This study examined the perceptions of innovative teaching activities and critical support and extrinsic reward mechanisms among marketing academicians. A review of the marketing education literature and exploratory research yielded 21 specific types of educational innovation, 4 types of support for innovation, and 2 types of extrinsic rewards for innovation. Analysis of data collected from an Internet questionnaire indicated that the specific forms of innovation can be adequately described by six dimensions. Faculty adoption of innovation is positively associated with both support and extrinsic rewards. A comparison of the perceived and desired levels of credit for the six dimensions of innovation show incongruence between the levels of support and reward faculty see as desirable and those provided by their respective institutions. More specifically, faculty perceive the reward and support systems to be lacking. A discussion of the key research findings and some suggested directions for future research are provided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adey, Philip . 1997. Factors influencing uptake of a large scale curriculum innovation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, Chicago.
2.
Amabile, Teresa M.1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology45 (2): 357-376.
3.
Baxter, E. Paul . 1990a. Comparing conventional and resource based education in chemical engineering: Student perceptions of a teaching innovation. Higher Education19 (3): 323-340.
4.
Baxter, E. Paul . 1990b. Resource-based education in chemical engineering: The history and impact of a radical teaching innovation. Studies in Higher Education15 (2): 223-240.
5.
Bearden, William O. , Pam Scholder Ellen, and Richard G. Netemeyer. 2000. Challenges and prospects facing doctoral education in marketing. Marketing Education Review10 (1): 1-14.
6.
Bilimoria, Diana . 1999. Assessment and development of teaching contributions. Journal of Management Education23 (February): 8-12.
7.
Browne, W. G. , and B. W. Becker. 1979. Perceived quality of marketing journals. Journal of Marketing Education1 (November): 6-15.
8.
Browne, W. G.1985. Perceptions of marketing journals: Awareness and quality evaluations. In 1985 AMA Educators’Proceedings, edited by R. F. Lusch, 149-154. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
9.
Browne, W. G.1991. A longitudinal study of marketing journal familiarity and quality. In 1991 AMA Educators’ Proceedings: Enhancing knowledge development in marketing, edited by M. C. Gilley, 702-710. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
10.
Capozza, Koren L.1999. Education innovation: Indian alternative schools on the rise. American Indian Report15 (7): 24-25.
11.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 1994. Definition of categories [Online]. Available: http://www.carnegiefoundation.org
12.
Claudet, Joseph G.1999. An interpretive analysis of educator change processes in response to a program innovation: Implications for personnel evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education13 (1): 47-69.
13.
Crawford, Robert P.1978. The techniques of creative thinking. In Training creative thinking, edited Gary A. Davis and Joseph A. Scott, 53-57. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger.
14.
Cunningham, Christine M.1998. The effect of teachers’sociological understanding of sciences (SUS) on curricular innovation. Research in Science Education28 (2): 243-257.
15.
Dean, Carol D. , Michele Acker-Hocevar, and Julie C. Laible. 1997. A systematic approach to creating and implementing curricular innovation. Paper presented at the University Council for Education Administration, November, Orlando, FL.
16.
Ebert-May, Dianne , Carol Brewer, and Sylvester Allred. 1997. Innovation in large lectures: Teaching for active learning. Bio Science47 (9): 601-607.
17.
Fry, H. F. , C. G. Walters, and L. E. Scheuermann. 1985. Perceived quality of fifty selected journals: Academicians and practitioners. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science13 (2): 352-361.
18.
Ghaith, G. , and H. Yaghi. 1997. Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education13 (4): 451-458.
19.
Graue, M. Elizabeth , and Stephanie Z. Smith. 1996. Shaping assessment through instructional innovation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior15 (2): 113-136.
20.
Green, Paul , Donald S. Tull, and Gerald Albaum. 1988. Research for marketing decisions. 5th ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21.
Grisham, Dana L. 1997. Literacy partners: Teacher innovation in a study/research group. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, Chicago.
22.
Hall, Gene E. , and Susan F. Loucks. 1981. The concept of innovation configurations: An approach to addressing program adaptation: Research on concerns-based adoption. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Los Angeles.
23.
Hamilton, Diane , Dan McFarland, and Dilip Mirchandani. 2000. A decision model for integration across the business curriculum in the 21st century. Journal of Management Education24 (February): 102-126.
24.
Hannan, Andrew , Susan English, and Harold Silver. 1999. Why innovate? Some preliminary findings from a research project on innovations in teaching and learning in higher education. Studies in Higher Education24 (October): 279-289.
25.
Hasselback, J. R.1999. The 1998-1999 Prentice Hall guide to marketing faculty. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
26.
Hershey, Gerald L. , Vidyaranya B. Gargeya, and John Eatman. 1996. Are business doctoral graduates prepared to teach?Selections: The Magazine of the Graduate Management Admissions Council13 (1): 17-26.
27.
Hodgkinson, Myra . 1998. The introduction of innovation in teaching and learning within business, management and accounting: A case study. Quality Assurance in Education6 (1): 37-43.
28.
Hommes, Jeannett A. 1997. Management of instructional innovation: The case of problem-based education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, Chicago.
29.
Hult, G.T.M. , W. T. Neese, and R. E. Bashaw. 1997. Faculty perceptions of marketing journals. Journal of Marketing Education19 (1): 37-52.
30.
Koojaroenprasit, N. , A. Weinstein, W. C. Johnson, and D. O. Remington. 1998. Marketing journal rankings revisited: Research findings and academic implications. Marketing Education Review8 (1): 95-102.
31.
Lazerson, Marvin , Ursula Wagener, and Nichole Shumanis. 2000. Teaching and learning in higher education, 1980-2000. Change32 (May/June): 12-19.
32.
Lueddeke, George R.1999. Toward a constructivist framework for guiding change and innovation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education70 (May/June): 235-260.
33.
Luke, R. H. , and E. R. Doke. 1987. Marketing journal hierarchies: Faculty perceptions, 1986-1987. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science15 (1): 74-78.
34.
Mac an Ghaill, Mairtin . 1992. Student perspectives on curriculum innovation and change in an English secondary school: An empirical study. British Educational Research Journal18 (3): 221-234.
35.
McBane, D. A. 1999. AACSB: Accredited colleges of business and marketing departments online [Online]. Available: http://mkt.cba.cmich.edu/aacsbmkt
36.
McKinnon, David H. , Kenneth E. Sinclair, and Patrick C. J. Nolan. 1997. Curriculum innovation involving subject integration, file-based learning environments and information technology: A longitudinal case study of student attitudes, motivation, and performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, Chicago.
37.
Olson, John . 1989. Surviving innovation: Reflection on the pitfalls of practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies21 (November/December): 503-508.
38.
Philips, Herbert E. 1981. Innovation: What it is, how to get it. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Florida Association of Community Colleges, November, St. Petersburg, FL.
39.
Pierce, B. , and G. Garven. 1995. Publishing international business research: A survey of leading journals. Journal of International Business Studies26 (1): 69-89.
40.
Polite, Mary M.1994. Team negotiation and decision-making: Linking leadership to curriculum and instructional innovation. Research in Middle Level Education18 (1): 65-81.
41.
Rivers, L. Mark , and Jack Dart. 1999. The acquisition and use of sales force automation by mid-sized manufacturers. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management19 (2): 59-73.
42.
Shue, Laura , and Celeste LaCroix. 1998. Teaching the old system new tricks: Organizational member’s use of metaphor to make sense of pedagogical innovation. Paper presented at the 84th annual meeting of the National Communication Association, November, New York.
43.
Simpson, Grant W.1990. Keeping it alive: Elements of school culture that sustain innovation. Educational Leadership47 (8): 34-37.
44.
Singh, Jagdip . 2000. Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service organizations. Journal of Marketing64 (2): 15-34.
45.
Smart, Denis T. , Craig K. Kelley, and Jeffrey S. Conant. 1999. Marketing education in the year 2000: Changes observed and challenges anticipated. Journal of Marketing Education21 (December): 206-216.
46.
Sparkes, Andrew C.1990. Power, domination, and resistance in the process of teacher-initiated innovation. Research Papers in Education5 (2): 153-179.
47.
Straughan, Robert D. , and Nancy D. Albers-Miller. 2000. Marketing education research: Rewards and recognition for our own profession?Journal of Marketing Management16:793-812.
48.
Vermeulen, Ard , Monique Volman, and Jan Terwel. 1996. Success factors in curriculum innovation: The case of mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology in secondary education in the Netherlands. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April. ERIC ED 394851.
49.
Weeks, William A. , and Jacques Nantel. 1992. Corporate codes of ethics and sales force behavior: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics11 (10): 753-760.
50.
Williams, Susan E. 1993. Effect of teacher involvement in implementation of an innovation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Atlanta, GA.
51.
Wright, W. Alan , Peter T. Knight, and Natalie Pomerleau. 1999. Portfolio people: Teaching and learning dossiers and innovation in higher education. Innovative Higher Education24 (2): 89-103.
