A discriminant analytic test of Biglan's theoretical distinction between biology and English department chairpersons

Hayward, Patricia C.

doi:10.1007/bf00991487

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research has shown that academic discipline affects views toward some of the issues discussed in this study, including faculty teaching loads, salaries, commitment to the institution, and teaching role performance (Braxton & Hargens, 1996;Hayward, 1986;Lodahl & Gordon, 1973). Previous research has shown that academic discipline affects views toward some of the issues discussed in this study, including faculty teaching loads, salaries, commitment to the institution, and teaching role performance (Braxton & Hargens, 1996;Hayward, 1986;Lodahl & Gordon, 1973).…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Faculty and Administrators' Attitudes toward Potential Conflicts of Interest, Commitment, and Equity in University-Industry Relationships

Campbell¹,

Slaughter²

1999

The Journal of Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Ohio State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Higher Education.In the 1940s the federal government began awarding grants and contracts for significant amounts of money to academic researchers who pursued paths of national as well as scholarly interest (Smith, 1990). During the post-World War II years, the conduct of research through federal sponsorship became a source of prestige and autonomy within the academic profession. In the mid-1970s the federal share of academic research funding began to decrease, and faculty and administrators began to look for other sources of funding. At the same time, business leaders voiced concern that governmental regulations, restrictions, and processes were impending their ability to compete in the global marketplace. In the 1980s the U.S. government responded by encouraging increased cooperation between universities and firms, allowing universities to hold patents on federally sponsored research and financing research projects in which universities and firms were both active participants . Although the academic and industrial sectors had worked together on a limited basis before 1980, over the past fifteen years, collaborative relationships have intensified, and increasing numbers of academics are seeking ways to position themselves close to the commercial marketplace. . Those in favor of increased interaction suggest that, for the most part, faculty and adminis-trators1 approach industry-sponsored research as professionals who strive to maintain Mertonian norms such as rationality, impartiality, and objectivity rather than allow themselves to be influenced by the potential financial gains that might arise from their research. Their discussions focus on the benefits that arise out of university-industry relationships and suggest that most adverse impacts on institutions are anomalous and readily remedied (Bok, 1982;Geisler & Rubenstein, 1989;Peters & Fusfeld, 1982). Those more skeptical of this movement toward the market warn that the potential to generate revenue at personal and institutional levels has had a multifaceted, not always positive, impact on academe. For example, administrators are increasingly treating faculty in the same manner that industrial managers treat their employees and, as a result, faculty are losing ownership of their discoveries and autonomy over their professional lives (Dickson. Although faculty involvement in collaborative activity is encouraged by federal sponsors and university leaders (Campbell, 1995(Campbell, , 1997, thus far there is neither a large body of university policy nor professional customs and norms that guide and shape entrepreneuria...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Faculty and Administrators' Attitudes toward Potential Conflicts of Interest, Commitment, and Equity in University-Industry Relationships

Campbell¹,

Slaughter²

1999

The Journal of Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies reveal interesting findings on a university level. Hayward (1986) notes that the highest degree offered in the department and the size of the department are more important to chairs perceptions of their levels of influence than is the academic discipline. Vavrus et al (1988) found that 84% of chairs perceived as effective by their chief academic officers and faculty developers had prior administrative experience they felt prepared them for the job (e.g., serving as an assistant chair, coordinating graduate or honors programs, directing a curriculum unit, etc.).…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 97%

University department chairs' use of compliance‐gaining strategies

Roach

1991

Communication Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…43 Accordingly, chairs in high-consensus departments feel they have significant influence over faculty member teaching loads, procurement of funding, and faculty member promotion decisions, while chairs in low-consensus disciplines feel they exert influence on institution-level policy and faculty member recruitment. 44 Given these findings, it is not surprising that chairs in high-consensus disciplines feel they need training in assessing relationships and personal communication, while low-consensus chairs feel they are in greater need of training that focuses on soliciting funding and curricular development. 1,45 Berelson found that scholars in high-consensus disciplines rate the overall "health" of their discipline more positively than scholars in low-consensus fields, and are more satisfied with their graduate-student training.…”

Section: Effects Of Consensus On Faculty Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%