Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 1988-08
Faculty Evaluation Perspectives in Colleges of Business: How Marketing Department Heads' Evaluations Differ from those of Department Heads in other Business Disciplines
Simulated evaluations of business professors for the purposes of merit pay increases are analyzed using conjoint analysis. Results from a national sample of department heads at AACSB accredited colleges show that significant interdisciplinary differences in evaluation perspectives exist within business colleges. A continuum exists between the academic perspective of marketing department heads and the professional perspective of accounting department heads.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arreola, Raoul A. (1979), "Strategy for Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System,"Engineering Education (December), 239-244.
2.
Behrman, Jack N. and Richard L. Levin (1984), "Are Business Schools Doing Their Jobs?"Harvard Business Review, 62 (January-February), 140-147.
3.
Bohrer, Paul and Robert Dolphin, Jr. (1985), "Expectations and Support for Scholarly Activities in Schools of Business,"Journal of Education for Business (December), 101-105.
4.
Brooks, David W. (1980), "Faculty Evaluation by Formula,"Journal of Chemical Education, 57 (April), 295-296.
5.
Centra, J. A. (1979), Determining Faculty Effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Cheit, Earl F. (1985), "Business Schools and Their Critics,"California Management Review, 57 (Spring), 43-62.
7.
Gordon, Paul J. (1986), "What Do Professors Do?"Business Horizons (May-June), 38-43.
8.
Gunn, Bruce (1982), "Evaluating Faculty Performance: A Holistic Approach,"Journal of the College and University Personnel Association, 34 (Winter), 23-30.
9.
Lincoln, Yvonne S. (1983), "The Structure of Promotion and Tenure Decisions in Institutions of Higher Education: A Policy Analysis,"The Review of Higher Education, 6 (Spring), 217-231.
10.
Madoch, T. A. (1976), "A Study to Determine the Criteria and Methods Used by Business Departments or Divisions of Midwestern Colleges and Universities in Evaluating Faculty for Raises, Promotions, and Tenure,"Business Education Forum, 31, 51-52.
11.
McCullough, C. D. , B. E. Wooten, and J. A. Ryan (1981), "Research and Publication Programs in Collegiate Schools of Business: A Faculty Development Approach,"Journal of Business Education (November), 44-49.
12.
Roskens, Ronald W. (1983), "Implications of Biglan Model Research for the Process of Faculty Advancement,"Research in Higher Education, 18, 285-297.
13.
Saaty, Thomas L. and Vasudevan Ramanujam (1983), "An Objective Approach to Faculty Promotion and Tenure by the Analytical Hierarchy Process,"Research in Higher Education, 18, 311-331.
14.
Seldin, P. (1975), Successful Faculty Evaluation Programs: A Practical Guide to Improve Faculty Performance and Promotion/Tenure Decisions, Crugers, NY: Coventry Press.
15.
Seldin, P. (1984), Changing Practices in Faculty Evaluation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Smart, John C. and Gerald W. McLaughlin (1978), "Reward Structure of Academic Disciplines,"Research in Higher Education, 8, 39-55.
17.
Tuckman, Howard P. and Robert P. Hagemann (1976), "An Analysis of the Reward Structure in Two Disciplines,"Journal of Higher Education, vol. XLVII (July/August), 447-464.
18.
Whitman, N. and E. Weiss (1982), Faculty Evaluation: The Use of Explicit Criteria for Pomotion, Retention and Tenure, AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report, No. 2.
