Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320309599097
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Effects of Rank, Tenure, Length of Service,
and Institution on Faculty Attitudes Toward
Research and Teaching: The Case of Regional State
Universities
Thomas Li-Ping Tang & Mitchell Chamberlain
To cite this article: Thomas Li-Ping Tang & Mitchell Chamberlain (2003) Effects of Rank, Tenure,
Length of Service, and Institution on Faculty Attitudes Toward Research and Teaching: The
Case of Regional State Universities, Journal of Education for Business, 79:2, 103-110, DOI:
10.1080/08832320309599097
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320309599097
Published online: 31 Mar 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 62
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
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: 12 January 2016, At: 23:00
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
Effects of Rank, Tenure,
Length of Service, and Institution
on Faculty Attitudes Toward
Research and Teaching: The Case of
Regional State Universities
THOMAS LI-PING TANG
Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
0
rganizations in the competitive
global market face continuous
challenges and look for ways to improve
efficiency and effectiveness in providing
quality products and services. The same
factors are at work in higher education.
Administrators and researchers increasingly are interested in improving scholarship, research productivity, efficiency
in delivering services to students, student and faculty satisfaction, and public
perception of and trust in university faculty members (Hattie & Marsh, 1996).
Higher education has experienced
several new developments, including
the examination of scholarship (Boyer,
1990) and post-tenure reviews and evaluations (Magner, 1996). These concerns have caused a national debate and
created additional stress for administrators and faculty members. Administrators insist that the new post-tenure evaluation processes do not weaken tenure
and, ideally, could help some struggling
faculty members. Faculty members, on
the other hand, dismiss post-tenure
evaluations as at best a public-relations
gambit and at worst an attempt to turn
this institution of lifetime security into
a system of multiyear contracts (Magner, 1996). In the churning national
MITCHELL CHAMBERLAIN
Tennessee State University
Nashville. Tennessee
ABSTRACT. In this study, the
authors examined the effects of rank,
tenure, length of service, and institution on faculty members’ attitudes
toward research and teaching in a
sample of 233 professors from six
regional state universities in Tennessee. Results revealed that the
length of service had a significant
effect on faculty perceptions regarding
research orientation and how rewards
influence teaching, whereas rank and
tenure did not. Faculty members with
20 or more years of service had the
lowest research orientation; those with
ranks lower than full professor
showed the strongest belief that
rewards influence teaching. The
authors discuss these and other results
in light of faculty development, mentoring, and the socialization process.
zy
system in place either to address their
shortcomings, or else be dismissed”
(Magner, 1996, p. AlO).
In research institutions, the decisive
factor in tenure and promotion (and
salary) decisions is research. Seasoned
faculty members and junior professors
normally have a similar research orientation (or culture) that is very well
established. However, in regional state
universities, where research has
become important only in recent years,
the changing composition of the professoriate may be exerting a pronounced impact on faculty members’
research orientation.
In this study, our major purpose was
to investigate the effect of rank, tenure,
length of service, and institution on
professors’ attitudes toward research,
teaching, the reward system, their personal interest, and their universities’
mission (Tang & Chamberlain, 1997) in
all six regional state universities in Tennessee. We did not examine research
productivity or teaching evaluation. We
did not limit ourselves to business faculty members, but we did focus on the
“business” of higher education in general. We review these related variables
in the literature.
zyxwvutsrq
debate, very few colleges have actually
sought to eliminate tenure. Dozens of
institutions in Colorado, Kansas, Virginia, Minnesota, and elsewhere have
focused on the idea of conducting periodic reviews of tenured professors.
Texas State Senator Tee1 Bivins asserted that tenure has protected at least a
few lazy, incompetent professors,
although such faculty members are in
the minority: “Less than 2 percent of
the professors in Texas are really a
problem and would need to have this
zyxwvutsr
zyx
NovembedDecember 2003
103
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
Regional State Universities
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv
The elite private universities receive
the lion’s share of attention. However,
the public schools educate 80% of
American undergraduates. Most of
these regional state colleges and universities began as teachers’ colleges with a
narrowly defined mission. Since World
War 11, these schools have increased
student attendance and expanded programs at unprecedented rates. Within
several decades, these institutions have
radically transformed their character.
Faculty members in these transitional
universities are expected to publish
while carrying heavy teaching loads.
According to David Longanecker, executive director of the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education in
Boulder, Colorado: “It’s the American
disease that institutions want to be what
they are not. They want to work up the
rung of prestige, which means more
research and less teaching” (Shea, 2002,
p. 65). Professors have experienced a
very high level of pressure for research
productivity, especially those in colleges of business accredited by the
Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB). These
newly transformed universities seek
educators with an orientation and credentials typical of the research scholar.
Over the years, newly hired, researchoriented professors gradually have
replaced teaching-oriented professors in
the system.
Length of Service
For the past 2 decades, there have
been major changes in new technology
(e.g., computers, e-mail), research
methodology, and culture in society and
in universities. Most professors hired
more than 2 decades ago have a lower
level of research orientation than their
younger counterparts for several reasons. First, faculty members who began
their careers 20 years ago may have
received excellent research training;
however, most of them were hired to
teach classes and not to conduct
research. Universities may have a culture of “low research expectations,”and
professors may have “low research
interests.” Professors’ research productivity is more directly related to the
104
quality of the “academic affiliation”
(i.e., where they teach currently) than
their “academic origin” (i.e., where
they obtained their highest degree)
(Long, Bowers, Barnett, & White,
1998). Organizational culture may play
an important role in this factor.
Second, on the basis of the attraction,
selection, and attrition (ASA) model,
faculty members are attracted to, selected by, and will remain with organizations that have organizational goals to
their liking (Chatman, 1989; Chiu, Luk,
& Tang, 2002). Teaching-oriented professors select regional state institutions,
whereas research-oriented academicians tend to teach at research-oriented
universities. Third, age has the most
pronounced effect on the change of the
allocation of faculty time (Singell, Lillydahl, & Singell, 1996). Research time
and service time of the typical professor expand until middle age and then
decline, whereas teaching time changes
in the opposite direction. Professors at
more teaching-oriented institutions
tend to increase time spent outside the
university as they become older, whereas faculty members at more researchoriented institutions redistribute time
among the aspects of their work but do
not reduce total work hours. Professors
with 20 or more years of service in
regional state universities may increase
their leisure time and reduce their
research time (orientation).
Fourth, the oversupply of PhDs in
most fields forced many new PhD recipients from the top graduate programs to
accept positions at state institutions.
Thus, newly hired faculty members may
have a much stronger research orientation than professors hired more than 2
decades ago. Fifth, distinctive cohorts
with characteristic career aspirations,
social backgrounds, and professional
values are linked to the prevailing academic market. Finally, there is a widespread belief that older workers are
resistant to change, unable to learn new
work methods, less physically capable,
and less creative than younger employees. Job performance, memory, learning, and problem-solving ability may
decline with advancing age.
However, older employees are more
satisfied with their jobs, are more committed to the organization, and possess
more internal work motivation than
their younger counterparts. This may
lead to high research productivity. For
example, Professor Herbert C. Brown
retired at the age of 66 years from Purdue University in 1978 and won the
Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1979.
After his retirement, he was invited to
continue his research activities at Purdue, but without salary. In 1987, he published his 1,000th article. It is also noteworthy that the 250 papers published
since his retirement equal fully one
fourth of his total productivity. Professor Brown’s extraordinary accomplishments reflect his intrinsic motivation in
research. Only professors with a high
level of organization-based self-esteem,
talents, and experiences are able to
mentor young professors. We argue:
Age will not have a negative impact on
research productivity for all professors.
At regional state universities, we do not
expect that all professors will behave
like Professor Brown. We predict that
faculty members’ length of service at
these universities may have a significant
impact on their attitudes, particularly on
their research orientation.
zy
Rank and Tenure
Rank
Educational attainment, seniority,
research, teaching, and service are some
of the criteria used in determining a faculty member’s rank (Tien & Blackburn,
1996). For professors in PhD-granting
institutions, their research productivity
is the major criterion for promotion.
Although some researchers have found
that rank is a significant predictor of
faculty research productivity, others disagree. Thus, results are mixed.
Only faculty members with the best
research qualifications will be promoted
to the rank of full professor. Some full
professors continue to publish when a
promotion is no longer present. Full
professors publish significantly more
research than do assistant professors
and associate professors (Tien & Blackburn, 1996). No significant difference
exists between the latter two groups of
professors. Thus, full professors’ high
productivity level is related to their
longer (cumulative) time period in the
zyxwvutsr
Journal of Education for Business
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrqp
academic setting. It is reasonable to
expect that no significant attitudinal differences would occur based on faculty
members’ rank.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
Tenure
Nontenured professors have significantly less professional autonomy and
security than tenured professors. Psychologists on the tenure track published
over twice as many articles (as the first
author listed) in refereed journals as faculty members on nontenure tracks.
Some candidates who are outstanding in
teaching, research, and campus service
sail through the tenure process. After
earning their tenure, some faculty members appear to slow down and reduce
their research outputs, whereas others
continue to publish to be promoted to
the highest rank of full professor. At
regional state universities, we would
expect that tenured and nontenured professors have the same expectations
regarding the need to publish to advance
their careers.
ty (Tang & Chamberlain, 1997). Attitudes will predict behavior effectively.
We believe that knowledge of faculty
attitude toward research and teaching
should enable us to understand faculty
behaviors better.
Research Orientation
Research productivity reflects faculty effort; ensures quality of teaching;
creates significant impacts that extend
beyond the campus and the nation; and
enhances external prestige, scholarly
reputation, visibility, and rankings of a
department or university. Research
productivity positively affects knowledge of the subject, intellectual expansiveness, preparation and organization,
and pedagogical dispositions of teachers (clarity of course objectives and
requirements), which in turn positively
influence their overall instructional
effectiveness. Professors who publish
their research extensively receive
teaching rewards twice as often as faculty members who do not publish
(Faia, 1976). Students also have
reported greater course difficulty and
heavier reading assignments in classes
taught by faculty members who devoted more time to research activities
(Hoyt & Spangler, 1976). Professors
with a high degree of scholarly activity are perceived more frequently as
effective teachers than are professors
with less scholarly activity (McCaughey, 1993).
tion, and research requirement may be
one of the reasons for ineffective teaching. A high level of time devoted to nonsponsored research and writing results in
low student ratings (Grant, 1971).A professor who rates high in teaching style
but low in content may receive favorable
evaluations: Students may evaluate professors according to grades and entertainment value (Trank & Rynes, 2003).
Intimate contacts with students result in
higher student ratings (McDaniel &
Feldhausen, 1970).
How Rewards Influence Research
At elite institutions, the reward system emphasizes research; at other institutions, the reward system is more flexible and oriented toward teaching.
When faculty members must choose
between rewarding a colleague who is
equally strong in research and teaching,
they prefer to reward research (Kasten,
1984). When asked to list traits of the
ideal professor, professors rated scholarly research ahead of teaching. Professors with publication-oriented rCsumCs
will be well received at other universities. Among management professors,
the number of job changes produces the
largest monetary gains, and the most
important predictor of the number of job
changes is “top-tier publications”
(Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992).
Because of the pressure to publish, the
number of science journals alone
increased from 8,062 in 1978 to 37,683
in 1988 (Toch, 1990). Although American professors’ research is second to
none in the world, they may have crested a massively wasteful academic publishing industry.
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is defined as
the pattern of basic assumptions that
the group has invented, discovered, or
developed in learning to cope with its
problems of external adaptation and
internal integration. Culture also influences how the members of the group
understand and respond to their environment. Professors develop workrelated attitudes and values within an
organization. Universities also select
faculty members who fit their culture.
This is a mutual selection and socialization process. We expect that professors in more research-oriented institutions will have a stronger research
orientation than those in other institutions.
Six Faculty Attitude Factors
In this study, we examined faculty
members’ attitudes toward (a) research
orientation, (b) teaching orientation, (c)
the degree to which rewards influence
research, (d) the degree to which
rewards influence teaching, (e) personal
interest, and (f) mission of the universi-
Teaching Orientation
Teaching is the primary mission for
institutions of higher education. Stanford University’s Donald Kennedy
declared bluntly: “It is time to reaffirm
that education-that is, teaching in all its
forms-is
the primary task” (Toch,
1990, p. 10). Teaching excellence also
improves the department standing on
campuses. Others have argued that the
direct impact of teaching seldom
extends beyond the classroom and is literally invisible to a professor’s organizational colleagues and superiors (Martin
& Berry, 1969). The impact of teaching
is more difficult to evaluate than
research. Time spent in research may
reduce the time for classroom prepara-
How Rewards Influence Teaching
Teaching is significantly less important than research and receives less
weight in tenure decisions than it
should. On many U.S. campuses, “publish or perish” has become the rule. The
overwhelming factor in determining a
professor’s status and salary is research,
not performance in the classroom
(Toch, 1990). For most university professors the real strain in the academic
role arises from the fact that they are
essentially paid to do one job but are
November/December 2003
105
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
zyxwvutsrqp
evaluated on the basis of how well they
do another. Our society hopes that the
professors will not neglect their teaching responsibilities but rewards them
almost entirely for research and publications. Teaching credentials are harder to
document and quantify and much less
transferable. The major consequences
are that excellent professors continue to
be “locals” or “provincials” and are
condemned to lower salary structures
compared with the “nationals” who
engage in marketable activity (Van
Fleet, 1994). In 1990, the definition of
scholarship was expanded to include
teaching as a way of achieving such a
balance (Boyer, 1990). The reward system may affect teaching.
our study, we sought to test the following hypotheses:
H1: The length of service has a significant impact on faculty attitudes
(research orientation, in particular),
whereas rank and tenure do not. More
specifically, professors with 20 or more
years of service will have a lower level
of research orientation than their
younger counterparts.
H2: Professors in a more researchoriented institution will have a stronger
research orientation, a stronger belief
that rewards influence research, and a
weaker belief that rewards influence
teaching than professors at other institutions.
versities. We arranged these six universities according to the size of the faculty
(from large to small) according to The
Chronicle of Higher Education (1994)
and the Carnegie classification: (a) University of Memphis (UM), DoctorateGranting I institution, 20,400 students,
and 685 full-time and 316 part-time faculty; (b) Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), Doctorate-Granting I1
institution, 17,400 students, and 612 fulltime and 189 part-time faculty members;
(c) East Tennessee State University
(ETSU), Master’s (Comprehensive) I
Institution, 11,300 students, and 396
full-time and 21 1 part-time professors;
(d) Tennessee Technological University
(TTU), Master’s (Comprehensive) I
Institution, 8,000 students, and 333
full-time and 110 part-time faculty members; (e) Tennessee State University
(TSU), Doctorate-Granting 11institution,
7,800 students, and 320 full-time and
120 part-time professors; and (e) Austin
Peay State University (APSU), Master’s
(Comprehensive) I Institution, 8,100 students, and 234 full-time and 172
part-time faculty members. On the basis
of the Carnegie classification, University
of Memphis (UM) has a higher research
zyxwvut
zy
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
Personal Interest
Professors have a great deal of autonomy and freedom in selecting their
research topics and teaching their courses in an academic environment. A significant number of the faculty members
at Stanford preferred to give more time
to research and reduce their teaching
time (Hinds, Dornbusch, & Scott,
1974). In another survey, 92% of the
professors wanted more opportunities
for research (Carter, 1989). Research
may offer more intrinsic motivation and
self-determination and greater personal
gains (e.g., promotion, tenure, pay raises, and job changes) to faculty members
than teaching.
Mission of the University
Teaching and research are both missions of the university. The relative
importance of one versus the other
varies according to a school’s mission.
Tension exists on most campuses
regarding the relative importance of
teaching versus research. This tension
appears vividly in regional state universities. We assert that the length of
service will have a significant impact
on faculty attitudes. Because many
tenured professors continue to produce
scholarly work and full professors have
significantly higher research productivity than associate and assistant professors, we expect that tenure and
higher rank will not negatively affect
faculty attitudes toward research. In
106
Journal of Education for Business
Method
Participants
Research site. In Tennessee, there are
two major systems of higher education:
The University of Tennessee and the Tennessee Board of Regents. Under the Tennessee Board of Regents, there are six
regional state universities and 14 community colleges. In this study, we examined professors in six regional state uni-
TABLE 1. Cross Tabulations of Variables
Length of service (years)
Item
1-6
7-12
13-19
Total
2 20
No.
%
11
15
57
90
4.7
32.2
24.5
38.6
171
62
233
73.4
26.6
100
Rank
Instructor
2
23
10
12
0
7
2
27
1
21
9
47
13
59
12
(30.9%)
45
2
47
(20.2%)
36
0
36
(15.5%)
77
I
78
(33.5%)
Rank
Tenured
tenured
No.
%
Instructor
Assistant
Associate
2
62
19
88
171
(73.4%)
9
13
38
2
62
(26.6%)
11
75
57
90
233
4.7
32.2
24.5
38.6
100
Assistant
Associate
Full
Tenure
Yes
No
Total
8
24
36
4
Total
Not
Full
Total
zyxwv
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxw
zyx
zy
TABLE 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients of Variables
Variable
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
I . University
2. Service (years)
3. Rank
4. Tenure
5. Research
6. Teaching
7. Reward-R
8. Reward-T
9. Interest
10. Mission
SD
M
12.59
6.33
2.28
5.36
7.10
4.78
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-01
07
39***
-02
-7o***
-28***
20**
29***
-05
-08
-01
-15*
11
02
-60***
18**
-02”
16*
-01
-11
37***
-31***
13
-03
-20**
-01
-06
-22**
2.92
1.85
2.54
1.40
1.56
1.45
9
10
03
-00
02
18*
-25***
-14
03
10
12
01
-09
06
48***
40***
-20**
05
18*
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsr
Note. N varies between 181 and 232. All decimals have been omitted for correlation coefficients. Faculty members rated these items on a 4-point scale. A
low raw score indicates high agreement with the statement. University: University of Memphis = 1, Middle Tennessee State University = 2, East Tennessee
State University = 3, Tennessee Technological University = 4, Tennessee State University = 5, Austin Peay State University = 6. Length of Service: 1-6
years = 1, 7-12 years = 2, 13-19 years = 3, 20 or more years = 4. Rank: Instructor = I, Assistant = 2, Associate = 3, Full = 4. Tenure: Yes = 1, No = 2.
Reward-T: Reward-Teaching. Reward-R Reward-Research.
* p < .05, **p < .01,***p < .001.
by rank, the length of service by tenure,
and tenure by rank. In Table 2, we present the means, standard deviations, and
correlation coefficients of all variables.
TABLE 3. Attitudlnai Differences as a Function of Faculty’s Length
of Service
Univariate
F test
Length of service
Variable
1-6
7-12
13-19
220
F
P
11.97
6.70
12.42
5.00
7.03
4.75
12.10
6.33
11.67
6.05
6.95
5.08
12.57
6.13
12.09
5.09
7.22
4.83
14.00
5.88
11.75
5.71
7.21
4.98
5.36
1.74
.87
6.12
.26
.49
.002
.I61
.459
.001
.854
.688
Results
Rank
1. Research
2. Teaching
3. Reward-Research
4. Reward-Teaching
5. Interest
6. Mission
Note. MANOVA results: F(18, 455) = 2.23, Wilks’ Lambda = .788, p = .003. Univariate F tests
with df(3, 166). Faculty members rated these items on a 4-point scale. A low raw score indicates
high agreement with the statement.
We analyzed the effect of rank on
faculty members’ six attitudes in a
multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA). Results suggest that rank
had no significant impact on faculty
attitudes [F (18, 455) = .74, Wilks’
Lambda = .92, p = .770]. No further
analysis was conducted.
Tenure
orientation than the other five institutions
in this study.
Procedure. At the time of the study,
there were 2,733 full-time faculty members in tenure track positions at these six
universities. We excluded faculty members involved exclusively in graduate
programs or in creative performance
such as art, music, or theater (i.e.,
research publication is not appropriate
for them). The Tennessee Board of
Regents randomly selected 20% of
full-time faculty members “stratified by
institution” (N = 384). Professors completed the survey anonymously and voluntarily ( N = 233, return rate =
60.42%). The number of participants
from each university was 72,54,35,40,
13, and 18, respectively according to the
order of universities provided above.
Measures
Respondents completed the 21-item,
6-factor survey using a 4-point scale
with the following anchors: 1 (strongly
agree), 2 (agree), 3 (disagree), and 4
(strongly disagree) (see Appendix). The
other variables were rank, tenure, length
of service, and institution. A low score
indicates a high level of agreement with
the statement. In Table 1, we show the
crosstabulations of the length of service
MANOVA results showed that the
effect of tenure on these six attitudes
approached significance [ F (6, 163) =
1.91, Wilks’ Lambda = .93, p = .083].
Further univariate F tests revealed that
nontenured faculty members had a
stronger belief that rewards influence
teaching (M = 5.00) than tenured faculty members had (M= 5.65) [F (1, 168) =
8.31, p = ,0041.
The Length of Service
The significant effect of length of service [F (18,455) = 2.23, Wilks’ lambda =
.79, p = .003] was related to research
NovembedDecember 2003
107
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsr
that professors with lower ranks had
lower research orientation (M = 14.86)
than full professors (M= 13.58) [F (1,
72) = 4.41, p = .039]. Professors with 20
or more years of service who had not
reached the rank of full professor had
the lowest research orientation.
orientation [ F (3, 166) = 5.36, p = .002]
and the belief that rewards influence
teaching [F = 6.12, p = .001] (see Table
3). One-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test showed
that professors with 20 or more years of
service had a lower research orientation
(M = 14.00) than those with 13-19
years (M = 12.57), 7-12 years (M =
12.10), and 1-6 years (M= 11.97) (ps <
.05). Hypothesis 1 was supported. Faculty members with 1-6 years of experience had a stronger belief that rewards
influence teaching than those with 20 or
more years of service and those with
7-12 years of service.
Furthermore, 72 faculty members had
between 1 and 6 years of service at
these six universities (see Table 1). Out
of these 72 professors, 13 (1 1 assistant
professors and 2 full professors, 18%)
were tenured and 59 (82%) were not.
There were 8 instructors, 13 assistant
professors, 36 associate professors, and
2 full professors who did not have
tenure. Professors with 1-6 years of
experience (82% of them did not have
tenure) did believe that rewards influence teaching, whereas those with more
experience did not. Among those with
20 or more years of service (n = 78),
there were 11 instructors, 21 assistant
professors, 9 associate professors, and
47 full professors. All of them were
tenured except one.
Institution and Organizational Culture
Results of a MANOVA revealed a significant effect of the institution [F (30,
1102) = 6.45, Wilks’ lambda = S23, p =
.OW] on research orientation [F = 9.98, p
= .OOO], the belief that rewards influence
research [F = 9.54, p = .OOO], the belief
that rewards influence teaching [F =
12.77, p = .WO], and university mission
[F = 3 . 9 9 , =
~ .002] (see Table 4). In general, faculty members at the University
of Memphis showed a higher research
orientation, a greater belief that rewards
influence research, and less belief that
rewards influence teaching than faculty
members at other institutions. Hypothesis 2 was supported. Professors at Tennessee State University had higher
agreement with their university’s mission than those at Austin Peay State University; this difference was significant.
Thus, each institution apparently has its
own organizational culture within the
same Board of Regent system.
Faculty members with 20 or more years
of service appear to have the lowest
research orientation, particularly those
below the rank of full professor.
Those who are not full professors and
who have 20 or more years of service
tend to have low research productivity, no
hope for promotions, and a stalled career
plan. Many senior professors at teachingoriented institutions tend to increase the
time that they spend outside the universities. If professors stop doing research,
then they begin to repeat themselves and
eventually lose touch with both young
people and the world around them. As
regional state universities continue to hire
more research-oriented academicians,
many of these teaching-oriented professors may find it harder to compete with
younger research-oriented professors.
During the 20-year period, universities
have managed to raise the bar for tenure
and promotion.
Administrators and professors, in colleges of business in particular, have
raised the bar to an even higher standard
of intellectual contributions than that
required earlier for staying in the teaching profession and maintaining professional qualification, as well as for institutional receipt of the accreditation from
the AACSB-International. As a result,
professors without intellectual contributions to the field may be labeled as “not
professionally qualified to teach” in the
College of Business.
Professors’energy decreases with age.
It is equally true that their knowledge
increases. When a senior professor works
with a junior one who is full of energy
but low in knowledge, the combination
zyxwv
Discussion
The results of our study suggest that
the length of service does have a significant impact on faculty attitudes, whereas rank and tenure do not. Professors
with 1 to 6 years of experience tend to
believe that rewards influence teaching.
Additional analysis. We compared
instructors, assistant professors, and
associate professors, combined as one
group ( n = 29), with full professors ( n =
45) in one ANOVA. The results showed
TABLE 4. Attitudinai Dlfferences as a Function of Institutions
Institution
Variable
1. Research
2. Teaching
3. Reward-Research
4. Reward-Teaching
5. Interest
6. Mission
1
2
3
4
5
6
Univariate
F
Tukey HSD
11.20
6.91
10.64
5.99
11.99
4.36
13.57
6.26
13.16
4.81
12.17
4.72
13.02
6.52
11.46
5.52
12.35
4.37
12.84
6.65
11.94
5.16
12.25
5.12
13.31
6.73
13.16
4.27
13.54
4.23
14.28
6.76
12.24
4.48
12.41
5.21
9.98*
.94
9.54”
12.77”
1.47
3.99”
1 < 43526
ns
1
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Effects of Rank, Tenure, Length of Service,
and Institution on Faculty Attitudes Toward
Research and Teaching: The Case of Regional State
Universities
Thomas Li-Ping Tang & Mitchell Chamberlain
To cite this article: Thomas Li-Ping Tang & Mitchell Chamberlain (2003) Effects of Rank, Tenure,
Length of Service, and Institution on Faculty Attitudes Toward Research and Teaching: The
Case of Regional State Universities, Journal of Education for Business, 79:2, 103-110, DOI:
10.1080/08832320309599097
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320309599097
Published online: 31 Mar 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 62
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
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: 12 January 2016, At: 23:00
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
Effects of Rank, Tenure,
Length of Service, and Institution
on Faculty Attitudes Toward
Research and Teaching: The Case of
Regional State Universities
THOMAS LI-PING TANG
Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
0
rganizations in the competitive
global market face continuous
challenges and look for ways to improve
efficiency and effectiveness in providing
quality products and services. The same
factors are at work in higher education.
Administrators and researchers increasingly are interested in improving scholarship, research productivity, efficiency
in delivering services to students, student and faculty satisfaction, and public
perception of and trust in university faculty members (Hattie & Marsh, 1996).
Higher education has experienced
several new developments, including
the examination of scholarship (Boyer,
1990) and post-tenure reviews and evaluations (Magner, 1996). These concerns have caused a national debate and
created additional stress for administrators and faculty members. Administrators insist that the new post-tenure evaluation processes do not weaken tenure
and, ideally, could help some struggling
faculty members. Faculty members, on
the other hand, dismiss post-tenure
evaluations as at best a public-relations
gambit and at worst an attempt to turn
this institution of lifetime security into
a system of multiyear contracts (Magner, 1996). In the churning national
MITCHELL CHAMBERLAIN
Tennessee State University
Nashville. Tennessee
ABSTRACT. In this study, the
authors examined the effects of rank,
tenure, length of service, and institution on faculty members’ attitudes
toward research and teaching in a
sample of 233 professors from six
regional state universities in Tennessee. Results revealed that the
length of service had a significant
effect on faculty perceptions regarding
research orientation and how rewards
influence teaching, whereas rank and
tenure did not. Faculty members with
20 or more years of service had the
lowest research orientation; those with
ranks lower than full professor
showed the strongest belief that
rewards influence teaching. The
authors discuss these and other results
in light of faculty development, mentoring, and the socialization process.
zy
system in place either to address their
shortcomings, or else be dismissed”
(Magner, 1996, p. AlO).
In research institutions, the decisive
factor in tenure and promotion (and
salary) decisions is research. Seasoned
faculty members and junior professors
normally have a similar research orientation (or culture) that is very well
established. However, in regional state
universities, where research has
become important only in recent years,
the changing composition of the professoriate may be exerting a pronounced impact on faculty members’
research orientation.
In this study, our major purpose was
to investigate the effect of rank, tenure,
length of service, and institution on
professors’ attitudes toward research,
teaching, the reward system, their personal interest, and their universities’
mission (Tang & Chamberlain, 1997) in
all six regional state universities in Tennessee. We did not examine research
productivity or teaching evaluation. We
did not limit ourselves to business faculty members, but we did focus on the
“business” of higher education in general. We review these related variables
in the literature.
zyxwvutsrq
debate, very few colleges have actually
sought to eliminate tenure. Dozens of
institutions in Colorado, Kansas, Virginia, Minnesota, and elsewhere have
focused on the idea of conducting periodic reviews of tenured professors.
Texas State Senator Tee1 Bivins asserted that tenure has protected at least a
few lazy, incompetent professors,
although such faculty members are in
the minority: “Less than 2 percent of
the professors in Texas are really a
problem and would need to have this
zyxwvutsr
zyx
NovembedDecember 2003
103
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
Regional State Universities
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv
The elite private universities receive
the lion’s share of attention. However,
the public schools educate 80% of
American undergraduates. Most of
these regional state colleges and universities began as teachers’ colleges with a
narrowly defined mission. Since World
War 11, these schools have increased
student attendance and expanded programs at unprecedented rates. Within
several decades, these institutions have
radically transformed their character.
Faculty members in these transitional
universities are expected to publish
while carrying heavy teaching loads.
According to David Longanecker, executive director of the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education in
Boulder, Colorado: “It’s the American
disease that institutions want to be what
they are not. They want to work up the
rung of prestige, which means more
research and less teaching” (Shea, 2002,
p. 65). Professors have experienced a
very high level of pressure for research
productivity, especially those in colleges of business accredited by the
Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB). These
newly transformed universities seek
educators with an orientation and credentials typical of the research scholar.
Over the years, newly hired, researchoriented professors gradually have
replaced teaching-oriented professors in
the system.
Length of Service
For the past 2 decades, there have
been major changes in new technology
(e.g., computers, e-mail), research
methodology, and culture in society and
in universities. Most professors hired
more than 2 decades ago have a lower
level of research orientation than their
younger counterparts for several reasons. First, faculty members who began
their careers 20 years ago may have
received excellent research training;
however, most of them were hired to
teach classes and not to conduct
research. Universities may have a culture of “low research expectations,”and
professors may have “low research
interests.” Professors’ research productivity is more directly related to the
104
quality of the “academic affiliation”
(i.e., where they teach currently) than
their “academic origin” (i.e., where
they obtained their highest degree)
(Long, Bowers, Barnett, & White,
1998). Organizational culture may play
an important role in this factor.
Second, on the basis of the attraction,
selection, and attrition (ASA) model,
faculty members are attracted to, selected by, and will remain with organizations that have organizational goals to
their liking (Chatman, 1989; Chiu, Luk,
& Tang, 2002). Teaching-oriented professors select regional state institutions,
whereas research-oriented academicians tend to teach at research-oriented
universities. Third, age has the most
pronounced effect on the change of the
allocation of faculty time (Singell, Lillydahl, & Singell, 1996). Research time
and service time of the typical professor expand until middle age and then
decline, whereas teaching time changes
in the opposite direction. Professors at
more teaching-oriented institutions
tend to increase time spent outside the
university as they become older, whereas faculty members at more researchoriented institutions redistribute time
among the aspects of their work but do
not reduce total work hours. Professors
with 20 or more years of service in
regional state universities may increase
their leisure time and reduce their
research time (orientation).
Fourth, the oversupply of PhDs in
most fields forced many new PhD recipients from the top graduate programs to
accept positions at state institutions.
Thus, newly hired faculty members may
have a much stronger research orientation than professors hired more than 2
decades ago. Fifth, distinctive cohorts
with characteristic career aspirations,
social backgrounds, and professional
values are linked to the prevailing academic market. Finally, there is a widespread belief that older workers are
resistant to change, unable to learn new
work methods, less physically capable,
and less creative than younger employees. Job performance, memory, learning, and problem-solving ability may
decline with advancing age.
However, older employees are more
satisfied with their jobs, are more committed to the organization, and possess
more internal work motivation than
their younger counterparts. This may
lead to high research productivity. For
example, Professor Herbert C. Brown
retired at the age of 66 years from Purdue University in 1978 and won the
Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1979.
After his retirement, he was invited to
continue his research activities at Purdue, but without salary. In 1987, he published his 1,000th article. It is also noteworthy that the 250 papers published
since his retirement equal fully one
fourth of his total productivity. Professor Brown’s extraordinary accomplishments reflect his intrinsic motivation in
research. Only professors with a high
level of organization-based self-esteem,
talents, and experiences are able to
mentor young professors. We argue:
Age will not have a negative impact on
research productivity for all professors.
At regional state universities, we do not
expect that all professors will behave
like Professor Brown. We predict that
faculty members’ length of service at
these universities may have a significant
impact on their attitudes, particularly on
their research orientation.
zy
Rank and Tenure
Rank
Educational attainment, seniority,
research, teaching, and service are some
of the criteria used in determining a faculty member’s rank (Tien & Blackburn,
1996). For professors in PhD-granting
institutions, their research productivity
is the major criterion for promotion.
Although some researchers have found
that rank is a significant predictor of
faculty research productivity, others disagree. Thus, results are mixed.
Only faculty members with the best
research qualifications will be promoted
to the rank of full professor. Some full
professors continue to publish when a
promotion is no longer present. Full
professors publish significantly more
research than do assistant professors
and associate professors (Tien & Blackburn, 1996). No significant difference
exists between the latter two groups of
professors. Thus, full professors’ high
productivity level is related to their
longer (cumulative) time period in the
zyxwvutsr
Journal of Education for Business
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrqp
academic setting. It is reasonable to
expect that no significant attitudinal differences would occur based on faculty
members’ rank.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
Tenure
Nontenured professors have significantly less professional autonomy and
security than tenured professors. Psychologists on the tenure track published
over twice as many articles (as the first
author listed) in refereed journals as faculty members on nontenure tracks.
Some candidates who are outstanding in
teaching, research, and campus service
sail through the tenure process. After
earning their tenure, some faculty members appear to slow down and reduce
their research outputs, whereas others
continue to publish to be promoted to
the highest rank of full professor. At
regional state universities, we would
expect that tenured and nontenured professors have the same expectations
regarding the need to publish to advance
their careers.
ty (Tang & Chamberlain, 1997). Attitudes will predict behavior effectively.
We believe that knowledge of faculty
attitude toward research and teaching
should enable us to understand faculty
behaviors better.
Research Orientation
Research productivity reflects faculty effort; ensures quality of teaching;
creates significant impacts that extend
beyond the campus and the nation; and
enhances external prestige, scholarly
reputation, visibility, and rankings of a
department or university. Research
productivity positively affects knowledge of the subject, intellectual expansiveness, preparation and organization,
and pedagogical dispositions of teachers (clarity of course objectives and
requirements), which in turn positively
influence their overall instructional
effectiveness. Professors who publish
their research extensively receive
teaching rewards twice as often as faculty members who do not publish
(Faia, 1976). Students also have
reported greater course difficulty and
heavier reading assignments in classes
taught by faculty members who devoted more time to research activities
(Hoyt & Spangler, 1976). Professors
with a high degree of scholarly activity are perceived more frequently as
effective teachers than are professors
with less scholarly activity (McCaughey, 1993).
tion, and research requirement may be
one of the reasons for ineffective teaching. A high level of time devoted to nonsponsored research and writing results in
low student ratings (Grant, 1971).A professor who rates high in teaching style
but low in content may receive favorable
evaluations: Students may evaluate professors according to grades and entertainment value (Trank & Rynes, 2003).
Intimate contacts with students result in
higher student ratings (McDaniel &
Feldhausen, 1970).
How Rewards Influence Research
At elite institutions, the reward system emphasizes research; at other institutions, the reward system is more flexible and oriented toward teaching.
When faculty members must choose
between rewarding a colleague who is
equally strong in research and teaching,
they prefer to reward research (Kasten,
1984). When asked to list traits of the
ideal professor, professors rated scholarly research ahead of teaching. Professors with publication-oriented rCsumCs
will be well received at other universities. Among management professors,
the number of job changes produces the
largest monetary gains, and the most
important predictor of the number of job
changes is “top-tier publications”
(Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992).
Because of the pressure to publish, the
number of science journals alone
increased from 8,062 in 1978 to 37,683
in 1988 (Toch, 1990). Although American professors’ research is second to
none in the world, they may have crested a massively wasteful academic publishing industry.
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is defined as
the pattern of basic assumptions that
the group has invented, discovered, or
developed in learning to cope with its
problems of external adaptation and
internal integration. Culture also influences how the members of the group
understand and respond to their environment. Professors develop workrelated attitudes and values within an
organization. Universities also select
faculty members who fit their culture.
This is a mutual selection and socialization process. We expect that professors in more research-oriented institutions will have a stronger research
orientation than those in other institutions.
Six Faculty Attitude Factors
In this study, we examined faculty
members’ attitudes toward (a) research
orientation, (b) teaching orientation, (c)
the degree to which rewards influence
research, (d) the degree to which
rewards influence teaching, (e) personal
interest, and (f) mission of the universi-
Teaching Orientation
Teaching is the primary mission for
institutions of higher education. Stanford University’s Donald Kennedy
declared bluntly: “It is time to reaffirm
that education-that is, teaching in all its
forms-is
the primary task” (Toch,
1990, p. 10). Teaching excellence also
improves the department standing on
campuses. Others have argued that the
direct impact of teaching seldom
extends beyond the classroom and is literally invisible to a professor’s organizational colleagues and superiors (Martin
& Berry, 1969). The impact of teaching
is more difficult to evaluate than
research. Time spent in research may
reduce the time for classroom prepara-
How Rewards Influence Teaching
Teaching is significantly less important than research and receives less
weight in tenure decisions than it
should. On many U.S. campuses, “publish or perish” has become the rule. The
overwhelming factor in determining a
professor’s status and salary is research,
not performance in the classroom
(Toch, 1990). For most university professors the real strain in the academic
role arises from the fact that they are
essentially paid to do one job but are
November/December 2003
105
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
zyxwvutsrqp
evaluated on the basis of how well they
do another. Our society hopes that the
professors will not neglect their teaching responsibilities but rewards them
almost entirely for research and publications. Teaching credentials are harder to
document and quantify and much less
transferable. The major consequences
are that excellent professors continue to
be “locals” or “provincials” and are
condemned to lower salary structures
compared with the “nationals” who
engage in marketable activity (Van
Fleet, 1994). In 1990, the definition of
scholarship was expanded to include
teaching as a way of achieving such a
balance (Boyer, 1990). The reward system may affect teaching.
our study, we sought to test the following hypotheses:
H1: The length of service has a significant impact on faculty attitudes
(research orientation, in particular),
whereas rank and tenure do not. More
specifically, professors with 20 or more
years of service will have a lower level
of research orientation than their
younger counterparts.
H2: Professors in a more researchoriented institution will have a stronger
research orientation, a stronger belief
that rewards influence research, and a
weaker belief that rewards influence
teaching than professors at other institutions.
versities. We arranged these six universities according to the size of the faculty
(from large to small) according to The
Chronicle of Higher Education (1994)
and the Carnegie classification: (a) University of Memphis (UM), DoctorateGranting I institution, 20,400 students,
and 685 full-time and 316 part-time faculty; (b) Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), Doctorate-Granting I1
institution, 17,400 students, and 612 fulltime and 189 part-time faculty members;
(c) East Tennessee State University
(ETSU), Master’s (Comprehensive) I
Institution, 11,300 students, and 396
full-time and 21 1 part-time professors;
(d) Tennessee Technological University
(TTU), Master’s (Comprehensive) I
Institution, 8,000 students, and 333
full-time and 110 part-time faculty members; (e) Tennessee State University
(TSU), Doctorate-Granting 11institution,
7,800 students, and 320 full-time and
120 part-time professors; and (e) Austin
Peay State University (APSU), Master’s
(Comprehensive) I Institution, 8,100 students, and 234 full-time and 172
part-time faculty members. On the basis
of the Carnegie classification, University
of Memphis (UM) has a higher research
zyxwvut
zy
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
Personal Interest
Professors have a great deal of autonomy and freedom in selecting their
research topics and teaching their courses in an academic environment. A significant number of the faculty members
at Stanford preferred to give more time
to research and reduce their teaching
time (Hinds, Dornbusch, & Scott,
1974). In another survey, 92% of the
professors wanted more opportunities
for research (Carter, 1989). Research
may offer more intrinsic motivation and
self-determination and greater personal
gains (e.g., promotion, tenure, pay raises, and job changes) to faculty members
than teaching.
Mission of the University
Teaching and research are both missions of the university. The relative
importance of one versus the other
varies according to a school’s mission.
Tension exists on most campuses
regarding the relative importance of
teaching versus research. This tension
appears vividly in regional state universities. We assert that the length of
service will have a significant impact
on faculty attitudes. Because many
tenured professors continue to produce
scholarly work and full professors have
significantly higher research productivity than associate and assistant professors, we expect that tenure and
higher rank will not negatively affect
faculty attitudes toward research. In
106
Journal of Education for Business
Method
Participants
Research site. In Tennessee, there are
two major systems of higher education:
The University of Tennessee and the Tennessee Board of Regents. Under the Tennessee Board of Regents, there are six
regional state universities and 14 community colleges. In this study, we examined professors in six regional state uni-
TABLE 1. Cross Tabulations of Variables
Length of service (years)
Item
1-6
7-12
13-19
Total
2 20
No.
%
11
15
57
90
4.7
32.2
24.5
38.6
171
62
233
73.4
26.6
100
Rank
Instructor
2
23
10
12
0
7
2
27
1
21
9
47
13
59
12
(30.9%)
45
2
47
(20.2%)
36
0
36
(15.5%)
77
I
78
(33.5%)
Rank
Tenured
tenured
No.
%
Instructor
Assistant
Associate
2
62
19
88
171
(73.4%)
9
13
38
2
62
(26.6%)
11
75
57
90
233
4.7
32.2
24.5
38.6
100
Assistant
Associate
Full
Tenure
Yes
No
Total
8
24
36
4
Total
Not
Full
Total
zyxwv
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxw
zyx
zy
TABLE 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients of Variables
Variable
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
I . University
2. Service (years)
3. Rank
4. Tenure
5. Research
6. Teaching
7. Reward-R
8. Reward-T
9. Interest
10. Mission
SD
M
12.59
6.33
2.28
5.36
7.10
4.78
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-01
07
39***
-02
-7o***
-28***
20**
29***
-05
-08
-01
-15*
11
02
-60***
18**
-02”
16*
-01
-11
37***
-31***
13
-03
-20**
-01
-06
-22**
2.92
1.85
2.54
1.40
1.56
1.45
9
10
03
-00
02
18*
-25***
-14
03
10
12
01
-09
06
48***
40***
-20**
05
18*
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsr
Note. N varies between 181 and 232. All decimals have been omitted for correlation coefficients. Faculty members rated these items on a 4-point scale. A
low raw score indicates high agreement with the statement. University: University of Memphis = 1, Middle Tennessee State University = 2, East Tennessee
State University = 3, Tennessee Technological University = 4, Tennessee State University = 5, Austin Peay State University = 6. Length of Service: 1-6
years = 1, 7-12 years = 2, 13-19 years = 3, 20 or more years = 4. Rank: Instructor = I, Assistant = 2, Associate = 3, Full = 4. Tenure: Yes = 1, No = 2.
Reward-T: Reward-Teaching. Reward-R Reward-Research.
* p < .05, **p < .01,***p < .001.
by rank, the length of service by tenure,
and tenure by rank. In Table 2, we present the means, standard deviations, and
correlation coefficients of all variables.
TABLE 3. Attitudlnai Differences as a Function of Faculty’s Length
of Service
Univariate
F test
Length of service
Variable
1-6
7-12
13-19
220
F
P
11.97
6.70
12.42
5.00
7.03
4.75
12.10
6.33
11.67
6.05
6.95
5.08
12.57
6.13
12.09
5.09
7.22
4.83
14.00
5.88
11.75
5.71
7.21
4.98
5.36
1.74
.87
6.12
.26
.49
.002
.I61
.459
.001
.854
.688
Results
Rank
1. Research
2. Teaching
3. Reward-Research
4. Reward-Teaching
5. Interest
6. Mission
Note. MANOVA results: F(18, 455) = 2.23, Wilks’ Lambda = .788, p = .003. Univariate F tests
with df(3, 166). Faculty members rated these items on a 4-point scale. A low raw score indicates
high agreement with the statement.
We analyzed the effect of rank on
faculty members’ six attitudes in a
multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA). Results suggest that rank
had no significant impact on faculty
attitudes [F (18, 455) = .74, Wilks’
Lambda = .92, p = .770]. No further
analysis was conducted.
Tenure
orientation than the other five institutions
in this study.
Procedure. At the time of the study,
there were 2,733 full-time faculty members in tenure track positions at these six
universities. We excluded faculty members involved exclusively in graduate
programs or in creative performance
such as art, music, or theater (i.e.,
research publication is not appropriate
for them). The Tennessee Board of
Regents randomly selected 20% of
full-time faculty members “stratified by
institution” (N = 384). Professors completed the survey anonymously and voluntarily ( N = 233, return rate =
60.42%). The number of participants
from each university was 72,54,35,40,
13, and 18, respectively according to the
order of universities provided above.
Measures
Respondents completed the 21-item,
6-factor survey using a 4-point scale
with the following anchors: 1 (strongly
agree), 2 (agree), 3 (disagree), and 4
(strongly disagree) (see Appendix). The
other variables were rank, tenure, length
of service, and institution. A low score
indicates a high level of agreement with
the statement. In Table 1, we show the
crosstabulations of the length of service
MANOVA results showed that the
effect of tenure on these six attitudes
approached significance [ F (6, 163) =
1.91, Wilks’ Lambda = .93, p = .083].
Further univariate F tests revealed that
nontenured faculty members had a
stronger belief that rewards influence
teaching (M = 5.00) than tenured faculty members had (M= 5.65) [F (1, 168) =
8.31, p = ,0041.
The Length of Service
The significant effect of length of service [F (18,455) = 2.23, Wilks’ lambda =
.79, p = .003] was related to research
NovembedDecember 2003
107
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:00 12 January 2016
zyxwvutsrqpo
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsr
that professors with lower ranks had
lower research orientation (M = 14.86)
than full professors (M= 13.58) [F (1,
72) = 4.41, p = .039]. Professors with 20
or more years of service who had not
reached the rank of full professor had
the lowest research orientation.
orientation [ F (3, 166) = 5.36, p = .002]
and the belief that rewards influence
teaching [F = 6.12, p = .001] (see Table
3). One-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test showed
that professors with 20 or more years of
service had a lower research orientation
(M = 14.00) than those with 13-19
years (M = 12.57), 7-12 years (M =
12.10), and 1-6 years (M= 11.97) (ps <
.05). Hypothesis 1 was supported. Faculty members with 1-6 years of experience had a stronger belief that rewards
influence teaching than those with 20 or
more years of service and those with
7-12 years of service.
Furthermore, 72 faculty members had
between 1 and 6 years of service at
these six universities (see Table 1). Out
of these 72 professors, 13 (1 1 assistant
professors and 2 full professors, 18%)
were tenured and 59 (82%) were not.
There were 8 instructors, 13 assistant
professors, 36 associate professors, and
2 full professors who did not have
tenure. Professors with 1-6 years of
experience (82% of them did not have
tenure) did believe that rewards influence teaching, whereas those with more
experience did not. Among those with
20 or more years of service (n = 78),
there were 11 instructors, 21 assistant
professors, 9 associate professors, and
47 full professors. All of them were
tenured except one.
Institution and Organizational Culture
Results of a MANOVA revealed a significant effect of the institution [F (30,
1102) = 6.45, Wilks’ lambda = S23, p =
.OW] on research orientation [F = 9.98, p
= .OOO], the belief that rewards influence
research [F = 9.54, p = .OOO], the belief
that rewards influence teaching [F =
12.77, p = .WO], and university mission
[F = 3 . 9 9 , =
~ .002] (see Table 4). In general, faculty members at the University
of Memphis showed a higher research
orientation, a greater belief that rewards
influence research, and less belief that
rewards influence teaching than faculty
members at other institutions. Hypothesis 2 was supported. Professors at Tennessee State University had higher
agreement with their university’s mission than those at Austin Peay State University; this difference was significant.
Thus, each institution apparently has its
own organizational culture within the
same Board of Regent system.
Faculty members with 20 or more years
of service appear to have the lowest
research orientation, particularly those
below the rank of full professor.
Those who are not full professors and
who have 20 or more years of service
tend to have low research productivity, no
hope for promotions, and a stalled career
plan. Many senior professors at teachingoriented institutions tend to increase the
time that they spend outside the universities. If professors stop doing research,
then they begin to repeat themselves and
eventually lose touch with both young
people and the world around them. As
regional state universities continue to hire
more research-oriented academicians,
many of these teaching-oriented professors may find it harder to compete with
younger research-oriented professors.
During the 20-year period, universities
have managed to raise the bar for tenure
and promotion.
Administrators and professors, in colleges of business in particular, have
raised the bar to an even higher standard
of intellectual contributions than that
required earlier for staying in the teaching profession and maintaining professional qualification, as well as for institutional receipt of the accreditation from
the AACSB-International. As a result,
professors without intellectual contributions to the field may be labeled as “not
professionally qualified to teach” in the
College of Business.
Professors’energy decreases with age.
It is equally true that their knowledge
increases. When a senior professor works
with a junior one who is full of energy
but low in knowledge, the combination
zyxwv
Discussion
The results of our study suggest that
the length of service does have a significant impact on faculty attitudes, whereas rank and tenure do not. Professors
with 1 to 6 years of experience tend to
believe that rewards influence teaching.
Additional analysis. We compared
instructors, assistant professors, and
associate professors, combined as one
group ( n = 29), with full professors ( n =
45) in one ANOVA. The results showed
TABLE 4. Attitudinai Dlfferences as a Function of Institutions
Institution
Variable
1. Research
2. Teaching
3. Reward-Research
4. Reward-Teaching
5. Interest
6. Mission
1
2
3
4
5
6
Univariate
F
Tukey HSD
11.20
6.91
10.64
5.99
11.99
4.36
13.57
6.26
13.16
4.81
12.17
4.72
13.02
6.52
11.46
5.52
12.35
4.37
12.84
6.65
11.94
5.16
12.25
5.12
13.31
6.73
13.16
4.27
13.54
4.23
14.28
6.76
12.24
4.48
12.41
5.21
9.98*
.94
9.54”
12.77”
1.47
3.99”
1 < 43526
ns
1