Perceptions of tenure requirements and research records of entrepreneurship faculty earning tenure: 1964-2002.

Finkle, Todd A. ; Stetz, Phil ; Mallin, Michael L. 等

ABSTRACT

This article explores the research records and perceptions of tenure requirements of 108 faculty members who taught entrepreneurship and earned tenure between 1964 and 2002. The sample was broken down based on the primary focus of the school (research versus teaching) and time frame, 1964-1988 versus 1989-2002. Significant differences were found between faculty members' perception of the College's stated requirements for teaching, research, and service compared to the faculty member's own perceived requirements for teaching, research, and service. Furthermore, research schools were found to have a significantly larger amount of A, B, and C refereed journal publications, books authored, and chapters in books. Finally, the findings indicate that 60% of successful tenure candidates at research schools had a least one publication in a top management journal, compared to only 13% at teaching schools. The findings of this study provide a benchmark for faculty and schools when candidates go up for tenure.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this article is to examine the perceptions of tenure requirements (research, teaching, and service) and the research records of faculty in the field of entrepreneurship. We examine this at a critical time for the field because (Aldrich,1992; Aldrich, 2000; Aldrich & Baker, 1997; Busenitz, West, Shepherd, Nelson, Chandler, & Zacharachis, 2003; Chandler & Lyon, 2001; Wortman,1987) have all argued that the field of entrepreneurship is still relatively young compared to other academic fields. As a result, the field has been criticized time and time again for its lack of legitimacy and theory within the broader field of management (Busenitz et. al, 2003; Finkle & Deeds, 2001; Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2003; Meyer 2001).

The field of management has a substantial history; however the field of entrepreneurship is relatively new. For example, the Journal of Small Business Management was founded as the first academic journal dedicated to the publication of research on small business and entrepreneurship in 1963. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice was founded in 1975 and the Journal of Business Venturing was founded in 1985 (Finkle & Deeds 2001). This liability of newness (Stinchcombe, 1965) has inhibited the field because faculty members have had a hard time justifying the quality of their research in entrepreneurship journals. Thus, more research in the field is needed to further understand this phenomenon.

To address this issue, this study explores three research questions related to faculty who have taught entrepreneurship at the time of their tenure application. These questions are: (1 a) Is there a difference between faculty members' perception of the College's stated requirements for teaching, research, and service compared to the faculty member's own perceived requirements for teaching, research, and service? (lb) Are these differences the same for schools with a research focus (i.e., research schools) versus schools focused on teaching (i.e., teaching schools)? (2) What types of research did faculty who taught entrepreneurship have at the time that they applied for tenure? (3) Can faculty who taught entrepreneurship earn tenure by publishing in entrepreneurship journals alone or do they have to publish in a top management journal?

This is a groundbreaking study for the field of entrepreneurship because sparse research exists on the requirements for faculty who teach entrepreneurship at the time that they go up for tenure. The information in this study will enable junior faculty members to benchmark their records against other faculty that have earned tenure at similar universities. The findings will also assist administrators in their tenure decisions by enabling them to compare the research records of similar successful tenure candidates throughout the U. S. To fully understand the scope of this study, a brief explanation of tenure is warranted.

BACKGROUND

Tenure

According to the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, "Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) freedom of teaching and research and of external activities, and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability." While tenure had its origins in this statement, more recently it has come to mean a long-term academic and financial commitment by a university to an individual, providing faculty with unusually secure positions tantamount to life contracts (Beitzell v. Jeffrey, 1981: 875). In order to achieve tenure in the United States, a candidate must prove their value to the university during a probationary period, generally not to exceed six years, with a seventh year representing a terminal appointment or the initiation of tenure. Tenure is achieved when a group of tenured professors and administrators approve a candidate's record on three stated dimensions: scholarship, teaching, and service.

Tenure provides the university with individuals who have "proven themselves" in the realms of research, teaching, and service, with the expectation of approximately the same quality (if not the amount) of output post tenure. The university's decision to tenure someone is akin to a make or buy decision in that the tenured faculty member remains a permanent asset to the institution. This lays the foundation for the importance of studying the research records of faculty who teach entrepreneurship at the time when they go up for tenure.

Research and Tenure Decisions

A few studies have focused on the relationship between tenure and research in a variety of fields. For example, Cargile & Bublitz (1986) found that research was the most important factor in determining tenure and promotion decisions in the field of Accounting. The work of Park & Gordon (1996) confirms this emphasis on research. They examined tenure decisions in the field of Strategic Management and found a positive significant relationship between the number of publications and confirmatory tenure decisions. Furthermore, Rosenfeld & Jones (1987) found a positive relationship between the number of publications and academic rank six years after they earned their doctorate in the field of Psychology.

Others have investigated the linkage between publication success and academic achievement. For example, Federland & Counts (1982) found that most faculty were concerned with the evaluation process for tenure and promotion where so much emphasis was placed on research. Thus, to help better understand these factors involved in tenure decisions, Mesak & Jauch (1991) developed a model for tenure-track faculty based on teaching, research, and service related to performance evaluation (e.g., merit pay, tenure and promotion decisions). Despite these previous studies, little or no extant research exists on faculty members' perceptions of tenure requirements and research records of faculty who teach entrepreneurship at the time of their tenure application. The following describes the methodology used to answer our research questions.

METHOD

Sample

In order to answer our research questions we obtained a list of all members of the Academy of Management's Entrepreneurship Division and the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE) databases during the summer of 2002. This initial list accounted for 1100 faculty members. Approximately 700 members were dropped from the list because they were identified as either faculty who did not teach entrepreneurship, international faculty that never went up for tenure at a U.S. school, faculty that never went up for tenure or were non-tenure track faculty. A survey questionnaire was developed and pre-tested with 10 senior faculty members who teach primarily in the field of entrepreneurship and had been through the tenure process. A number of revisions were made to the original survey based on comments and suggestions from the pre-test. The survey was then sent to all members of the reduced sampling frame via e-mail. The final number of useable responses received from entrepreneurship professors who had earned tenure from a U.S. college or university was 108 (27% response rate). Nine faculty members indicated that they were denied tenure. Twelve of the 108 successful tenure candidates stated that they did not go up for tenure at their first school, but their second.

To investigate the possibility of non-response bias we used the methodology of Armstrong & Overton (1977) to test for differences among the variables between early and late responders. To do this, we used a median split to divide the sample into observations received during the first 22 days of the study (early responders) and thereafter (late responders). An analysis of variance among the variables in our study, showed no differences with a significance level below (p =. 156). Given these findings, we determined that bias due to non-response did not affect our results.

A breakdown of the demographic characteristics of these 108 respondents is illustrated in Table 1. In order to understand the differences between faculty, the observations were categorized by the research focus of the school and the year in which tenure was granted. To do this, the entire sample was divided into two groups: "52 faculty from research schools" and "56 faculty from teaching schools". Research schools are those schools that had a doctoral program in business as reported in The Gourman Report (1997). While essentially subjective, The Gourman Report rankings are based on multiple sources of data including 'qualifications and professional productivity of the faculty, quality of instruction, faculty research, curriculum, placement of graduates and library resources' (Gourman, 1993: 15). While we do not use rankings in our study, we code doctoral versus non-doctoral institutions. The Gourman Report rankings of graduate programs has been used as the basis for graduate school rankings in 38 other studies, which have appeared in journals such as The Academy of Management Journal, The Journal of Finance, and Organization Science (Science Citation Index, 1999).

The sample was further broken down by time period in which the faculty member was tenured. This was done in order to understand more recent trends in tenure decisions for faculty who teach entrepreneurship. Thirty-five observations were analyzed during the era of 1964-1988 and 73 during 1989-2002. This breakpoint, although arbitrary, seemed logical based on the distribution of tenured faculty by year (see Figure 1).

Survey Instrument

A copy of the questions used in the survey can be seen in the Appendix. The survey consisted of questions measuring respondents' backgrounds, perceptions related to expectations of research, teaching, and service in order to earn tenure. The survey also includes questions on research, grants, teaching, and demographics. The respondent demographics are outlined in Table 1 (age, businesses started, percentage of entrepreneurship classes taught, gender, and race).

Instrument validity was addressed through question 14 of the survey. The results (Table 3) suggest that 41% of the respondents from the time frame 1989-2002 (the primary focus of the study) indicated that entrepreneurship was their primary teaching area. To validate this notion, we examined previous research by Finkle & Deeds (2001) and Finkle (2005), which found, on average, the percentage of entrepreneurship positions that were advertised from 1989 through 2002 was 41.7%. We define primary teaching area as the largest percentage of classes that an applicant taught in an area during an academic year. For example, an applicant who teaches three entrepreneurship classes and one policy class during the year would be classified as teaching entrepreneurship as their primary area.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

To establish the type of school (teaching or research), whether tenure was granted, and the timeframe, several background questions were assessed. If the respondent received tenure, the name of the school was matched up to those appearing in The Gourman Report (1997). Schools with or without doctoral programs in business were dummy coded as either 1 or 0 respectively. The survey responses were based on the first time a faculty member earned tenure. The year in which tenure was granted was used to split the sample into the eras 1964-1988 and 1989-2002. To determine the applicant's primary area of teaching at the time of tenure application, we asked the faculty member to indicate his/her primary teaching area by checking one or more of the teaching area options provided (see question 15).

We answered two questions to address our first research question, "Is there a difference between the faculty members' perceptions of tenure requirements versus the faculty members' perceptions of the college's tenure requirements?" and "Are these differences the same for schools with a research focus (i.e., research schools) versus schools focused on teaching (i.e., teaching schools)?" The first question asked what are faculty members' perception of the College's stated tenure requirements for teaching, research, and service (see question 7). Question 8 asked the faculty member to indicate his/her own perceptions of this same breakdown. The responses were then coded as interval data measures (e.g., 20%, 40%, 50%, etc.) so that perceptual differences between faculty and administrator requirements could be compared.

To answer research question 2, "What types of research did faculty who taught entrepreneurship have at the time that they applied for tenure? We asked a series of questions relative to research, books, and grant writing activity (see questions 10-13). The quantity of refereed journal publications, books authored, books edited, book chapters written, professional monographs, national/international proceedings, and grants were all measured and coded as metric data (1, 5, 10, etc.). The quantity of refereed journal publications was further broken down by level (A, B, C, etc.) as perceived by the respondent. If the respondent was unable to rate a journal publication, then it was coded as "no level reported". To fully capture the value of grant writing activity, it was also measured and reported in dollars and length (in years). Results of all these research activity variables were reported and compared relative to faculty members' classification of research versus teaching school.

Research question 3 asked, "Can faculty who taught entrepreneurship earn tenure by publishing in entrepreneurship journals alone or do they have to publish in a top management journal?" To answer this question we defined top management journals according to Fried's (2003) study. Fried (2003) updated MacMillan's (1993) study through a three-stage process of leading entrepreneurship researchers. This approach, using experts, has been found to be consistent with alternative, more quantitative approaches (MacMillan, 1993). Fried's article developed a system, which classified journals into four categories: Outstanding, Significant, Appropriate, and Not Appropriate. In our study we define the top ranked management journals as the ones in the outstanding category, excluding the Journal of Business Venturing because our research question examines management journals. For Fried's list see Table 2. The top management journals (classified as A-level publications) are Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Organization Science, and Management Science. We excluded all entrepreneurship journals in looking at this because we wanted to determine if it was possible to earn tenure without publishing in a top management journal.

We obtained the research of the tenure candidates through questions 10-13 of the survey. Candidates indicated the number of each publication (by name) that they had at the time they went up for tenure. These results were reported and compared (via one-way ANOVA) for faculty classified as research versus teaching schools.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis Techniques

In order to answer our first set of research questions, the mean percentages of teaching, research, and service for faculty were compared using a paired-sample t-test. This was done for both faculty members in research and teaching schools. This test was chosen since the mean value for each measure was provided by the same faculty member respondent (Howell, 2002). The t-value for each pair-wise comparison was compared to the t-statistic (2-tailed) to determine if the difference was significant at the level of p < .05. The analysis was performed for faculty receiving tenure between 1964-1988 and 1989-2002. To determine if the perception of the college's stated tenure requirements (percentage) differ based on the school's research focus, a one-way ANOVA was performed comparing the mean percentages for teaching, research, and service by school group (research schools versus teaching schools). The F-values were compared to the F-statistic and significant differences were noted at the level of p < .05.

To answer the second research question, we analyzed the research that a faculty member had at the time of his/her tenure application. This analysis was performed for both faculty at research schools and teaching schools. Types of research activities identified were: quantity of refereed journal publications (broken down by A-level, B-level, C-level, and no level reported); quantity of books authored, edited, and chapters written; quantity of professional monographs; quantity of national/international proceedings; quantity, dollar value, and years of grant support. Mean values were reported and significant differences were noted between the research and teaching schools for each of the research activities. We also compared the average number of publications by tenure applicant for each of 18 potential outlets for entrepreneurship research. For each of the two-time era, differences between the mean values for faculty of research schools and teaching schools were compared using an independent sample t-test. This procedure was appropriate since each of the observations were distinct and separate from each other (Howell, 2002). The t-value was compared to the t-statistic (2-tailed) to determine if the difference was significant at the level of p <.05.

Characteristics of Entrepreneurship Faculty

Table 1 shows the characteristics of all 108 tenured Entrepreneurship faculty members used in the study. The breakdown by school classification was 48% (52) research schools and 52% (56) teaching schools. The majority of faculty received tenure between the ages of 35-49 (67% of the entire sample). Fifty-six percent (56%) of research schools' faculty and 77% of teaching schools' faculty fell into this age range. Half (50%) of all faculty members (54) who earned tenure had started at least one business with slightly more business start-ups by faculty at teaching schools (52% versus 48%). The average percentage of entrepreneurship course teaching load of a tenure candidate at a research school was 46.7% as compared to 47.4% at a teaching school. Demographically, the sample was 78% male. Gender breakdown was higher for teaching schools (65% male) than for research schools (35% male). The entire sample was 78% Caucasian, 2% African American, 4% Asian, and 1% Hispanic. Seventeen percent (17%) of the sample did not specify their race.

Figure 1 shows the year in which each faculty member in the study earned tenure. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the sample earned tenure between 1989 and 2002. Based on the skewed result of the respondents earning tenure within the last 15 years, further analyses within this study provides two views of the results: there were 35 faculty who earned tenure between 1964 and 1988 and there were 73 tenure decisions between 1989 and 2002.

Applicant's Primary Teaching Area at the Time of Tenure Application

Table 3 exhibits the primary teaching area of the tenure candidates. The results are displayed for two time periods (1964-1988 and 1989-2002) and further broken down by academic level (undergraduate and graduate). This analysis provides the basis for determining whether our sample is representative of faculty that taught entrepreneurship at the time of their tenure application. Noteworthy is that a tenure candidate could have multiple primary areas. For example, a professor could teach Business Policy and Entrepreneurship, considering both as their primary area. In fact, during both time periods, the combination of Entrepreneurship and Business Policy primary areas comprised the majority of primary teaching areas (37% during 1964-1988 and 60% during 1989-2002). Most recently (1989-2002), the combination of Entrepreneurship and Business Policy as primary teaching areas among tenure applicants at research schools was 70% at the undergraduate level and 63% at the graduate level. At teaching schools these two primary teaching areas accounted for 54% at the undergraduate level and 52% at the graduate level. Other primary teaching areas and their reported frequencies for the two time periods are illustrated in Table 3. These findings show how much the field has grown. From 1964-1988 only 29% (10) of the sample's primary teaching area was either undergraduate and/or graduate entrepreneurship. By 1989-2002 that number grew to 41% (30).

Based on this analysis we can conclude that Entrepreneurship as a primary teaching area for tenured faculty is a more recent trend (1989-2002). Furthermore, we can be confident that the sample of respondents for this study is representative of faculty that taught entrepreneurship at the time of their tenure application.

Perceptions of Teaching, Research, and Service

Tables 4a and 4b address the first set of research questions. They show the breakdown of perceived teaching, research, and service requirements for faculty at research schools and teaching schools. First, we compared the college's tenure (teaching, research, and service) requirements (as perceived by the faculty member) to those same requirements as perceived by the faculty member (see Table 4a). For research schools during both time periods, significant differences were detected between what the faculty member perceives as the "colleges stated requirements for tenure" versus what he/she perceives the actual college's requirements. For the time frame 1964-1988 the respective differences between the mean percentages for teaching was 39.6% versus 32.1% (P < .01), for research was 50.4% versus 60.8% (p < .01), and for service was 10.9% versus 7.7% (P < .01). More recently, from 1989-2002, the respective differences between the mean percentages for teaching was 37.3% versus 31.6% (p <.05), for research was 48.1 % versus 57.3% (p < .01), and for service was 14.6% versus 10.5% (p < .01).

At teaching schools, no significant differences were detected between the perceived college's stated requirements for teaching, research, and service and the faculty member's perceived tenure requirements. Thus, these perceived differences are mainly predominant among faculty at research schools. This result prompts the question as to why this is so. One explanation is that at research schools, the delineation as to what constitutes countable (toward tenure) research may be blurred. For example, unless specifically stated, a book authored/edited may or may not count as tenure research activity. Likewise, a research grant may only count toward research if it results in a journal publication. The college administrators and faculty may perceive both of these examples differently. As for teaching, without a specific list to categorize non-research activities, conducting an "out of load" independent study may be counted toward service requirements while faculty perceives it as a teaching activity.

Next, to confirm that research schools stress the importance of research productivity while teaching schools emphasize teaching effectiveness, we compared the faculty member's perceived college tenure requirements between the two groups (research school faculty versus teaching school faculty--see Table 4b). As expected, faculty perceptions of the college's stated requirements for teaching, research, and service between research and teaching schools show significant differences. Most significant were comparisons during the era of 1989-2002. Here, faculty at teaching schools perceived that the college's teaching requirements were higher (47.8% versus 37.3%, F-value = 13.37,p < .01); faculty at research schools perceived that research requirements were higher (48.1 versus 33.0%, F-value = 39.82,p < .01); and faculty perceptions of service at teaching schools were higher (19.2% versus 14.6%, F-value = 5.92, p < .05).

Overall, our findings answer the first set of research questions indicating that faculty members perceive that college administrators under-represent the importance that research plays when applying for tenure. This is especially true for faculty at research institutions during both periods of the study. In all cases, faculty perceived that research requirements were significantly higher than what they perceive the administrators' stated requirements for research. Conversely, respondents felt that college administrators' requirements for teaching and service were higher than the faculty members'. All this confirms that in research schools especially, faculty perceives that they and the administration do not share the same expectations.

Research Records at Time of Tenure Application

The second research question was answered using the results in Table 5. Table 5 shows the specific types of research that the faculty member had at the time of tenure application. The results were broken down based on the tenure timeframe as well as the school type (research schools versus teaching schools). Furthermore, a comparison was made to determine if differences exist for the specific types of research completed across type of school. During the time period of 1964-1988 a moderately significant positive difference for national/international proceedings (t = 1.83, p < .10) was noted between research schools and teaching schools. More recently (1989-2002), significant positive differences were noted for A-level (t = 5.17, p < .05), B-level (t = 2.16, p < .05), and C-level (t = 2.42, p < .05), refereed journal publications, number of books authored (t = 2.32, p < .01), and number of book chapters written (t = 1.94, p < .10). Specifically, tenure candidates at research schools averaged 3.26 A-level pubs, 3.54 B-level pubs, 1.80 C-level pubs, .43 books authored, and 1.98 book chapters written. This was compared to the output of teaching school tenure candidates (.66 A-level pubs, 1.45 B-level pubs, .21 C-level pubs, .10 books authored, and .98 book chapters written--on average).

Overall, we found significant positive differences between the number of refereed publications (all levels), books authored, and book chapters between tenure candidates from research schools as compared to those from teaching schools during the time frame 1989-2002. The biggest gap was detected between the average numbers of A-level refereed publications that a candidate had at the time of their tenure application at research schools (3.26) versus .66 at teaching schools.

Average Number of Publications by Tenure Applicant, 1964-1988

Table 6 provides a breakdown by academic journal by the mean number of publications that a candidate had at the time of their tenure application. These results compare candidates by school type (research schools versus teaching schools) and were broken down by time period (1964-1988 and 1989-2002).

During the time period of 1964-1988, the largest number (mean) of publications at research schools were in: Administrative Science Quarterly (.43), Journal of Small Business Management (.36), Academy of Management Journal (.36), Academy of Management Review (.21), Journal of Management (.21), and the Journal of Business Venturing (.21). For the tenure candidates at teaching schools, the largest number (mean) of publications was in: Journal of Small Business Management (.62), Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice (.38), Academy of Management Journal (.31), and Administrative Science Quarterly (.23). For the same time period, tenure candidates from research schools had significantly more (than teaching schools) average research publications in the following journals: Journal of Business Venturing (.21 versus .00, p < .05), Journal of Management (.21 versus .00, p < .001), Strategic Management Journal (.14 versus .00, p < .01), Sloan Management Review (.07 versus .00, p < .05), and California Management Review (.07 versus .00, p < .05). Tenure candidates from teaching schools had significantly more (than research schools) average research publications in the following journals: Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice (.37 versus .07, p < .05), Academy of Management Executive (.08 versus .00, p < .05), and Small Business Economics (.08 versus .00, p < .05).

Average Number of Publications by Tenure Applicant, 1989-2002

During the time period of 1989-2002, the largest average number of publications at research schools was in: Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice (.97), Journal of Business Venturing (.88), Journal of Small Business Management(.59), and Strategic Management Journal(.56). For tenure candidates at teaching schools, the largest average number of publications was in: Journal of Small Business Management (.46), Journal of Business Venturing (.43), and Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice (.40). During this time period, tenure candidates from research schools had significantly more (than teaching schools) average research publications in the following journals: Strategic Management Journal (.56 versus .00, p < .001), Academy of Management Journal (.38 versus .09, p < .01), Administrative Science Quarterly (.32 versus .09, p < .001), Journal of Management (.32 versus .06, p < .001), Academy of Management Executive (.24 versus .06, p < .05), Management Science (.09 versus .00, p < .001), Sloan Management Review (.06 versus .00, p < .01), and Research Policy (.03 versus .00, p < .05). Tenure candidates from teaching schools had significantly more (than research schools) average research publications in Small Business Economics (.06 versus .00, p < .01) and Academy of Management Review (.03 versus .00, p < .05).

We then looked at the publishing records of each candidate to determine whether or not they had published an article in one of these journals. Our findings indicate that only 14 out of 35 (40%) of the candidates from research schools (1989-2002) were able to get tenure without publishing in one of these journals. If we included the Journal of Management, 31% of the candidates were able to get tenure.

The inclusion of the following journals, which were not on the list, but were ranked as A level publications at their respective universities as stated by the candidates were: Journal of Applied Psychology (2), Journal of International Business Studies (2), and Industrial and Labor Relations Review(]). This yielded a grand total of only 6 candidates out of 35 (17%) from research schools that did not have a publication in an "A" level refereed journal.

Teaching schools were then examined. Out of 38 tenure candidates, only 5 (13%) published in these top management journals. Three candidates published in the Academy of Management Journal, two in Administrative Science Quarterly and one in the Academy of Management Review (this candidate also had an Academy of Management Journal publication). When we included the Journal of Management the number increased a mere 3% to 16%.

Upon looking at the data more closely, we found that 9 candidates published in the Journal of Business Venturing, 9 candidates published in the Journal of Small Business Management, 6 in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 3 in Family Business Review, and 2 in Small Business Economics. Overall, the tenure candidates at teaching schools had an 87% chance of getting tenure even if they did not publish in one of top the management journals (as defined as the journals in the outstanding category in Table 1, excluding JBV).

Table 6 confirms these findings. The table shows that tenure candidates from research schools had a significantly higher amount of research in the top management journals (e.g., Strategic Management Journal, Management Science, Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, and Academy of Management Review) than from teaching schools. No significant differences were found between the Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, and the Journal of Small Business Management.

SUMMARY

In conclusion this article makes several contributions. First, we are not aware of another article that has attempted to look at faculty perceptions of tenure requirements in the field of entrepreneurship. Second, we feel that through the results of this study, entrepreneurship faculty members seeking tenure will understand what others have accomplished relative to research productivity. Our second research question asks, "What types of research did faculty who taught entrepreneurship have at the time that they applied for tenure? The answer to this question provides the types and quantity of various research activities that others have accomplished. Furthermore, the quantity and names of specific journal publications are provided. This provides a benchmark for future entrepreneurship faculty members as they pursue tenure.

Third, we address the question, "Can faculty who taught entrepreneurship earn tenure by publishing in entrepreneurship journals alone or do they have to publish in top a management journal? We feel that this is a critical question that needed to be answered and is at the heart of people going up for tenure in the field of entrepreneurship today. Do entrepreneurship scholars need to publish in top management journals to get tenure? How do schools value entrepreneurship research? Can faculty who teach entrepreneurship get tenure through publishing in entrepreneurship journals alone or do they need to focus on other mainstream journals? These are critical issues that people who teach entrepreneurship face.

Overall, the findings indicate the increasing importance of the field of entrepreneurship. Evidence of this can be seen by the significant increase in the number of faculty that has applied for tenure since 1964. Furthermore the findings of this study will serve faculty and schools in their tenure decisions by examining the successful tenure records of faculty that have taught in the field of entrepreneurship. The results of the study are significant as there is currently no research on this subject.

Recommendations to Tenure Candidates

Tenure candidates need to be aware that 83% of our sample from research schools during the time frame 1989-2002 had at least one top A level journal publication. We recommend that all tenure candidates target at least one "A" level publication. Our findings show that 17% of the research school's candidates were able to earn tenure without having an A level journal publication. This may be possible due to the increase in the quality of entrepreneurship journals over time. It may also be possible that there is an increase in the perceived legitimacy of entrepreneurship research. It's also possible that these candidates brought some other added value to a school. Examples of this include: grant money, Associate Director or Director of a Center for Entrepreneurship, some other administrative position, access to critical external resources, active in continuing education seminars, etc.

For tenure candidates at teaching schools the findings of this study suggest that it is sufficient to earn tenure without publishing in the top management journals or any other leading journal. Only 13% of candidates that earned tenure from 1989-2002 had a least one publication in one of these journals. Furthermore, the findings show that teaching schools value entrepreneurship research more than research schools. Despite this finding, we recommend that candidates at teaching schools still target at least one publication in a top A level journal (as ranked by their institution) to enhance their legitimacy and mobility in the future. As a final recommendation, our findings indicate that it would be safe for most tenure candidates to pursue a pure entrepreneurship track at teaching schools. However, we recommend that all candidates have a list of the rankings of all journals in writing by the administration before following this recommendation. Due to the newness of the field, entrepreneurship research may not have the legitimacy at some schools.

Recommendations to Universities and Colleges

Several recommendations can be made to academic institutions. First, universities and colleges need to be clear with tenure candidates that have taught entrepreneurship as to how their research will be evaluated in the tenure decision process. Our results suggest that faculty members' perceptions of tenure requirements differ from their perception of the college's stated requirements. This is especially evident at research schools where our results show that entrepreneurship journals are not valued as much as they are at teaching schools. A second recommendation is that universities and colleges need to be more proactive when interviewing faculty by stating how they view entrepreneurship journals relative to other journals. It should be clearly communicated to the tenure candidate whether he/she needs to publish in other top journals (e.g., management, marketing, etc). In the long run, both the candidate and the university will benefit from this understanding.

Limitations

A few limitations exist in this study. The first limitation stems from the dataset. The most recent tenure decision of the sample was 2002. With more and more schools focusing on the field of entrepreneurship, more recent observations would enhance the study. Second, there is a potential for self-selection bias in the sample. Surveying faculty that teach entrepreneurship about how their institutions value journals could create a self-serving bias. Third, due to the newness of the field, it was difficult to say that we surveyed pure entrepreneurship faculty. Therefore, we emphasized throughout the paper that the sample was faculty who teach entrepreneurship. Finally, since single item measures were used to assess respondents' perceptions, it was difficult to test the reliability of the survey instrument.

As a final note, while this study provides some insightful findings about the research dimensions of tenure candidates that teach entrepreneurship, it must be noted that subjective factors such as department politics may also influence tenure decisions.

Future Research

While there have been many studies on research and tenure decisions in other fields like strategic management (e.g., Park & Gordon, 1996), this research provides the basis for future studies on tenure decisions within the field of entrepreneurship. Studies can be done with other academic fields (e.g., marketing, accounting, finance, etc.) to compare and contrast the differences in the research that tenure candidates had at the time of their tenure application. Another study could do an in-depth case study analysis of the nine faculty that did not earn tenure in this study. Furthermore, future studies could focus on the productivity of faculty after they earn tenure. What happens to their research productivity? Do they go on to become administrators? What roles do these faculty members play at their universities? All are areas of research worthy of pursuit beyond this current study.

APPENDIX

1. Have you ever been on a tenure track position at a university?

YES--

NO--

* If NO, you do not need to fill out the survey. Please return and state that you have never been on a tenure track at a university of college--thank you for participating.

Background

2. What school did you receive your Ph.D. from? Year graduated? Major(s) and minor(s)?

3. What was the name of the institution that granted you your first tenure track teaching position?

4. Did you go up for tenure and promotion at that school? If so, what year?

5. Did you receive tenure?

YES--

NO--

6. If you did not receive tenure at your first institution where did you earn tenure and promotion? What year did you go up for tenure and promotion?

The remainder of the survey is based on the first time you went up for tenure and promotion

7. The first time that you went up for tenure and promotion, what was the College's stated percentage breakdown of teaching, research, and service that was required for tenure (e.g., teaching 45%, research 45%, service 10%).

teaching--%

research--%

service--%

don't recall--

8. At the time that you went up for tenure, what was your perception of the College's emphasis on teaching, research, and service in order to receive tenure (e.g., teaching 45%, research 45%, service 10%).

teaching--%

research--%

service--%

don't recall--

9. Have you been the principal investigator or co-investigator on a grant(s)? How many grants did you receive before you went up for tenure? What were the dollar values of the grant(s) that you received in the time frame before you went up for tenure? What was the length of time (years) for each grant?

Research & Grants

10. At the time that you went up for tenure and promotion, how many refereed journal publications, books, book chapters, and international/national proceedings did you have?

Refereed Journal Publications--

Books (Authored)--

Books (Edited)--

Professional Monographs--

Book Chapters--

Int./Nat Proceedings--

11. At the time that you went up for tenure and promotion, how many A, B, and/or C level refereed publications did you have (Include books & monographs according to College policy)?

A--

B--

C--

College had no classification system--

Other (Please specify)--

12. Please indicate how your institution classified the following journals (A, B, C, N/R-not ranked) at the time you went up for tenure:

Academy of Management Executive--

Academy of Management Journal--

Academy of Management Proceedings--

Administrative Quarterly--

Academy of Management Review--

California Management Review--

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice--

Family Business Review--

Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Proceedings (Babson)--

Journal of Business Venturing--

Journal of Management--

Journal of Small Business anagement--

Management Science--

Organizational Science--

Research Policy--

Sloan Management Review--

Small Business Economics--

Strategic Management Journal--

13. Please indicate the number of publications you received in each of these journals at the time you went up for tenure (leave blank if you received none). Insert the name of other refereed journals not on the list in the other category.

Academy of Management Executive--

Academy of Management Journal--

Academy of Management Proceedings--

Administrative Quarterly--

Academy of Management Review--

California Management Review--

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice--

Family Business Review--

Frontiers of Entreprenership Proceedings (Babson)--

Journal of Business Venturing--

Journal of Management--

Journal of Small Business Management--

Management Science--

Organizational Science--

Research Policy--

Sloan Management Review--

Small Business Economics--

Strategic Management Journal--

Other (Place name of journal, college ranking, and number of pubs):

Name of Journal:--

Name of Journal:--

Name of Journal:--

Name of Journal:--

Name of Journal:--

Name of Journal:--

College Ranking:--

College Ranking:--

College Ranking:--

College Ranking:--

College Ranking:--

College Ranking:--

# of Pubs--

# of Pubs--

# of Pubs--

# of Pubs--

# of Pubs--

# of Pubs--

Teaching

14. At the time that you went up for tenure what percentage of your teaching load was entrepreneurship courses per academic year?

20%--

25%--

33%--

40%--

50%--

60%-- 66%--

75%--

80%--

100%--

Other%--

15. What is was your primary teaching area?

Undergraduate--

Accounting--

Business Policy--

E-Business--

Entrepreneurship--

Finance--

Human Resource Management--

International Business--

Marketing--

MIS--

Operations Management--

Organizational Behavior--

Psychology--

Sociology--

Technology & Innovation--

Other (Specify)--

Graduate--

Accounting--

Business Policy--

E-Business--

Entrepreneurship--

Finance--

Human Resource Management--

International Business--

Marketing--

MIS--

Operations Management--

Organizational Behavior--

Psychology--

Sociology--

Technology & Innovation--

Other (Specify)--

Demographics

16. What institution are you currently teaching at? How long have you been there?

17. Have you ever been an entrepreneur of your own business? If so, how many, what type of business(es) and for how many years?

18. What is your age?

25-29--

30-34--

35-39--

40-44--

45-49--

50-54--

55-59--

60-64--

65+--

19. What is your race?

African American--

American Indian Asian--

Caucasian--

Hispanic--

Indian--

Other--

(Please Specify)--

20. Male or Female (Circle One)

REFERENCES

Armstrong, J.S. & T.S. Overton (1977). Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 14(3),396-402.

Aldrich, H. (1992). Methods in Our Madness? Trends in Entrepreneurship Research. In D.A. Sexton and J.D. Kasarda (Eds.). The State of Entrepreneurship Research, 191-213. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.

Aldrich, H. (2000). Learning Together: National Differences in Entrepreneurship Research. In D.A. Sexton and J.D. Kasarda (Eds.) The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, 5-26. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Aldrich, H. & T. Baker (1997). Blinded by the Cites? Has There Been Progress in Entrepreneurship Research? In D.L. Sexton' and R.W. Smilor (Eds.) Entrepreneurship 2000, 377-401. Chicago, IL: Upstart.

Beitzell v. Jeffrey, 643 F.2nd 870 (1st Cir. 1981).

Brush, C., I. Duhaime, W. Gartner, A. Stewart, J. Katz, M. Hitt, S. Alvarez, G.D. Meyer, & S. Venkataraman (2003). Doctoral Education in the Field of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 29(3), 309-331.

Busenitz, L., G. West, D. Sheperd, T. Nelson, G. Chandler & A. Zacharakis (2003). Entrepreneurship Research in Emergence: Past Trends and Future Directions. Journal of Management, 29(3), 285-308.

Cargile, B. & B. Bublitz (1986). Factors Contributing to Published Research by Accounting Faculties. The Accounting Review, 61(t),158-178.

Chandler, G. & D. Lyon (2001). Issues of Research Design and Construct Measurement in Entrepreneurship Research: The Past Decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 101-113.

Federland, F. & T. Counts (1982). Professors' Satisfaction with Jobs Related to Academic Ranks. Presented to the Annual Meeting for the Education of Journalism.

Finkle, T.A. (2005). A Review of Trends in the Market for Entrepreneurship Faculty from 1989-2004. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 20005: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual Entrepreneurship Research Conference. Eds. Shaker A. Zahra, et al., Wellesley, MA: AMBCE, 2005.

Finkle, T.A. & D. Deeds (2001). Trends in the Market for Entrepreneurship Faculty during the Period 1989-1998. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(6), 613-630.

Fried V. (2003). Defining a Forum for Entrepreneurship Scholars. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 1-11.

Gourman, J. (1993). The Gourman Report 6th ed. National Education Standards: Los Angeles, CA.

Gourman, J. (1997). The Gourman Report 8th ed. National Education Standards: Los Angeles, CA.

Hair, J.F., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, & W.C. Black (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, (5' Edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall, p. 166.

Harrisson, R.T. & C.M. Leach (1996). Discipline Emergence in Entrepreneurship: Accumulative Fragmentalism or Paradigmatic Science? Entrepreneurship Innovation and Change, 5(2), 65-83.

Howell, D.C. (2002). Statistical Methods for Psychology (5'h Edition). Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth Group.

Katz, J. (2003). A Chronology of Intellectual Trajectory of American Entrepreneurship Education 1876-1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300.

Kuratko, D. (2003). Entrepreneurship Education: Emerging Trends and Challenges for the 21" Century, 2003 Coleman Foundation White Paper Series for the U.S. Association of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Madison, WI: USASBE.

Law and Contemporary Problems. (1990). The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Law and Contemporary Problems. 53(3),3-78.

Mawdsley, R. (1999). Collegiality as a factor in tenure decisions. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 167-177.

MacMillan, I. (1991). Delineating a Forum for Entrepreneurship Scholars. Journal of Business Venturing, 6, 83-87.

MacMillan, I. (1993). The Emerging Forum for Entrepreneurship Scholars. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 377-381.

Mesak, H.I. & L.R. Jauch (1991). Faculty Performance Evaluation: Model to Improve Personnel Decisions. Decision Sciences, 22(5), 1142-57.

Meyer, G.D. (2001). Major Unresolved Issues and Opportunities in Entrepreneurship Education. 2001 Coleman Foundation White Paper Series for the U.S. Association of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Madison, WI: USASBE.

Park, S. & M. Gordon (1996). Publication of Records and Tenure Decisions in the Field of Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 17,109-128.

Rosenfeld, RA. & J.A. Jones (1987). Patterns and Effects of Geographical Mobility for Academic Women and Men. Journal of Higher Education, 58, 493-515.

Science Citation Index (1999). The Institute of Scientific Information. Philadelphia, PA

Scott, R.W. & J.W. Meyer (1983). The Organization of Societal Sectors. In JW Meyer and WR Scott, Organization and Environments: Ritual and Rationality, 129-153. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Stinchcombe, A.L. (1965). Organizations and Social Structure. In James G. March (ed.), Handbook of organizations, 153-193. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Williamson, LO, & D.M. Cable (2003). Predicting Early Career Research Productivity: The Case of Management Faculty. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 25-44.

Wortman, M. (1987). Entrepreneurship: An Integrating Typology and Evaluation of the Empirical Research in the Field. Journal of Management, 13(2), 259-279.

Todd A. Finkle, The University of Akron

Phil Stetz, Stephen F. Austin State University

Michael L. Mallin, The University of Toledo

Table 1: Characteristics of Entrepreneurship Faculty at the Time of
Tenure (1964-2002)

 All Research Teaching
 Schools Schools Schools
 (N=108) (N=52) (N=56)

Current Age (yrs)
 25-29 2 1 1
 30-34 13 10 3
 35-39 22 12 10
 40-44 26 10 16
 45-49 24 7 17
 50-54 3 1 2
 55-59 4 1 3
 60-64 4 3 1

Not Specified/Other 10 7 3

Started a Business 54 25 29

Average # of Businesses 1.23 1.24 1.23
Started

Average % of Teaching 47.1 46.7 47.4
Load is
Entrepreneurship
Courses

Sex
 Male 84 29 55
 Female 24 16 8

Race
 African American 2 0 2
 Asian 4 1 3
 Caucasian 84 41 43
 Hispanic 1 1 0
 Not Specified/Other 18 9 12

Table 2: Fried's (2003) Ratings of Journals Which Publish
Entrepreneurship Research

Journal Mean Score out
 of 4.0

OUTSTANDING
Academy of Management Review (AMR) 3.87
Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) 3.83
Journal of Business Venturing (JBV) 3.77
Strategic Management Journal (SMJ) 3.76
Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) 3.60
Organization Science (OS) 3.40
Management Science (MS) 3.33

SIGNIFICANT
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice (ET&P) 3.17
American Journal of Sociology (AJS) 3.07
Small Business Economics (SBE) 3.07
Journal of Management (JOM) 2.97
Harvard Business Review (HBR) 2.90
Research Policy (RP) 2.84
California Management Review (CMR) 2.73
Sloan Management Review (SMR) 2.70
Journal of Management Studies (JMS) 2.62
Academy of Management Executive (AME) 2.59

APPROPRIATE
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development (ERD) 2.62
Journal of Small Business Management (JSBM) 2.61
Journal of Private Equity (JPE) 2.50
Venture Capital (VC) 2.48
Journal of Small Business Finance (JSBF) 2.44
Regional Studies (RS) 2.38
Journal of High Technology Management Research (HTMR) 2.37
International Small Business Journal (ISBJ) 2.33

Table 3: Applicant's Primary Teaching Area at the Time of Tenure
Application

 1964-1988

Primary Teaching Area All Schools Research Schools
 (n=35) (n=17)
 Frequency Frequency

 Undergrad Grad Undergrad Grad

Accounting 1 1 1 1
Business Policy 7 11 4 6
E-Business 1 1 1 1
Entrepreneurship 4 6 2 4
Finance 0 1 0 0
Human Resources 3 3 1 2
International Business 0 0 0 0
Marketing 6 1 3 0
M&IS 1 1 1 1
Operations Management 2 2 1 1
Organizational Behavior 4 5 1 2
Psychology/Sociology 0 0 0 0
Technology & Innovation 1 3 1 3
Other 5 5 1 1

 1989-2002

Primary Teaching Area All Schools Research Schools
 (n=73) (n=35)
 Frequency Frequency
 Undergrad Grad Undergrad Grad

Accounting 0 0 0 0
Business Policy 23 17 11 12
E-Business 0 1 0 1
Entrepreneurship 13 17 5 10
Finance 1 0 1 0
Human Resources 1 3 0 3
International Business 2 3 1 1
Marketing 2 0 0 0
M&IS 1 1 1 1
Operations Management 2 0 1 0
Organizational Behavior 5 8 1 4
Psychology/Sociology 1 0 0 0
Technology & Innovation 1 2 1 1
Other 8 6 1 2

 1964-1988

Primary Teaching Area Teaching Schools
 (n=18)
 Frequency

 Undergrad Grad

Accounting 0 0
Business Policy 3 5
E-Business 0 0
Entrepreneurship 2 2
Finance 0 1
Human Resources 2 1
International Business 0 0
Marketing 3 1
M&IS 0 0
Operations Management 1 1
Organizational Behavior 3 3
Psychology/Sociology 0 0
Technology & Innovation 0 0
Other 4 4

 1989-2002

Primary Teaching Area Teaching Schools
 (n=38)
 Frequency
 Undergrad Grad

Accounting 0 0
Business Policy 12 5
E-Business 0 0
Entrepreneurship 8 7
Finance 0 0
Human Resources 1 0
International Business 1 2
Marketing 2 0
M&IS 0 0
Operations Management 1 0
Organizational Behavior 4 4
Psychology/Sociology 1 0
Technology & Innovation 0 1
Other 7 4

Table 4a: Comparison of Faculty Perceived College's Stated Tenure
Requirements to Faculty Perceived Tenure Requirements

 1964-1988

 All Schools (N=35) Research Schools (N=17)
 Mean (%) Mean (%)

 College (a) Faculty (b) College Faculty
 (p-val) (c). (p-val)

Requirements
 Teaching 44.1 40.2 (.16) 39.6 32.1 (.03) **
 Research 40.9 49.4 (.01) ** 50.4 60.8 (.02) **
 Service 15.7 10.9 (.03) ** 10.9 7.7 (.04) **

 1989-2002

 All Schools (N=73) Research Schools (N=35)
 Mean (%) Mean (%)

 College (a) Faculty (b) College Faculty
 (p-val) (c). (p-val)

Requirements
 Teaching 43.1 40.0 (.03) * 37.3 31.6 (.02) *
 Research 39.8 45.4 (.00) ** 48.1 57.3 (.00) **
 Service 17.1 14.6 (.02) * 14.6 10.5 (.00) **

 1964-1988

 Teaching Schools (N=18)
 Mean (%)

 College Faculty
 (p-val)

Requirements
 Teaching 50.0 51.0 (.82)
 Research 28.2 34.2 (.27)
 Service 21.6 14.8 (.14)

 1989-2002

 Teaching Schools (N=38)
 Mean (%)

 College Faculty
 (p-val)

Requirements
 Teaching 47.8 46.9 (.57)
 Research 33.0 35.5 (.15)
 Service 19.2 17.9 (.45)

(a) Faculty member's perception of College stated requirements (%) for
teaching, research, and service.

(b) Faculty member's perceived requirements (%) for teaching,
research, and service.

(c) Significance of difference between college stated and faculty
perceived %.

* p < .05 ** p < .01

Table 4b: Comparison of Faculty Perceived College's Tenure Requirements

Between Research Schools and Teaching Schools

 1964-1988

 Research Teaching Diff. Between
 Schools (N=17) Schools (N=18) Groups (d)
 Mean (%) Mean (%) F-value (p-value)

Requirements
 Teaching 39.6 50.0 2.53 (.13)
 Research 50.4 28.2 13.20 (.00) **
 Service 10.9 21.6 6.65 (.02) *

 1989-2002

 Research Teaching Diff. Between
 Schools (N=35) Schools (N=38) Groups (d)
 Mean (%) Mean (%) F-value (p-value)

Requirements
 Teaching 37.3 47.8 13.37 (.00) **
 Research 48.1 33.0 39.82 (.00) **
 Service 14.6 19.2 5.92 (.02) *

(d) Significance of difference between Research Schools group and
Teaching Schools group.

* p < .05

** p < .01

Table 5: Research Record of Tenure Candidate at Time Tenure
Application

 1964-1988

Research Type All Schools Research Schools
 (N = 35) (N = 17)
 Mean Mean

Refereed Journal Pubs
 A--Level Pubs 1.69 1.94
 B--Level Pubs 2.09 2.06
 C--Level Pubs 1.34 1.29
 No Level Reported 3.63 4.65
Books Authored .41 .47
Books Edited .15 .13
Book Chapters .92 1.18
Prof. Monographs .74 1.12
Nat'l/Int'l Proceedings 9.27 12.17
Grants (quantity) 1.49 1.63
Grants ($000) 85.99 129.19
Grants (length yrs.) 1.75 1.83

 1989-2002

Research Type All Schools Research Schools
 (n=73) (n=35)
 Mean Mean

Refereed Journal Pubs
 A--Level Pubs 1.90 3.26
 B--Level Pubs 2.45 3.54
 C--Level Pubs .97 1.80
 No Level Reported 3.97 3.29
Books Authored .26 .43
Books Edited .13 .14
Book Chapters 1.46 1.98
Prof. Monographs .99 .54
Nat'l/Int'l Proceedings 11.04 11.48
Grants (quantity) 2.75 2.34
Grants ($000) 150.56 92.64
Grants (length yrs.) 1.72 1.59

 1964-1988

Research Type Teaching Schools t-value
 (N = 18) (p-value)
 Mean

Refereed Journal Pubs
 A--Level Pubs 1.44 .46 (.65)
 B--Level Pubs 2.11 -.05 (.96)
 C--Level Pubs 1.39 -.08 (.94)
 No Level Reported 2.67 1.19 (.24)
Books Authored .35 .43 (.67)
Books Edited .17 -.29 (.78)
Book Chapters .68 1.13 (.27)
Prof. Monographs .38 1.33 (.19)
Nat'l/Int'l Proceedings 6.53 1.83 (.08) *
Grants (quantity) 1.35 .55 (.59)
Grants ($000) 45.20 1.59 (.12)
Grants (length yrs.) 1.67 1.06 (.30)

 1989-2002

Research Type Teaching Schools t-value
 (n=38) (p-value)
 Mean

Refereed Journal Pubs
 A--Level Pubs 0.66 5.17 (.00) **
 B--Level Pubs 1.45 2.16 (.03) **
 C--Level Pubs .21 2.42 (.02) **
 No Level Reported 4.61 -1.00 (.32)
Books Authored .10 2.32 (.02) **
Books Edited .11 .28 (.78)
Book Chapters .98 1.94 (.06) *
Prof. Monographs 1.42 -1.34 (.19)
Nat'l/Int'l Proceedings 10.63 .33 (.75)
Grants (quantity) 3.12 -1.00 (.32)
Grants ($000) 203.90 -1.29 (.20)
Grants (length yrs.) 1.83 -1.50 (.14)

* Difference between Research School and Teaching School mean is
significant at p < .10

** Difference between Research School and Teaching School mean is
significant at p < .05

Table 6: Average Number of Publications by Tenure Applicant

1964-1988 All Research Teaching
 schools Schools Schools
 N=35 N=17 N = 18

 Mean Mean Mean P value

Journal of Small
 Business Management .48 .36 .62 .20
Academy of Management
 Journal .33 .36 .31 .66
Administrative Science
 Quarterly .33 .43 .23 .28
Entrepreneurship Theory
 & Practice .22 .07 .38 .02 *
Academy of Management
 Review .15 .21 .08 .11
Journal of Business
 Venturing .11 .21 .00 .05 *
Journal of Management .11 .21 .00 .00 ***
Strategic Management
 Journal .07 .14 .00 00 **
Academy of Management
 Executive .04 .00 .08 .03 *
Sloan Management Review .04 .07 .00 .05 *
Small Business Economics .04 .00 .08 .03 *
California Management
 Review .04 .07 .00 .05 *
Management Science .00 .00 .00
Organization Science .00 .00 .00
Research Policy .00 .00 .00
Family Business Review .00 .00 .00

1989-2002 All Research Teaching
 schools Schools Schools
 N=73 N = 35 N = 38

 Mean Mean Mean P value

Entrepreneurship Theory
 & Practice .68 .97 .40 .04 *
Journal of Business
 Venturing .65 .88 .43 .07
Journal of Small
 Business Management .52 .59 .46 .76
Strategic Management
 Journal .28 .56 .00 .00 ***
Academy of Management
 Journal .23 .38 .09 .00 ***
Administrative Science
 Quarterly .20 .32 .09 .00 ***
Journal of Management .19 .32 .06 .00 ***
Academy of Management
 Executive .14 .24 .06 .01 *
Family Business Review .13 .15 .11 .52
Management Science .04 .09 .00 .00 ***
Small Business Economics .03 .00 .06 .00 **
Sloan Management Review .03 .06 .00 .00 **
Academy of Management
 Review .01 .00 .03 .05 *
Research Policy .01 .03 .00 .04 *
California Management
 Review .00 .00 .00
Organization Science .00 .00 .00

* Difference between Research School and Teaching School mean is
significant at p < .05

** Difference between Research School and Teaching School mean is
significant at p < .01

*** Difference between Research School and Teaching School mean is
significant at p < .001