AACSB-accredited schools evaluate faculty members in the areas of teaching, research, and service before granting tenure. At the very least, we expected that faculty members at most AACSB-accredited schools would be aware of the very basic performance requirements for faculty affiliated with accredited schools.

The demographic characteristics pre-

sented in Tables 1 and

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

2 reveal large dif-

ferences between the two response groups. However, basically, both tenured (Table 1) and nontenured

tenure-track (Table

2) faculty members

were quite effective in terms of teaching, research, and service. This level of productivity indicates that the majority of respondents would be quite competi- tive at most AACSB-accredited universities. The opinions of such productive faculty members should reveal the atti- tudes of tenured and nontenured tenure- track faculty.

We asked both groups of faculty members to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with the 20 statements

that we list in Table 3 . We gleaned the

20 tenure issues from the literature and used them in our original investigation

(Premeaux &

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Mondy, 1997). They were

also used in previous tenure studies. A

pretest indicated the importance of these variables and identified no other significant variables. For indicating the level of agreement, we used a 5-point scale ranging through 1 (complete disagree-

ment), 2 (disagreement), 3 (moderate

agreement),

4

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

(agreement), and 5 (com- plete agreement).

Results

To get a feel for the data, we comput- ed descriptive statistics in the form of

TABLE 1. Respondent Profile of Tenured Faculty Members

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

( N = 888)

Characteristic %

Men

Married

< 45 years of age Education

Doctorally qualified

Traditional business degree

-

> 6 years of teaching experience Tenure duration (years)

1-6 7-10 11-15

> 15 Rank

Full professors Associate professors Assistant professors

$40,000-$59,999 $60,000-$79,999 $80,000-$99,999

- > $100,000 Teachinghesearch Teaching Research

Excellent career teaching ratings Teaching award recipient

Career research productivity > 5 refereed journal articles > 5 nonrefereed articles

-

> 1 books or book supplements Research award recipients Above average service providers

9- to 10-month contract salaries

Self-classified job description Teaching performance Service activity

79.4 86.6 29.8

95.3 98.5 92.9

32.9 25.6 19.7 21.8

41.6 33.9 24.5

25.8 53.4 14.1 6.7

73.6 15.8 10.6

68.4 39.9

76.8 49.1 32.6 22.9

91.8

Nore. Nontenured, tenure-track faculty members comprised 32.01 % of the respondents. All percentages are rounded, and nonresponse percentages are not shown.

336

Journal of Education for Business

(4)

TABLE 2. Respondent Profile

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of Nontenured Tenure-Track Faculty Members

( N = 418)

Characteristic

Men

Married

< 45 years of age

Education

Doctorally qualified Traditional business degrees

- > 6 years of teaching experience

Full professors Associate professors

Assistant professors

$40,000-$59,999 $60,000-$79,999 $80,000-$99,999 Rank

9- to 10-month contract salaries

2 $100,000

Self-classified job description Teachinghesearch Teaching Research

Excellent career teaching ratings

Teaching award recipient

Career research productivity

> 5 refereed journal articles

> 5 nonrefereed articles

-

> 1 books or book supplements Research award recipients

Above average service providers Teaching performance

Service activity

%

68.8 69.4 65.8

98.8 99.4 69.8

21.6 28.4

50.0

42.4 48.3 9.3 0.0

89.6 8.3 2.1

70.6 40.2

75.3 36.8 8.4 26.3

82.6

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Nofe. Nontenured tenure-track faculty members comprised 32.0 I % of the respondents. All percentages are rounded, and nonresponse percentages are not shown.

frequency and crosstabulation tables. We compared the data to determine if differences existed between the perceptions of tenured and nontenured tenure- track faculty members regarding tenure’s impact on higher education in business. We used analysis of variance to compare the perceived importance assigned to each issue by each faculty group, calculated a mean rating score for each of the issues for both groups, compared these responses, and comput-

ed an

F statistic (p

e

.05). We show the overall results of our analysis of the sta-

tistically significant mean ratings of both groups in Table 3. Variables with a statistically significant difference between the perception of tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty are identified by asterisks.

As noted in Table 3, the mean ratings for the two groups of faculty members differed on 13 of the 20 tenure issues. The vast majority of faculty members surveyed believed that tenure is necessary for personal faculty security. Fur- thermore, faculty members at AACSB- accredited colleges held stronger beliefs in the need for tenure than did the faculty members whom we investigated in our original study (Premeaux

& Mondy, 1997).

Necessity and Modification of Tenure

Our results for five of the eight tenure-related factors show that significant differences existed between the perceptions of tenured and nontenured

tenure-track faculty members regarding the necessity and possible modification of tenure. The nontenured group believed more strongly than did tenured faculty members that tenure is necessary for personal faculty security. Such a significant difference was found between the two groups i n their responses to some of the statements that it may be that the nontenured tenure- track faculty members had seen or heard “war stories” illustrating how the tenure bar has been rising and changing (Strauss, 2000).

Mission Achievement: Tenure Versus Teaching, Research, and Service

Tenure’s value is often analyzed in relation to teaching, research, and service. Tenure’s value to individual faculty members may reside in personal security, which may not affect organiza- tional performance positively. Accord- ing to some researchers, tenure’s value should be a function of promoting teaching, research, and service excellence. Critics have contended that “faculty members must behave less like independent contractors

. . .

and more like ownerlmanagers

. .

. whose fortunes are tied to its success or failure” (AACSB, 1994). Basically, tenured faculty members tended to believe that tenure is necessary and should not be eliminated or modified. Nontenured tenure-track faculty members demonstrated belief in tenure’s necessity but more flexible opinions regarding modification and periodic evaluations of tenure.

Teaching

Both groups disagreed that tenure helps promote teaching excellence. Sig- nificant differences also existed regarding the belief that tenure hinders teaching excellence, with tenured faculty disagreeing and the nontenured faculty moderately agreeing. Neither group believed that teaching is afforded too much importance, but the nontenured faculty members agreed more strongly with this statement. Finally, the two groups disagreed significantly in their responses to the statement that the longer

July/August

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

2002

337

[image:4.612.56.384.49.446.2]

(5)

TABLE 3. Summary of Responses Regarding Various Tenure Issues: Tenured Versus Nontenured Tenure-Track

Professors

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Statement regarding tenure

Tenured

(M) Nontenured (M) Pr

>f

(n =

888) (n = 418)

(.OY

Tenure is necessary for personal faculty security. 4.03 4.5 1

*

.0026

Necessity and modification of tenure

Academic freedom cannot be secure without tenure. 3.78

Tenure is necessary 3.81

Tenure is overapplied, meaning that too many faculty

3.09

Tenure should be eliminated. 1.96

Tenure should be modified. 3.08

members are tenured at most universities.

Tenure should be periodically evaluated rather than being a lifetime guarantee. Tenure should be granted for only 20 years. Tenure should be granted for only 25 years. Teaching

Tenure helps promote teaching excellence. Tenure hinders teaching excellence. Teaching is afforded too much importance.

The longer a person has been tenured, the

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

less

effective he or she will be as a teacher.

Research

Tenure helps promote research excellence. Tenure hinders research excellence. Research is afforded too much importance. The longer a person has been tenured, the

less effective he or she will be as a researcher.

Service

Tenure helps promote service productivity. Tenure hinders service productivity.

The longer a person has been tenured, the less effective he or she will be at providing service.

2.81 2.26 2.28

2.79* 2.5 1

1.91

2.13

2.79* 2.33 2.97

2.39

2.7 1 2.63

2.16

4.41” 4.38*

4.08* 1.87 4.37”

.0002

.0003

,0002

.1583

.0226

4.39* .OO 19

2.23 ,7562

2.21 .4657

2.16 3.19*

1.90

3.01*

2.18 3.12* 3.96*

3.20*

2.80 2.61

2.18

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

.OS 13 .0296 ,5894

.0301

.O 168

.0448

.0196

.045 1

.53 10 ,2839

3964

Nore. Responses were given on a scale ranging through 1 (complete disagreement), 2 (disagreement), 3 (moderate agreement), 4 (agreement), and 5 (com-

plete ugreement). * p = .05.

a person is tenured the less effective he or she is as a teacher, with tenured faculty members disagreeing and nontenured tenure-track faculty members moderately agreeing. Longevity may result in professors with greater expertise, or it may just create deadwood.

Notably, both groups agreed that teaching is extremely important, even more so than either research or service. Possibly, however, tenure permits bad teaching because many universities grant tenure to professors who are only marginal or average teachers but are prolific researchers. In numerous studies, the correlation between good teaching and strong research was found to be either nonexistent or, in a minority of cases, only slightly positive (Felder, 1994). Possibly, the problem is not so

338 Journal of Education for Business

much tenure as the placing of research over teaching in determining who should receive tenure.

Research

At many AACSB-accredited schools, the mission lists the importance of research as secondary to teaching but still gives research a high rating. How- ever, in reality, “the present [tenure] system favors those who publish over those who shine in the classroom

. . .

and the rewards for excellence in schol- arship are infinitely more plentiful than the rewards for excellence in teaching. They tell you tenure decisions will be made on the basis of three things- research, teaching, and service to the university,” says one university profes-

sor who came up for tenure recently. “The formula you hear is 40/40/20. In

my experience it’s more like

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

90/5/5”

(Worth, 1999).

Our results showed significant differences regarding all four of the research issues. Both groups agreed that research is afforded too much importance, with nontenured tenure-track faculty members agreeing and tenured faculty members only moderately agreeing. Neither group agreed that tenure helps promote research excellence, but the nontenured group agreed to a greater extent that tenure hinders research excellence. Sig- nificant differences also existed regarding tenure’s duration and research effec- tiveness. The nontenured group moderately agreed that the longer a person has been tenured, the less effective

[image:5.612.53.563.71.431.2]

(6)

he or she is as a researcher; but tenured faculty members disagreed. Nontenured tenure-track faculty members' views may be based on their observations that, though tenure may have a negative impact on research over the long term, it definitely does not when faculty members are working to earn tenure. Finally, the nontenured faculty members agreed that tenure hinders research excellence, but the tenured faculty disagreed. This difference of opinion could result from the greater productivity level required of the nontenured individual who is

attempting to earn tenure.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Service

Service is normally considered the third and least important component of a business school's mission. There were no significant perceptual differences regarding any of the service factors. Both groups slightly disagreed that tenure helps promote service productivity, disagreed that tenure hinders service productivity, and disagreed to a greater extent that the longer a person is tenured the less effective that person is at providing service.

Overall, tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty members demonstrated different perceptions regarding teaching and research. Basically, both groups agreed that academic freedom cannot be secure without it. Additional- ly, fewer tenured faculty members than nontenured ones demonstrated a belief that tenure should be modified or peri-

odically reviewed.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Summary and implications

Our study results show that, today, both tenured and nontenured tenure- track faculty members apparently view tenure as problematic, but majorities in both groups view it as necessary. Although we found disagreements between these two faculty groups regarding tenure, its protection value is desir- able. We found that tenured professors were less critical of tenure than were nontenured tenure-track professors.

Overall, the tenured faculty members in our study wanted to perpetuate many aspects of traditional tenure, whereas the nontenured professors' opinions of it

were less charitable. Despite such differences, majorities in both groups agreed that tenure modifications are needed at AACSB-accredited schools. Although faculty support existed for modification of the concept, particularly among the nontenured group, eliminating tenure was not preferred by either group.

Although incremental steps are being made to modify tenure, neither group would support a major overhaul. From a practical standpoint, many faculty members apparently believe that their personal security would be threatened by dras- tic tenure changes. Most schools offer tenure because not doing so would result in a significant recruiting disadvantage, with those schools offering tenure being more attractive to faculty members. Major changes in tenure will be difficult because the majority of both tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty members agree that tenure is necessary.

REFERENCES

The International Association for Management

Education (AACSB). (2000).

AACSB meinber- ship directory. St. Louis: Author.

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (1994). Volume is turning up on tenure question. Newsline, 24, 1-6.

Brown, P.

Q. (1999). Salaries and tenure of full- time instructional faculty on 9- and 10-month

contracts. U.S. Department of Education Publi- cations, 425-682.

Felder, R. M. (1994). The myth of the superhuman

professor. Journal

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of Engineering Education. 83, p. 78.

Finkin, M. W. (1996). Scrapping tenure would raise costs. USA Today. 125, p. 14.

Isfahani, N. (1998). SPALR student paper: The debate over tenure. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 80-86.

Jackson,

J.

H. (1998). Academic tenure and uni- versity administration. Essays

on Education, p.

43.

Lataif, L. E. (1998). Lifetime tenure: A working alternative. Selections, 15. Id.

McGinn, D., & Blake, H. (2000, November 13). A

Ph.D. hits the road. Newsweek, p. 70. Parini, J. (1995). Tenure and the loss of faculty tal-

ent. The Chronicle of Higher Educcrtion, IS,

A40.

Pearce, J. A. (1999). Faculty survey on business education reform. The Academy of Manage-

ment Executive, 13, 105-109.

Premeaux, S. R., & Mondy, R. W. ( I 997). Tenure: Tenured versus nontenured faculty perspec- tives. Journal of Education fiir Business, 72.

349-353.

Smith, Z. (2000, June 21). Study cites drop in tenured faculty. Universiv Wire, p. 2. Sowell, T. (1994). Tenure versus teaching. Forbes,

158, 96.

Sowell, T. (1998). An outbreak of sanity. Forbes,

162, 57.

Strauss, V. (2000, May 14). The trouble with tenure; While professors still crave it, many believe the lifetime appointment is dying-And not for the reasons you think. The Washington

Post, W 16.

Worth, R. (1999). The velvet prison. Washington

Monthly, 31, 1.

339