Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 116, Issue 1, pp 101–124 | Cite as

Tenure and turnover of academics in six undergraduate programs in the United States

  • Tolga Yuret
Article
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

The mobility of faculty members in different undergraduate programs is influenced by different factors, and so inter-program variability can be expected in mobility rates. This study makes use of course catalogs for the collection of data related to the tenure and turnover of academics from six undergraduate programs in the United States. Included in the study are 34 universities ranked in the top 100 US universities according to USNews for which a minimum of 15 years of course catalogs are available. For the study, 1345 course catalogs were used to attain information about 19,353 faculty members. It was found that economics faculty members have the shortest average tenure and economics programs have the highest turnover among all six programs, while physics and chemistry are the least mobile programs. The other three programs—history, mathematics and political science—fall somewhere in between. Private and high ranking universities are less mobile than public and low ranking universities respectively. It is found that turnover rates fell and average tenures increased after the 1970s.

Keywords

Turnover Tenure Course catalogs Academic mobility 

References

  1. Allison, P. D., & Long, S. L. (1987). Interuniversity mobility of academic scientists. American Sociologic Review, 52(4), 643–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cawley, J. (1996). A guide (and advice) for economists on the US junior academic job market. Working paper.Google Scholar
  3. Coupe, T., Smeets, V., & Warzysnki, F. (2006). Incentives, sorting and productivity along the career: Evidence from a sample of top economists. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 22(1), 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dietz, J. S., Chompalov, I., Bozeman, B., Lane, E. O., & Park, J. (2000). Using curriculum vita to study the career paths of scientist and engineers: An exploratory assessment. Scientometrics, 49(3), 419–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ehrenberg, R. G. (2003). Studying ourselves: The academic labor market presidential address to the society of labor economists. Journal of Labor Economics, 21(2), 267–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ehrenberg, R. G., Kasper, H., & Rees, D. (1991). Faculty turnover at American colleges and universities: Analyses of AAUP data. Economics of Education Review, 10(2), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehrenberg, R. G., McGraw, M., & Mrdjenovic, J. (2006). Why do field differentials in average faculty salaries vary across universities? Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehrenberg, R. G., Pieper, P. J., & Willis, R. A. (1998). Do economics departments with lower tenure probabilities pay higher faculty salaries? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 503–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Honeyman, D. S. & Summers, S. R. (1994). Faculty turnover: An analysis by rank, gender, ethnicity and reason. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Working paper, ED 390455.Google Scholar
  10. Hoxby, C. M. (2009). The changing selectivity of American Colleges. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(4), 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2004). Global estimates of high-level brain drain and deficit. Faseb Journal, 18(9), 936–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laudel, G. (2003). Studying the brain drain: Can bibliometric methods help? Scientometrics, 57(2), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (1999). Tenure issues in higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspecitves, 13(1), 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oyer, P. (2006). Initial labor market conditions and long-term outcomes for economists. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(3), 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Siegfried, J. J., & Stock, W. A. (1999). The labor market for new Ph.D. economists. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(3), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (2001). Exceptional contributions to US science by the foreign-born and foreign-educated. Population Research and Policy Review, 20(1), 57–79.Google Scholar
  17. Weiler, W. C. (1985). Why do faculty members leave a university. Research in Higher Education, 23(3), 270–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Woolley, R., & Turpin, T. (2009). CV analysis as a complementary methodological approach: Investigating the mobility of Australian scientists. Research Evaluation, 18(2), 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Xu, Y. J. (2008). Faculty turnover: Discipline-specific attention is warranted. Research in Higher Education, 49(1), 40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yuret, T. (2015). Interfield comparison of academic output by using department level data. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1653–1664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yuret, T. (2016a). An analysis of foreign-educated elite academics in The United States. Journal of Informetrics, 11(2), 358–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yuret, T. (2016b). Path to success: An analysis of US educated elite academics in the United States. Working paper.Google Scholar
  23. Yuret, T. (2017). What is the reason for low turnover in academia: Tenure or track? Working paper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Management, Department of EconomicsIstanbul Technical UniversityMacka, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations