The promotion and tenure policies and practices of marketing departments in particular are explored. The balance among the evaluative areas of performance (teaching, research, and service) are assessed, together with the perceived importance of the various components of each area. The results are discussed in terms of trends in today's educational system.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Business Week (1984), "Academia is Taking a Lesson From Business" (August 27), 58-60.
2.
Cornwell, R. C. (1984), "The Evaluation of Faculty Performance,"Collegiate News and Views (Fall-Winter), 9-11, 13.
3.
Friedrich, R. J. and S. J. Michalak, Jr. (1983), "Why Doesn't Research Improve Teaching?"Journal of Higher Education, 54, 145-146.
4.
Eckard, P. J. (1980), "Faculty Evaluation: The Basis for Rewards in Higher Education,"Peabody Journal of Education (January), 94-100.
5.
Lusch, R. F. and G. R. Laczniak (1976), "The Marketing Educator: A Research Productivity Profile,"Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Educators' Conference, 106-110.
6.
Mason, J. B. (1977), "Faculty Evaluation: The Chairman's Viewpoint or By their Fruits Ye Shall Know them,"Proceedings of the Southern Marketing Association, 211-212.
7.
Mason, J. B. and J. T. Sims (1982), "Tenure Is a Million Dollar Decision over 25 to 30 Years,"Marketing Educator, 1 (Fall), 3.
8.
Saaty, T. L. and V. Ramanujam (1983), "An Objective Approach to Faculty Promotion and Tenure by the Analytic Hierarchy Process,"Research in Higher Education, 18 (March), 311-331.
