Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to obtain and analyze data about teaching and research in textiles and clothing programs and to complete the first steps in a benchmarking process. TAPPI data from Doctoral/Research I and II institutions were analyzed using frontier analysis. The input variable in assessing productivity was textiles and clothing faculty full-time equivalents (FTE); the output variables were teaching (weighted enrolled students) and research (scientific, refereed journal articles published). Units can use productivity data in two ways: should the unit’s efforts address maximizing the outputs given a certain level of inputs; or should the unit’s efforts be directed to minimizing inputs given a certain level of outputs?

Keywords

productivity analysis benchmarking strategic planning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alstete, J. W. (1995). Benchmarking in higher education: Adapting best practices to improve quality. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. Josey-Bass. No. 5, pp. 1-112.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys the total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Doyle, J. R. , & Green, R. H. (1995, October 31). Near-frontier analysis. Paper presented at INFORMS (Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences), New Orleans, LA.

Fall 1999 enrollment in family and consumer sciences (2000). Food and Agricultural Education Information System (FAEIS). Retrieved April 21, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://faeis.tamu.edu

Firstenberg, P. B. (1991). Private education competes for survival. Management Review, 80, 33-35.

Laughlin, J. , & Kean, R. C. (1995). Assessment of textiles and clothing academic programs in the United States. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13(3), 184-199.

Laughlin, J. , & Kean, R. C. (1996). Assessment of textiles and clothing academic programs in the United States: Part II unit characteristics and faculty. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 14(2), 145-160.

Laughlin, J. , & Kean, R. C. (2001). Unit administrators’ perceived importance of faculty outcomes and potential effects on productivity. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20(2), pp. 86-98.

Lombardi, J. V. , Craig, D. D. , Capaldi, E. D. , & Gater, D. S. (2000). The top American research universities. Gainesville, FL: The Center. Retrieved July 29, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://thecenter.ufl.edu/research2000.html

10.

McCormick, A. C. (2000a). Bringing the Carnegie classification into the 21st century. AAHE Bulletin, 52(5), 3-6.

11.

McCormick, A. C. (2000b). Carnegie Classification 2000: Background and plans. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Retrieved July 23, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://carnegiefoundation.org/OurWork/Classification/cc2000.htm

12.

Rankings caution and controversy (2000, February 23). Urbana, IL: Education and Social Sciences Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved August 1, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rankoversey.htm

13.

Zheng, H. Y. , & Stewart, A. A. (2000, May 21-24). Assessing the effectiveness of public research universities. Paper presented at The Annual Research Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH.

Bench Marking for Strategic Planning Based on Faculty Productivity

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References