Academic career opportunities in entrepreneurial marketing: revisiting teach & miles (1997).

Teach, Richard D. ; Miles, Morgan P. ; Hansen, David J. 等

ABSTRACT

This study is designed to update and extend Teach and Miles' (1997) empirical study of the career opportunities for marketing academics who have an interest in entrepreneurship. The 1997 study found that entrepreneurship was becoming a more accepted research area in marketing but was not yet well established within marketing departments. In fact, at the time of that study, more than 80 percent of schools offering entrepreneurship housed it in the management area. The current study shows that some progress has been made in entrepreneurship courses being offered by marketing departments, although there is room available for more progress. The results of this study also suggest that entrepreneurship has still not been fully embraced by the marketing discipline, as have areas such as channels management, consumer behavior, or marketing research. Our position is that many of the core issues of marketing such as value creation, satisfaction, and exchanges are facilitated when a firm acts more entrepreneurially.

INTRODUCTION

The past decade has seen a dramatic rise in the number and status of entrepreneurship programs in schools of business and management. The popularity of entrepreneurship courses has increased dramatically among both graduate and undergraduate students ... Despite the increase in popularity within the field; there has also been considerable resistance from within the faculties of many institutions to the expansion of entrepreneurship programs. Faculty outside the field have been, and many remain, very skeptical about the validity of entrepreneurship as an academic field, the quality and rigor of entrepreneurship research and the need to hire academic faculty to teach and research in the field (Finkle and Deeds 2001).

Recent research by Finkle and Deeds (2001: 627) found that since the 1993/94 academic year the entrepreneurship field has become somewhat of a "seller's market," at least for well trained management academics; and since then, has experienced strong and consistent growth in the number of tenure track positions. This growing interest in entrepreneurship education in collegiate schools of business appears to be widespread and includes degree/executive education programs, outreach efforts, internship programs, business plan competitions, and secondary and primary education outreach programs (Solomon, Duffy, & Tarabishy 2002). While Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy (2002) classified the level of participating institution, from two-year community colleges to international universities, they did not report on where entrepreneurship programs were located with in the business school (for example in the management department, the marketing department or the technology school).

A common, and long standing, perception is that much of this growth in entrepreneurship programs has been primarily in management or strategic management departments, strengthening the "academic ownership" of entrepreneurship by the management discipline. In addition, business schools with very strong academic reputations are creating entrepreneurship discipline based doctoral programs to "provide pure entrepreneurship faculty" (Kuratko 2005: 588).

However, for decades marketing scholars have also had an interest in entrepreneurship in terms of the unique marketing issues that are faced by individual entrepreneurs, corporate entrepreneurs, family and small businesses, and social entrepreneurs. For example, in a recent discussion of the evolution of research in entrepreneurship Kuratko (2006) categorizes a marketing academic whose career has been devoted to the development of the marketing / entrepreneurship interface, Gerald E. Hills, as one of the significant pioneers in the field of entrepreneurship research who has been instrumental in the legitimization of entrepreneurship as an academic discipline. Hills and LaForge (1992) suggest that an understanding of entrepreneurship may be enhanced by the perspective, research traditions, and alternative philosophical orientations that marketing offers.

Marketing's importance in entrepreneurship is illustrated by Hills, Hultman, and Miles (forthcoming) who cite an earlier study of venture capitalists which ranked marketing as a critical factor for new venture success. In fact, many of the core issues of marketing such as value creation, market research and environmental scanning, satisfaction, and customer relationship management greatly enhance the success of entrepreneurial initiatives. In addition, teaching and research efforts that pertain to new product development, innovation, and adoption of technology by businesses and consumers are often housed within marketing departments.

A decade ago, Teach and Miles (1997), motivated by work with the American Marketing Association's Marketing and Entrepreneurship Special Interest Group and the University of Illinois at Chicago's (UIC) high profile Research Symposium on Marketing and Entrepreneurship, conducted an exploratory study of academic career opportunities for marketing doctoral students that pursue entrepreneurship as their major teaching and research focus. They confirmed what was then considered "common knowledge"--that entrepreneurship education at that time was dominated by management departments, with entrepreneurship being typically taught in conjunction with strategic management/business policy courses as part of a management department faculty members' teaching load. Surprisingly, while Teach and Miles (1997: 25) found that entrepreneurship classes were taught by marketing faculty in "only 26% of the responding institutions," entrepreneurship as a research focus tended to be considered a reasonable choice for a dissertation topic by Marketing doctoral advisors.

Vesper and Gartner (1997) published their findings from a survey of 311 business schools from around the world and found that the "courses" offered was the dominate criteria for the reputation of a program. Supporting Teach and Miles' findings about the dominance of entrepreneurship management, Vesper and Gartner (1997) found that few schools offered courses in entrepreneurial marketing (EM) or marketing/entrepreneurship interface. In fact, only thirteen schools at the undergraduate level offered a course in "venture marketing" and only twelve at the graduate level (with five schools planning to offer a course in EM at some time in the future) placing EM courses in the same category as "venture finance," "small business management," and "entrepreneurship for non-business majors."

The lack of formal courses in EM may be a result of marketing's late start into entrepreneurship education. In 1982, when the University of Illinois at Chicago offered the first formal entrepreneurship course in a marketing department, at least 315 schools already offered entrepreneurship and/or small business courses (Katz 2003). This lack of EM courses translates into fewer opportunities for academics interested in EM. In fact, in a recent review of academic job postings through the AMA listserv (ELMAR), the entrepreneurship division of the Academy of Management's listserv and jobs posted on the Chronicle of Higher Education website suggest that few positions call for academics with an interest in EM. For example, in a recent empirical study of the market for marketing academics Basil and Basil (2006) do not even report EM as a category of demand using data from both ELMAR and SMA Placement Services.

A replication of the original Teach and Miles (1997) study was conceived after efforts by marketing scholars to better integrate entrepreneurship into the marketing discipline. These formal efforts include (1) the creation of an academic journal devoted to the EM, the Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, (2) twenty years of successful UIC Marketing and Entrepreneurship Research Symposia in the U.S. and globally, (3) the creation and development of the American Marketing Association's Special Interest Group in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, (4) special issues of marketing journals, such as the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, devoted to EM, and (5) textbooks focused topic of marketing and entrepreneurship (see for example Bjerke & Hultman 2002; Buskirk and Lavik 2003).

PURPOSE

The "question of the acceptability of entrepreneurship as a legitimate research and teaching area for junior marketing scholars to pursue ... in the pursuit of tenure and promotion" is still as valid today as when Teach and Miles (1997: 23) first considered these issues. The purpose of the present study is to update the original study after a decade of efforts to legitimize entrepreneurship within the marketing discipline and to see if any shifts have occurred over time in terms of the following research questions:

1. Would marketing doctoral students be well served to develop a teaching and research interest in entrepreneurship?

2. Is entrepreneurship as a marketing topic better accepted by research-oriented schools or teaching-oriented schools?

3. Can marketing academics succeed with a teaching and/or research interest in entrepreneurship?

4. What department(s) houses the entrepreneurship classes?

METHODOLOGY

A questionnaire was designed to address the issues that Teach and Miles (1997) examined to be delivered on-line to ease the difficulties of return and keying the data. The instrument contained 24 questions, some of which had sub-parts and required between five and ten minutes to complete. The authors utilized the 2005 edition of Prentice-Hall's, Directory of Marketing Faculty to develop a list of the population of department heads/chairs of marketing departments in U.S. colleges and universities. The authors identified 580 applicable E-mail addresses, of which 512 were valid at the time of the survey. From this population of 512 department heads and chairs, 94 returned completed or partially completed questionnaires resulting in a response rate of 18.35%. The items are illustrated in Appendix 1.

FINDINGS

The Univariate Analysis

One of the questions in the instrument asked respondents to classify the mission of their business schools according to the four AACSB designations, which are identified in Table 1. These four categories were collapsed into two categories, teaching-oriented schools (resulting in 63 observations) or research-oriented schools (resulting in 25 observations). Six respondents did not respond to this classification question. The first step in exploring the marketing discipline's perceptions of the marketing/entrepreneurship interface as an area of research and academic employment for marketing PhD students was to examine if that perception differed among business schools with different missions. Our first proposition was that marketing programs in research-oriented universities would have different perceptions of the interface than would teaching-oriented programs. To test this we crafted ten questions to estimate the perceptions of the Marketing at the Entrepreneurship Interface and ask the heads of marketing departments to respond to these ten questions using the scale 1: I strongly agree with this statement, to 6: I strongly disagree with this statement. A six point scale was used in an attempt to force the respondent to decide on the direction of agreement with the question. The null hypothesis was "there would be no differences in these perceptions between the research-oriented and teaching-oriented marketing programs." To test this null hypothesis the two groups were used in a simple analysis of variance to test the differences in the responses of ten questions, dealing with the perceptions of the Interface. Table 2 reports the results of this analysis.

We found that four of our ten questions showed highly significant differences ("p" values less than 0.015) between teaching oriented schools and research oriented schools. These were questions 2, 5, 6 and 8.

Questions 1 through 3 had the following header: Assume you discovered a freshly minted PhD, who was well-qualified by your school's standards, whose dissertation was on the topic of marketing at the entrepreneurship interface and he/she wanted to interview for a job opening at your school of business.

Question 2: If this person published primarily in the area of marketing at the entrepreneurship interface and had good teaching evaluations, I do not think he or she would be a success at our school of business. The "p" vale for this question was 0.001

The heads of marketing departments from research-oriented schools had greater doubts about the likelihood of success of the faculty candidate with research interest in marketing at the entrepreneurship interface than did those from the teaching-oriented schools.

Questions 4-10 had the following header: A PhD student, who knows that you are the head of a marketing department/group and who values your opinion, visits you in your home. He/she is beginning to prepare his/her dissertation proposal. The student is interested in studying how marketing is performed by entrepreneurs and compare it to how marketing is performed by mature, well-established Fortune 1000 firms. In general, this area is referred to as marketing at the entrepreneurship interface.

Question 5: I would recommend that the student change his/her topic because this area has too few publication alternatives. This question's 'p' value was 0.009.

The heads of marketing departments from research-oriented schools thought that the faculty candidate might have more difficultly in publishing his/her research because the publishing opportunities were limited for entrepreneurial marketing research. Those from teaching-oriented schools did not consider this limitation as critical.

Question 6: I would recommend that the student change his/her proposed topic because this area of research is not rich enough for a PhD dissertation. This question's "p" value was <0.013.

Heads of marketing departments from research-oriented schools agreed with the statement more than did heads from teaching-oriented schools. Thus, research-oriented programs' department heads have more doubts about the efficacy of research in marketing at the entrepreneurship interface than do those in teaching environments.

The fourth highly significant question, Question 8: It is an interesting concept, but I personally do not think it could lead to a successful academic career in marketing had a "p" value of <0.0005.

Marketing department heads from research-oriented schools agreed with this statement more than heads from teaching-oriented schools. Thus, in the research-oriented schools, there is greater doubt among department heads that research in marketing at the entrepreneurship interface will result in a successful career.

Four of our ten questions that had low levels of signifance ("p" values between 0.135 and 0.151) and should be considered as only exploratory issues were:

Question 3: Assume that this person (the potential job applicant researching at the Interface) was already an assistant professor with an excellent research record in the area of marketing and entrepreneurship, had excellent teaching evaluations and wanted to interview at your school at the associate professor level. I would strongly recommend this person be interviewed by my "B " school at the associate professor level (assuming you could hire someone at the associate level). This question's "p" value was 0.144.

It appears that marketing department heads in research-oriented schools would be less reluctant to hire at the associate level (and tenure) a faculty member who has published in the field of marketing at the entrepreneurship interface than are department heads from teaching-oriented schools.

Question 4: I would recommend that the student change his or her proposed topic because this topic is the domain of another academic discipline. This question's "p" value was 0.151.

Department heads from research-oriented schools had fewer doubts about whether marketing at the entrepreneurship interface is in the domain of a business discipline outside of marketing than did heads of marketing departments in teaching-oriented schools.

Question 7: I cannot provide much advice to this student because I know of no person with research expertise in marketing at the entrepreneurial interface to act as his/her advisor. This question's "p" value was 0.135.

Heads of marketing departments from research-oriented schools reported that they agreed more with this statement than did heads from teaching-oriented schools.

Question 9: I would recommend that the student change his/her proposed topic because this area is outside the mainstream of current marketing thought. The question's "p" value was 0.147.

Heads of marketing departments from research-oriented schools agreed with this statement to a greater degree than did heads from teaching-oriented schools.

Two question out of the 10 questions showed little differences between teaching- and research-oriented schools. These questions were:

Question 1: I would recommend that the marketing department invite this person for a hiring interview for a tenure-track position. This question's "p" value was 0.863.

It is interesting to note that while the research-oriented schools had real doubts about the likelihood of the candidates' academic success; they were essentially equally willing to invite the candidate for a hiring interview.

Question 10: I would recommend that the student develop this idea more thoroughly, search and identify the relevant literature and develop a set of hypotheses, then come back to me in order that we could discuss this possibility in more detail. The "p" vale of this question was 0.701.

It is heartening to realize, that the marketing department heads from research-oriented schools who doubted the veracity of the research topic were as willing to assist this hypothetical person with the research process as those who had fewer doubts about the topic.

THE MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

The question that comes to mind is: "Are the differences in these perceptions based upon a multivariate view?" A simple model to test the hypothesis, "there are differences in the perceptions of marketing at the entrepreneurship interface between teaching- and research-oriented programs," using a multivariate procedure, is a discriminant analysis. Discriminant analysis was performed using "list-wise" deletion of cases. This means that if a respondent did not answer every question, all of that person's data were omitted from the analysis. As a result 60 teaching-oriented observations and 22 research-oriented responses were analyzed. Tables 3 and 4 show the results of the discriminant analysis using the ten perception variables in this study. Since this analysis used list-wise deletion, the "p" values are slightly different than those reported in the univariate analysis. The Wilks'Lambda statistic for the discriminant function was significant with a "p" value of 0.001.

The discriminant analysis resulted in a clear distinction between the two types of programs. It is clear from the table that Q8, regarding perceptions of the likelihood of a successful academic career for PhD students interested in marketing at the entrepreneurship interface, had the greatest discriminant ability. Another question about success Q2, this one regarding the respondents' school specifically, was the second most powerful discriminator. This suggests that the greatest difference between research- and teaching-oriented schools is the perceptions of the possibility to succeed as an academic by starting a career with writing a dissertation in the area of marketing at the entrepreneurship interface. Additionally, two questions, Q 1 and Q3, suggest that the recommending of a person researching at the interface for an interview can also discriminate between research- and teaching-oriented schools.

FACTOR ANALYSIS

Exploratory factor analysis was used in an attempt to uncover the number of underlying dimensions in the data set. In reviewing the ten questions, two had little to do with the perceptions of marketing at the entrepreneurship interface, not to mention the least discriminant power. Question 7, "I cannot provide much advice to this student because I know of no person with research expertise in marketing at the entrepreneurial interface to act as his/her advisor," dealt with the personal knowledge of the department head regarding people qualified to advise the hypothetical PhD student in research about marketing at the entrepreneurship interface. Question 10, "I would recommend that the student develop this idea more thoroughly, search and identify the relevant literature and develop a set of hypotheses, and then come back to me in order that we could discuss this possibility in more detail," dealt with a very general advice commonly given to all PhD students in the proposal stage of their research.

The remaining eight questions were included in the exploratory factor analysis and 84 respondents completed all of these questions. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.849. The closer this value is to 1.0, the better the data are for this procedure. Values as low as 0.60 are considered barely adequate, but measures above 0.80 are considered excellent candidates for factor analysis. Bartlett's tests of Sphericity was significant with a "p" value less than 0.0005. Maximum likelihood was used as the factor extraction methodology. This procedure resulted in two factors being extracted. Table 5 shows the ordered explained variance of the two factors.

Two factors explain almost 70 percent of the variance in the data set. We used the Oblique-rotation methodology, which allows the rotated factors to be correlated. Often factors with orthogonal characteristics are very difficult to comprehend as most observable concepts are in fact correlated. The rotated component matrix is shown in Table 6.

Factor one could be considered as the "Research Legitimacy" factor and factor two could be considered the "Employability" factor. The correlation between Factors land 2 was -0.521. Thus, the concepts of the "research legitimacy" of this topic and the "employability" of the hypothetical PhD student conducting research at the Marketing and Entrepreneurship interface are related. The problem for researchers in this field is obvious. This research topic is a hindrance to employment in research-oriented universities.

Cronbach's Alpha for the first factor was 0.8951, a very high value, and, for Factor 2, it was 0.618, which is low but acceptable for exploratory work.

CHANGES IN PERCEPTIONS OVER TIME

Table 7 offers a comparison between the results of the Teach and Miles (1997) study and the present study and provides a glimpse at how perceptions pertaining to EM might have changed over time. As illustrated, entrepreneurship has not been embraced completely as a legitimate area within the marketing discipline. This is true even after tremendous efforts on the part of a core group of marketing scholars whose life work is in this area.

DISCUSSION

Heads of marketing departments at teaching-oriented schools seem to have less concern about students and junior faculty researching in the area of marketing at the entrepreneurship interface than do their peers at research-oriented schools. This may be due to having lower requirements in terms of numbers and quality of journal publications and lower hurdles to be considered academically qualified by AACSB at teaching-oriented business schools. Some progress has been made in entrepreneurship courses being offered by marketing departments, from the first offering in 1982, to about a quarter of responses in the 1997 study, up to a third in the current study; however, room is available for more progress. Examination of recent position announcements in marketing and management suggests that the best opportunity for scholars interested in the interface lies in the areas of technology and product development. The higher frequency of innovation evaluation and technology transfer courses in the Vesper & Gartner (1997) study suggest that that has been an area of opportunity for some time even.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study has many limitations including a low response rate and potentially confusing questions that limit its generalizability. However, a perception emerged that even now entrepreneurship has yet to be fully embraced by marketing as have areas such as channels management, consumer behavior, or marketing research. Our position is that many of the core issues of marketing such as value creation, satisfaction, and exchanges are facilitated when a firm acts more entrepreneurially. We hope that this paper contributes to this debate.

Historically, entrepreneurship courses have been lacking in marketing content. Current scholars of the entrepreneurship/marketing interface may need to put in more effort into developing courses, which should increase opportunities for doctoral students interested in both marketing and entrepreneurship. Additionally, more effort to legitimize the publication outlets for research at the interface should give young scholars in the area a better chance at landing an interview, and maybe even a position, at research-oriented schools.

APPENDIX 1.

The questionnaire

A questionnaire was developed to be delivered on-line to ease the difficulties of return and keying the data. The instrument contained 24 questions, some of which had sub-parts and required between 5 and 10 minutes to complete.

A set of 10 questions directly addressed how research in Marketing at the Entrepreneurship Interface was perceived by the heads of marketing department in US universities. These questions were as follows:

The first 3 of the 10 questions had the following precursor statement. For the following 3 questions, please use the following scenario: Assume you discovered a freshly minted PhD, who was well qualified by your school's standards, whose dissertation was on the topic of Marketing at the Entrepreneurship Interface and he/she wanted to interview for a job opening at your school of business.

The 3 questions were:

1. I would recommend that the marketing department invite this person for a hiring interview for a tenure-track position.

2. If this person published primarily in the area of Marketing at the Entrepreneurship Interface and had good teaching evaluations, I do not think he or she would be a success at our school of business.

3. Assume that this person was already an assistant professor with an excellent research record in the area of Marketing and Entrepreneurship, had excellent teaching evaluations and wanted to interview at your school at the Associate Professor level. I would strongly recommend this person be interviewed by my "B " school at the Associate Professor level (assuming you could hire someone at the associate level).

All three question were to answered on a 6 point scale were 1 was: I strongly agree with this statement and 6 was: I strongly disagree with this statement

The other 7 questions that dealt with the perception of faculty with research interest in Marketing at the Entrepreneurship interface had the following precursor statement:

 A PhD student, who knows that you are the head of a marketing
 department/group and who values your opinion, visits you in your
 home. He/she is beginning to prepare his/her dissertation proposal.
 The student is interested in studying how marketing is performed by
 entrepreneurs and compare it to how marketing is performed by
 mature, well-established Fortune 1000 firms. In general, this area
 is referred to as Marketing at the Entrepreneurship Interface.

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements.

7 questions were:

4. I would recommend that the student change his or her proposed topic because this topic is the domain of another academic discipline.

5. I would recommend that the student change his/her topic because this area has too few publication alternatives.

6. I would recommend that the student change his/he proposed topic because this area of research is not rich enough for a PhD dissertation.

7. I cannot provide much advice to this student because I know of no person with research expertise in marketing at the entrepreneurial interface to act as his/her advisor.

8. It is an interesting concept, but I personally do not think it could lead to a successful academic career in marketing.

9. I would recommend that the student change his/her proposed topic because this area is outside the mainstream of current marketing thought.

10. I would recommend that the student develop this idea more thoroughly, search and identify the relevant literature and develop a set of hypotheses, then come back to me in order that we could discuss this possibility in more detail.

REFERENCES

Basil, M.D. & Basil, D.Z. (2006). The marketing market: A study of PhD supply, demand, hiring institutions, and job candidates, Journal of Business Research, 59, 516-523.

Bjerke, B. & Hultman, C.M. (2002). Entrepreneurial Marketing: The growth of small firms in the new economic era, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Buskirk, B. & Lavik, M. (2004). Entrepreneurial Marketing: Real stories and survival strategies, Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Finkle, T.A. & Deeds, D. (2001). Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty, 1989-1998, Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 613-630.

Hills, G.E. & LaForge, R.W. (1992). Research at the marketing interface to advance entrepreneurship theory, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 16(3), 33-59.

Hills, G.E., Hultman, C.M. & Miles, M.P. (forthcoming). The evolution and development of entrepreneurial marketing, Journal of Small Business Management.

Katz, J.A. (2003). The Chronology and Intellectual Trajectory of American Entrepreneurship Education 1976-1999, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 283-300.

Kuratko, D.L. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges, Entrpreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-597.

Kuratko, D.L. (2006). A Tribute to 50 year of excellence in entrepreneurship and small business, Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3),483-492.

Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S., & Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and analysis, International Journal of Entrepreneruship Education, 1(1), 65-86.

Teach, R., & Miles, M. (1997). The academic career opportunities for doctoral students interested in the marketing/entrepreneurship interface: An exploratory study of U.S. institutions, Marketing Education Review, 7(3), 23-28.

Vesper, K.H. & Gartner, W.B. (1997). Measuring Progress in Entrepreneurship Education, Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 403-421.

Richard D. Teach, Georgia Institute of Technology

Morgan P. Miles, Georgia Southern University

David J. Hansen, College of Charleston

Richard Teach is a professor Emeritus at Georgia Institute of Technology in the College of Management. He has been on the Boards of Directors / Advisors of several software firms, a computer game start-up a computer training publishing house, a toy company, and a financial services start-up. He was on the founding-board of the Southeastern Software Association in Atlanta and he was the Executive Director to the Atlanta Technology Executive Roundtable. In 2003 he was an advisor to two Luxemburg-based technology start-ups. He is currently on the Board of OMICRON, an educational organization for large firm CIOs and he is on the Board of Advisors for a sports oriented start-up firm called Landsurf, Inc. He has presented numerous invited and competitive papers and lectures throughout the US, and in 19 other countries. He has held eight International Visiting Professorships in France, he was a Visiting Research Scholar in England and taught for three summers in Metz, France at Georgia Tech Lorraine, the European platform for Georgia Institute of Technology. In October, 1997 Professor Teach presented two invited papers on simulation to Interested Faculty, University of Tokyo, in September 1999, he presented an invited paper on university-based technology transfer and university related start-ups and to the Judge Institute of Management, Cambridge University and in October 2001, he presented an invited paper on Entrepreneurship to Faculty, Students and Friends of Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. He holds an adjunct Professorship at the University, of South Australia and he serves as an advisor to the School of Marketing at the University of South Australia, Adelaide AU. Dr. Teach has published about 100 peerreviewed articles.

Morgan P. Miles is Professor of Marketing, Georgia Southern University. His research interests include the interface between marketing, ethics, and corporate entrepreneurship. He has been a Senior Research Associate for the Judge Institute of Management, Cambridge University, a visiting Professor of Marketing, at the University of Stockholm, a visiting professor of entrepreneurship at the University of Otago, and most recently a visiting professor of entrepreneurship at Massey University in New Zealand.

David J. Hansen is a newly-hired Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at the College of Charleston in South Carolina. His primary research interests are entrepreneurship, creativity, and new product development. In particular he is interested in where and how people get new ideas for businesses and products and what they do with those ideas to bring them to life.

Table 1: AACSB School Typologies

Designation Number of respondents reporting

1) Undergraduate focused 58

2) MBA/MS focused 5

3) MBA/MS and Research focused 21

4) Focused upon the doctoral program. 4

Table 2: Analysis of variance for research and teaching-oriented
programs

 Mean of Teaching- Standard Error Mean of the research-
 oriented Programs of the mean oriented programs

Q1 2.55 (n=62) (1) 0.152 2.60 (n=25)
Q2 4.89 (n=62) 0.132 3.88 (n=25)
Q3 2.60 (n=62) 0.144 2.21 (n=24)
Q4 4.73 (n=63) 0.142 4.29 (n-24)
Q5 4.37 (n=63) 0.138 3.54 (n=24)
Q6 4.65 (n=63) 0.128 3.91 (n=23)
Q7 3.83 (n=63) 0.188 3.35 (n=23)
Q8 4.63 (n=63) 0.125 3.52 (n=23)
Q9 4.52 (n=62) 0.147 4.08 (n=24)
Q10 2.33 (n=53) 0.155 2.22 (n=23)

 Standard Error "p" value of
 of the mean the difference

Q1 0.283 0.863 (2)
Q2 0.318 0.001
Q3 0.199 0.144
Q4 0.321 0.151
Q5 0.340 0.009
Q6 0.332 0.013
Q7 0.285 0.135
Q8 0.294 < 0.0005
Q9 0.288 0.147
Q10 0.259 0.701

I Strongly Agree was given the value 1 and I Strongly Disagree was
given the value 6.

Means less than 3 indicated a degree of agreement and a value greater
than indicated a degree of disagreement.

(1) Read this cell as: The average for teaching programs for question
1 was 2.55 and there were 62 respondents who answered this question.

(2) Read this cell as: The confidence level regarding the difference
in the means on the question, "I would recommend that the marketing
department invite this person for a hiring interview for a tenure-track
position." is 0.863

Table 3: Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients

Question Number Coefficient "p" value

Question 1 0.312 0.998
Question 2 0.540 0.001
Question 3 0.465 0.261
Question 4 0.088 0.070
Question 5 0.258 0.001
Question 6 0.161 0.006
Question 7 -0.036 0.094
Question 8 0.968 <0.0005
Question 9 -0.442 0.053
Question 10 0.065 0.847

The absolute value of the standardized coefficient may be directly
compared to one another and they show the relative contribution of
each variable in the ability to discriminate between teaching- and
research-oriented programs. Thus, question 8 has the greatest
discriminant power and question 7 had the least discriminant power.

Table 4: The Hit and Miss Table for the Discriminate Analysis.

 Predicted Group Membership

 Totals
 Teaching Research
 oriented oriented

Count Teaching-Oriented 50 10 60
 Research-Oriented 8 14 22

Percentage Teaching-Oriented 83.3% 16.7% 100%
 Research-Oriented 36.4% 63.6% 100%

78% of the cases were correctly classified

Table 5: Factor components and explained variance

 Initial Eigenvalues

 Cumulative %
 % of variance of variance
Factor Total Explained explained

 1 4.404 55.057 55.057
 2 1.175 14.192 69.749
 3 0.769

Table 6: The rotated Factor Matrix and their loadings (1)

Statements Factor 1 Factor 2

I do not think that Entrepreneurship at the 1.008
Marketing Interface (M@tEI) will lead to a
successful career in marketing

M@tEI is outside the mainstream of current 0.792
Marketing Thought

M@tEI is not rich enough for a PhD dissertation 0.777

M@tEI has too few publication alternatives 0.774

Entrepreneurship is in the domain of another 0.514
discipline

I do not think that this person would succeed in 479.000
my B school

I would strongly recommend this person be 0.745
interviewed by my B school at the Associate
Professor level.

I would recommend that the Marketing Department 0554
invite this person to campus

(1) Factor loadings with an absolute value of below 0.400 were omitted
from the table as this should make the table easier to comprehend

Table 7: Comparison of Studies

Item Teach & Miles (1997) Present Study

Category (mission) of College
of Business

Teaching-Oriented 65% 72%

Research-Oriented 35% 28%

Departments offering
entrepreneurship courses

Management 81% 65%

Marketing 26% 0

Ability for faculty with an 80% ?
interest in entrepreneurship
to succeed in marketing

Recommend entrepreneurship as a 60% ?
dissertation topic for
marketing doctoral students

The above questions were rephrased in the reversed fashion and the
respondents answered on a 1 to 6 scale; with 1 indicated Strongly Agree
and 6 indicated Strongly Disagree.

 Agreed (%) Disagreed (%)

I personally do not think it (a 23 77
dissertation in Marketing at the
Entrepreneurship Interface)
could lead to a successful
academic career in
Marketing. (Q8)

Marketing at the 33 67
Entrepreneurship Interface is
outside the mainstream of
current marketing thought. (Q9)

Marketing at the 30 70
Entrepreneurship is the domain
of another academic
discipline. (Q4)

Marketing at the 52 48
Entrepreneurship Interface has
too few publication
alternatives. (Q5)

Marketing at the 30 70
Entrepreneurship Interface is
not rich enough for a PhD
dissertation. (Q6)

In the last 5 questions there were substantial differences between the
responses of those from teaching B Schools as opposed to
research-oriented B Schools.