Search results

To understand the reasons that accounting academics leave the tenure-track academic pipeline.

Survey study was conducted of PhD graduates who left the tenure-track accounting pipeline over a 22-year period.

We located and surveyed accounting PhD graduates who have opted out of the tenure-track. These opt-outs included those who have left academia entirely and those who have moved into non-tenure-track positions. Survey results indicate that dissatisfaction with research expectations is the most significant factor for faculty now employed in non-tenure-track positions. Although there were no gender-related differences in the number of faculty who left the tenure-track but stayed in academia, there were some gender differences in the importance of family-related factors in motivating the move off of the tenure-track.

The study examines the importance of the “push” and “pull” factors associated with changing career paths in academia that have been identified in the literature. The study finds some differences in influential factors between accounting academia and other fields. Sample size is a potential limitation.

The study provides recommendations for PhD program directors and for hiring institutions to help reduce the number of opt-outs.

Retention of qualified faculty who are dedicated teachers improves students’ educational outcomes.

This is the first study to examine factors that drive accounting academics to opt-out of the tenure-track.

We use panel data models to examine variations and changes in faculty employment at four-year colleges and universities in the United States. The share of part-time faculty among total faculty has continued to grow during the last two decades, while the share of full-time lecturers and instructors has been relatively stable. Meanwhile, the share of nontenure track faculty among full-time faculty has been growing, especially among the professorial ranks. Dynamic panel data models suggest that employment levels of different types of faculty respond to a variety of economic and institutional factors. Colleges and universities have increasingly employed faculty whose salaries and benefits are relatively inexpensive; the slowly deteriorating financial situations at most colleges and universities have led to an increasing reliance on a contingent academic workforce. A cross-sectional comparison of the share of full-time nontenure track faculty also reveals significant variations across institutions.

Historically, academic careers in many European universities have been characterized by the civil servant status of academics (i.e., an open vacancy model) based on the German Lehrstuhl (professorial chair) tradition. The chair system has been abandoned in many countries, and the status of civil servants has been changed to private employment. At the same time, many European universities have introduced some variant of the tenure track model to increase the attractiveness of academic careers at their institutions; however, open vacancy models continue to dominate academic careers in Europe. This chapter describes recent changes in academic promotion systems using case examples from tenure track models in two European countries, Finland and Austria. In conclusion, this chapter offers examples based on the best practices and challenges identified in the analyzed tenure track models.

The institution of tenure has elicited debate and controversy since its introduction in higher education. Proponents argue the need for tenure based on academic freedom and efficient university governance. Critics argue that it represents inefficiency in the higher education labor market and protects less productive faculty members. The use of tenure in academic libraries has been no less controversial, with only 40−60% of academic libraries supporting tenure track positions for academic librarians. This dichotomy in the labor market for academic librarians represents a natural experiment and allows for the testing of the presence of a compensating wage differential for tenure.

This study examines 10 years’ worth of cross-sectional data drawn from member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Models examine both the institutional characteristics of tenure-granting ARL academic libraries and the impact of tenure on starting salaries. Issues related to both a union wage premium and a compensating wage differential due to tenure are explored. The results of this research suggest that tenure, while serving other functions within an academic library setting, does not have the predicted impact on starting salaries.

This chapter focuses on the barriers women of color (WOC) in the professoriate face in their pursuit of tenure and promotion and provides selected strategies that build bridges for their success. It draws on critical race theory (CRT) to identify structural as well as individual changes that must be made in academe. The chapter addresses selected strategies for African-American, Latina American, and Asian/Pacific American women to successfully traverse the perilous road from untenured assistant professor to tenured full professor. The Newcomer Adjustment framework of the Organizational Socialization Model (OSM; Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007) is used as a systematic approach to addressing barriers and building bridges for WOC in the professoriate. Gaps in the research are also identified.

I historically compare changes in institutional frameworks creating academic positions linked to temporary employment by analyzing university employment statistics in Chile, Colombia, Germany, and the USA. I find that temporary academic positions were institutionalized through the creation of previously inexistent academic categories called a contrata in Chile, de cátedra in Colombia, “junior professor” without tenure in Germany and “postdoc” in the USA; used in higher education and employment laws since 1989, 1992, 2002, and 1974, respectively. Under institutional frameworks demanding the maximization of students and research, universities have increasingly contracted academics through temporary contracts under rationales that differ between regions. In Colombia and Chile, public university leaders and owners of private universities contract such teaching positions to expand student numbers through lowering costs. In Germany and the USA, employment insecurity is mostly driven by temporary scientific positions under a main rationale of scientific expansion. The share of temporary positions has increased exponentially in Colombia and Germany in recent decades, whereas in the USA there has only been an increase since 2012. Moreover, in Chile, the share of permanent positions has decreased since 2012. The common trend is one of isomorphism of vertical academic structures sharing a pyramidal form, with a wide base of academics working under conditions of contractual insecurity. Such trends follow a rationale for maximization of student numbers as well as administration, and scientific production that is in tension with prioritizing wellbeing and improvement of academics’ working conditions. Yet, in these environments, the institution of tenure in the USA and recent Chilean regulations on accreditation represent mechanisms counteracting precarious employment.

This narrative will combine stories with poetry to convey our lived experiences as Black women who took different roads to academia, and serve in differently situated institutions, but who now face similar experiences. We write this narrative, not as generic advice to new academics. Rather, it is a transparent, honest missive from sisters to sisters. It is written from the perspectives of Black women and with Black women in mind. This may be particularly instructive to emerging scholars whose work centers the intersections of race, gender, and class. It provides a glimpse into our work as scholars, teachers, activists, and writers.

We base this work on central tenets of Black feminist thought. The core objectives of Black feminist thought are to clarify Black women's experiences and ideas through self-definition, to refute stereotypical depictions, to validate Black women's situated knowledge, and to resist marginalization that occurs as a result of our intersectional identities (Hill Collins, 2000). Our work as academics is informed by our identities as Black women, and these identities continue to be shaped by our work as academics. Last, our narrative examines how both mentorship from Black and non-Black academics, and sisterhood among Black women scholars, sustain and inspire the work to which we are committed.

Gender differences in professional networks are said to explain disparities in career success and satisfaction in academia – particularly in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines – yet little empirical research examines men and women’s satisfaction with networks. This study investigated gender differences in networks and network satisfaction among STEM faculty, examining gender differences in network size and density and in satisfaction with networks.

A web-based survey was administered to full-time tenured and tenure-track STEM faculty members at a major research university. Participants (N = 141) were queried about their network ties within the home department, outside the department but within the home university, and beyond the home university.

Faculty networks tended to be gender homophilous, with men reporting more ties with men and women reporting more ties with women. Women reported having networks as large and supportive as men’s reported networks, yet women reported significantly less satisfaction with their networks than did men. Women in departments with a critical mass of women faculty (15% or more) reported greater satisfaction with opportunities to collaborate with departmental colleagues.

This research was confined to a single university and did not focus on negative interactions in networks, which may affect network satisfaction.

These findings argue for increasing women’s representation in university departments to above 15% and providing assistance to women in STEM departments without critical mass to ensure that they have adequate opportunities to collaborate in research.

Since at least the 1970s, the American research university system has experienced episodic periods of austerity, frequently accompanied by expressions of concern about the threats that these conditions pose to U.S. scientific and technological leadership. In general, austerity has been tied to fluctuations in Federal Government funding of academic research and macroeconomic fluctuations that have shrunk state government budget revenues. Even amidst these episodes, the system has continued to expand and decentralize. The issue at present is whether this historic resiliency, of being a marvelous invalid, will overcome adverse contemporary trends in Federal and state government funding, as well as political trends that eat away at the societal bonds between universities and their broader publics. The paper juxtaposes examinations of the organizational and political influences that have given rise to the American research university system, trends in research revenues and research costs, and contemporary efforts by universities to balance the two. It singles out the secular decline in state government’s support of public universities as the principal reason why this period of contraction is different from those of the past. Rather though then these trends portending a market shakeout, as some at times have predicted, the projection here is that the academic research system will continue to be characterized by excess capacity and recurrent downward pressures on research costs. Because the adverse impacts are concentrated in the public university sector, they may also spill over into political threats to the current system of awarding academic research grants primarily via competitive, merit review arrangements.

In a knowledge-based global economy driven by the sciences and engineering (S&E), the most valuable resources are human resources. Traditionally, the United States met shortages of S&E talent by importing it from abroad; however, this solution has been rendered no longer viable by geo-political changes coupled with other nations' successfully competing for S&E talent. The decrease in the availability of external S&E talent coupled with changing demographics of the US population overall have been the catalysts for shifting focus to developing internal talent – especially from groups that have historically under participated in the S&E workforces – African Americans, Mexican-Americans, Native Americans/Native Pacific Islanders, and Puerto Ricans. It is important not to fall prey to the illusion of inclusion – that is to assume that the increases in the numbers of S&E degrees earned by African Americans are reflected in the composition of the S&E professoriate. The purpose of this chapter is to provide compelling arguments for increasing and enhancing African American participation on S&E faculties; systematically analyze differences by gender and broad field in the rates of participation of African Americans on science and engineering faculties of colleges and universities in the United States; and to discuss the implications of these differences for policy, programs, and practices that seek to enhance the participation of African Americans on S&E college and university faculties.