08832323.2011.577111
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Tenure Perspectives: Tenured Versus Nontenured
Tenure-Track Faculty
Shane R. Premeaux
To cite this article: Shane R. Premeaux (2012) Tenure Perspectives: Tenured Versus
Nontenured Tenure-Track Faculty, Journal of Education for Business, 87:2, 121-127, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2011.577111
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.577111
Published online: 15 Dec 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 435
View related 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: 11 January 2016, At: 21:58
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 121–127, 2012
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.577111
Tenure Perspectives: Tenured Versus Nontenured
Tenure-Track Faculty
Shane R. Premeaux
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana, USA
The author examined a broad range of respondent perspectives on tenure-related issues in
a survey of 1,583 professors at 321 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB)-accredited business schools in all 50 states. Tenured and nontenured tenure-track
university professors at AACSB-accredited business schools agreed that tenure is necessary.
Survey results indicate that mean ratings for 9 of the 20 tenure issues investigated differed
significantly between tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty members, down from 13
significant differences in 2001. Basically, even though the groups disagree on the impact of
traditional tenure on teaching and research, both groups now embrace traditional tenure.
Keywords: AACSB, business school, faculty, tenure
The one unique perk that only faculty members enjoy is academic tenure, and evidently most faculty members want this
most revered benefit. Critics argue that tenure has evolved
from a protection mechanism to teach and publish controversial ideas, to a guarantee of lifetime job security regardless
of performance (Lataif, 1998; Margolin, 2007). According
to some, the present tenure system protects underproductive
faculty members who teach obsolete notions about business
(Pearce, 1999). However, there may be other motives for
tenure changes such as a desire to save money and to shift
the delicate balanced partnership between administrators and
faculty or simply to eliminate tenure. Approximately 90% of
all four-year institutions and 99% of four-year public universities have tenure systems, but only about 50% of all professors nationwide are tenured, down from approximately
66% in 2001 (Fogg, 2005; National Center for Education
Statistics, 2003).
Some schools are taking what may seem like drastic measures by abolishing departments and the tenured faculty in
those departments. The University of Wisconsin–Madison
cut over 120 tenured faculty and now have over 1,000 nontenured faculty (Editorial Board, 2008). Tenure problems
still exist despite a decrease in full-time, tenured faculty
in colleges across the nation (Budd, 2006; Smith, 2000).
Correspondence should be addressed to Shane R. Premeaux, McNeese State University, College of Business, Department of Management
& Marketing, Box 92135, Lake Charles, LA 70609, USA. E-mail: spremeaux@suddenlink.net
To avoid tenure related problems, more and more colleges
and universities are using adjunct or part-time faculty as
opposed to placing faculty in tenure-track positions (Budd;
McGinn & Blake, 2000). Part-time or adjunct faculty now
comprise over half the faculty in the United States (Buck,
2006).
Changing tenure may mean downsizing of selected faculty
who historically have been protected by traditional tenure.
Tenured faculty are often the most expensive to keep, and
persistent cost-cutting efforts by administrators tend to focus
on eliminating highly paid tenured faculty. A national study
by the American Federation of Teachers found that nontenure-track faculty members earned about $10,000 less a
year than those on the tenure track and $19,000 less than
tenured professors (Ryman, 2008).
Opponents of tenure contend that it protects lazy and unproductive professors, and thereby limits the available resources needed to offer the best education possible (Isfahani, 1998; Margolin, 2007). Critics contend that tenure has
changed from a way to protect academic freedom to a system
to protect job security, which hurts institutions by impairing
their ability to adapt their curricula to changing student demands and making it harder for them to get rid of ineffective
dead wood. “The decision to tenure has an accompanying
long-term price tag that easily exceeds $1 million per person” (Lederman, 2006, p. 12). Despite the cost, tenure may
in fact have a positive impact on research productivity, with
one study concluding that research productivity is positively
correlated with tenure, but negatively correlated with years
of employment (Chen, Gupta, & Hoshower, 2006).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
122
S. R. PREMEAUX
Despite elimination efforts, tenure remains a strong shield
of lifetime faculty protection at virtually all universities,
but now most faculty are off the tenure track (Buck, 2006;
Strauss, 2000). Tenure advocates argue that higher education
is not the only field that offers job security. Other professions
that require extensive education offer de facto tenure, such
as law and medicine. Even government employees are virtually guaranteed lifetime employment after a probationary
period. Tenure may help attract well-qualified individuals
to higher education, because without job security protection
some would opt for higher paying private-sector jobs. Tenure
may benefit universities by helping to cap faculty salaries
and by discouraging job hopping (Finkin, 1996; MacLeod,
2006).
Tenure was established for purposes related to academic
freedom and the reasons for its existence are as valid at
present as ever, possibly even more so. Tenure gives some
assurance that faculty can be free thinkers without constantly
having to live in fear of what might happen if they do not
fall in line with whatever ill-conceived initiative is promoted.
Tenure is obviously not an absolute defense against the wrath
of those who would rather not have their true motives exposed, but it does provide some protection (Hughey, 2009).
Regardless of which viewpoint is correct, understanding
faculty perspectives regarding tenure is essential. This study
focuses on the perceptual differences between tenured and
nontenured tenure-track faculty with regard to tenure and
its impact on higher education. A nontenured tenure-track
faculty member is a professor who is on a track to ultimately be considered for tenure, as opposed to part-time or
adjunct professors. Basically, if agreement between tenured
and nontenured tenure-track faculty members is the norm,
many aspects of traditional tenure may well be preserved.
METHOD
I surveyed 411 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business (AACSB) programs accredited at the undergraduate and graduate levels in the United States. AACSB is devoted to the promotion and improvement of higher education
in business administration and management. This devotion
has lead to the establishment of standards that all accredited
schools must meet to earn AACSB accreditation. Meeting
these standards means that, among other achievements, faculty must distinguish themselves, particularly in the areas of
research and teaching. Faculty at AACSB-accredited schools
are subject to similar performance expectations, and should
therefore be fairly well informed regarding the issues addressed here.
Surveys were mailed directly to six faculty members at
each AACSB-accredited school, for a total of 2,466 faculty
surveys. From the pool of faculty at each school, two full professors, two associate professors, and two assistant professors
were randomly selected to receive surveys. A postage-paid
envelope was included so each respondent could return the
completed questionnaire directly. A follow-up mailing was
conducted six weeks after the initial mailing, and another
three weeks after the follow-up. Response was extremely
high, with 1,583 faculty members from 321 schools in all 50
states responding, for a response rate of over 64%.
Only faculty from AACSB-accredited schools were included in this survey because the environment in which they
work, in terms of expectations in teaching, research, and service, should be similar. Additionally, the rigors of earning
tenure should be somewhat similar. Although the actual requirements may differ in terms of numbers, percentages, and
perceived quality, certainly all AACSB-accredited schools
will evaluate faculty in the areas of teaching, research, and
service before granting tenure. A merit-based tenure system, taking into account these three areas, is fairly common
at most universities (Defleur, 2007). At the very least, faculty members at most AACSB-accredited schools should be
aware of the very basic performance requirements for faculty
affiliated with accredited schools.
The demographic characteristics in Tables 1 and 2 reveal
fairly definitive divisions between the various characteristics
of the response group. Basically, based on self-reported results, tenured (Table 1) and nontenured tenure-track (Table
2) faculty were quite effective in terms of teaching, research,
and service. If this perceived level of productivity is accurate,
then the majority of respondents would be somewhat competitive at most AACSB-accredited universities. The opinions
of such faculty may reveal representative attitudes of tenured
and nontenured tenure-track faculty.
However, there may be a disconnect between faculty
perceptions and reality regarding faculty productivity. For
tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty the percentage reporting excellence in teaching (63.8% and 69.1%, respectively) did not nearly parallel those receiving teaching
excellence awards (37.2% and 38.2%, respectively). Similarly, a majority of tenured and nontenured tenure-track
faculty reported career research productivity of more than
five refereed journal articles (78.1% and 67.6%, respectively), whereas only a small percentage of both groups received research awards (20.3% and 23.2%, respectively). Although this disconnect could be due to a variety of factors,
such as the nonexistence of teaching and research awards
or the criteria established to earn such awards, it is worth
noting.
Tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty were asked
to rate their level of agreement with the 20 tenure issues
listed in Table 3. The 20 tenure issues rated in this study
were initially gleaned from the literature and were used in
the previous investigation (Premeaux & Mondy, 2002) and
were included in other tenure studies. A pretest reaffirmed
the importance of these variables and identified no other
significant variables. To indicate the level of agreement, I
used a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (complete
disagreement) to 5 (complete agreement).
TENURED VERSUS NONTENURED TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
TABLE 2
Respondent Profile of Nontenured Tenure-Track
Faculty Members (N = 525)
TABLE 1
Profile of Tenured Faculty Members (N = 1,058)
Characteristic
%
Characteristic
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
123
Men
Married
< 45 years of age
Education
Doctorally qualified
Traditional business degrees
≥ 6 years of teaching experience
Tenure duration (years)
1–6
7–10
11–15
> 15
Rank
Full professors
Associate professors
Assistant professors
9- to 10-month contract salaries
$40,000–59,999
$60,000–79,999
$80,000–99,999
≥ $100,000
Self-classified job description
Teaching/research
Teaching
Research
Teaching performance
Excellent career teaching ratings
Teaching award recipient
Career research productivity
> 5 refereed journal articles
> 5 nonrefereed articles
≥ 1 book or book supplement
Research award recipient
Service activity
Above-average service providers
80.9
89.7
28.7
96.8
99.7
91.4
31.8
27.4
19.2
21.6
40.3
31.7
28.0
18.2
44.6
30.4
6.8
78.3
12.6
9.1
63.8
37.2
78.1
52.4
23.6
20.3
93.6
Note. Tenured faculty members comprised 66.84% of the respondents.
All percentages are rounded, and nonresponse percentages are not shown.
The previous 2001 survey examined the same tenurerelated issues that were evaluated in the present survey. The
2001 survey was conducted in the same manner and all of
the institutions surveyed in 2001 were included in the present
survey process. In addition, the data were analyzed and reported in the same manner in both surveys.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics in the form of frequency and crosstabulation tables were computed to get a feel for the data. A
comparison was then made to determine if differences exist
between the perceptions of tenured and nontenured tenuretrack faculty regarding tenure’s impact on higher education in
business. Analyses of variance was used to compare the perceived importance assigned to each tenure issue by tenured
Men
Married
< 45 years of age
Education
Doctorally qualified
Traditional business degrees
≥ 6 years of teaching experience
Rank
Full professors
Associate professors
Assistant professors
9- to 10-month contract salaries
$40,000–59,999
$60,000–79,999
$80,000–99,999
≥ $100,000
Self-classified job description
Teaching/research
Teaching
Research
Teaching performance
Excellent career teaching ratings
Teaching award recipient
Career research productivity
> 5 refereed journal articles
> 5 nonrefereed articles
≥ 1 book or book supplements
Research award recipient
Service activity
Above-average service providers
%
69.2
68.1
67.4
98.7
99.8
72.2
18.6
27.2
54.2
36.8
54.3
7.2
1.7
92.7
6.1
1.2
69.1
38.2
67.6
39.4
2.6
23.2
87.5
Note. Non-tenured tenure-track faculty members comprised 33.16% of
the respondents. All percentages are rounded, and non-response percentages
are not shown.
and nontenured tenure-track faculty. A mean rating score was
calculated for each of the issues for both groups, these mean
rating responses were compared, and an I computed an F
statistic (p < .05). The statistically significant mean ratings
of tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty were analyzed
and the overall results are presented in Table 3. Variables with
a statistically significant differences between the perception
of tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty are identified
by asterisks.
As noted in Table 3, tenured and nontenured tenure-track
faculty mean ratings differed for only 9 of the 20 tenure
issues. In the previous study, significant differences existed
for 13 of these tenure issues. Once again, the vast majority
of faculty surveyed believed that tenure is necessary for personal faculty security. Furthermore, tenured and nontenured
tenure-track faculty members at AACSB-accredited colleges
were even more adamant in their need for tenure than they
were previously (Premeaux & Mondy, 2002). Tenured and
nontenured tenure-track faculty members now appeared to
agree that traditional tenure is essential and should remain
124
S. R. PREMEAUX
TABLE 3
Summary of Responses Regarding Various Tenure Issues: Tenured Versus Nontenured Tenure-Track Professors
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
Statement regarding tenure
Tenured M (n = 1058) Nontenured M (n = 525) PR > F
Tenure is necessary for personal faculty security.
Necessity and modification of tenure.
Academic freedom cannot be secure without tenure.
Tenure is over applied, meaning too many faculty are tenured at most universities.
Tenure is necessary.
Tenure should be eliminated.
Tenure should be modified.
Tenure should be granted for only 20 years.
Tenure should be granted for only 25 years.
Tenure should be periodically evaluated rather than being a lifetime guarantee.
Teaching
Tenure helps promote teaching excellence.
Tenure hinders teaching excellence.
Teaching is afforded too much importance.
The longer a person has been tenured the less effective he or she will be as a teacher.
Research
Research is afforded too much importance.
Tenure helps promote research excellence.
The longer a person has been tenured the less effective he or she will be as a researcher.
Tenure hinders research excellence.
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.
4.18
4.69a
.0001
3.91
3.10
4.36
1.12
2.71
1.37
1.40
2.71
4.64a
3.12
4.45
1.14
2.93
1.42
1.44
2.91
.0004
.8936
.6314
.2819
.4826
.9527
.5469
.7651
2.98a
2.18
1.32
2.02
2.03
3.21a
1.38
3.59a
.0115
.0268
.7549
.0146
3.14
3.27a
2.26
1.94
4.08a
2.12
3.91a
3.86a
.0162
.0197
.0341
.0243
2.79
2.37
2.19
2.86
2.41
2.21
.6389
.3486
.7984
Note. Responses were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (complete disagreement) to 5 (complete agreement). PR = probability.
difference between means; PR > F value is less than the critical value of .05.
aSignificant
basically unchanged. This is a dramatic shift from the previous investigation where significant differences existed, with
nontenured tenure-track faculty generally agreeing that traditionally applied tenure needed modification. Nontenured
tenure-track faculty believed even more strongly than tenured
faculty that traditionally applied tenure is necessary for personal faculty security.
Necessity and Modification of Tenure
Significant differences exist between the perceptions of
tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty with regard to
the overall necessity and possible modification of tenure for
only one of the eight tenure-related factors, down from five
significant differences in 2001. The nontenured tenure-track
faculty were in much stronger agreement that academic freedom cannot be secure without tenure. In relation to the academic freedom issue, a significant difference exists between
tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty. It may be that
the nontenured tenure-track faculty are more closely scrutinized than tenured faculty, and therefore feel that their academic freedom is threatened. In the previous investigation,
nontenured tenure-track faculty agreed that tenure was overapplied, but presently both groups only moderately agreed
that this is the case. Possibly, nontenured tenure-track faculty
now want tenure to be applied more, so they have a greater
opportunity to earn tenure. In fact, both groups tended to
have similar opinions regarding these tenure issues, which is
a major shift from 2001.
Both groups now agreed, and are more adamant, that
tenure is necessary. To an even greater degree than in 2001,
both groups agreed that (a) “tenure should not be eliminated,”
(b) “tenure should not be granted for only 20 years,” and (c)
“tenure should not be granted for only 25 years.” Apparently,
both groups feel even more strongly now that traditional
tenure is necessary and should be a lifetime guarantee, rather
than subject to periodic review. Even more so than in the previous investigation, both groups embrace traditional tenure,
with nontenured tenure-track faculty perspectives changing
dramatically toward embracing traditional tenure, rather than
modifying it.
Mission Achievement: Tenure’s Impact on
Teaching, Research, and Service
Tenure’s value to its stakeholders can be judged by its
impact on teaching, research, and service. The increased
support for traditional tenure from both groups may result
from faculty members wanting the personal security that
tenure provides. However, the broader question is, does traditionally applied tenure positively impact organizational
performance? According to some, tenure’s value should
be a function of promoting teaching, research, and service
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
TENURED VERSUS NONTENURED TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
excellence (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business [AACSB], 1994). Critics contend that “faculty
members must behave less like independent contractors. ..
and more like owner/managers. .. whose fortunes are tied
to its success or failures (AACSB, p. 2). Hamilton (2007)
countered that “our work as individual professors requires a
high degree of autonomy” (p. 28).
Basically, tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty
presently believe that tenure is necessary and that it should
not be eliminated or modified. In a major shift from 2001,
both groups believed in tenure’s necessity, and even nontenured tenure-track faculty were no longer very flexible in
terms of tenure modification and the need for periodic reviews. Based on these perceptions it may be quite difficult
to modify tenure regardless of its impact on organizational
performance.
Teaching
Tenured faculty moderately agreed that tenure helps promote teaching excellence, but nontenured tenure-track faculty disagreed. Significant differences also exist with regard
to tenure hindering teaching excellence, with tenured faculty
disagreeing and nontenured tenure-track faculty moderately
agreeing. Even more so than in 2001, both groups agreed
that teaching is not afforded too much importance. Finally,
significant differences exist between tenured and nontenured
tenure-track faculty, with tenured faculty disagreeing and
nontenured tenure-track faculty agreeing that the longer a
person is tenured the less effective he or she is as a teacher.
This raises the question as to whether longevity results in
professors with greater teaching expertise, or does it simply
facilitate less effective instruction?
Even more so than in 2001, both groups agreed that
teaching is extremely important, even more important than
research. Possibly, tenure permits less effective teaching
because many universities tenure professors who are only
marginal teachers, but who are somewhat prolific researchers.
Additionally, in numerous studies the correlation between
good teaching and strong research is either nonexistent, or
in a minority of cases, only slightly positive (Felder, 1994).
Possibly, the problem in business schools is granting tenure
more on the basis of research productivity, than on demonstrated teaching excellence. Although both groups agreed
that teaching is not afforded too much importance, they disagreed on the other three teaching-related issues even more
so than in 2001.
125
Basically, at many schools tenure decisions do not consider
research, teaching, and service equally, and often research is
the more important factor. Although the formula most often
mentioned is 40%/40%/20% (research/teaching/service), in
reality it is more like 90%/5%/5% (research/teaching/service;
Worth, 1999).”
Many empirical studies have sought to explore and quantify the relationship between teaching and research. The results have been remarkably consistent and offer evidence that
teaching and research are separate activities, independent of
each other. The relationship is not a negative one, in that
good researchers are not automatically poor teachers, and
good teachers are not automatically poor researchers, but the
relationship is not positive, either.
However, undergraduate and graduate students associate
more benefits than disadvantages with faculty research. Generally, students agreed that knowledge currency, credibility,
competence in supervision, enthusiasm, and motivation are
enhanced by faculty research activity.
Significant differences exist for all four research issues,
with both groups agreeing that research is afforded too
much importance. However, tenured faculty only moderately
agreed, whereas nontenured tenure-track faculty agreed more
strongly. Tenured faculty moderately agreed that tenure helps
promote research excellence, but the nontenured tenure-track
group disagreed. Significant differences also exist regarding tenure’s duration and research effectiveness. Nontenured
tenure-track faculty members agreed that the longer a person
has been tenured, the less effective he or she is as a researcher;
but tenured faculty disagreed. There are indications that factors such as promotion and compensation may be better indicators regarding research productivity than tenure (Lazear,
2001; Neumann, 1979).
Obviously, once tenure is granted the employment security gained reduces the pressure to publish, and therefore,
faculty may be less motivated to do research. Outside of academics, job performance for those with less tenure seems to
be better than for those with more tenure, and that may also
be the case in the academic community (Moser & Galais,
2007). Finally, nontenured tenure-track faculty agreed that
tenure hinders research excellence, but tenured faculty disagreed. Basically, the pressure to publish is much greater
on nontenured tenure-track faculty who are working to earn
tenure (Striver, 2006). Both groups disagreed on the four
research-related issues even more so than in 2001.
Service
Research
Even though the mission at many AACSB-accredited schools
lists the importance of research as second to teaching, in
reality “the present [tenure] system favors those who publish
over those who shine in the classroom. .. and the rewards for
excellence in scholarship are infinitely more plentiful than
the rewards for excellence in teaching” (Worth, 1999, p. 1).
Service is normally the third and least important component
of a business school’s mission. As in 2001, there were no significant perceptual differences regarding any of the service
factors. Basically, both groups somewhat agreed that tenure
helps promote service productivity, disagreed that tenure hinders service productivity, and disagreed that the longer an
individual is tenured the less effective that individual is at
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
126
S. R. PREMEAUX
providing service. Overall, faculty opinions regarding
tenure’s impact on service have changed very little since
2001.
Overall, tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty had
several different perceptions regarding tenure’s impact on
teaching and research. Generally, the level of disagreement
between the groups regarding teaching and research has increased since 2001. However, tenured and nontenured tenuretrack faculty members agreed that academic freedom cannot
be secure without tenure. In fact, support among the nontenured tenure-track faculty for an overhaul of traditional
tenure has fallen rather dramatically since 2001. At present,
there is much less support for tenure modification and periodic reviews than in 2001, despite the perceptions by many
nontenured tenure-track faculty that tenure negatively impacts teaching and research.
Summary and Implications
Although neither group wanted to eliminate tenure in 2001,
a major shift occurred in the attitudes of nontenured tenuretrack faculty regarding the appropriateness of traditional
tenure. At present, tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty want to perpetuate many aspects of traditional tenure. In
the previous investigation, nontenured tenure-track faculty
were much more in favor of changing traditionally applied
tenure. Despite the present acknowledgement by nontenured
tenure-track faculty that tenure is problematic, as it relates to
teaching and research, they now view traditional tenure much
more positively. Possibly this is the result of the changing dynamics of universities’ faculties with the move toward more
part-time and non-tenure-track hiring (Budd, 2006). Nontenured faculty may view the present hiring climate as antitenure, and therefore want to attain traditional tenure before
the hostility increases.
Even though a few schools are trying to assist faculty in
securing tenure, the process is not similar to earning traditional tenure. Yale University now has a mentoring process
to help guide faculty toward a tenure track, but the tenure
process can begin as late as the eighth year of employment
(Millman, 2007). Princeton University is trying to assist parents, and particularly women, in attaining tenure by allowing
extra time based on the number of children they have (Bhattacharjee, 2005). However, this approach, similar to the Yale
process, actually adds more time to the tenure process rather
than making it more expedient.
Nontenured tenure-track faculty tended to agree that traditionally applied tenure can be detrimental to teaching and
research, but both groups perceived tenure’s protection as
extremely desirable. Advocates have stated that protecting
faculty with tenure is more important than getting rid of
poor performing faculty. Tenure protects ideas and prevents
narrow-minded administrators from keeping only those faculty members who think similar to how they do. But even
advocates of tenure tend to agree that there is a need for a
better evaluation process of faculty at the probationary level.
If tenure means lifetime employment, then make sure that
the right people are tenured (Moore, 2008).
Tenure has been described as a nerve-racking five years,
but with that nerve-racking experience comes the reward of
lifetime employment security that faculty desperately want
(Striver, 2006). Because of the desire for personal security it
appears that neither group will support even a minor overhaul of tenure. Subsequently, even incremental steps to modify tenure may be quite difficult. Apparently, many faculty
members, tenured and nontenured tenure track, believe that
their personal security is threatened by tenure changes.
Most schools offer tenure, and not doing so would create
a significant recruiting disadvantage; evidently most faculty
desire traditionally applied tenure. Even though nontenured
tenure-track faculty still view tenure as negatively impacting
teaching and research, they, just as the tenured faculty do,
now embrace traditional tenure. Basically, changes in tenure
will be difficult to enact because the majority of both groups
now agree that traditional tenure is necessary. Overall, much
less faculty support now exists for modifying tenure than in
2001.
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (1994). Volume is
turning up on tenure question. AACSB Newsline, 24(Winter), 1–6.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2005). Membership directory. Tampa, FL: Author.
Bhattacharjee, Y. (2005). Princeton resets family-friendly tenure clock. Science, 309, 308–310.
Buck, J. L. (2006). Why ask if tenure is necessary? Behavioral & Brain
Sciences, 29, 570.
Budd, J. M. (2006). Faculty publishing productivity: Comparisons over time.
College & Research Libraries, 67, 230–239.
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Mueller-Johnson, K. (2006). Is tenure justified? An experimental study of faculty beliefs about tenure, promotion,
and academic freedom. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 29, 553–569.
Chen, Y., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2006). Factors that motivate business
faculty to conduct research: An expectancy theory analysis. Journal of
Education for Business, 81, 179–189.
Defleur, M. L. (2007). What is tenure and how do I get it? Communication
Education, 56, 106–112.
Editorial Board. (2008, April 11). Professor tenure worth the cost. The Daily
Cardinal, p. 3.
Felder, R. M. (1994). The myth of the superhuman professor. Journal of
Engineering Education 82, 105–110.
Finkin, M. W. (1996, December 3). Scrapping tenure would raise costs. USA
Today, 14.
Fogg, P. (2005). The state of tenure. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51,
A15–A16.
Hamilton, N. W. (2007). Faculty autonomy and obligation. Academe, 93,
36–42.
Hughey, A. (2009, March 17). Tenure secures academic freedom. CourierJournal, p. 17.
Isfahani, N. (1998). SPALR Student Paper: The Debate over Tenure. Review
of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 80–86.
Lataif, L. E. (1998). Lifetime tenure: A working alternative. Selections, 15,
1–6.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
TENURED VERSUS NONTENURED TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
Lazear, E. P. (2001). The Peter Principle: Promotions and declining productivity. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No.
w8094.
Lederman, D. (2006, April 6). Blame it on the faculty. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/06/costs
MacLeod, W. B. (2006). Tenure is justifiable. Behavioral & Brain Sciences,
29, 581–583.
Margolin, J. B. (2007). Battle against tenure is ill-informed, perpetual. Education Week, 26, 34.
McGinn, D., & Blake, H. (2000, November 13). A Ph.D. hits the road.
Newsweek, 70.
Millman, S. (2007). Yale to overhaul tenure process. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 53, A14.
Moore, M. (2008, September 11). Teacher tenure protects ideas. Savannah Morning News. Received from http://savannahnow.com/michaelmoore/2008–09–11/moore-teacher-tenure-protects-ideas
Moser, K., & Galais, N. (2007). Self-monitoring and job performance: The
moderating role of tenure. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 15, 83–93.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Staff in postsecondary institutions, fall 2001, and salaries of full-time instructional staff, 2001–2002.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
127
Neumann, Y. (1979). Research productivity of tenured and non-tenured
faculty in U.S. universities: A comparative study of four fields and
policy implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 17, 92–
101.
Pearce, J. A. (1999). Faculty survey on business education reform. The
Academy of Management Executive, 13, 105–109.
Perley, J. E. (1998). Reflections on tenure. Sociological Perspectives, 41,
723–729.
Premeaux, S. R., & Mondy, R. W. (2002). Tenure: Tenured and non-tenured
tenure-track faculty perspectives. Journal of Education for Business, 77,
335–339.
Ryman, A. (2008, June 29). Universities cutting back on tenure or teachers.
The Arizona Public, p. 2.
Smith, Z. (2000, June 21). Study cites drop in tenured faculty. University
Wire, p. 1.
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, W16.
Striver, J. (2006). I’ll bring the salad. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52,
C3.
Worth, R. (1999, May). The velvet prison. Washington Monthly, 31(5),
1.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Tenure Perspectives: Tenured Versus Nontenured
Tenure-Track Faculty
Shane R. Premeaux
To cite this article: Shane R. Premeaux (2012) Tenure Perspectives: Tenured Versus
Nontenured Tenure-Track Faculty, Journal of Education for Business, 87:2, 121-127, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2011.577111
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.577111
Published online: 15 Dec 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 435
View related 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: 11 January 2016, At: 21:58
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 121–127, 2012
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.577111
Tenure Perspectives: Tenured Versus Nontenured
Tenure-Track Faculty
Shane R. Premeaux
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana, USA
The author examined a broad range of respondent perspectives on tenure-related issues in
a survey of 1,583 professors at 321 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB)-accredited business schools in all 50 states. Tenured and nontenured tenure-track
university professors at AACSB-accredited business schools agreed that tenure is necessary.
Survey results indicate that mean ratings for 9 of the 20 tenure issues investigated differed
significantly between tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty members, down from 13
significant differences in 2001. Basically, even though the groups disagree on the impact of
traditional tenure on teaching and research, both groups now embrace traditional tenure.
Keywords: AACSB, business school, faculty, tenure
The one unique perk that only faculty members enjoy is academic tenure, and evidently most faculty members want this
most revered benefit. Critics argue that tenure has evolved
from a protection mechanism to teach and publish controversial ideas, to a guarantee of lifetime job security regardless
of performance (Lataif, 1998; Margolin, 2007). According
to some, the present tenure system protects underproductive
faculty members who teach obsolete notions about business
(Pearce, 1999). However, there may be other motives for
tenure changes such as a desire to save money and to shift
the delicate balanced partnership between administrators and
faculty or simply to eliminate tenure. Approximately 90% of
all four-year institutions and 99% of four-year public universities have tenure systems, but only about 50% of all professors nationwide are tenured, down from approximately
66% in 2001 (Fogg, 2005; National Center for Education
Statistics, 2003).
Some schools are taking what may seem like drastic measures by abolishing departments and the tenured faculty in
those departments. The University of Wisconsin–Madison
cut over 120 tenured faculty and now have over 1,000 nontenured faculty (Editorial Board, 2008). Tenure problems
still exist despite a decrease in full-time, tenured faculty
in colleges across the nation (Budd, 2006; Smith, 2000).
Correspondence should be addressed to Shane R. Premeaux, McNeese State University, College of Business, Department of Management
& Marketing, Box 92135, Lake Charles, LA 70609, USA. E-mail: spremeaux@suddenlink.net
To avoid tenure related problems, more and more colleges
and universities are using adjunct or part-time faculty as
opposed to placing faculty in tenure-track positions (Budd;
McGinn & Blake, 2000). Part-time or adjunct faculty now
comprise over half the faculty in the United States (Buck,
2006).
Changing tenure may mean downsizing of selected faculty
who historically have been protected by traditional tenure.
Tenured faculty are often the most expensive to keep, and
persistent cost-cutting efforts by administrators tend to focus
on eliminating highly paid tenured faculty. A national study
by the American Federation of Teachers found that nontenure-track faculty members earned about $10,000 less a
year than those on the tenure track and $19,000 less than
tenured professors (Ryman, 2008).
Opponents of tenure contend that it protects lazy and unproductive professors, and thereby limits the available resources needed to offer the best education possible (Isfahani, 1998; Margolin, 2007). Critics contend that tenure has
changed from a way to protect academic freedom to a system
to protect job security, which hurts institutions by impairing
their ability to adapt their curricula to changing student demands and making it harder for them to get rid of ineffective
dead wood. “The decision to tenure has an accompanying
long-term price tag that easily exceeds $1 million per person” (Lederman, 2006, p. 12). Despite the cost, tenure may
in fact have a positive impact on research productivity, with
one study concluding that research productivity is positively
correlated with tenure, but negatively correlated with years
of employment (Chen, Gupta, & Hoshower, 2006).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
122
S. R. PREMEAUX
Despite elimination efforts, tenure remains a strong shield
of lifetime faculty protection at virtually all universities,
but now most faculty are off the tenure track (Buck, 2006;
Strauss, 2000). Tenure advocates argue that higher education
is not the only field that offers job security. Other professions
that require extensive education offer de facto tenure, such
as law and medicine. Even government employees are virtually guaranteed lifetime employment after a probationary
period. Tenure may help attract well-qualified individuals
to higher education, because without job security protection
some would opt for higher paying private-sector jobs. Tenure
may benefit universities by helping to cap faculty salaries
and by discouraging job hopping (Finkin, 1996; MacLeod,
2006).
Tenure was established for purposes related to academic
freedom and the reasons for its existence are as valid at
present as ever, possibly even more so. Tenure gives some
assurance that faculty can be free thinkers without constantly
having to live in fear of what might happen if they do not
fall in line with whatever ill-conceived initiative is promoted.
Tenure is obviously not an absolute defense against the wrath
of those who would rather not have their true motives exposed, but it does provide some protection (Hughey, 2009).
Regardless of which viewpoint is correct, understanding
faculty perspectives regarding tenure is essential. This study
focuses on the perceptual differences between tenured and
nontenured tenure-track faculty with regard to tenure and
its impact on higher education. A nontenured tenure-track
faculty member is a professor who is on a track to ultimately be considered for tenure, as opposed to part-time or
adjunct professors. Basically, if agreement between tenured
and nontenured tenure-track faculty members is the norm,
many aspects of traditional tenure may well be preserved.
METHOD
I surveyed 411 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business (AACSB) programs accredited at the undergraduate and graduate levels in the United States. AACSB is devoted to the promotion and improvement of higher education
in business administration and management. This devotion
has lead to the establishment of standards that all accredited
schools must meet to earn AACSB accreditation. Meeting
these standards means that, among other achievements, faculty must distinguish themselves, particularly in the areas of
research and teaching. Faculty at AACSB-accredited schools
are subject to similar performance expectations, and should
therefore be fairly well informed regarding the issues addressed here.
Surveys were mailed directly to six faculty members at
each AACSB-accredited school, for a total of 2,466 faculty
surveys. From the pool of faculty at each school, two full professors, two associate professors, and two assistant professors
were randomly selected to receive surveys. A postage-paid
envelope was included so each respondent could return the
completed questionnaire directly. A follow-up mailing was
conducted six weeks after the initial mailing, and another
three weeks after the follow-up. Response was extremely
high, with 1,583 faculty members from 321 schools in all 50
states responding, for a response rate of over 64%.
Only faculty from AACSB-accredited schools were included in this survey because the environment in which they
work, in terms of expectations in teaching, research, and service, should be similar. Additionally, the rigors of earning
tenure should be somewhat similar. Although the actual requirements may differ in terms of numbers, percentages, and
perceived quality, certainly all AACSB-accredited schools
will evaluate faculty in the areas of teaching, research, and
service before granting tenure. A merit-based tenure system, taking into account these three areas, is fairly common
at most universities (Defleur, 2007). At the very least, faculty members at most AACSB-accredited schools should be
aware of the very basic performance requirements for faculty
affiliated with accredited schools.
The demographic characteristics in Tables 1 and 2 reveal
fairly definitive divisions between the various characteristics
of the response group. Basically, based on self-reported results, tenured (Table 1) and nontenured tenure-track (Table
2) faculty were quite effective in terms of teaching, research,
and service. If this perceived level of productivity is accurate,
then the majority of respondents would be somewhat competitive at most AACSB-accredited universities. The opinions
of such faculty may reveal representative attitudes of tenured
and nontenured tenure-track faculty.
However, there may be a disconnect between faculty
perceptions and reality regarding faculty productivity. For
tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty the percentage reporting excellence in teaching (63.8% and 69.1%, respectively) did not nearly parallel those receiving teaching
excellence awards (37.2% and 38.2%, respectively). Similarly, a majority of tenured and nontenured tenure-track
faculty reported career research productivity of more than
five refereed journal articles (78.1% and 67.6%, respectively), whereas only a small percentage of both groups received research awards (20.3% and 23.2%, respectively). Although this disconnect could be due to a variety of factors,
such as the nonexistence of teaching and research awards
or the criteria established to earn such awards, it is worth
noting.
Tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty were asked
to rate their level of agreement with the 20 tenure issues
listed in Table 3. The 20 tenure issues rated in this study
were initially gleaned from the literature and were used in
the previous investigation (Premeaux & Mondy, 2002) and
were included in other tenure studies. A pretest reaffirmed
the importance of these variables and identified no other
significant variables. To indicate the level of agreement, I
used a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (complete
disagreement) to 5 (complete agreement).
TENURED VERSUS NONTENURED TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
TABLE 2
Respondent Profile of Nontenured Tenure-Track
Faculty Members (N = 525)
TABLE 1
Profile of Tenured Faculty Members (N = 1,058)
Characteristic
%
Characteristic
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
123
Men
Married
< 45 years of age
Education
Doctorally qualified
Traditional business degrees
≥ 6 years of teaching experience
Tenure duration (years)
1–6
7–10
11–15
> 15
Rank
Full professors
Associate professors
Assistant professors
9- to 10-month contract salaries
$40,000–59,999
$60,000–79,999
$80,000–99,999
≥ $100,000
Self-classified job description
Teaching/research
Teaching
Research
Teaching performance
Excellent career teaching ratings
Teaching award recipient
Career research productivity
> 5 refereed journal articles
> 5 nonrefereed articles
≥ 1 book or book supplement
Research award recipient
Service activity
Above-average service providers
80.9
89.7
28.7
96.8
99.7
91.4
31.8
27.4
19.2
21.6
40.3
31.7
28.0
18.2
44.6
30.4
6.8
78.3
12.6
9.1
63.8
37.2
78.1
52.4
23.6
20.3
93.6
Note. Tenured faculty members comprised 66.84% of the respondents.
All percentages are rounded, and nonresponse percentages are not shown.
The previous 2001 survey examined the same tenurerelated issues that were evaluated in the present survey. The
2001 survey was conducted in the same manner and all of
the institutions surveyed in 2001 were included in the present
survey process. In addition, the data were analyzed and reported in the same manner in both surveys.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics in the form of frequency and crosstabulation tables were computed to get a feel for the data. A
comparison was then made to determine if differences exist
between the perceptions of tenured and nontenured tenuretrack faculty regarding tenure’s impact on higher education in
business. Analyses of variance was used to compare the perceived importance assigned to each tenure issue by tenured
Men
Married
< 45 years of age
Education
Doctorally qualified
Traditional business degrees
≥ 6 years of teaching experience
Rank
Full professors
Associate professors
Assistant professors
9- to 10-month contract salaries
$40,000–59,999
$60,000–79,999
$80,000–99,999
≥ $100,000
Self-classified job description
Teaching/research
Teaching
Research
Teaching performance
Excellent career teaching ratings
Teaching award recipient
Career research productivity
> 5 refereed journal articles
> 5 nonrefereed articles
≥ 1 book or book supplements
Research award recipient
Service activity
Above-average service providers
%
69.2
68.1
67.4
98.7
99.8
72.2
18.6
27.2
54.2
36.8
54.3
7.2
1.7
92.7
6.1
1.2
69.1
38.2
67.6
39.4
2.6
23.2
87.5
Note. Non-tenured tenure-track faculty members comprised 33.16% of
the respondents. All percentages are rounded, and non-response percentages
are not shown.
and nontenured tenure-track faculty. A mean rating score was
calculated for each of the issues for both groups, these mean
rating responses were compared, and an I computed an F
statistic (p < .05). The statistically significant mean ratings
of tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty were analyzed
and the overall results are presented in Table 3. Variables with
a statistically significant differences between the perception
of tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty are identified
by asterisks.
As noted in Table 3, tenured and nontenured tenure-track
faculty mean ratings differed for only 9 of the 20 tenure
issues. In the previous study, significant differences existed
for 13 of these tenure issues. Once again, the vast majority
of faculty surveyed believed that tenure is necessary for personal faculty security. Furthermore, tenured and nontenured
tenure-track faculty members at AACSB-accredited colleges
were even more adamant in their need for tenure than they
were previously (Premeaux & Mondy, 2002). Tenured and
nontenured tenure-track faculty members now appeared to
agree that traditional tenure is essential and should remain
124
S. R. PREMEAUX
TABLE 3
Summary of Responses Regarding Various Tenure Issues: Tenured Versus Nontenured Tenure-Track Professors
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
Statement regarding tenure
Tenured M (n = 1058) Nontenured M (n = 525) PR > F
Tenure is necessary for personal faculty security.
Necessity and modification of tenure.
Academic freedom cannot be secure without tenure.
Tenure is over applied, meaning too many faculty are tenured at most universities.
Tenure is necessary.
Tenure should be eliminated.
Tenure should be modified.
Tenure should be granted for only 20 years.
Tenure should be granted for only 25 years.
Tenure should be periodically evaluated rather than being a lifetime guarantee.
Teaching
Tenure helps promote teaching excellence.
Tenure hinders teaching excellence.
Teaching is afforded too much importance.
The longer a person has been tenured the less effective he or she will be as a teacher.
Research
Research is afforded too much importance.
Tenure helps promote research excellence.
The longer a person has been tenured the less effective he or she will be as a researcher.
Tenure hinders research excellence.
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.
4.18
4.69a
.0001
3.91
3.10
4.36
1.12
2.71
1.37
1.40
2.71
4.64a
3.12
4.45
1.14
2.93
1.42
1.44
2.91
.0004
.8936
.6314
.2819
.4826
.9527
.5469
.7651
2.98a
2.18
1.32
2.02
2.03
3.21a
1.38
3.59a
.0115
.0268
.7549
.0146
3.14
3.27a
2.26
1.94
4.08a
2.12
3.91a
3.86a
.0162
.0197
.0341
.0243
2.79
2.37
2.19
2.86
2.41
2.21
.6389
.3486
.7984
Note. Responses were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (complete disagreement) to 5 (complete agreement). PR = probability.
difference between means; PR > F value is less than the critical value of .05.
aSignificant
basically unchanged. This is a dramatic shift from the previous investigation where significant differences existed, with
nontenured tenure-track faculty generally agreeing that traditionally applied tenure needed modification. Nontenured
tenure-track faculty believed even more strongly than tenured
faculty that traditionally applied tenure is necessary for personal faculty security.
Necessity and Modification of Tenure
Significant differences exist between the perceptions of
tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty with regard to
the overall necessity and possible modification of tenure for
only one of the eight tenure-related factors, down from five
significant differences in 2001. The nontenured tenure-track
faculty were in much stronger agreement that academic freedom cannot be secure without tenure. In relation to the academic freedom issue, a significant difference exists between
tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty. It may be that
the nontenured tenure-track faculty are more closely scrutinized than tenured faculty, and therefore feel that their academic freedom is threatened. In the previous investigation,
nontenured tenure-track faculty agreed that tenure was overapplied, but presently both groups only moderately agreed
that this is the case. Possibly, nontenured tenure-track faculty
now want tenure to be applied more, so they have a greater
opportunity to earn tenure. In fact, both groups tended to
have similar opinions regarding these tenure issues, which is
a major shift from 2001.
Both groups now agreed, and are more adamant, that
tenure is necessary. To an even greater degree than in 2001,
both groups agreed that (a) “tenure should not be eliminated,”
(b) “tenure should not be granted for only 20 years,” and (c)
“tenure should not be granted for only 25 years.” Apparently,
both groups feel even more strongly now that traditional
tenure is necessary and should be a lifetime guarantee, rather
than subject to periodic review. Even more so than in the previous investigation, both groups embrace traditional tenure,
with nontenured tenure-track faculty perspectives changing
dramatically toward embracing traditional tenure, rather than
modifying it.
Mission Achievement: Tenure’s Impact on
Teaching, Research, and Service
Tenure’s value to its stakeholders can be judged by its
impact on teaching, research, and service. The increased
support for traditional tenure from both groups may result
from faculty members wanting the personal security that
tenure provides. However, the broader question is, does traditionally applied tenure positively impact organizational
performance? According to some, tenure’s value should
be a function of promoting teaching, research, and service
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
TENURED VERSUS NONTENURED TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
excellence (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business [AACSB], 1994). Critics contend that “faculty
members must behave less like independent contractors. ..
and more like owner/managers. .. whose fortunes are tied
to its success or failures (AACSB, p. 2). Hamilton (2007)
countered that “our work as individual professors requires a
high degree of autonomy” (p. 28).
Basically, tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty
presently believe that tenure is necessary and that it should
not be eliminated or modified. In a major shift from 2001,
both groups believed in tenure’s necessity, and even nontenured tenure-track faculty were no longer very flexible in
terms of tenure modification and the need for periodic reviews. Based on these perceptions it may be quite difficult
to modify tenure regardless of its impact on organizational
performance.
Teaching
Tenured faculty moderately agreed that tenure helps promote teaching excellence, but nontenured tenure-track faculty disagreed. Significant differences also exist with regard
to tenure hindering teaching excellence, with tenured faculty
disagreeing and nontenured tenure-track faculty moderately
agreeing. Even more so than in 2001, both groups agreed
that teaching is not afforded too much importance. Finally,
significant differences exist between tenured and nontenured
tenure-track faculty, with tenured faculty disagreeing and
nontenured tenure-track faculty agreeing that the longer a
person is tenured the less effective he or she is as a teacher.
This raises the question as to whether longevity results in
professors with greater teaching expertise, or does it simply
facilitate less effective instruction?
Even more so than in 2001, both groups agreed that
teaching is extremely important, even more important than
research. Possibly, tenure permits less effective teaching
because many universities tenure professors who are only
marginal teachers, but who are somewhat prolific researchers.
Additionally, in numerous studies the correlation between
good teaching and strong research is either nonexistent, or
in a minority of cases, only slightly positive (Felder, 1994).
Possibly, the problem in business schools is granting tenure
more on the basis of research productivity, than on demonstrated teaching excellence. Although both groups agreed
that teaching is not afforded too much importance, they disagreed on the other three teaching-related issues even more
so than in 2001.
125
Basically, at many schools tenure decisions do not consider
research, teaching, and service equally, and often research is
the more important factor. Although the formula most often
mentioned is 40%/40%/20% (research/teaching/service), in
reality it is more like 90%/5%/5% (research/teaching/service;
Worth, 1999).”
Many empirical studies have sought to explore and quantify the relationship between teaching and research. The results have been remarkably consistent and offer evidence that
teaching and research are separate activities, independent of
each other. The relationship is not a negative one, in that
good researchers are not automatically poor teachers, and
good teachers are not automatically poor researchers, but the
relationship is not positive, either.
However, undergraduate and graduate students associate
more benefits than disadvantages with faculty research. Generally, students agreed that knowledge currency, credibility,
competence in supervision, enthusiasm, and motivation are
enhanced by faculty research activity.
Significant differences exist for all four research issues,
with both groups agreeing that research is afforded too
much importance. However, tenured faculty only moderately
agreed, whereas nontenured tenure-track faculty agreed more
strongly. Tenured faculty moderately agreed that tenure helps
promote research excellence, but the nontenured tenure-track
group disagreed. Significant differences also exist regarding tenure’s duration and research effectiveness. Nontenured
tenure-track faculty members agreed that the longer a person
has been tenured, the less effective he or she is as a researcher;
but tenured faculty disagreed. There are indications that factors such as promotion and compensation may be better indicators regarding research productivity than tenure (Lazear,
2001; Neumann, 1979).
Obviously, once tenure is granted the employment security gained reduces the pressure to publish, and therefore,
faculty may be less motivated to do research. Outside of academics, job performance for those with less tenure seems to
be better than for those with more tenure, and that may also
be the case in the academic community (Moser & Galais,
2007). Finally, nontenured tenure-track faculty agreed that
tenure hinders research excellence, but tenured faculty disagreed. Basically, the pressure to publish is much greater
on nontenured tenure-track faculty who are working to earn
tenure (Striver, 2006). Both groups disagreed on the four
research-related issues even more so than in 2001.
Service
Research
Even though the mission at many AACSB-accredited schools
lists the importance of research as second to teaching, in
reality “the present [tenure] system favors those who publish
over those who shine in the classroom. .. and the rewards for
excellence in scholarship are infinitely more plentiful than
the rewards for excellence in teaching” (Worth, 1999, p. 1).
Service is normally the third and least important component
of a business school’s mission. As in 2001, there were no significant perceptual differences regarding any of the service
factors. Basically, both groups somewhat agreed that tenure
helps promote service productivity, disagreed that tenure hinders service productivity, and disagreed that the longer an
individual is tenured the less effective that individual is at
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
126
S. R. PREMEAUX
providing service. Overall, faculty opinions regarding
tenure’s impact on service have changed very little since
2001.
Overall, tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty had
several different perceptions regarding tenure’s impact on
teaching and research. Generally, the level of disagreement
between the groups regarding teaching and research has increased since 2001. However, tenured and nontenured tenuretrack faculty members agreed that academic freedom cannot
be secure without tenure. In fact, support among the nontenured tenure-track faculty for an overhaul of traditional
tenure has fallen rather dramatically since 2001. At present,
there is much less support for tenure modification and periodic reviews than in 2001, despite the perceptions by many
nontenured tenure-track faculty that tenure negatively impacts teaching and research.
Summary and Implications
Although neither group wanted to eliminate tenure in 2001,
a major shift occurred in the attitudes of nontenured tenuretrack faculty regarding the appropriateness of traditional
tenure. At present, tenured and nontenured tenure-track faculty want to perpetuate many aspects of traditional tenure. In
the previous investigation, nontenured tenure-track faculty
were much more in favor of changing traditionally applied
tenure. Despite the present acknowledgement by nontenured
tenure-track faculty that tenure is problematic, as it relates to
teaching and research, they now view traditional tenure much
more positively. Possibly this is the result of the changing dynamics of universities’ faculties with the move toward more
part-time and non-tenure-track hiring (Budd, 2006). Nontenured faculty may view the present hiring climate as antitenure, and therefore want to attain traditional tenure before
the hostility increases.
Even though a few schools are trying to assist faculty in
securing tenure, the process is not similar to earning traditional tenure. Yale University now has a mentoring process
to help guide faculty toward a tenure track, but the tenure
process can begin as late as the eighth year of employment
(Millman, 2007). Princeton University is trying to assist parents, and particularly women, in attaining tenure by allowing
extra time based on the number of children they have (Bhattacharjee, 2005). However, this approach, similar to the Yale
process, actually adds more time to the tenure process rather
than making it more expedient.
Nontenured tenure-track faculty tended to agree that traditionally applied tenure can be detrimental to teaching and
research, but both groups perceived tenure’s protection as
extremely desirable. Advocates have stated that protecting
faculty with tenure is more important than getting rid of
poor performing faculty. Tenure protects ideas and prevents
narrow-minded administrators from keeping only those faculty members who think similar to how they do. But even
advocates of tenure tend to agree that there is a need for a
better evaluation process of faculty at the probationary level.
If tenure means lifetime employment, then make sure that
the right people are tenured (Moore, 2008).
Tenure has been described as a nerve-racking five years,
but with that nerve-racking experience comes the reward of
lifetime employment security that faculty desperately want
(Striver, 2006). Because of the desire for personal security it
appears that neither group will support even a minor overhaul of tenure. Subsequently, even incremental steps to modify tenure may be quite difficult. Apparently, many faculty
members, tenured and nontenured tenure track, believe that
their personal security is threatened by tenure changes.
Most schools offer tenure, and not doing so would create
a significant recruiting disadvantage; evidently most faculty
desire traditionally applied tenure. Even though nontenured
tenure-track faculty still view tenure as negatively impacting
teaching and research, they, just as the tenured faculty do,
now embrace traditional tenure. Basically, changes in tenure
will be difficult to enact because the majority of both groups
now agree that traditional tenure is necessary. Overall, much
less faculty support now exists for modifying tenure than in
2001.
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (1994). Volume is
turning up on tenure question. AACSB Newsline, 24(Winter), 1–6.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2005). Membership directory. Tampa, FL: Author.
Bhattacharjee, Y. (2005). Princeton resets family-friendly tenure clock. Science, 309, 308–310.
Buck, J. L. (2006). Why ask if tenure is necessary? Behavioral & Brain
Sciences, 29, 570.
Budd, J. M. (2006). Faculty publishing productivity: Comparisons over time.
College & Research Libraries, 67, 230–239.
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Mueller-Johnson, K. (2006). Is tenure justified? An experimental study of faculty beliefs about tenure, promotion,
and academic freedom. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 29, 553–569.
Chen, Y., Gupta, A., & Hoshower, L. (2006). Factors that motivate business
faculty to conduct research: An expectancy theory analysis. Journal of
Education for Business, 81, 179–189.
Defleur, M. L. (2007). What is tenure and how do I get it? Communication
Education, 56, 106–112.
Editorial Board. (2008, April 11). Professor tenure worth the cost. The Daily
Cardinal, p. 3.
Felder, R. M. (1994). The myth of the superhuman professor. Journal of
Engineering Education 82, 105–110.
Finkin, M. W. (1996, December 3). Scrapping tenure would raise costs. USA
Today, 14.
Fogg, P. (2005). The state of tenure. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51,
A15–A16.
Hamilton, N. W. (2007). Faculty autonomy and obligation. Academe, 93,
36–42.
Hughey, A. (2009, March 17). Tenure secures academic freedom. CourierJournal, p. 17.
Isfahani, N. (1998). SPALR Student Paper: The Debate over Tenure. Review
of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 80–86.
Lataif, L. E. (1998). Lifetime tenure: A working alternative. Selections, 15,
1–6.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 21:58 11 January 2016
TENURED VERSUS NONTENURED TENURE-TRACK FACULTY
Lazear, E. P. (2001). The Peter Principle: Promotions and declining productivity. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No.
w8094.
Lederman, D. (2006, April 6). Blame it on the faculty. Inside Higher Ed.
Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/06/costs
MacLeod, W. B. (2006). Tenure is justifiable. Behavioral & Brain Sciences,
29, 581–583.
Margolin, J. B. (2007). Battle against tenure is ill-informed, perpetual. Education Week, 26, 34.
McGinn, D., & Blake, H. (2000, November 13). A Ph.D. hits the road.
Newsweek, 70.
Millman, S. (2007). Yale to overhaul tenure process. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 53, A14.
Moore, M. (2008, September 11). Teacher tenure protects ideas. Savannah Morning News. Received from http://savannahnow.com/michaelmoore/2008–09–11/moore-teacher-tenure-protects-ideas
Moser, K., & Galais, N. (2007). Self-monitoring and job performance: The
moderating role of tenure. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 15, 83–93.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Staff in postsecondary institutions, fall 2001, and salaries of full-time instructional staff, 2001–2002.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
127
Neumann, Y. (1979). Research productivity of tenured and non-tenured
faculty in U.S. universities: A comparative study of four fields and
policy implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 17, 92–
101.
Pearce, J. A. (1999). Faculty survey on business education reform. The
Academy of Management Executive, 13, 105–109.
Perley, J. E. (1998). Reflections on tenure. Sociological Perspectives, 41,
723–729.
Premeaux, S. R., & Mondy, R. W. (2002). Tenure: Tenured and non-tenured
tenure-track faculty perspectives. Journal of Education for Business, 77,
335–339.
Ryman, A. (2008, June 29). Universities cutting back on tenure or teachers.
The Arizona Public, p. 2.
Smith, Z. (2000, June 21). Study cites drop in tenured faculty. University
Wire, p. 1.
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, W16.
Striver, J. (2006). I’ll bring the salad. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52,
C3.
Worth, R. (1999, May). The velvet prison. Washington Monthly, 31(5),
1.