Faculty Perceptions of Tenure in Parks, Recreation, and Tourism. Issue 1 (2nd January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schwab, Keri; Hendricks, William W.; Dustin, Daniel L.; Murphy, James F.
• Is Part Of: Schole. Volume 33:Issue 1(2018)
• Page Start: 12
• Page End: 28
• Publication Date: 2018-01-02
• Subjects: academic freedom -- fixed-term contracts -- job security -- post-tenure review -- probationary faculty -- tenured faculty -- tenure; Leisure -- Study and teaching (Higher) -- United States -- Periodicals; Recreation -- Study and teaching (Higher) -- United States -- Periodicals; Leisure -- Study and teaching (Higher); Recreation -- Study and teaching (Higher); United States; Periodicals; 790.0711
• DOI: 10.1080/1937156X.2018.1440818
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1937-156X

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to assess faculty perceptions of tenure in parks, recreation, and tourism. To answer our research questions, we designed a 26-item survey and posted it on The Academy of Leisure Sciences listserv (ALSnet). We received 149 usable responses to the survey and grouped the results into the categories of: earning tenure, tenure's meaning, expectations of tenured faculty, post-tenure review, and fixed-term contracts as an alternative to tenure. We also analyzed our overall findings to investigate parks, recreation, and tourism (PRT) faculty members' perceptions of tenure for statistically significant differences by sex, academic rank and tenure status, and institutional type. The results of the study confirm many long-held assumptions about the importance of tenure for job security and academic freedom, as well as indicating some blueprints for building a career in higher education based on institutional type (bachelor's and master's degree-granting teaching universities versus doctoral degree-granting research universities). We discuss the implications of the blueprints for individuals considering a tenure track position in higher education, and then conclude by discussing the study's limitations and making several recommendations for future research, including differentiated workloads, reward structures, and the responsiveness of post-tenure reviews.