Abstract
The Biglan model is a three dimensional classification scheme wherein 35 academic subject areas are categorized into one of eight categories: soft-nonlife-pure; soft-life-pure; soft-nonlife-applied; soft-life-applied; hard-life-applied; hard-life-pure; hard-nonlife-pure; or hard-nonlife-applied. A basic assumption of the Biglan model research is that the types of faculty productivity differ in accord with academic subject areas. Though research studies report the importance of recognizing performance differences among faculty in different disciplines and subject areas during the faculty evaluation process, they do not present means by which this knowledge can be applied. This study discusses the practical implications of Biglan model research and the importance of university-level administrators recognizing differences in faculty productivity whenever faculty credentials are reviewed for advancement. This study also examines Biglan's original research and his model, as well as the major studies conducted to test the model. Also, the model is presented and explained as a conceptual framework for assisting administrators in the faculty evaluation process. Lastly, the reasons for employing subject area standards, as opposed to university-wide or single discipline standards, are argued.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arreola, R. A., and Heinrich, D. A model for differential norming of faculty evaluations for promotion and tenure decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York, April 1977.
Bayer, A. E., and Dutton, J. E. Career age and research-professional activities of academic scientists. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., March 1975.
Biglan, A. The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas.Journal of Applied Psychology 1973,57 195–203. (a)
Biglan, A. Relationship between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments.Journal of Applied Psychology 1973,57 204–213. (b)
Blackburn, R. T., Behymer, C. E., and Hall, D. E. Research note: correlates of faculty publications.Sociology of Education 1978,51 132–141.
Brim, O. G., Jr. Personality development as role learning. In I. Iscoe and H. W. Stevenson (Eds.),Personality Development in Children. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1960.
Brim, O. G., Jr., and Wheeler, S.Socialization After Childhood: Two Essays. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966.
Clark, B. Faculty cultures. In T. Lunsford (Ed.),The Study of Campus Cultures. Boulder, Colo.: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963.
Creswell, J. W., and Bean, J. P. Research output, socialization, and the Biglan model.Research in Higher Education 1981,15 69–92.
Creswell, J. W., and Roskens, R. W. The Biglan studies of differences among academic areas.Review of Higher Education, in press.
Creswell, J. W., Seagren, A. T., and Henry, T. C. Professional development of training needs of department chairpersons: a test of the Biglan model.Planning and Change 1979,10 224–237.
Dressel, P. L., and Mayhew, L. B.Higher Education as a Field of Study. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Eison, C. L. The measurement of satisfaction in departmental association at Western Kentucky University testing the Holland and Biglan models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1976.
Hall, D. E. Determinants of faculty publication productivity at four-year colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1975.
Hersey, P., and Blanchard, K.Management of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
Hesseldenz, J. S., and Smith, B. G. Computer-prepared questionnaires and grouping theories: considerations for mail surveys in academic settings.Research in Higher Education 1977,6 85–94.
Hoy, W. K., and Miskel, C. G.Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Random House, 1978.
Kuhn, T. S.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Ladd, E. C., Jr., and Lipset, S. M.Technical report, 1977 Survey of the American Professoriate. Storrs, Conn.: Social Science Data Center, University of Connecticut, 1978.
Ladd, E. C., Jr., and Lipset, S. M.The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Light, D. W. The structure of the academic profession.Sociology of Education 1974,47 2–28.
Lodahl, J. B., and Gordon, G. The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments.American Sociological Review 1972,37 57–72.
Luthans, F. The faculty promotion process: an empirical analysis of the administration of large state universities. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1967.
McGrath, W. E. Relationships between hard/soft, pure/applied, and life/nonlife disciplines and subject book use in a university library.Information Processing & Management 1978,14 17–28.
Menzel, H. Planned and unplanned scientific communication. In B. Barber and W. Hirsch (Eds.),The Sociology of Sciences. New York: Free Press, 1962.
Merton, R. K. Resistance to the systematic study of multiple discoveries in science.European Journal of Sociology 1963,4 237–249.
Muffo, J. A., and Langston, I. W. An empirical model for the use of Biglan's disciplinary categories. Unpublished ms, University of Illinois, 1979.
Neumann, Y., and Boris, S. D. Paradigm development and leadership style of university department chairpersons.Research in Higher Education 1978,9 291–302.
Prodgers, J. B. (Ed.) Toward systematic faculty evaluation.Regional Spotlight, 1980,13.
Sarbin, T. R. Role theory. In G. Lindgey and E. Anderson (Eds.),The Handbook of Social Psychology (2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968.
Scott, C. S., Thone, G. L., and Beaird, J. H.Factors influencing professional assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April 1977.
Smart, J. C., and Elton, C. F. Goal orientations of academic departments: a test of Biglan's model.Journal of Applied Psychology 1975,60(5), 580–588.
Smart, J. C., and Elton, C. F. Administrative roles of department chairmen. In J. C. Smart and J. R. Montgomery (Eds.),Examining Departmental Management: New Directions for Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976.
Smart, J. C., and McLaughlin, G. W. Reward structures of academic disciplines.Research in Higher Education 1978,8 39–55.
Snow, C. P.The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1959.
Storer, N. W. Relations among scientific disciplines. In S. Z. Nagi and R. G. Corwin (Eds.),The Social Contexts of Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972.
Thompson, M. E., and Brewster, D. A. Faculty behavior in low-paradigm versus high-paradigm disciplines: a case study.Research in Higher Education 1978,8 169–175.
Tuckman, H. P.Publication, Teaching, and the Academic Reward Structure. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1976.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roskens, R.W. Implications of Biglan model research for the process of faculty advancement. Res High Educ 18, 285–297 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00979601
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00979601