 |
Home
About
Advisory Board
Project Design
Project Staff
Publications
> Summary
> Bibliography
References
National Rollout
|
|
|
Women and people of color are adversely affected by the traditional academic model as well as an academic culture that says there is only one way of knowing (through conquering, proving or disproving, and competition rather than cooperation), one way to conduct research (independently, in a disciplinary silo, undistracted by teaching or service activities that take time away from traditional scholarship), one way to “fit” into a department and be a good colleague (by assimilating to the dominant culture and sacrificing family or other personal obligations), one way to prove oneself in the academy (by peer review of almost certainly white males), one way to earn tenure (by publishing in the “appropriate” academic journals refereed by white males), and one way to achieve full professorship (by peer review of tenured colleagues) (Trower 2002, 25-6).
|
> Publications Home
> Bibliography |
Women
Despite the fact that more women than ever have doctoral degrees, they 1) remain in lower ranks (80% of full professors are men), 2) are less likely to be tenured (60% of full-time male faculty; 42% of full-time female faculty), 3) are more likely to be employed part-time (women represent 36% of the full-time faculty and 45% of the part-timers), 4) are more often employed at institutions of lesser prestige (women comprise 23% of the total full-time faculty at public research universities and 45% of the full-time faculty at public 2-year colleges), and 5) are underrepresented in science and engineering (10% of the full professors are women).
Women in academe encounter a number of barriers in their climb up the academic ladder (Currie et al. 2002). These barriers fall into two categories: 1) those that stem from the structure of academe (i.e., policies and practices), and 2) those that stem from the culture of academe. Structural barriers include tenure and promotion policies, which dictate both the kind of work faculty must do in order to earn tenure (research v. teaching v. service) (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995; Ramaley in Cooper and Stevens, 2002; Menges and Exum, 1983), as well as the way in which they must do work in order to earn tenure (independently v. collaboratively) (Menges and Exum, 1983; Ropers-Huilman, 2000). The probationary period (the pre-tenure years) also poses a problem for women faculty because it coincides with the biological clock (Aguirre, 2000; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Hochschild, 1975; Yedidia and Bickel, 2001).
Cultural barriers include gender stereotypes; tokenism, or the treatment of women as though they “occupy a niche that is typified by their gender;” and exclusion from professional and social networks (Boice, 1993). These cultural barriers have the effect of isolating women (Boice, 1993) and placing them in roles that are typically feminine and not valued as part of the tenure process (Aguirre, 2000; Collins et al., 1998; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Kolodny, 1998; Park, 1996; Valian, 1999; Wasserman, 2000). One theory (Ely and Meyerson, 2000) suggests that one of the reasons women have not been more successful in breaking through the glass ceiling is that organizations have not challenged socially accepted male norms about how work is defined, accomplished, and rewarded, (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995) nor how organizational behavior is understood and interpreted. This framework will prove a useful lens for our project.
Faculty of Color
Against the odds and lingering racism, 16% or 4,254 members of U.S. racial minorities earned doctorates in 2001—a majority (1,604) to African Americans. Like women, though, minorities are at the periphery of the academy. Minorities 1) remain in lower ranks (89% of full professors are white; one third of minorities are lecturers or instructors), 2) are less likely to be tenured (54% of white, 49% of Asian American and Hispanic, 44% of African American, and 29% of American Indian full-time faculty), 3) are more likely to be employed at institutions of lesser prestige (only 5% of the full-time faculty at public research institutions are African American, Hispanic, or Native American compared with 9% at public 2-year colleges), and 4) are underrepresented in science and engineering (6% of full professors are African American, Hispanic, or Native American).
Faculty of color experience overt and covert racism (Banks, 1984; Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995; De la Luz Reyes and Halcon, 1988; Menges and Exum 1983; Turner and Myers, 2000), a disparate teaching and service load (Aguirre, 2000; Johnsrud and Sadao, 1998), isolation and lack of colleagueship (Chused, 1988; Turner and Myers, 2000), few networks or mentors (Frierson, 1990; Turner and Myers, 2000), discredited research (especially if its focus is on minority issues) (De la Luz Reyes and Halcon, 1988), tokenism(Chused, 1988; Menges and Exum, 1983), and the burden of being an exemplar of their entire race (Banks, 1984). Because many faculty of color place greater emphasis than whites on the affective, moral, and civic development of students (Antonio, 2002; Cooper, 2002) and are much more likely to enter the academy because they draw a connection between the professoriate and the ability to effect social change (Cooper, 2002; Jones 2002) their teaching and scholarship do not necessarily match what is required for tenure. Faculty of color are more apt to hold joint appointments (Johnsrud and Sadao, 1998; Menges and Exum, 1983) which may be problematic, and certainly more complex, in terms of having multiple assignments, more than one department chair, and earning tenure. As a result, faculty of color are less satisfied in their academic careers and more likely to leave. Academic women of color have an especially difficult time because they face both racism and sexism, although most say the racism is the more salient (Aguirre, 2000; Turner, 2002).
Job Satisfaction
The literature specific to faculty job satisfaction suggests many factors that contribute to a pleasant work experience. Supporting Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, many researchers of faculty work life have found that intrinsic factors contribute to faculty satisfaction, while extrinsic factors contribute to faculty dissatisfaction (Hill, 1986-87; Olsen, 1993).
Intrinsic factors. Intrinsic factors are related to the nature of the work itself, and include: class size and courses taught (Nicholson and Miljus, 1972; Sorcinelli, 1988; Tack and Patitu, 1992); quality of students (Busenberg, 1999; Hagedorn, 1996); research (Pearson and Seiler, 1983; Tack and Patitu, 1992; Sorcinelli, 1988); freedom, autonomy, and independence (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995; The Carnegie Foundation, 1986; Nyquist, Hitchcock, and Teherani, 2000; Olsen, 1993; Tack and Patitu, 1992); and achievement, recognition for achievement, and opportunities for promotion (Amey, 1996; Olsen, 1993; Olsen, Maple, and Stage, 1995; Tack and Patitu, 1992).
Overall, intrinsic factors contribute to faculty’s satisfaction with their jobs, but they can also be stressors. For example, Nicholson and Miljus (1972) found that liberal arts college faculty were “especially satisfied with…class size, courses taught, teaching load, and academic freedom” (p. 842). Similarly, Pearson and Seiler (1983) pointed to “the process of teaching, guiding, and molding minds, along with the discovery and dissemination of new knowledge” as elements of job satisfaction (p. 37). By contrast, Sorcinelli (1988) found that teaching and research provided points of stress for new faculty because the inordinate amount of time required to develop courses, teach, and evaluate students, left little time for research. Sorcinelli (1988) found other stresses related to teaching included: numerous different course preparations, course overloads, large classes in poorly equipped classrooms, inadequate academic preparation of students, inadequate teaching preparation, and excessively high expectation (p. 126).
Several researchers have found that freedom, autonomy, and independence are great sources of satisfaction for faculty (Blackburn and Lawrence, 1995; Busenberg, 1999; The Carnegie Foundation, 1996; Nyquist, et al., 2000; Olsen, 1993). The Carnegie Foundation (1986) discovered that “the most important factor for job satisfaction at research institutions is the faculty’s perception of their university’s support for academic freedom” (p. 33).
Achievement, recognition for achievement, and opportunities for promotion are proven contributors to faculty job satisfaction (Amey, 1996; Olsen, 1993; Olsen, Maple, and Stage, 1995). For example, professional advancement—including promotion in academic rank, advancement to academic administrative positions, and promotion in private sector organizations—was the third most frequent reason faculty in Amey’s (1996) study gave for leaving their university. Olsen’s (1993) study of faculty in their first and third years of appointment revealed that: “sense of autonomy…and a sense of accomplishment were consistently among the most satisfying aspects of faculty’s professional life” (460). Olsen, Maple, and Stage (1995) found that perceived recognition was a “highly significant (positive) predictor of job satisfaction” (p. 282).
Extrinsic Factors. Extrinsic factors stem from the context within which the work is performed and encompass aspects of the organizational and social environment. The literature shows that the following are among the extrinsic causes of faculty satisfaction: financial and attitudinal support, including salary, benefits, and available resources (Amey, 1996; Johnsrud and Rosser, 2002; Nyquist et al., 2000; Ropers-Huilman, 2000; Sorcinelli, 1988; Tack and Patitu, 1992); institutional and departmental policies (Amey, 1996; Busenberg, 1999; Tack and Patitu, 1992); the opportunity to achieve tenure (Busenberg, 1999; Tack and Patitu, 1992; Sorcinelli, 1988); supervision and administration (Busenberg, 1999; Tack and Patitu, 1992; Sorcinelli, 1988); and interpersonal relations (Amey, 1996; Hagedorn, 2000; Matier, 1990; Ropers-Huilman, 2000; Tack and Patitu, 1992; Sorcinelli, 1988; Lease, 1990).
Amey (1996) summed up the impact of these extrinsic variables, noting that a surprising number of faculty members left an institution for institutional or professional quality of life issues. These included: “the balance between teaching and research, lack of support for programs (attitudinal and financial), disenchantment with institutional or departmental policies, concerns about departmental interpersonal relations, lack of intellectual stimulation, and inability to find research collaboration opportunities” (p. 26). Likewise, Busenberg (1999) found that contextual, or extrinsic, factors “such as job security, benefits, work load, advancement, opportunities, and spouse employment opportunities play the dominant role in determining job satisfaction” (p. 153).
|
|
| |
