The economics of tenure: understanding the effects of ethnicity, status and discipline on faculty attitude, workload and productivity

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE ECONOMICS OF TENURE :
UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF ETHNICITY, STATUS AND
DISCIPLINE ON FACULTY ATTITUDE, WORKLOAD AND PRODUCTIVITY.
by
Delores Akins
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education - Policy And Organization)
December 1997
© 1997 Delores Akins
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
Delores Akins
under the direction of h..f.f. Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
DO CTO R OF PHILOSOPHY
Dean of G raduate ?tuaies
Date ..P.~ n .b e r.. 4 . . .1. ?..?.7
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
'v /
' • / - ^
\
/ x - Chairperson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATIO N
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband George, who through his
love, solace, understanding, and unw avering support, embraced my desire to
obtain my doctorate as if it were his own goal; and to my beloved daughter
Litisha, who has always been the w ind beneath my wings, and will be the next
Ph.D. in the family.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS
My sincere appreciation to my Dissertation Committee Members:
Professor W illiam G. Tierney, my committee chairperson, whose
com m itm ent to developing new education theory and policy, coupled with
his support of m y professional aspirations in academe, provided me the
opportunity to experience the dynamics of the professiorate through his
scholarship; Professor Dennis Hocevar whose invaluable and thorough
feedback, with respect to methodology, helped me to keep this study
statistically comprehensible; and Dr. Barbara J. Solomon who as my outside
committee m em ber, was a significant and inspirational role m odel to me
with achievem ents in the academy as an adm inistrator and faculty m em ber,
as well as for her wisdom and foresight.
I would also like to thank Dr. Robert L. Baker for his substantive and
insightful advice on this ardent journey to complete my doctorate. A special
thanks to the colleagues and friends who played a vital role in my academ ic
and personal life: Dr. Janet Eddy, Dr. Barry Gribbons, Dr. Kyung-Ok Lee, Dr.
Tracy Shaw, Mr. Marvin Cobb & Joanne Morris, Esq.
Finally, a very loving thank you to my parents, T. J. and M agnolia
Akins for w ithout their love and support, especially of my education from
the very beginning, this accomplishment w ould not have been possible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................. v iii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................ xi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................... 1
Introduction............................................................................................... 1
Background................................................................................... 2
The Problem Statement.............................................................. 9
The Purpose of Study................................................................. 10
Significance of Study.................................................................. 11
The Research Design.................................................................. 12
The Research Questions............................................................. 13
O utline of The Remainder of The Study.............................. 14
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................. 16
Introduction.............................................................................................. 16
Theoretical Fram ew ork.......................................................................... 17
H istory of Academic Freedom And T enure...................................... 19
1940 Statement of Principles.................................................... 22
Faculty Protections Formed in Tenure System.................... 23
Due Process................................................................................... 23
Faculty Socialization Theory.............................................................. 25
Definition of Socialization......................................................... 25
O rganizational Culture............................................................... 26
Transm ission of Culture............................................................ 27
Faculty Socialization................................................................... 28
Anticipatory Socialization............................................. 29
Organizational Socialization........................................ 29
Tenure as a Socializing A gent..................................... 31
The Im plications of A ttitude................................................................. 35
Insider/O utsider Doctrine......................................................... 35
Institutional Racism.................................................................... 37
Barriers To Tenure................................................................................... 38
Old Boys' N etw ork...................................................................... 38
O utsiders In Sacred Grove......................................................... 39
Typecasting Syndrome............................................................... 39
Revolving Door............................................................................ 40
Limited W orkforce................................................................................. 40
Academic Pipeline Theory........................................................ 40
Shrinking Ph.D.s........................................................................... 41
i v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Decision Behavior of Tenure........................................................ 44
Faculty Roles and Rewards....................................................... 46
W orkload Formulas.................................................................... 47
Allocation of Time...................................................................... 49
Productivity and Rewards..................................................................... 51
Teaching and Productivity........................................................ 54
Research and Productivity........................................................ 56
Discipline and Productivity...................................................... 59
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................. 61
Introduction.............................................................................................. 61
Research M ethod..................................................................................... 61
Sample and Procedures............................................................. 61
Institutional Stratification............................................ 62
Faculty............................................................................... 63
Research Limitations.................................................................. 65
Instrum entation.......................................................................... 66
Conceptual Model...................................................................... 68
Group I Variables, M em bership................................. 68
Group II Variables, Dem ographics............................ 69
Group III Variables, A ttitude....................................... 69
Group IV Variables, W orkload................................... 70
Group V Variables, Productivity................................ 71
Definition of Terms................................................................................. 72
Data Analyses........................................................................................... 75
Research Question 1................................................................... 76
Research Question 2................................................................... 76
Research Question 3................................................................... 76
Research Question 4................................................................... 76
Research Question 5................................................................... 77
Research Question 6................................................................... 77
M ethodological Assum ptions.............................................................. 78
CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH FINDINGS............................................................ 79
Introduction.............................................................................................. 79
Data Analysis........................................................................................... 79
Is There Any Association Between Ethnicity and
Tenure Status.................................................................. 80
Tenured............................................................................ 80
Tenure-Track.................................................................. 81
Non-Tenure-Track......................................................... 81
Is There Any Association Between Ethnicity and
Discipline......................................................................... 83
Native American............................................................ 83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Asian................................................................................ 83
African American.......................................................... 84
Hispanic........................................................................... 84
W hite/C aucasian.......................................................... 84
W hat Are the Relationships Among the Various Indices
of Attitude, Workload and Productivity?.............. 87
To W hat Extent Is There a Relationship Between Ethnicity
and Attitude, Workload and Productivity? 90
W hat Is the Association of Tenure Status to Attitude,
W orkload, and Productivity?.................................... 96
Is Disciplinary Affiliation a Predictor of Attitude,
W orkload or Productivity?......................................... 101
CHAPTER 5. RESEARCH FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ I l l
Introduction............................................................................................. I l l
Research Q uestions................................................................................ I l l
Discussion................................................................................................. 112
Summary of Findings............................................................................ 119
Is There Any Association Between Ethnicity and Tenure
Status?.............................................................................. 119
Is There Any Association Between Ethnicity' and
Discipline?...................................................................... 124
W hat Are the Relationships Among the Various Indices
of A ttitude, Workload and Productivity?............. 126
To W hat Extent Is There a Relationship Between Ethnicity
and Attitude, Workload and Productivity? 129
Ethnicity and Attitude.................................................. 129
Ethnicity and W orkload............................................... 132
Ethnicity and Productivity........................................... 133
W hat Is the Association of Tenure Status to Attitude,
W orkload, and Productivity?...................................... 134
Tenure Status and A ttitude......................................... 134
Tenure Status and W orkload...................................... 135
Tenure Status and Productivity................................. 136
Is Disciplinary Affiliation a Predictor of A ttitude,
W orkload or Productivity?.......................................... 138
Discipline and Attitude................................................. 138
A ttitude Toward the Profession................................. 142
Discipline and W orkload.............................................. 142
Discipline and Productivity.......................................... 146
Conclusions............................................................................................... 148
Implications and Recommendations.................................................. 154
Sum m ary.................................................................................................... 164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................
APPENDIX I: Abbreviated Faculty Survey,
APPENDIX II: Original Faculty Survey.....
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Full-time Instructional Staff in Situations of Post-secondary
Education, by Race /Ethnicity, Academic Rank and Sex 8
Table 2.1 Race / Ethnic Status of Ph.D.s:
Num ber and Percentage of US Citizens, 1989 - 93............... 42
Table 3.1 Num ber and Percentage of
Higher Education Faculty by Racial Ethnicity...................... 64
Table 3.2 Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by Discipline 65
Table 4.1 Num ber and Percentage of Faculty
According to Tenure Status and Ethnicity............................. 82
Table 4.2 Num ber and Percentage of Faculty
According to Discipline by Ethnicity....................................... 86
Table 4.3 Inter Correlation Coefficients am ong
Attitude, W orkload, and Productivity................................... 89
Table 4.4 Means and Standard Deviations of Scores
on the A ttitude, W orkload, and Productivity
Measures for Ethnicity Samples............................................... 94
Table 4.5 Mean Scores for the Attitude, W orkload and Productivity
for each Ethnic G roup................................................................. 95
Table 4.6 Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on the Attitude,
W orkload, and Productivity M easures for Tenure Status
Sample........................................................................................... 99
Table 4.7 Mean Scores for Attitude, W orkload, and Productivity
for each Tenure Status Group.................................................. 100
Table 4.8 Rank-Ordered Listing of Faculty A ttitudes
by Discipline................................................................................ 102
Table 4.9 Rank-Ordered Listing of Faculty W orkload
by Discipline................................................................................ 105
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.10 Rank-Ordered Listing of Productivity
in Descending O rder by Discipline........................................ 108
Table 4.11 M eans and Standard Deviations of Scores
on A ttitude, W orkload, and Productivity M easures
for Discipline Sample................................................................. 110
Table 5.1 N um ber and Percentage of Higher Education Faculty
by Racial Ethnicity...................................................................... 121
Table 5.2 N um ber and Percentage of Tenured Faculty in H igher
Education by Ethnicity............................................................. 122
Table 5.3 N um ber and Percentage of Tenure-Track Faculty
in Higher Education by Ethnicity.......................................... 123
Table 5.4 N um ber and Percentage of Higher Education Faculty'
by Ethnicity w ith No Tenure System................................... 124
Table 5.5 Ethnic Racial Percentage of Higher Education Faculty
by Discipline.............................................................................. 126
Table 5.6 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on A ttitude
(tow ard teaching, research, treatment of m inority faculty,
and higher education profession)
M easures for Ethnicity G roup............................................. 131
Table 5.7 M ean Scores and Standard Deviations on W orkload
(time spent on teaching, research, and service)
M easures by Ethnic G roup........................................................ 132
Table 5.8 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Productivity
(time spent on teaching, research, and service)
M easures by Ethnic G roup........................................................ 133
Table 5.9 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on A ttitude
(tow ard teaching, research, treatment of m inority faculty,
and higher education profession) Measures for
Tenure Status G roup........................................................... 135
Table 5.10 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on W orkload
(time spent on teaching, research, and service)
M easures for Tenure Status Group......................................... 136
i x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5.11
Table 5.12
Table 5.13
Table 5.14
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Productivity
(number of publications and am ount of funding generated)
Measures for Tenure Status G roup........................................ 138
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on A ttitude
(toward teaching, research, treatm ent of m inority faculty,
and higher education profession) Measures
for Discipline G roup................................................................... 140
Mean Scores and Deviations on W orkload(tim e spent on
teaching, research, and service) Measures for Discipline
Group............................................................................................. 144
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Productivity
(number of publications and am ount of funding generated)
Measures for Discipline G roup............................................. 147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The socialization and tenure process of m inority faculty are not
im m une to institutionalized racism. Its presence dim inishes tenure
opportunity for faculty of color, because w hen racism fosters a negative
socialization experience, it usually renders a negative tenure decision for
minority faculty. Moreover, despite academ e's professed stance that the main
com ponents of tenure review -teaching, research and service— should be
weighed equally in tenure decisions, this study indicates that in practice
greater w eight is given to research and external funding. Considering the
findings from this study, most m inority faculty appear to em phasize teaching
and service.
Hence, this research analyzes ethnicity, tenure status, and w orkload
factors in determ ining faculty productivity and tenure tractabilitv. Biases that
enter into the decision process for appointing m inorities to tenure-track
positions, and granting tenure are also evaluated. Conclusions are draw n
about how m inority faculty define their roles according to time allocated to
teaching, research, and service activities, and the implications of these
decisions upon their organizational fit w ithin the academy.
The sam ple of 11,634 subjects w as extrapolated from the 1993 N ational
Study of Postsecondary Faculty sponsored by the National Center for
Educational Statistics.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The sam ple was com posed of White (78.8%), Black (9.7%), Asian/Pacific
Islander (6.5%), H ispanic (4.5%), and Native American (0.4%) faculty,
who were either tenured (56.2%), tenure-track (28.9%) or non-tenure-track
(14.9). The data w ere analyzed using ANOVA, and MANOVA tests,
correlation statistics, and the chi-square test.
Although the results indicated slight to m oderate differences between
m inority and non-m inority groups on attitude, workload, and productivity,
tenure status revealed a stronger impact on w orkload and productivity
variables. For instance, tenure-track faculty (52.57) spent more time on
teaching than both tenured (50.13) and non-tenure-track (46.30) faculty. Non-
tenure-track faculty (9.50) dedicated more time to service than tenure-track
(7.60) faculty; yet, both groups contributed m ore time to service than tenured
faculty (6.14).
Regarding productivity levels, tenured faculty' (12.37) published more
than tenure-track (11.25) and non-tenure-track (9.82) faculty. N on-tenure-
track faculty (209) received more funding than tenure-track (119) faculty. This
difference m ight be due to the prevalence of program funding (as opposed to
research) to support non-tenure track faculty.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER ONE
STATEM ENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
The diversity of university faculty composition, as well as the
distribution of tenure, non tenure and tenure-track positions, are factors that
are often influenced by ethnicity. The U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Educational Statistics, National Survey of Post Secondarv
Faculty (NSOPF-88) reported a higher percentage of m inority full-time regular
tenure-track faculty across all institutions, while conversely a significantly
higher percentage of White faculty is tenured. "[Minorities] are often in non
tenured positions or special program s for minorities. More than likely, many
will start their careers as part-tim e, adjunct, or associate professors and retire
at the same level" (Epps 1989, p. 25).
Institutional decisions leading to tenure are based not only on the
research pursued, but w hat the institution gains for itself, such as prestige,
favorable publicity, or m onetary rewards (i.e. external funding from contracts
and grants), resulting from a particular research study. Therefore, research
becomes the focal point of m easuring productivity and thus deciding tenure.
Furtherm ore, the im petus to increase the num ber of publications generated
by tenured and tenure-track faculty overshadows other elem ents associated
with research, such as creating new and scholarly knowledge for the good and
social welfare of society. W hile quality is not entirely om itted, research and
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the quantity of it, seem to outweigh other com ponents of the tenure
equation-teaching and service.
Background
Deans and other university adm inistrators make decisions about
tenure based on criteria that include teaching, sendee and research
performance. Similarly, tenure-track faculty follow the same guidelines
w hen deciding their teaching methods, service com m itm ents and their
research decisions. Logically, there should be a direct link between this
criteria and the information used by decision m akers (i.e., adm inistrators,
senior faculty) plus their decision m aking behavior and procedures.
However, data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (1994) have
indicated it is feasible that a secondary set of criteria, perhaps unw ritten, can
drive the decision behavior and procedures of adm inistrations w ho set
faculty rew ard structures for tenure and prom otion. Katz (1973) believes this
unw ritten tenure code may surround social context, and thus weighs physical
attributes and social connections.
Literature on higher education reveals that a negative faculty
socialization process concealed with covert acts of racism is more likely to
move m inority faculty away from their goal of tenure and prom otion. The
nature of their relationships with senior faculty and departm ent heads could
help advance their careers with the utilization of sponsorship, role m odeling
and m entorship (Clark and Corcoran, 1986; Tierney and Bensimon, 1996;
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tiem ey and Rhoads, 1993). Therefore, senior faculty should consider the
individual differences of new faculty, along with the nature of the
organizational socialization effort in terms of analyzing how these junior
m em bers respond to their roles. Unfortunately, m inority faculty tend to fall
victim to "typecasting" whereby they are directed tow ard service and teaching,
at the cost of research (Luz Reyes and Halcon, 1988). Consequently, they are
not afforded the opportunity of m entor relationships, the foundation of the
faculty socialization process that usually supports a tenure appointm ent.
Aside from the faculty socialization process, it is also believed that
w ork activities in which professors are involved should parallel the mission
of the university. Braskamp and Orv (1994) echo the concern for equity as it
relates to the allotm ent of time given to the various activities that constitute
w orkload. They encourage balance am ong teaching, research, and service,
purporting the necessity for such counterbalance especially in the outstanding
college (Braskamp and Ory, 1994). This issue causes concern across the
institution: for academic subunits, faculty at different ranks, as well as for
faculty of different ethnic or racial origin. Though the university im parts one
general set of perform ance standards, they become varied as the different
disciplines refine them to meet departm ental idiosyncracies (Bowen and
Schuster, 1986). Consequently, criteria, policies and procedures pertinent to
the tenure review will differ across departm ents as well. A lthough tenure
should not be soley or disproportinately influenced by research perform ance
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Creswell 1985), Bowen and Schuster (1986) believe that during the
probationary period faculty devote more time to research at the cost of time
spent on teaching. In this study, the definition of workload is teaching,
research and community service; productivity is the sum of the publications
and total am ount of funding generated. In view of the fact that the literature
indicates that research productivity differs among disciplines (W anner, Lewis
and Gregorio, 1981), membership in a particular discipline does not
necessarily predict research performance.
Conversely, according to Creswell (1985), disciplinary m em bership
m ight yield an indirect influence on research performance. In disciplines
w here there is a higher expectation for research, such as health sciences or
engineering, policies m ight directly influence research behavior. From an
institutional perspective, policy issues surrounding non-tenure-track faculty
(such as prom otion and tenure, health and retirement benefits, and timely
notice for non renewal of contract) may be evaluated in light of faculty
w orkload and productivity outcomes. Faculty workload and allocation of
time present very im portant issues in higher education in deciding budgets,
salaries, and tenure. Studies in these areas have included cost analysis (Doi,
1974, as cited in NCES, 1991), equity issues and management of grant
proposals (Yuker, 1984). In addition, workload and productivity studies are
useful to determ ine whether racial biases or ethnic inequities exist at specific
institutions. Similarities are believed to exist between the career experiences
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty. The probationary status of the
junior faculty parallels the tem porary nature of the non-tenure-track
personnel. In theory, a terminal or limited-renevval non-tenure-track
appointm ent provides as much job security as a tenure-track position during
the probationary period (Chait and Ford, 1982).
Much of the discourse in regard to workload has been about its effect
on quality of instruction (Lombardi, 1974). Two underlying assum ptions are:
(1) the argum ent of quality versus quantity, and (2) change versus insolvency.
Particular attention is given to the different weights placed on teaching and
on research as measures of productivity (Fairwearther, 1997; Fairw earther,
1993; Tang and Chamberlain, 1997). Specific concern lies with the num ber of
articles produced, the amount of student contact hours, and the am ount of
time spent on service-related activities. These assum ptions contribute to the
disparity in career paths experienced by faculty of color and white faculty. The
career experiences of minority faculty are quite different from their w hite
counterparts. Specifically, faculty of color tend to encounter disparate
working conditions (Clark and Corcoran, 1986; Finkelstein, 1984; M enges and
Exum, 1983), are concentrated in lower academ ic ranks, and receive lower
salaries. Further, the disparity in w orkload heightens the relative differences
in the form ula em ployed to determ ine career orientation— e.g., tenure,
tenure-track or non-tenure track. As universities and colleges progress
through the nineties, they continue to experience residual effects of a sluggish
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
economic clim ate and governm ent cutbacks in educational spending.
Together, these factors create a need for greater flexibility in academic staffing;
subsequently, m ore non-tenure-track positions are being used today in
postsecondary education. However, that does not nullify the lack of tenured
m inorities at m ost major institutions.
A ccording to Chait (1981), Affirm ative Action ensures that universities
and colleges take positive steps to overcome effects of past discrim ination
against and exclusion of racial and ethnic minorities. Correspondingly, the
Fourteenth A m endm ent to the United States Constitution, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1964, and the Equal Employment
O pportunity Com mission (EEOC), protect citizens against discrim ination on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, veteran status or
disability. Specifically, "race discrim ination in prom otion, tenure, and
reappointm ent is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866" (Baez and Centra, 1995). Hence,
the Carnegie Com m ission on Higher Education (1973) defines
nondiscrim ination as "the elim ination of all existing discrim inatory
conditions, wrhether purposeful or inadvertent," on the basis of race, color,
religion, and sex. (p. 116). Baez and Centra (1995) consider such laws as
providing better guidance to institutions for avoiding discrim ination than
many state laws. Nonetheless, acts of discrim ination still pervade the
academy.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The inherent subjectivity of the prom otion and tenure process coupled
w ith individual differences make it difficult to ascertain w hat is fair and
m eritorious. Although university prom otion and tenure standards have
been protected by academic freedom principles, the courts recognize the
subjective nature of the tenure decision process and the potential for racial
discrim ination (Leap, 1995). Indeed most scholars would agree that w ithout
Affirmative Action, the faculty could lose the seemingly equal playing field
(that has allowed the num ber of tenured faculty of color to grow as m uch as
three percent [NCES, 1994]) and reflect greater dissimilarity.
The proportion of full-time instructional faculty in 1992 was reported
as 593,941. This figure contains 29.5% female and 71.4% male. In 1987, of
489,000 full-time instructional faculty onlv 27% consisted of wom en and 73%
* >
of m en (NCES, 1991). The 1992 data set from the National Center for
Educational Statistics (1994) show a slight increase (from 10.4% to 13.2%) in
racial/ethnic minority faculty participation since 1987. The percentage of
m inority faculty is still grossly disproportional to their White colleagues. The
percentages listed in Table 1.1 show a ten-vear (1981 to 1991) period of grow th
in m inority faculty delineated by rank and sex. Since discrim ination affects
em ploym ent, tenure, and prom otion, there m ust be some other system of
checks and balances to ensure fair and equitable conditions for all faculty.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1.1 Full-Time Instructional Staff In Institutions Of Postsecondary
Education, By Race/Ethnicity, Academic Rank, And Sex:
Fall 1981 & 1991 (Number and Percentage)
Rank
and Sex
T otal
Faculty
White, non-
Hispanic
Black, non-
H ispanic
Hispanic A sian American
Indian
1981
Professors
Men..............
Women
115,210(100)
103,380(89.7)
11,830(11.0)
107690(93.5)
97,017 (84.2)
10,673 (9.3)
2,396(2.1)
1,716(1.5)
680 (0.6)
1.166(1.0)
977(0.8)
189(0.2)
3,759(3.3)
3,507(3.1)
252(0.2)
199(0.2)
163(0.14)
36 (0.03)
Assoc. Prof
M en..............
W omen........
105,584(100)
83,589(79.1)
21,995(21.0)
96,959(91.8)
77,268(73.2)
19,691(18.6)
3,576(3.4)
2,290(2.2)
1,286(1.2)
1,438(1.4)
1,109(1.1)
329(0.3)
3,262(3.1)
2.749(2.6)
513(0.5)
349 (0.33)
173(0.17)
176(0.16)
Asst. Prof
M en..............
W omen........
110,974(100)
73,810(66.5)
37,164(33.5)
99,154(89.3)
66,270(59.7)
32,884(29.6)
5,419(4.9)
2,749(2.5)
2,670(2.4)
1,771(1.6)
1,204(1.1)
567(0.5)
4,349(3.9)
3,390(3.0)
959(0.9)
2S1(0.3)
197(0.2)
84(0.1)
O ther Fac
M en..............
W om en......
119,790(100)
70,151(58.6)
49,639(41.4)
106,542(88.)
62,988(52.5)
43,554(36.4)
7,149(6.0)
3,245(2.7)
3,904(3.3)
2,524(2.1)
1,554(1.3)
970(0.8)
3,119(2.6)
2,079(1.7)
1040(0.9)
456(0.4)
2S5(0.2)
171(0.1)
1991
Professors
M en..............
W omen........
144,341(100)
123,173(85.3)
21,168(14.7)
132,065(92)
113,097(78)
18,968 (13.1)
3,572(2.5)
2,466(1.7)
1,106(0.8)
2,038(1.4)
1.654(1.2)
384(0.2)
6,371(4.4)
5,721(4.0)
650 (0.5)
295(0.2)
235(0.16)
60(0.04)
Assoc. Prof
M en..............
W om en......
116,631(100)
84,311(72.3)
32,320(27.7)
103,918(89)
75,341(64.6)
28,577(24.5)
4,942(4.2)
2,924(2.5)
2,018(1.7)
2,107(1.8)
1,490(1.3)
617(0.5)
5,391(4.6)
4,363(3.7)
1,028 (0.9)
273 (0.23)
193 (0.17)
80 (0.06)
A sst Prof
M en..............
W omen........
126,344(100)
76,129(60.3)
50,215(39.7)
106,557(84)
63,573 (50.3)
42,984 (34.0)
7,524(6.0)
3,884 (3.1)
3,640 (2.9)
3,246(2.6)
1,964(1.6)
1,282(1.0)
8,649 (6.8)
6,511(5.2)
2,138(1.7)
368 (0.3)
197 (0.2)
171 (0.1)
O ther Fac
M en..............
W om en........
133,008(100)
71,462(53.7)
61,510(46.3)
113,682(86)
61,194(46.0)
52,488(39.5)
8478(6.4)
3,782(2.8)
4,695(3.5)
4031(3.0)
2,245(1.7)
1,786(1.3)
6099(4.6)
3,886(2.9)
2218(1.7)
718(0.5)
390(0.3;
327(0.2)
SOURCE: US Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES), "Digest of Education Statistics 1985 — 86 and
1995." NOTE — Because of rounding, details may not add to
totals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Problem Statem ent
One could argue that the problem of few tenured m inorities stems not
only from discrim ination in higher education, but from the lack of faculty
socialization for faculty of color. The recruitment, retention and productivity
of faculty of color pose a major challenge for university adm inistrations, who
m aintain they are comm itted to increasing and retaining the num ber of
minority faculty on their respective campus. Minority faculty represent only
13.2% of full-time faculty (NCES, 1994); after this figure is disaggregated
according to racial ethnicity and further delineated by program areas, the
num ber decreases dram atically to levels of tokenism (i.e. one m inority for
every 100 White male faculty). Luz Reyes and Halcon (1988) agree that this
factor places m inority faculty in a precarious position, especially during the
tenure years.
When only a few faculty of color are hired in predom inantly white
institutions, their career decision behavior is burdened by a num ber of
issues— especially in the ares of teaching and service-such as committee
appointm ents, m entoring students, etc. Consequently, a large num ber of
dem ands placed upon a limited num ber of faculty of color can prove stressful
to those faculty members.
Departm ents that are otherw ise comprised predom inantly of white
males should find faculty of color very valuable. Such a faculty could bring
both new perspectives and nonw hite community ties to the departm ent,
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
thereby increasing collaboration across racial lines. Yet all too often, m inority
faculty are limited to joint or split appointm ents within a departm ent
(Johnsrud and Des Jarlais, 1994), and consequently are overw helm ed by the
num ber of committees to which they are assigned to represent
"all m inorities,” as opposed to representing one's respective racial or faculty
group. Acting as representative for all m inority groups on several
committees is stressful, tim e consum ing and likelv to result in less time
’ O j
available for research activities. However, m ost m inority faculty are not
tenured, and are therefore not in a position to refuse this type of request for
service (e.g., service activity bolsters h is/h er chances for tenure). As a result,
faculty of color are relegated to an unlevel playing field, and frequently
become victim to the "one-m inority-per-pot syndrom e" of hiring only one
m inority faculty m em ber per departm ent (Luz Reyes and Halcon, 1988), or
the "revolving door syndrom e." Thus, they tend to leave the university after
becoming discouraged due to the work overload or tenure denial— likelv a
result of a work overload (Cross, as cited in Tierney and Rhoads, 1993).
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to determ ine w hether there is a significant
difference among ethnicity, tenure status, and discipline on attitude,
workload and productivity. The position of this study is that an inequity
exists regarding career decision behavior em ployed by Caucasian and
m inority faculty. Faculty of color tend to place greater effort on teaching and
1 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
service activities, while white faculty exert m ore energy toward research. The
net result of this decision behavior yields a sm aller proportion of m inority
faculty than nonm inoritv faculty receiving tenure. This project will attem pt
to explain the relationships between status, ethnicity and workload factors
that determ ine tenure tractability.
This study will investigate why there is a disparity between White and
Nonw hite faculty related to tenure com position, research, teaching and
service. Of the 526,222 full-time faculty and staff with some instructional
responsibilities, 86.8% were White, not Hispanic; 5.3% were A sian/Pacific
Islander; 4.9% w ere Black non-Hispanic; 2.5% w ere Hispanic and 0.5% were
Native A m ericans (NCES, 1994). The num ber of m inority faculty is neither
proportionate to the num ber of white faculty, nor is the num ber of tenure-
track or tenure positions proportionate to that of their non-white cohorts.
Relationships am ong status, ethnicity and discipline, according to possible
correlations to attitude, workload and productivity will also be explored.
Significance of Study
The study will contribute to the explanation of biases that enter into
the decision process for appointing m inorities to tenure-track positions, as
well as for granting tenure to faculty of color. Their socialization process in
the academ y lends little support to their w ork tow ard becoming tenured, as
they are overburdened by sendee and teaching activities which result in little
time for research.
1 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Conclusions can also be draw n about how minority faculty' define their
roles according to tim e allocated to teaching, research, and service activities.
The implications of these decisions bear light upon the organizational fit of
minorities within the organization. Inferences regarding faculty attitude
toward institutional support and the profession may also be useful in
understanding organizational fit of specific faculty groups including faculty' of
color and non-tenure-track faculty. Furtherm ore, findings may encourage
institutions to be m ore forthcoming with staff developm ent and incentive
program s designed to increase research output, which is highly valued at
institutions that are w hite m ale-dominated a n d /o r research oriented. Policy
developm ent specific to non-tenure-track faculty and minority faculty is
needed to effect positive change in the above noted areas.
Research Design
This study utilizes secondary and descriptive statistical analyses to
establish predictive relationships between the independent and dependent
variables. The basis of the project rests on the factors contributing to the
tenure equation. A ccording to the National Survey of Postsecondary'
Faculty-1988 (NCES, 1991), workload is m ade up of a combination of the
following categories (with emphasis placed according to institutional
orientation and faculty interest): teaching, research, adm inistration,
com m unity service, professional developm ent and other work. The sam ple
population is extrapolated from the National Study of Postsecondary
1 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Faculty-1993 (NSOPF-93) conducted by the National Center for Educational
Statistics (1994) w ithin the U. S. Departm ent of Education. There are six
variables: ethnicity, discipline, tenure status, attitude, w orkload and
productivity. E thnicity and discipline are self-determining; how ever, tenure
status refers to the contractual appointm ent by which the faculty m em ber is
hired. Three levels of status are denoted: non-tenure-track, tenure-track
(junior faculty) and tenure status. Faculty attitude is examined according to
faculty ethnicity, tenure status and discipline affiliation. W orkload in this
project is limited to teaching, research, and service activities. W orkload and
productivity m easures are analyzed among tenured(T), tenure-track(TT), and
non-tenure-track(NTT) faculty. Relationships among all the variables are
assessed carefully in the study according to the following sets: (1) ethnicity
and tenure status, (2) ethnicity and discipline, (3) ethnicity, tenure, discipline,
attitude, workload and productivity.
Research Questions
This study will investigate relationships that may be present am ong
variables of productivity, tenure status, ethnicity, workload and attitude.
Answers will be proposed to the following research questions:
Research Question 1:
Is there an association between ethnicity and tenure status?
Research Question 2:
Is there an association between ethnicity and discipline?
1 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Q uestion 3: W hat are the relationships am ong the various indices
of attitudes, w orkload, and productivity?
Research Question 4: To w hat extent is there a relationship between facultv
ethnicity and status to attitude, workload and productivity?
Research Question 5: W hat is the association of tenure status to attitude,
workload and productivity?
Research Question 6: Is disciplinary affiliation a predictor of attitude,
workload and productivity?
Outline of the Remainder of the Study
The dissertation is organized in five chapters. This introductory
chapter sets forth the param eters of the other four chapters. In Chapter Two,
a body of literature is sum m arized to lay a foundation in areas that
correspond to the variables denoted in the study. The review of the
literature, includes the following areas: (1) an overview of academic freedom
and tenure and its relationship to tenure, prom otion and rew ard structure; (2)
research on respective m inority faculty groups (Hispanics, Blacks, Asians) in
academe; and (3) research on the com ponents of faculty w orkload— research,
teaching and service. A theoretical fram ew ork will be developed around
faculty socialization, organizational decision behavior and institutitional
racism.
The m ethodology for the study is explained in Chapter Three regarding
the sam ple, instrum entation, and data collection. A conceptual model is
1 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
provided. Each research question is listed, followed by an explanation of how
and by whom the data w ere collected and, in addition, the statistical
procedures perform ed to analyze the data pertaining to that question.
Definitions of terms of are also found in this chapter. C hapter Four presents
statistically significant research findings in detail, with respect to each
research question. C hapter Five summarizes the m ajor research findings.
Conclusions, implications and recom mendations are also discussed. Both
literature and theory are integrated into the discussion to substantiate and
support or to introduce critical new knowledge.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
"Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of
thought. A theory however elegant and economical m ust be rejected
or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no m atter how
efficient and w ell-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are
unjust." (John Rawls, 1971, p. 3)
Introduction
It is well established that tenure was originally created to protect the
professoriate from institutional persecution and w rongful term ination of
those exercising their right of academic freedom and research. Todav,
research is discussed in the company of teaching and service. The quantity of
research published com prises one of the com ponents used to determ ine
tenure. While the creation of new knowledge through research and
publication is an essential element of scholarship (Paulsen and Feldman,
1995), such focus on increasing the number of publications overshadows
other factors associated with research such as creating new and scholarly
knowledge for the good and social welfare of society.
It is further believed that group m em bership tends to influence
decision patterns, including how much time to spend on specific work
activities. Minority faculty are often pressured by the adm inistration and
students to allocate m ore time to sendee (e.g. serving on committees) and to
teaching-related activities such as mentoring (Lederm an and Mooney, 1995).
1 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Their white male counterparts are more likely to be free from adm inistrative
presum ptions, thereby allow ing m ore time to concentrate on research.
Organizational decision behavior is significant to the understanding of
how m inority faculty define their roles according to time allocated to
teaching, research, and service activities. The implications of these decisions
have a bearing on organizational fit within the academ y. This chapter
docum ents a body of literature that suggests spending too much time in one
role might jeopardize one's productivity in another. This reasoning is given
typically when a tenure-track professor fails to m ake tenure. While
misallocation of time m ight be the case in various situations, there are deeper
explanations as to w hy m inority faculty are not successful in securing tenure
at a more frequent level~the discrim ination that pervades the academy.
This discrim ination is em bedded within the following environm ents:
(1) a highly subjective tenure decision-making process; and (2) the
socialization process am ong new faculty. Consequently, faculty of color find
them selves com peting on unequal playing fields.
Theoretical Fram ework
The literature has described organizational cultures in higher
education environm ents that are discrim inatory tow ard certain ethnic and
racial minority groups (Luz Reyes and Halcon, 1988). Such organizational
cultures are not conducive to faculty socialization (Tierney and Rhoads, 1993),
and therefore lack the social m oral fiber necessary to com prehend— and
1 7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
therefore eradicate— injustices. In the context of faculty productivity, this
investigation is grounded in the following theoretical framework:
1. W hen ad hom inem acts are present in faculty' socialization, faculty of
color are m oved to an unequal playing ground and the opportunity for
tenure and prom otion is diminished (Baldwin and Blackburn, 1981; Clark
and Corcoran, 1986; Luz Reyes and Halcon, 1988).
2. On the other hand, feedback from a m entor can enhance the transition to
the w ork environm ent as well as provide an entree to the discipline
(Tierney and Rhoads, 1993), where scholarly netw orking and advice on
publications, conferences, presentations and com m ittee work can
potentially elevate professional advancem ent.
W hile a positive socialization process is fundam ental to the career
success of m inority faculty, understandably, a negative process ladened w ith
covert acts of racism (A nderson, 1988) is more likely to move these faculty
m em bers aw ay from their goal of tenure and prom otion (Boiae, 1992; Boyer,
1990; Clark andC orcoran, 1986; Johnsrudand D esjarlais, 1994; Kritek, 1984; Luz
Reyes an d Halcon, 1988; M engesand Exum, 1983; M oore and Johnson, 1989;
Tierney an d B ensim on, 1996; Tierney and Rhoads, 1993). U nderstanding the
origin of academ ic freedom and tenure brings stronger perspective to the
inequality of today's tenure and promotion process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
History of Academic Freedom and Tenure
A study of both colleges of ancient and medieval Europe, as well as
colleges in the American colonies, brings light to the evolution of academic
freedom in the United States (Poch, 1993). Collins (1992), compares the
European experience of academic freedom to the American experience. He
professes that the European experience of academic freedom is complicated in
that the experience varies from country to country. Sometimes there is
variation among institutions w ithin a single country. In the American
experience, academic freedom (at all American universities and colleges), is
guided by a statem ent of principles developed by the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP). The definition of academic freedom by P.
Sydney Hook, best describes the freedom of intellectual inquiry in the
A m erican university.
It is the freedom of professionally qualified persons to inquire,
discover, publish and teach the truth as they see it in their field
of competence, w ithout any control or authoritv of the rational
m ethods by which truth is established. Insofar as it
acknowledges intellectual discipline or restraint from a
community, it is only from the community of qualified scholars
which accepts the authoritv of rational inquiry. (In Kirk, 1955,
p.10)
The first higher education establishments in America (H arvard College
and College of William and Mary) were modeled after the English University.
The statutes of H arvard College were derived from values of the New
England Puritan settlers, w ho were strong advocates of "knowing and
1 9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
honoring God through vigorous study and virtuous living" (Poch, 1993 p. 4).
While this was the primary force and even the underlying governance of the
early American University, another influence plagued the leadership of these
institutions.
[Whereas] the European universities had been founded by groups of
m ature scholars, American colleges conversely were founded by
com m unity religious leaders. [Moreover, the American colleges] did
not readily develop the m ature scholars possessed since the beginning
by their European predecessors. These early colleges were staffed
instead for generations mainly by young and transient tutors. [To this
end], the community leaders were reluctant to drop their reins of
control (Hofstadter and Smith, 1961, as cited in Poch, 1993, p. 4).
Consequently, community interest played a strong role in the type of
governance that emerged in American colleges. What w ould follow was a
two tier structure of governance: the president and faculty w ould be called a
"corporation" and thus, operate resembling the English system, and a board of
"overseers" (usually six magistrates and six ministers) w ould govern the
college. Faculty were essentially isolated from the comm unity w hich had
established the college. With virtually no rights, they did not participate in
selection of the president or the curricula (Poch, 1993).
In the early 18th century, external lay authority debated the purpose of
higher learning and questioned the early college charters to indoctrinate
students in the community's religious beliefs. Hutchins (1951) and other
historians found it absurd for university establishments to take a different
view or direction from their benefactors since they provided the m ajority of
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
financial support and means of survival. The 19th century brought an influx
of colleges founded under Catholic and Protestant leadership, which
continued restricted faculty freedoms. As a result, the em phasis began to shift
farther away from higher education’ s rich intellectual vigor. H ow ever, by the
m iddle of the 19th century, the need for practical application of know ledge
surfaced, which ultim ately replaced the denom inational fervor. In addition,
m ore and more faculty trained in G erm an universities joined the American
Professoriate. During this period (19th century), Germ an universities were
know n for both "Lemfreiheit" (freedom of students) and "Lehrfreiheit”
(freedom of professors) (Hook, 1971). In contrast, the w ord "university" had
m aintained its medieval m eaning of a corporate body of scholars (Poch, 1993).
G erm an faculty operated under the medieval university values and mores,
actively participating in the university governance as well as scholarship.
Lem freiheit, Lehrfreiheit, capitalism , and urban grow th plus the onset of
industrialization added to the quest for a definition of academ ic freedom
during the 19th century. Faculty felt it necessary to formally docum ent
standards by which they could govern their profession (Poch, 1993).
W hen the AAUP was organized by philosophers A rthur Lovejoy and
John Dewey (Hook, 1971), its m ission was "to facilitate a m ore effective
cooperation among teachers and research scholars...to increase the usefulness
and advance the standards, ideas, and welfare of the profession" (p. 3).
2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The AAUP and its standing com m ittees developed principles on academic
freedom and tenure. In 1915, the organization penned its "Declaration of
Principles", which was endorsed by the American Council on Education ten
years later. After a num ber of revisions and additional endorsem ents, the
organization published the 1940 Statem ent of Principles on Academic
Freedom and Tenure (Joughin, 1967). The statem ent defines four basic
academ ic freedoms:
1. To teach,
2. To research,
3. To publish research results, and
4. To com m unicate extram urallv.
This statement, plus its interpretations, were endorsed in 1941 by the
Association and by the American Council on Education. Joughin (1967)
sum m arizes:
The purpose of the statem ent is to promote public
understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and
agreem ent upon procedures to assure them in colleges and
universities. Institutions of higher education are conducted for
the common good and not to further the interest of either the
individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The com m on
good depends on the free search for truth and its free exposition.
Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to
both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundam ental
to the advancem ent of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching
aspect is fundam ental for protection of the rights of the teacher
in teaching and of the student in freedom of learning. It carries
w ith it duties correlative w ith learning. Tenure is the m eans to
certain ends; specifically, (1) Freedom of teaching and research
and of extramural activities and (2) a sufficient degree of
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
economic security to make the profession attractive to m en and
women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence,
tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in
fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society. (P.34)
Academic freedom ensures that professors shall have effective protection of
their economic security through a tenure system. The following safeguards
m ust be a part of any so-called tenure system:
• A probationary period of stated length which conforms to a national
standard. At most institutions, the probationary time is about seven
years.
• An institutional com m itm ent of advance notice to the professor of
whether a perm anent relationship will be initiated.
• A negative decision usually comes one year prior to the
end of the probationary period.
• Appointm ent to tenure status if the professor is continued past the
probationary' period.
• Tenure appointm ent will term inate only in the case of financial
exigency, the professor has reached the age of retirem ent under an
etablished retirem ent system, or adequate grounds (Joughin, 1967).
Of equal importance and essential to the professor's freedom is due
process. Academic due process provides additional safeguards to the faculty
m em ber which parallel those of legal proceedings (such as the right to
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assistance by counselor advisor, opportunity to cross examine, to subm it
argum ent, to present evidence). The 1940 Statem ent of Principles was
developed and supplem ented by other policy statem ents including the
1958 Statem ent on Procedural Standards in faculty dismissal proceedings, the
1961 Statem ent on Recruitment and Resignation of faculty members, and the
1964 Statem ent on the Standards for Notice of Non-appointm ent. (Joughin,
1967). These basic statements are further delineated with interpretations and
specific procedural guidelines for indoctrination. Implied in these statem ents
of faculty governance is a direct link between the guidelines used by the
decision m akers and decision-making behavior. Yet, history points to
situations w here faculty governance was overlooked and acts of
discrim ination prevailed. In some cases, m inority faculty have resorted to
the courts to air their complaints on racial discrim ination (Baez and Centra,
1995; Poch, 1993). A num ber of tenure decisions involving these groups have
been found unjust, and were subsequently overturned. Poch (1993) has
described specific court rulings that show an alignm ent of the Supreme Court
(constitutional protections), with institutional and professorial academic
freedom to make academic-related judgm ents. It is the opinion of Baez and
Centra (1995) that federal civil rights laws, especially Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, provide an easier burden of proof for those faculty
m em bers alleging discrimination than does the United States Constitution.
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lederm an (1995), emphasizing a "N ew Light On Tenure," describes
w hat the experience is like for faculty of color. One female m inority faculty
member who w as denied tenure described her sentim ents in the following
statement, ”1 felt very pressured [by adm inistration], to do all this service
stuff, which is not taken seriously at tenure time" (p. 21). This professor's
distress is sym ptom atic of the distress felt by m inority faculty across academ e
--what appears to be expected is not always valued. The following section will
analyze how faculty socialization, or the lack thereof, can result in negative
implications for m inority faculty. Also described are some of the issues that
faculty of color tend to encounter as they m ove through the socialization
process and prepare for tenure in a white m ale-dom inated institution.
Faculty Socialization Theory
Faculty Socialization Theory is explained in conjunction w ith
Organization Theory in this section. Together, the two theories provide a
backdrop for discussing faculty organization theory' and understanding how
the tenure process acts as a socializing agent for new faculty. Socialization is
defined as the process by which values, attitudes, norm s, knowledge and
skills are acquired by individuals in order to exist in a given society
(Merton, 1957). In other words, "socialization" is the transm ission of culture
to an individual. W hile socialization speaks to the "how,” culture speaks to
the "what." The transm ission of culture can be discussed in three dom ains:
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(1) Cognitive (knowledge and beliefs); (2) Affective (values and norm s); and
(3) Symbolic (verbal and non-verbal language).
When a person m oves to a new environm ent such as a social group or work
setting, behavior patterns often change in response to those found w ithin that
organization. This type of culture is present in organizations, and is
considered organizational culture.
"O rganizational culture is the body of solutions to problem s that has
worked consistently for a group and is therefore [brought] to new m em bers as
the correct w ay to perceive, think about, and feel in relation to those
problems" (Owen, 1987, p. 197). Massy, Wilger, and Colbeck (1994), propose
that collegial organizations emphasize consensus, shared power,
consultation, and collective responsibilities— com m unities in w hich status
differences are de-em phasized and individuals interact as equals. They also
conclude that m em bers of collegial organizations share aspirations and
comm itm ents, have frequent face-to-face interactions, and use civil discourse.
Persons w orking w ithin organizational settings such as collegial
organizations as those defined by Massy, Wilger, & Colbeck (1994) operate
from all three levels of cultural transmission: cognitive, affective, and
symbolic.
Values produce standards by which behavior is gauged, at the same
time, group norm s dictate appropriate ways to behave (Lawer, 1973; Vroom,
1964; W anous, 1972a). For instance, the new faculty member becomes aware
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of organizational norm s and values from both formal and inform al means.
Policies, procedures, and mission statem ents represent a set of form al norms
that are generally articulated at a meeting or learned from an em ployee
handbook. Folkways are more trivial or informal norms (such as shaking of
hands, code of dress, office politics, and protocol) which are transm itted
through verbal and non-verbal ways. "Over time, organizational culture
takes on new m eaning so deep that it defines assumptions, values, beliefs,
norms and even the perceptions of participants in the organization" (Owen
1987, p. 197).
Tierney and Rhoads (1993) elaborate the definition of socialization to
organizations, defining organizational socialization as a cultural process
involving the exchange of patterns of thought and action. A lthough the
process is ongoing, it is most evident am ong recruits upon their entering the
organization (p. 21). While this interpretation of organizational socialization
parallels a traditional one-directional process (Baldwin and Blackburn, 1981),
Tierney and Rhoads further suggest "that since the organization's culture is
interpretive and dynam ic, as new mem bers enter the institution it is
re-socialized” (p. 22). First, the organization bears its own distinctive culture
that is passed on to subsequent generations of employees by way of employee
socialization. Second, the organization's culture continues to evolve by
virtue of new m em bers' interaction w ith the organization. Essentially,
socialization is continuous, involves m any different actors, and consequently
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
has the potential to produce change at many different levels of the
organization.
Faculty Socialization
Faculty socialization pertains here to a specific form of em ployee
socialization that refers to the new professor in the context of a post-secondarv
institution. Since organizational cultures vary from one institution to the
next, one should not hasten to predeterm ine the patterns of expected
behavior prior to arriving at one's institution. As previously stated, some
institutions are more research-oriented and give higher regard to publication
rate, while other institutions value teaching and place a greater em phasis on
teaching quality. Paulsen and Feldman (1995) assert that college m issions and
roles of faculty are described in terms of the trio of teaching, research, and
service functions. Nevertheless, the w ord scholarship refers routinely to
research and publication, consequently setting the culture for the field of
higher education and thereby dictating faculty roles at institutions across the
nation.
Although some ideas or clues regarding the institution's culture are
im parted during the recruitm ent and selection process (W anous, 1992), there
are two distinct stages of faculty socialization in which the new professor
engages~the anticipatory and the organizational stage (Tierney and Rhoads,
1993).
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A nticipatory socialization. Anticipatory socialization begins prior to
the first day of employment; indeed, a large part occurs during graduate
school. A progression of three stages socializes the prospective faculty:
(1) selection of graduate school; (2) participation in graduate school activities
ranging from attending classes to com pleting the dissertation; and finally (3)
the expansion and continuation of acquired roles (Clark and Corcoran, 1986).
O rganizational socialization. O rganizational socialization em bodies
two phases: initial entry and role continuance. The initial entry phase
depicts the previously m entioned recruitm ent and selection process along
w ith early organizational learning just after em ploym ent begins (Tierney and
Rhoads, 1993). U pon entering the academ ic profession, new faculty begin to
learn academ ic culture (Baldwin, 1979). Inherent in the culture of academ e
are four distinct but interrelated cultures that influence faculty socialization
and ultim ately prom otion and tenure:
(1) the culture of the academic profession,
(2) the culture of the specific academ ic discipline,
(3) the culture of the institution, and
(4) the culture of the national higher education system (Clark, 1984).
It is during the role continuance phase of organizational socialization that
"junior faculty m ust m aster the necessary academ ic and cultural skills to
attain tenure" (Tierney and Rhoads, 1993, p. 23).
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Both points of view seem to carry an underlying assum ption regarding
the experience leading to the tenure decision. It is during the continuance
phase that the individual settles into the organization (Tierney and Rhoads,
1993), and the tenure process begins. One could interpret the continuance
phase as the initiation period required for m em bership to an organization
and, m oreover, the price one pays for m em bership (Schein, 1968a).
A person’ s success at this stage usually gauges to a certain extent how long he
or she will rem ain at a given university. People continually m igrate from
one setting to another; they either learn to adapt to "the rules of the game" or
move on to the next institution.
Similarly, Van M aanen (1976) proposes organizational socialization to
explain the m atching or melding of individual and organizational pursuits.
As the essence of a company's philosophy for achieving success, “values"
provide a sense of common direction for all em ployees and guidelines for
their day-to-day behavior. “Organizations succeed because their em ployees
can identify, em brace, and act on the values of the organization" (Deal and
Kennedy 1982, p. 21). With this in m ind, it seems incumbent upon senior
faculty and adm inistrators (particularly departm ent deans and chairs), to
provide support settings that direct and guide junior faculty through the
tenure process. This strategy, which supports the success of its employees,
models a faculty socialization process (Baldwin, 1979; Kuh and W hitt, 1988;
3 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tierney and Rhoads, 1993) conducive to and culm inating in tenure and
prom otion.
Tenure as a Socializing A gent
Because achieving tenure is the main goal of junior faculty, it can be
said that the tenure process socializes faculty to the profession of
professoriate. Although tenure is in fact the end result, in juxtaposition to
faculty socialization, the tenure system becomes the m eans (to an end), and
serves as a socializing agent. Tierney and Rhoads (1993) describe the
prom otion and tenure process as a rite of passage for new faculty. While the
rite of passage is symbolic to the culture of the academic profession, the
implication is that recognition is given based on past and present
perform ance for a job well done. The tenure decision also connotes future
patterns of activity. M erton (1973) would have recognized the tenure decision
as an instrumental sense of recognition: "It directs our attention to the
possibility that, to some unknow n extent, much hum an capacity for socially
valued accomplishment rem ains latent and undeveloped. It assumes that
m uch talent fails to find expression because it is subjected to adverse
conditions" (p. 419).
Some researchers agree that formal and informal m echanisms should
be encouraged at both the disciplinary and institutional levels. From an
institutional level, w here policy is formulated, inform ation regarding the
tenure process should be system atic and dissem inated to all persons
3 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
involved. There is a direct link between the information used by decision
makers and decision making behavior. Academic deans and faculty
committees m ake decisions about tenure based on set criteria for teaching,
service, and research performance. Likewise, tenure-track faculty follow the
same guidelines w hen deciding their teaching m ethods, committee
participation and research decisions. These guidelines are detailed in faculty
handbooks in general and delineated specifically across institutions and
academic schools. An excellent example is the faculty handbook of Radford
University which defines a good faculty evaluation system as one that
"encourages behavior that will lead to the achievem ent of institutional goals,
provides bases for improvement, is results oriented, has clearly stated criteria,
and is explicitly linked to the reward system — m erit pay, reappointm ent,
promotion, and tenure" (Tong & Bures, 1987, p. 319, as cited in I. C. Ehie, & D.
Karathanos, 1994).
On the basis of the different responsibilities held by the individuals
within the departm ents, determ inations should be m ade about where to place
the em phasis for research, teaching, or service performance. Likewise,
specific procedures and standards used to assess faculty performance should
be discussed in advance (Centra, 1979). Additionally, departm ent chairs can
facilitate the socialization of a new faculty m em ber by pairing the individual
with a productive and successful senior faculty m em ber as a mentor.
Feedback from a m entor can enhance the transition to the work environm ent
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
as well as provide an entree to the discipline (Tiemev and Rhoads, 1993),
w here scholarly netw orking and advice on publications, conferences,
presentations and com m ittee work can potentially elevate professional
advancem ent.
Given these assum ptions, one is lead to question exactly how new
belief systems, behavior patterns, and personal identities are embraced.
Does the process vary from one setting to another a n d /o r is it modified
according to differences am ong people (recruits)? Van M aanen (1983) posits
eliciting desired behavior from newcomers by organizing tasks and social
relations for them in particular ways. "O rganizational socialization, then, is
about recruit responses to agent demands as tamed or accentuated by the task
and social organization characterizing a given setting" (Van Maanen 1983, p.
211). In addition, Van M aanen purports indirect control of employees
through the socialization process (1983). New recruits become socialized in
their new setting, as they begin to take on the norm s, values and attitudes of
the organization. Van M aanen's sum m ation of organizational socialization
m oves the reader tow ard a less than favorable interpretation.
Many illustrations could be draw n to depict a negative socialization
experience according to the above explanation of organizational socialization.
For example, a negative experience is often em bedded in the process of the
m inority faculty m em ber w ho is overburdened by participation on too many
comm ittees and classes to teach. In which case, this type of schedule leaves
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
very little time to concentrate on research. Nevertheless, the expectation for
research productivity is ever present and as emphasized earlier, often the
only standard by which tenure is judged. This scenario tvpifies the situation
for m any faculty of color at most white-male dominated or research oriented
universities.
As em phasized by Tierney and Bensimon (1996), in an ideal world,
facultv socialization w ould be accentuated at all academic institutions and
equitably among all junior faculty— particularly those who enter tenure-track
positions. Unfortunately, all is not just in the world, and thus the
socialization process varies from one individual to the next. The variance is
profound between groups, especially for faculty of color, as portrayed in the
above depiction of institutionalized racism, the systematic disadvantaging of
m inority faculty.
An unw ritten tenure code may surround social context and thus
weighs physical attributes, social connections, and gender (Katz, 1973). Moore
(1989) investigated interdisciplinary perceptions of rew ard criteria using the
Tenure Decision Factor Inventory composed of Achievement (ACH),
Ascriptive (ASCRIT), Internal (IP), and External (EP). She revealed that
achievement behavior w as perceived as a far more valuable rew ard criterion
during the tenure process. Since faculty are governed by the sam e general
expectations described in faculty handbooks or contracts, it is reasonable to
think that workload and productivity levels would not vary significantly.
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Therefore, rew ard structures should yield similar rew ards from the same
distribution scale. In the next section, Merton 's Insider Outsider Theory
is discussed as a basis for providing an explanation for past and present
inequities found in the socialization experiences of m inority faculty.
The Im plications of A ttitude
During the early 1970’ s, Merton (1973) spoke of a long-standing
problem in the sociology of knowledge. He put forth the notion of patterned
differentials among social groups and strata in access to knowledge. Merton
was of the opinion that "particular groups in each m om ent of history have
monopolistic access' to certain kinds of knowledge. Some groups have
privileged access,' with other groups also being able to acquire that
knowledge for themselves but at a greater risk or cost" (p. 102). Thirty years
after M erton postulated this idea, it still holds true today.
Insider/O utsider Doctrine
M erton s insider doctrine (access to knowledge) and the outsider
doctrine (exclusion from knowledge) is supported by research evidence of the
differential experiences of m inority faculty from their white male colleagues
(Boiae, 1992; Boyer, 1990; Clark and Gorcoran, 1986; Johnsrud and Des Jarlais,
1994; Kritek, 1984; LuzReyes and Halcon, 1988; Mengps andE xum , 1983; Moore
and Johnson, 1989; Tiem ev and Bensim on, 1996; Tierney and Rhoads, 1993).
We m ust rem em ber that organizational culture is often formed on historical
and social patterns that are historically white m ale-oriented (Tierney and
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rhoads, 1993). M erton (1973) elaborates in his book, The Sociology of Science:
"Although Insider Doctrines have been interm ittently set forth by White
elitists through centuries, W hite male insiders in A m erican Sociology during
the past generations have largely been of the tacit or de facto rather than
doctrinal or principled variety" (p. 103).
In general, faculty believe they m ust com pare favorably with other
junior faculty to receive tenure (Massy, Wilger, and Colbeck, 1994). When a
faculty person of color is the junior faculty in question, the comparison
becomes twofold; hence, competing as a junior faculty as well as a faculty
member of color. They feel pressured constantly to prove that they are
w orthy of their positions (Johnsrud and Des Jarlais, 1994). One underlying
issue is that of merit: "merit poses an obstacle . . . because it produces group
inequality" (D'Souza, 1995, p. 294). Some m inority faculty credit the
m isperception of Affirmative Action for this double standard that has been
bestowed upon them by their white colleagues. They are convinced that their
Caucasian colleagues have acquiesced to the notion that Affirmative Action
means preferential treatm ent for minorities. And that such preference is
synonym ous w ith m ediocrity and lends credence to the
"quota versus m erit" argum ent.
3 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Institutional racism. It is probable that at its core such anomalies
stem around racism and discrim ination in higher education. African
Americans and other m inority groups have referred these conditions as
institutionalized racism.
"Institutional racism refers to the complex of institutional
arrangem ents and choices that restrict the life chances and
choices of a socially defined racial group in com parison with
those of the dom inant group." (Pettigrew, 1982, pp. 4-5.)
"Racism can m ean culturally sanctioned beliefs which,
regardless of the intentions involved . . . justify policies, and
institutional priorities that perpetuate racial inequalities."
(Wellman, 1977, pp. xviii, 235.)
3 7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Although definitions of racism vary from one source to another, W ebster's
New Collegiate Dictionary (Woolf, 1973) defined it sim ply as "the assum ption
that the characteristics and abilities of an individual are determ ined by race,
and that one race is biologically superior to another" (p. 950). Dube (1985)
elaborates racism in education to involve covert, overt, and reactive forms.
He writes of overt racism as the most obvious form, "open and up-front"
(p. 88). In America, this form of racism was supported in the past by
applications of Darwin's notion of "survival of the fittest," and operated
openly across all occupations similar to Apartheid in South Africa. Today, in
this country, racism is much more subtle through clandestine or covert
means, "at times taking the form of superior virtue . . . believed to be
common only to virtuous races" (Dube, 1985, p. 88). On campuses where
"overt racism" has given way to "institutional racism," it is evident in the
disproportionately small num bers of minorities reflected on the faculty
(Brown, 1989, pp. 295, 334). When this type of attitude manifests in the
academy, it acts as a barrier to tenure.
Barriers To T enure. Let us consider the following examples of racism
pertaining to faculty socialization of minority faculty in higher education.
During the 1970s, no one questioned the right and responsibility of the
tenured faculty to recommend new faculty, re-appointm ents, prom otions,
and salary (Sandler, 1975). In fact, institutions relied on the "old boys'
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
netw ork" method from which to recruit and hire old school chums,
colleagues, and drinking buddies. In practice, the very tendencies of this
group that foster support and collegiality, can devalue and exclude research
topics (especially those dealing with minority concerns) dismissing them as
minor or self-serving (Luz Reyes and Halcon, 1988). This attitude m anifests
in decision behavior that makes it increasingly more difficult for m inority
professors to achieve tenure and promotion.
In like m anner, you can see this in the case of the female faculty
member of color, who has difficulty cultivating positive relationships w ith
departm ental colleagues and departm ent heads. Aisenberg and H arrington
(1985) characterize these wom en (individuals) as "outsiders in the sacred"
grove. Although this situation is discussed in gender-specific terms, it applies
to minority faculty m em ber as well. Luz Reyes and Halcon coined the phrase
"the typecasting syndrome," a by-product of tokenism, to describe a
Eurocentric attitude or belief that Hispanics can only, or should only occupy
minority-related positions, such as in Chicano Studies or student support
program s (1988). This type of racism could lim it a particular group to certain
positions, making career change or advancem ent virtually impossible.
Still another example of racism is typified by the "glass ceiling," a
phrase that typically refers to women and best describes the situation for those
faculty of color who not only have aspirations for tenure, but also desire to
advance to adm inistrative positions, such as departm ent dean or chair.
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Despite sterling qualifications, they are unable to ascend beyond faculty status.
Also in academe, the term "revolving door" is used to describe new faculty
who become discouraged after a few years and leave, or who leave due to
tenure denial (Cross, 1991 as cited in Tiemev and Rhoads, 1993). The
revolving door svndrom e is evidenced in studies that show new faculty
disillusioned by inconsistencies between their high expectations for collegial
relations and their actual experience depicting a lack of shared values and
collaborative research (Baldwin and Blackburn, 1981; Boice, 1992; Reynolds,
1992).
Limited Workforce
This section discusses the notion of too few faculty of color in the
academ ic "pipeline," as a feasible reason for fewer tenured m inority faculty
m em bers than White faculty. Smith (1996) believes "the supply and bidding
argum ents are grossly overstated" (p.133). Yet, Blackwell (1988) argues there
are not enough faculty of color in the "pipeline" due to unfair hiring and
labor practices in higher education. Verily, the racial and ethnic status of
Ph.D.s in the United States, from 1989 to 1993, indicate m inim al grow th in the
num bers of m inority doctors of philosophy (see Table 2.1). Com paratively,
fewer students of color than white students achieve doctorate degrees.
Those w ho do obtain the Ph.D., do not necessarily pursue careers in higher
education. This point of view has been used to explain the disproportionate
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
num ber of tenured m inority faculty to White male tenured faculty. To
adequately respond to the symptom, one must first understand its origin.
In the United States today, the "minority" population is quickly
becoming the majority. It is predicted that in the 21st centurv, the school
populations of California, Texas, New York, and Florida, will consist of m ore
than 60% non-w hite students. In 1992, Los Angeles Unified School District
reported only 13 percent Anglo /W hite students in a population of nearly
650,000 students (A ndersen Audit, 1992). Given these changing
demographics, it has becom e imperative to analyze disparities in our
educational system s— higher education in particular. One blatant disparity is
the disproportion betw een minority faculty and m inority students. M inority
students are greatly underrepresented by their respective faculty on majority
White cam puses.
Blackwell's analysis of the problem brings attention to the shrinking
pool of m inority group m em bers in graduate school. He observes that
nonm inority students dom inate enrollm ent in graduate education, thereby
leading to a dom ino effect: (1) problems of access contribute to m inorities'
declining enrollm ent; (2) their underproduction of doctorates; and (3)
ultim ately their decreased num ber in the field of academe.
Their underrepresentation in the num ber of doctorates
produced is a serious indictm ent of both the American
educational system and society as a whole for its failure to
4 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increase and m aintain the access of, retention in, and
achievement w ithin graduate education. (Blackwell, 1987, p. 420)
Table 2.1 Race/Ethnic Status of Ph.D.s
Number and Percentage of US Citizens, 1989-93
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Black 821 (3.6) 898 (3.7) 1001 (4.0) 951 (3.7) 1106 (4.2)
Asian 626 (2.7) 641 (2.6) 787 (3.1) 828 (3.3) 891 (3.4)
W hite 20982 (91) 22162 (90) 22392 (89) 22718 (89) 23202 (89)
Hisp 583 (2.5) 717 (2.9) 730 (2.9) 755 (3.0) 834 (3.2)
Native 94 (0-4) 96 (0.4) 130 (0.5) 148 (0.6) 120 (0.5)
Source: Adapted from National Research Council, Office of Scientific and
Engineering Personnel, Survey of Earned Doctorates, 1989 -1993.
Racial and ethnic m inorities represent only 13.2% of full-time faculty
(NCES, 1994). As this figure is delineated by racial ethnicity and further
disaggregated according to program areas, it decreases dram atically to levels of
tokenism. Luz Reyes and Halcon (1988) agree that this can place minority
faculty in a precarious position, particularly during the tenure years. Another
point of emphasis comes from the U. S. D epartm ent of Education, National
Center for Educational Statistics (1991), National Survey of Postsecondarv
Faculty (NSOPF-88). While the report indicates a higher percentage of
minority full-time regular faculty across all institutions, at the sam e time, the
statistics show a significantly higher percentage of non-m inority faculty
having tenure. Therefore, when only a few faculty of color are hired in
predom inantly w hite institutions on tenure track, the decision behavior is
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
burdened by a num ber of issues. Included in this list is providing quality
classroom instruction, while finding the necessary tim e to produce scholarly
research. Their com m itm ent of mentoring students of color is shared w ith
tim e required to represent m inority groups on assigned committees.
Consequently, a large num ber of demands to a lim ited num ber of faculty can
prove stressful to that "privileged" few.
Attitudes found in hiring practices can also lim it the num ber of
tenured minority faculty. A study done by Konrad and Pfeffer (1991) on
hiring patterns of m inorities and women in educational institutions
concluded that "segregation of the past is one of the most pervasive
influences on the hiring patterns of the future" (p. 152). They found that the
m ost im portant factors predicting the hiring of m inorities (and women) w ere
incumbency and compositional . Thus, m inorities and women were m ost
likely to be hired in vacancies in labor markets currently consisting of large
proportions of these groups respectively. Accordingly, organizations that
currently employ a significant num ber of minorities are likely to fill position
vacancies w ith the sam e.
Konrad and Pfeffer's study lends credence to the idea of tenure being
predicted by factors such as ethnicity, gender, teaching quality and research
funding to the university. Underlying each account of prejudice or
institutional racism listed in the above discussion is a set of attitudes that
typifies this country’ s pejorative thinking (majority W hite group's attitude)
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
against groups outside their own. These attitudes and prejudices pervade
higher education projecting a national perception of m yths about m inority
faculty (Smith, 1996).
The Decision Behavior Of Tenure
The previous discussion surrounding tenure centered prim arily
around its necessity for the integrity of the profession and how certain
leadership characteristics can lead to positive socialization experiences for
junior faculty, and ultim ately a positive tenure decision as well as how the
absence faculty socialization can result in institutional racism. This section
will examine the practicality of tenure and how tenure as a rew ard drives
decision behavior. The rem aining sections in C hapter Two docum ent
research related to the dependent variables in the study, workload and
productivity.
"Tenure was once the means to a noble end of unfetted pursuit of
knowledge, it has now become an end in itself" (O’ Toole, 1994, p. 79). There
is grow ing concern that the very grounds [academic freedom] on which
tenure was based, are now obsolete. Today, the practicality of tenure in the
academ y is widely discussed (Massey and Wilger, 1995; O ’ Toole, 1994;
Schapiro, 1994; Tierney and Bensimon, 1996). O' Toole (1994), a proponent for
the elim ination of tenure, claims that tenure exacerbates the bureaucratic
tendencies of the university. Because no single (one) person wants to be held
accountable for the decision, tenure committees are put in place, and at som e
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
institutions the decision m ay pass through as m any as six comm ittees. This
type of scrutiny m akes the tenure decision process long and costly, and
w ithout tangible m easures in place, the subjectivity that is im posed by each
committee or person on each committee is beyond control. O'Toole asserts
that the structure of the decision process drives junior faculty to spend most
of their time focusing on getting tenure (1994). Therefore, he encourages the
use of grow th contracts to reduce the likelihood of prom oting an adversarial
professor versus a positive institution relationship.
From an economic standpoint, M assy and Wilger (1995) believe that
certain faculty productivity ebbs and flows and turns to "deadw ood" after the
tenure years, thus creating much debate about how to rid the university of
such inefficiency. Sartorius (1972) claimed "deadw ood" to be the biggest
problem that universities adopting tenure w ould face. In an address to the
association in 1994, James E. Perlev, then president of the AAUP, denounced
the idea of elim inating tenure as a valid response to controlling declining
university budgets. Faculty tenure does not guarantee continued
appointm ent through to retirement. Perley (Van Waes, 1994) reiterated that
reorganization strategies that are em ployed to downsize, decrease or
eliminate program s altogether. This strategy w ould in turn elim inate m any
types of inefficiency including tenured positions. In light of the current
economic climate, there will be fewer opportunities for faculty seeking
academic affiliation w hether tenure stays or goes (Van Waes, 1994).
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
O 'Toole (1994) justifies elim inating the need for tenure in term s of
"Due Process," (Poch, 1993) by substituting it with the American legal system.
Van Alstyne (1994) questions w hether the legal system provides a sound
solution, claim ing that it is a good redress only to those who can afford the
time and m oney it would demand. Tenure is debated in conjunction with:
(a) university fiscal decline and its implications for faculty, (b) bureaucratic
nature of the tenure decision process, (c) the need for greater diversity within
academe, and (d) faculty' productivity before and after the tenure decision. A
discussion of faculty roles, productivity, and rew ards is presented in the
following pages.
Faculty Roles and Rewards
The literature indicates that ethnicity, discipline, and tenure status
influence faculty attitude toward their roles in higher education, how they
align them selves w ith the profession and their (minority) colleagues.
This section takes a close look at faculty roles and rewards. W orkload and
productivity form ulas are discussed, as well as faculty attitudes about their
work, profession, productivity and colleagues.
The role of faculty has been discussed in a num ber of ways over the
past decade, b u t for the purposes of this study, explanation of faculty roles will
be limited to the genre of faculty reward structures and productivity. New
faculty, "neophytes" in higher education m ust learn to prioritize their time
between their teaching and research roles. Particular attention is given to the
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
different weights placed on teaching, research publication, and on service as
m easures of productivity. Also em phasized is the relationship betw een
faculty of color, the roles that they are assigned in the academy and how
tenure impacts their decision to enter the professoriate. Some researchers
believe that work activities in which professors are involved should parallel
the mission of the university. Hagerman and H agerm an (1989) suggest that
publication quality standards differ between top public and private schools.
The latter requires publication of a greater num ber of articles and in m ore
prestigious journals. There is also concern about equity relating to the
allotm ent of time given to the various activities that make up workload.
This issue bears concern across the institution, including academic subunits,
faculty at different ranks, as well as faculty of different ethnic or racial origin.
W orkload form ulas. Though the university im parts one general set of
performance standards, these standards become varied as they are refined by
different disciplines to m eet departm ental differences (Bowen and Schuster,
1986). Consequently, criteria, policies and procedures relating to the tenure
review vary across departm ents as well. C urrently, academic policies link
tenure and prom otion decisions to research productivity, thereby setting a
standard for junior faculty to w eight research activity heavier in decisions
pertaining to workload (Grogono, 1994).
Faculty load is the product of all activities that take the time of a college
teacher and which are in som e way related to h is/h e r professional duties,
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
responsibilities and interest. Although little is know n nationally about the
extent of faculty participation in consulting and adm inistrative activities
(Finkelstein, 1984), w orkload is consistently discussed as being comprised of
teaching, research, student advisem ent, adm inistration and consulting
(Clark, 1987). As defined in the 1988 National Survey of Postsecondarv
Faculty (NCES, 1991), w orkload consists of a com bination of the following
categories with em phasis placed according to institutional orientation and
faculty interest:
• Teaching: teaching, advising, or student contact, grading papers,
preparing courses, developing new curricula;
• Research: research, scholarship, preparing or review ing articles and
books, attending or preparing for professional m eetings or conferences,
seeking outside funding (including proposal writing);
• A d m in istra tio n : adm inistrative activities (including paperw ork, staff
supervision, serving on in-house comm ittees, such as the academic
senate), w orking w ith student organizations or intram ural athletics;
• C om m unity service: paid or unpaid com m unity or public service
(civic, religious);
• Professional developm ent: taking courses, pursuing an advanced
degree, other professional developm ent activities, such as practice or
other activities to rem ain current in one’ s field, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• O ther w ork: providing legal or medical sendees or psychological
counseling to clients or patients, outside consulting or freelance work,
working at self-owned business, other em ploym ent, giving performances or
exhibitions in the fine or applied arts, speeches, or other activities.
W hile the list is com prehensive, the probability of form ulating a standard for
m easuring faculty productivity and establishing com m ensurate rew ards is
confounded by the sheer num ber of possible combinations. It is for this
reason that no uniform w orkload formula has been developed across
universities and colleges. Yet, limits have been set by state laws and
university adm inistrations in accordance to the 1969 AAUP Statement on
Faculty W orkload (Lombardi, 1974). Studies of faculty workload are also
complicated by institutional and disciplinary differences, as well as the
differences betw een graduate and undergraduate levels of instruction
(Bowen and Schuster, 1986).
A llocation of tim e. Student contact hours are negotiable by the
num ber of classes taught and the class level taught. The time spent per
student in undergraduate courses differs substantially from the more in-
depth one-on-one involvem ent common in graduate and doctoral work.
Weis (1991) m akes the argum ent that universities em phasizing research,
dem and significantly greater am ounts of time and energy for students. Small
recitation-type classes, personal relationships, and m entoring that norm ally
provide the nucleus for perhaps a business school education have been
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
supplanted by large lecture-tvpe classes and by a student body and faculty who
rarely interact (Weis, 1991).
Even though w orkload is defined in most institutions as a
combination of teaching, research, adm inistration and service, the emphasis
varies from one institution to another. Yuker (1984) found that course loads
varied from six to fifteen credits per semester according to institutional type.
For instance, at research institutions faculty tend to have lighter teaching
loads than faculty at com prehensive universities and com m unity colleges.
On the one hand, faculty at research universities are expected to commit
m ore time to research-oriented activities. On the other hand, institutions
w ith a strong service em phasis m ight require a larger am ount of time spent
on comm unity service, both internal and outside the cam pus. Community
colleges naturally place greater emphasis on teaching because teaching directly
parallels their mission. There is usually little scholarly research performed at
the comm unity college level, and it is therefore precluded from the
productivity formula (Bowen and Schuster, 1986).
In contrast, universities and four year colleges usually require scholarly
research and weigh both research and publication as a criterion for
performance evaluation and tenure review (Clark, 1987). Differences
complicate overall assessments of faculty workload and m ake cross-study
comparisons difficult. University rew ard structures are far from being
uniform and additional variables may influence the tenure decision
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Moore and Johnson, 1989).
Productivity and Rewards
Increasingly, institutions of higher education are being held
responsible for the outcom es of their efforts (Miller, 1994). Inputs such as the
num ber of faculty lines, salaries, research equipm ent, and teaching loads are
increasingly m easured against outputs— such as scholarly productivity, grants
received, and percentage of students passing licensure or certification
exam inations (Edington, Davis, and Hensley, 1994). W hen such inputs are
attached to faculty productivity, many questions are raised including the
following: How m any hours do faculty work, both at their institution of
em ploym ent and overall? H ow do faculty allocate their tim e across various
types of professional and service activities? Do w orkload and time allocation
vary by institutional type, departm ental program, academ ic rank, or tenure
status? Do research publications and time in the classroom vary according to
tenure status? These are just a few of the many questions asked to determine
faculty productivity.
As stated earlier, faculty workload and allocation of tim e present very
im portant issues in higher education in deciding budgets, salaries, and
tenure. Greenberg (1994) gives credence to fiscal crisis as having propelled
num erous studies of faculty productivity~he believes "faculty autonom y and
accountability are at the core of m any probes" (pp. 52-53). Studies in these
areas have included cost analysis (Doi, 1974, as cited in NCES, 1991), equity
5 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
issues and m anagem ent of grant proposals (Yuker, 1984). A dditional work
has been done in the area of m onetary value of publications (Diamond, 1986;
Siow, 1991; Tuckman and Leahev, 1975; Tuckman, 1976 as cited in NCES, 1991;
Hercules, 1995). Research productivity is perceived to be increasingly
im portant in prom otion and tenure decisions and is considered above
teaching, politics, and service~in tenure, prom otion, and salary increase
decisions (Cargile and Bublitz, 1986; Milne and Vent, 1987 and 1989; Schultz,
M eade, and Khurana, 1989). Bowen and Schuster (1986) believe strongly that
during the probationary period, faculty devote more tim e to research at the
cost of time spent on teaching. Productivity thus decreases notably over time,
following attainm ent of tenure or full professorship, w hich makes necessary
post-tenure review or subsequent action (Bennett and Chater, 1984; Sykes,
1988).
Schapiro (1994) defines productivity as "output per unit of input;" it is
com m only used to evaluate changes in economic efficiency over time and
variation in efficiency at a particular time" (p. 37). Restated to refer to faculty,
productivity can be defined as the am ount of time that is allocated to each
activity that makes up faculty workload. In the case of higher education
productivity, Schapiro suggests faculty as an input m easure and num ber of
articles published as a m easure of output. Besides the num ber of articles
produced, concern is w ith the am ount of class time, student contact hours,
the am ount of time spent on com m unity service (both on and outside the
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
cam pus) and the am ount of time devoted to professional development.
According to Monk (1990), the most attractive inputs are those yielding high
productivity relative to their costs and the least desirable are those producing
low productivity and high costs.
As reported in the 1988 National Survey of Postsecondarv Faculty.
faculty spend approxim ately 56 percent of their time on teaching activities,
16 percent on research, 13 percent on administration, 4 percent on
com m unity service, and 7 percent on other work. Reportedly, figures varied
across institution type and by academic rank of faculty. Faculty at research
and doctoral institutions spent an above average am ount of time on research
(39 to 47 percent) and a below average am ount (22 to 30 percent) of time on
teaching. Assistant professors reported spending less time on teaching
activities than associate or full professors (56 percent versus 53 and 51 percent,
respectively) (NCES, 1991).
Of particular interest are differences between tenure and tenure-track
faculty. According to the NCES (1991), on the whole, both tenure-track and
tenured faculty worked a greater num ber of hours than those who were in
non-tenure-track positions or in institutions where tenure was not available.
Specifically, tenured and tenure-track faculty did not differ from one another
in the percentage of time dedicated to teaching activities (53 to 55 percent).
Tenured faculty allocated slightly more time than the tenure-track faculty for
adm inistration (14 versus 11 percent). Tenure-track faculty also spent more
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
time on research than tenured faculty (21 versus 17 percent) (NCES, 1991).
The data uncovered no evidence of a decline in research productivity with
increasing rank or with the attainm ent of tenure. Over their career, full
professors produced more publications and presentations than other ranks of
faculty, but this finding may reflect full professors’ relative seniority rather
than increased productivity. Similarly, during the two years prior to the
survey, tenured faculty produced equivalent or greater num bers of
publications than their tenure-track colleagues; this is also evident over the
span of their entire career.
Teaching and productivity. Teaching load policy has been debated
since the pre-W orld War II period w ith virtually no faculty involvem ent
in the debate. Much of the discourse surrounding workload has involved
its effect on quality of instruction (Lombardi, 1974). Ironically, w hen the
discussion of tenure comes to the table, workload takes on a new m eaning.
Research becomes the focal point of the conversation, and while quality is not
entirely deleted from the conversation, the discussion moves tow ard research
and quantity then drives the conversation. Revealed from a UCLA survey,
"27 percent of all professors and 44 percent of those at public universities felt
that the dem ands for research interfered with teaching" (Mooney, 1991c, p.
A16). The Boyer (1990) Report stim ulated m any discussions around
scholarship; polarizing teaching as the integral part of scholarship. The
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
im portance of teaching is further em phasized by Perkins (1992), w ho rem inds
us that teaching pays the bill for the totality of our academic endeavors.
Massy and Zemsky (1994) believe faculty place greater value on
discretionary time and accord less im portance to undergraduate teaching.
They contend that "hours not used for teaching courses, for grading papers, or
for meeting w ith students become available for research and scholarship, for
consulting and other professional activities, and in most research
universities, for specialized teaching at the graduate level" (pp. 1-22).
Massy and Zemsky (1994) further contend that the reductions in
discretionary time that are associated w ith increased or improved teaching,
usually are not rew arded monetarily or otherwise. Yet, success or failure in
other obligations carries significant rew ards and penalties. Junior faculty who
fall short in research and scholarship, even at m ost non-research institutions,
are rejected tenure.
Generally, deans and other university adm inistrators make decisions
about tenure based on set criteria for both teaching and research perform ance.
Accordingly, tenure track faculty follow the sam e guidelines w hen deciding
their teaching m ethods and research decisions. "Faculty rew ards such as rank
and salary are generally perceived to be based on performance in the areas of
teaching, service, and research and publication" (Om undson and M ann,
1994). A flurry of productivity studies perform ed in the past decade (Cargile
and Bublitz, 1986; Campbell and M organ, 1987; Hagerm an and H agerm an,
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1989; Milne and Vent, 1987; Schultz, M eade, and Khurana, 1989) su p p o rt the
assum ption that research and publication outw eigh teaching and service in
rew ard decisions. Tenure guidelines are referenced in faculty handbooks,
across institutions and academic departm ents. Yet, the tenure decision
process still rem ains subjective. Two assum ptions underlie this elem ent of
subjectivity: (1) the argum ent of quality versus quantity, and (2) change
versus insolvency. Together, these assum ptions paint a picture of conflicting
dem ands betw een departm ental research and teaching quality.
Equally im portant and em bedded in these assum ptions, is the im pact such
subjectivity produces for faculty person of color.
Research and productivity. Research has become big business over
the past thirty years and has been a key elem ent in the formation of new
academic disciplines (Barnett, 1992). The thrust is twofold: (1) institutions
rely on research effort as a m easure of their performance in a race for
recognition and prestige, (2) while faculty race for tenure by securing outside
sources of funding to support their research efforts. Massy, W ilger, and
Colbeck (1994) reported that in a "near-unanim ous voice,” faculty stressed the
im portance of research in hiring, tenure, prom otion, and salary decisions.
On the contrary, at liberal arts institutions where undergraduate
education is em phasized, faculty still perceive research as the activity their
institution rew ards the most. These faculty also reported their institutions as
defining research alm ost solely in term s of external funding and num ber of
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
publications. How teaching or research is formulated in the productivity
requirem ent depends primarily on the emphasis of ( 1) the institution and
(2) the departm ent in which one is employed. Currently, academic policies
link tenure and promotion decisions to research productivity, thereby driving
junior faculty at institutions across the nation to pursue "original research"
(Grogono, 1994).
A significant am ount of research is funded by governm ent and quasi-
govem m ental agencies, as well as on a customer-contract basis. Bamett (1992)
implies a m etaphor of commodity (with its Marxist overtone) suggesting that
research has become a part of the academic currency, which bestows credibility
on those who possess a curriculum vitae listing their research publications.
Implicitly, the focus for increasing the length of publications tends to
overshadow other elements associated with research, such as creating new
and scholarly knowledge for the good and social welfare of society. According
to Paulsen and Feldman (1995), m ost would agree that creation of new
know ledge through research and publication is essential to scholarship,
although this conventional conception of scholarship is criticized as too
narrow . Nevertheless, this "one-dim ensional view" continues to be the
"dom inant fiction" that guides faculty in assessing their ow n and their
colleagues scholarly performance (p. 615).
Geiger and Feller (1995) attribute "over capacity" for lesser quality
research claiming that academic research suffers from too m any researchers
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
chasing too few dollars. They believe this condition evolved in part because
of an increasing num ber of universities’ com m itm ent to a research
orientation. M oreover, there is sentim ent in faculty time allocation about a
possible decline in instructional quality-resulting from an overem phasis on
research at the cost of time spent on instruction (Bowen and Schuster, 1986).
Massy and Zemsky (1994) believe faculty usually are not compensated
through additional salary or other rew ards for increased or im proved
teaching that is associated with reductions in discretionary time. Yet, success
or failure in other obligations carry significant rew ards and penalties. The
most obvious is the junior faculty m em ber who falls short in research and
scholarship, and is therefore denied tenure.
W hat w ould happen if tenure and prom otion decisions were divorced
from research productivity? Grogono (1994) believes skillful professors
would be relieved of the pressure to pursue research and secure publication if
effective researchers would spend less time consum ing fewer resources on
writing, subm itting, and evaluating large num bers of proposals. Grogono
also believes that exciting research w ould flourish, students would see more
of their senior professors, and education would reemerge as the ultim ate
priority at m ost institutions and am ong most professors. Massy and Wilger
(1991) claim that reaching a consensus about exact definitions for quality is
probably impossible. Nevertheless, some standard of m easurem ent should be
adopted. They link faculty productivity to productivity of university, and to
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
higher education as a whole. Finally, they advocate "benchm ark indicators"
to provide quantitative m easurem ents of cost levels and perform ance
standards. It appears that Massy and W ilgers' main concerns lie w ith "output
creep," which refers to the gradual change in product mix. Essentially, faculty
are increasingly turning away from teaching to research scholarship and
professional activities, in hopes of obtaining tenure a n d /o r national
recognition. "O utput creep" is m ost recognizable at elite research institutions.
In contrast, Boice (1992) found a positive correlation betw een scholarlv
productivity and teaching quality. Nonetheless, he points to allegations by
senior faculty that research and teaching are m utually interfering activities.
Discipline and productivity. The relationship betw een discipline and
productivity is of obvious im portance given the role of faculty socialization
in fostering faculty development. In a study by Hercules (1995) on research
activity and productivity in chem istry departm ents, 1985-1988, four factors
were selected as appropriate indicators of current research activity: (1) level of
research funding, (2) number of publications, (3) num ber of graduate students
enrolled, and, (4) num ber of postdoctoral researchers. Research activity was
calculated to be the sum of these four norm alized factors. The total research
impact of a departm ent was related to the aggregate number.
H ow ever, Hercules noted that per capita research activity is probably a
better way to com pare departm ents of widely differing sizes (1995). Although
the four factors are convolved, the aggregate of the four w ould represent a
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
better m easure of research activity than trying to "deconvolute” the data sets.
Hercules also purports that each factor clearly contributes to the overall
research activity in each departm ent; albeit one departm ent m ay em phasize
postdoctoral training, a third m ay p u t substantial emphasis on research-
oriented m aster’ s degrees. H ercules’ study gives strong support for the
ideology of departm ental based productivity. Implicit in the m odel are
collegiality, shared governance and faculty socialization. A lthough resources
wane, m any faculty members strain already fragile relationships while they
compete externally for grants and publication opportunities and internally for
departm ental resources (Massy, W ilger, and Colbeck, 1994).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH M ETHODOLOGY
Introduction
Chapter Three sets forth a description of: (a) the characteristics of the
sample; (b) the instrum entation em ployed in the study from which the data
were extrapolated for the statistical analyses; (c) definitions of terms;
(d) m ethods executed in the data analyses; and (e) an enum eration of
m ethodological assum ptions.
Research M ethod
Sample and Procedures
The sam ple was draw n from the 1993 National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty (NSOPF-93) sponsored by the N ational Center for Educational
Statistics (NCES, 1994) within the U. S. D epartm ent of Education. The
National Study of Postsecondary Faculty is also supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Endowm ent for the H um anities
(NEH). The National Opinion Research C enter (NORC) at the University of
Chicago, was contracted by NCES to conduct the study. Operating on a cyclical
basis, the study is conducted every four years. The first cycle of NSOPF was
conducted in 1987-88 (NSOPF-88), and the second cycle of NSOPF was
conducted in 1992-93 (NSOPF-93). The NSOPF-93 provides a national profile
of faculty including: their professional backgrounds, responsibilities, attitudes,
workloads, salaries, and benefits.
6 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Institutional stratification. All fifty states were included in the
sam pling frame of 3,256 postsecondarv institutions. NORC received
responses from 974 public and private nonproprietary higher education
institutions. A modified Carnegie (1987) classification system w as used to
stratify institutions by control and type. Two levels of control-public and
private, and nine categories were included:
1. Research universities: Among the 100 leading universities
receiving federal research funds. Each of these universities aw ards
substantial num bers of doctorates across many fields.
2. Other Ph.D.: Other doctoral-granting universities.
3. Com prehensive colleges and universities: Offer liberal arts and
professional programs. The highest degree offered is the m asters
degree.
4. Liberal Arts colleges: Smaller and more selective than
com prehensive colleges and universities, which offer bachelor
degrees and some m asters degrees.
5. Non-profit, two-year colleges: Associate degrees offered.
6. Independent medical schools: Those not considered as part of a four
year college or university.
7. Religious Colleges.
8. Other: Include a broad range of professional and other specialized
degree granting colleges and universities.
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9. Unknown: Carnegie classification was initially unknow n, but was
later categorized in one of the above eight classifications.
Faculty. Female faculty representation w as 36.8%, while male faculty
represented 63.2% of the sample. In Table 3.1, race and ethnicity are
delineated by: N ative A m erican/A laskan native (.4%); Hispanic (4.5%);
Asian/Pacific Islander (6.5%); Black, not Hispanic (9.7%); and White, not
Hispanic (78.8%). Seventy-seven percent of the subjects obtained a doctoral
degree, and more than 50% held nine m onth appointm ents. Slightly more
than 50% of the sam ple reflect faculty' who were hired after 1985. Among the
sample: 6,541 faculty (56.2%) were tenured; 3,362 (28.9%) had tenure-track
contracts; and 1,731 (14.9%) were employed in non-tenure-track positions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.1 Number and Percentage of Higher Education Faculty
by Racial Ethnicity
Faculty N um ber Percentage
Total 11,634 (100)
W hite 9,164 (78.8)
Black 1,132 (9.7)
A sian 758 (6.5)
Hispanic 528 (4.5)
Native A m erican 52 (•4)
The sam ple included faculty in the following academic ranks: full
professor (31.2%); associate professor (27.2%); assistant professor (30.3%);
instructor (6.5%); lecturer (2.0%); and other ranks (2.8%). Although certain
disciplines are believed to have a higher concentration of minorities, the
disciplines in this study were selected to replicate those in the original study,
National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF-93). In other words, the
sample depicts faculty from the following fields of NSOPF-93: Business (6.7%),
Education (8.4%), Engineering (4.3%), Fine Arts and Hum anities (23.6%),
Health Science (12.3%), N atural Science (17.4%), Social Science (11.9%) and
Other disciplines (15.3%). (See Table 3.2)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3. 2 Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by discipline
Discipline Percentage
Business 6.7
Education 8.4
Engineering 4.3
Fine Arts 23.6
Health Science 12.3
Natural Science 17.4
Social Science 11.9
Other 15.3
Research Limitations
While the NSOPF-93 profiles 31,354 faculty in higher education
institutions, this study consists of a nationally represented sam ple of 11,634
full-time faculty. The sample was developed around the following
lim itations:
— Faculty w ere limited to four-year colleges and universities since these
institution types require scholarly research. They also weigh research and
publication as a criterion for perform ance evaluation and tenure review
(Clark, 1987).
— Only those faculty members who began their jobs between the years of 1962
and 1992 were included in the study, which is critical to the theoretical
framework of this study. An underlying assum ption is that all faculty have
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
an "equal starting point" to succeed (or fail) in their careers. Regarding
m inority faculty in higher education, Affirmative Action policies w ere
instituted to ensure "level playing fields" in obtaining tenure. Affirm ative
Action laws were enacted during the early 1960's, and 1992 m arks a thirty year
time span from which analyses can be draw n to assess present dav effects on
tenure and promotion.
— Tenured faculty were limited to those who received tenure betw een the
years of 1956 and 1992. To examine tenure frequencies effectively and
accurately, it was necessary to include some years prior to 1962 to show a basis
for com paring tenure trends preceding the enactment of Affirm ative Action.
— Tenure status was limited to three cohort groups representing tenured
faculty, tenure-track faculty and non-tenure-track faculty.
In stru m en tatio n
Items for this study were abstracted from the 1993 National Study of
Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF, 1993) sponsored by the National C enter for
Educational Statistics (1994) w ithin the U. S. Department of Education. Eight
parts were selected from the Faculty Questionnaire to compile data for this
study (See Appendices). Several different scales are used including:
"Yes," "No," and "Don't Know," or "W rite in the Blank;" and
Likert-Type Scales: 1 = "Disagree Strongly," 2 = "Disagree Som ewhat,"
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3 = "Agree Strongly," 4 = "Agree Somewhat." Five groups are used to
sum m arize the variables on which the study is designed:
Group /_M em bership;
Group II _D em ographics;
Group III _Attitude;
Group /V_W orkload; and
Group l/_Productivity.
The m odel below provides a conceptual fram ew ork for introducing the study
to the reader.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure I.
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Group I Group II Group HI Group IV Group V
M em bership Dem ographics A ttitude W orkload Productivity
Ethnicity
Discipline
Status
Profession
Institutional
Support
Time Spent on
Sen/ice
Time Spent on
Research
Time Spent on
Teaching
Funding
Publication
Group I Variables. Membership. The sample is delineated by race that
includes: Native American; Asian; Black, not Hispanic; H ispanic and White,
not Hispanic faculty members. Group membership is obtained from
Questions 53 and 54 of the Questionnaire. Respondents w ere asked to
identify their respective race by selecting the appropriate racial ethnicity.
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Persons of Hispanic origin answ ered Question 54 which pertained specifically
to that racial ethnicity' (see Appendices I and II).
Group II Variables. Demographics. Demographic information for
tenure status [tenured (T), tenure-track (TT) and non-tenure-track (NTT)
faculty] and academic discipline was obtained from Questions 7 and 13 (see
Appendices I & II). Academic discipline corresponds to one's principal field
of research and is defined by: Business, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts and
H um anities, Health Science, N atural Science, Social Science or Other.
Category Five (Fine Arts) and Category Seven (Humanities) were combined to
make up the Fine Arts and Hum anities discipline. Category One (Agriculture
and Hom e Economics) was recoded as part of Category Ten, for "Other"
disciplines.
Group III Variables. Attitude. Attitude tow ard the institution was
m easured by Question 59 (see Appendices I & II). Three items were selected
to yield a composite of faculty attitudes on institutional support issues:
attitude toward teaching (ATEACH); attitude toward research (ARES); and
attitude toward whether minority faculty are treated fairly (AMIN). Each
item has a possible score ranging from 1-7. High num bers indicate a positive
attitude tow ard the institution. An example of items for the teaching category
is "Teaching effectiveness should be the prim ary criterion for prom otion of
college teachers at this institution." Respondents indicated the extent to
which they agreed or disagreed with such items by circling: "Disagree
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Strongly" (1); "Disagree Somewhat" (2); "Agree Somewhat" (3); or "Agree
Strongly" (4).
Q uestion 60 (see Appendices I & II) pertains to the attitude tozvard the
profession (PROF) and has nine items (60a to 60i). Each item has a possible
score range of 1-9. The mean score was used to control for m issing data and
thus calculate faculty's attitude tow ard the profession. Reliability' testing was
perform ed on 60a to 60i to ensure that these items m easured the same
construct (Stevens, 1996), "attitude tow ard the profession." Reliability for
attitude tow ard profession totaled .74. High numbers indicate a positive
attitude tow ard the profession. The following are sam ple item s to which
subjects w ere asked to respond: "The ability of faculty to obtain external
funding," and "Pressure to increase faculty workload at this institution."
They w ere asked to indicate their opinion on each item and w hether they
thought the situation had: W orsened (1); Stayed The Same (2); Im proved (3);
or D on't Know (DK).
G roup IV Variables. Workload. Data constituting w orkload utilizes
percentage scores of work time spent on teaching, research, and service.
These data are compiled from Q uestion 37 (see Appendices I & II). Time
spent on teaching (TTEACH) is com puted from the sum of percentage of
time on teaching (37aa) and the percentage of time on student contact (37ae).
The sum of items 37ab (the percentage of time on research) and 37ac (the
percentage of time on professional growth) yields time spent on research
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(TRES). Time spent on service activities (TSERV) was derived from 37af (the
percentage of time on service activity).
Group V Variables. Productivity. Productivity is represented by
publications and funding. The number of publications (PUB) is compiled
from the sum of items 20bl to 20bl4 (see Appendices I & II), which indicates
the total num ber of products published in years of 1991 to 1993. Publications
include the following: research articles, creative works, chapters, textbooks,
m onographs, books published, presentations, technical reports, patents,
com puter software, exhibitions, book chapters.
Research funding is determ ined by using item 30 and item 33
(see Appendices I & II). Item 30 was recoded to determ ine w hether a professor
received funding (FUND). If a professor answered "N o," the response was
equivalent to zero funding. Answering "Yes" to Q uestion 30 m eant the
professor did receive research funding. Item 33 provides total funds
generated for 1992-93 academic year. Funding total was com puted using the
sum of funding from various sources such as: foundation, business, state,
local, federal and other (33d2 to 33d5). The funding total does not include
sources from w ithin the institution.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
D efinition Of Terms
Ethnicity is defined in the study by the following classifications;
A frican-A m erican/Black, not Hispanic (African-American and Black
are used interchangeably throughout the study);
Asian-American or Pacific Islander (referred to throughout the study as
Asian);
H ispanic (includes, Black and White Hispanics);
Native American or Alaskan native (referred to throughout the studv
as Native American); and
W hite, not Hispanic (White and Caucasian are used interchangeably
throughout the study).
Tenure Status refers to the contractual appointm ent by which the faculty
member is hired. Three levels of status are denoted:
Non tenure-track personnel are usually employed as lecturers or
adjunct faculty with tem porary contracts.
T enure-track faculty are hired on a more perm anent basis as assistant
professors (often referred to as junior faculty) with a probationary
period lasting an average of seven years. If the professor is continued
past the probationary period, she/he is usually appointed to tenure
status.
T enure appointm ents will terminate only in the case of financial
exigency, the professor has reached the age of retirem ent under an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
established retirement system, or adequate grounds (AAUP Handbook,
1967).
Discipline is defined in this study by: Business, Education, Engineering, Fine
Arts and H um anities, Health Science, Natural Science, Social Science and
Other. The list below gives a more comprehensive delineation:
Business (Accounting, Banking and Finance, Business A dm inistration
and M anagem ent, Organizational Behavior, H um an Resource
D evelopm ent, etc.);
Education (General, Basic Skills, Bilingual or Cross-cultural Education,
C urriculum & Instruction, Education Adm inistration, Education
Evaluation & Research, Educational Psychology, Student Counseling &
Personnel Services, Teacher Education and Other Education);
E ngineering (Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Civil
Engineering, Chemical Engineering, communication Engineering, and
other Engineering-related technologies);
Fine Arts and Humanities:
H ealth Sciences (Allied Health Technologies & Services, Dentistry,
H ealth Sendees Adm inistration, Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health,
V eterinary Medicine, Other Health Sciences);
N atural Sciences Biological & Physical Sciences (Biochemistry, Biology,
Botany, Genetics, Immunology, Microbiology, Physiology, Zoology,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Astronomy, Physical Sciences Chem istry, Physics, Geological Sciences,
Other N atural Science); and
Social Sciences (Social Sciences, General, Anthropology, Archaeology,
Ethnic Studies, Demography, Economics, Geography, History,
International Relations, Political Science and Government, Sociology
and Other Social Sciences).
Attitude is m easured for the institution and for the profession.
Institution: feelings toward one's respective institution regarding that
institution's support for his or her career, teaching, research and the
treatm ent of m inority faculty.
Profession: feelings harbored by a faculty member about the profession
of higher education.
Workload is m ade up of the am ount of time spent on teaching, research
and service activities.
Teaching: Lecturing, grading papers, preparing courses, developing
new curricula, advising, or student contact.
Research: research, scholarship, preparing or reviewing articles and
books, attending or preparing for professional meetings or conferences,
seeking outside funding (including proposal writing).
Service: paid or unpaid com m unity or public service (civic, religious,
etc.).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Productivity is defined by publication rate and the am ount of external
funding to the institution.
Publication denotes the num ber of research articles published during
1991 through 1993.
Funding is the am ount of research dollars produced to the university
through contracts and grants.
Data Analysis
There are five research questions. Research Q uestions 1 and 2 w ere
analyzed using the chi-square test. The chi-square test (Pedhazur and
Schmelkin, 1991) w as used to show associations betw een ethnicity and tenure
status, and associations between ethnicity and discipline. One-way Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA), as well as Multivariate Analyses of Variance
(MANOVA) test (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991) w ere applied to Research
Questions 3 through 5 to evaluate the relationships am ong the independent
variables (IV's) and dependent variables (DV's). MANOVA allowed each
independent variable (ethnicity, status, and discipline) to be tested separately,
but in conjunction to a weighted sum of the dependent variables (attitude,
workload, and productivity). The One-way ANOVA test (Pedhazur and
Schmelkin, 1991) w as used to analyze each independent variable separately
for each dependent variable. Since more than one dependent variable is
present, using MANOVA as an omnibus test reduces the probability of
spurious results or an inflated type I error rate (Stevens, 1996).
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Correlation statistics (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991) were perform ed to
discern the relationships among the attitude, workload, and productivity
variables.
This study investigated the answers to the following research
questions:
Research Question 1: Is there any association between ethnicity and status?
A chi-square test was run between ethnicity and tenure status to
examine the tenure status among ethnic groups.
Research Q uestion 2: Is there an association between ethnicity and discipline?
A chi-square test was run between ethnicity and discipline to assess
whether certain ethnic groups have a higher concentration within specific
disciplines.
Research Question 3: W hat are the relationships among the various indices
o f attitude, workload, and productivity?
A Pearson Correlation statistic was used to determ ine relationships
among the dependent variables: attitude, w orkload, and productivity.
Research Question 4: To w hat extent is there a relationship between ethnicity
and attitude, w orkload and productivity?
MANOVA procedures were perform ed on: attitude toward teaching,
research, treatm ent of minority faculty, and profession (ATEACH, ARES,
AMIN, PROF); time spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES,
TSERV); the num ber of publications (PUB); and the am ount of research
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
funding received (FUND) by ethnicity. Separate one-way ANOVA
procedures w ere perform ed on each dependent variable: attitude tow ard
teaching, research, and treatment of m inority faculty (ATEACH, ARES,
AMIN, PROF); tim e spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES,
TSERV); the num ber of publications (PUB); and the am ount of research
funding received (FUND) by ethnicity.
Research Q uestion 5: W hat is the im pact o f the tenure status on attitude,
workload., and productivity?
MANOVA procedures were perform ed on: attitude toward teaching,
research, treatm ent of minority faculty, and profession (ATEACH, ARES,
AMIN, PROF); tim e spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES,
TSERV); the num ber of publications (PUB); and the am ount of research
funding received (FUND) by tenure status. Separate one-way ANOVA
procedures were perform ed on each dependent variable: attitude tow ard
teaching, research, and treatment of m inority faculty (ATEACH, ARES,
AMIN, PROF); tim e spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES,
TSERV); the num ber of publications (PUB); and the am ount of research
funding received (FUND) by tenure status.
Research Q uestion 6: Is disciplinary a ffiliation a predictor o f attitude.
workload, or productivity?
MANOVA procedures were perform ed on: attitude toward teaching,
reach, treatm ent of minority faculty, and profession (ATEACH, ARES, AMIN,
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PROF); tim e spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES,
TSERV); the num ber of publications (PUB); and the am ount of research
funding received (FUND) by field. Separate one-w ay ANOVA procedures
were perform ed on each dependent variable: attitude toward teaching, reach,
and treatm ent of m inority faculty (ATEACH, ARES, AMIN, PROF); tim e
spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES, TSERV); the
num ber of publications (PUB); and the am ount of research funding received
(FUND) by field.
Methodological Assum ptions
The following methodological assum ptions w ere present in this study:
(1) It was assum ed that the databases from which data were com piled
were both com prehensive and accurate;
(2) The sam ple was sufficiently representative of the faculty em ployed
today in institutions of higher education; and
(3) The design and statistical analysis used in this study appropriately
address the intent of the investigation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter delineates and interprets the statistical outcom es for each
of the six research questions stated in Chapter One. The chapter is divided
into two parts for analysis (the statistical results will be discussed further in
Chapter Five). This study utilized both univariate and m ultivariate statistics.
Descriptive statistical analyses such as means, standard deviations, analysis of
variances, and correlations establish relationships between the independent
and dependent variables. The sam ple size for Research Questions One and
Two is eleven thousand, six hundred and thirty-four (n=ll,634). The sam ple
was reduced to seven thousand, nine hundred and twenty-seven (n=7,927) for
Research Q uestions Three through Six due to missing data in funding and
some attitude m easures. In Research Questions One and Two, the cell
percentages are com pared to the column percentages since the percentage is
highly dependent on the column total.
Data Analysis
Fart I. Research Questions 1 -3
The first three research questions set forth the foundation regarding
the relationships am ong the independent variables: ethnicity, tenure status,
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and discipline choice. Specific relationships are denoted between ethnicity
and tenure status, as well as ethnicity and discipline.
Research Question 1: Is there any association between ethnicity and tenure
status?
The relationship between ethnicity and tenure status was assessed
using a chi-square (X^) test statistic. The relationship was statistically
significant (X2(8)=227.99, p<001). There are more Whites in tenured positions
(60%) and less W hites in tenure-track or non-tenure-track positions than any
other group or collective minority group. W hite faculty is the only group
that exceeded the average column total (56%) for tenured faculty
(see Table 4.1). Overall, the ethnic racial breakdow n of the sam ple w as as
follows:
W hite, not Hispanic-9,164 (78.8%)
Black, not Hispanic-1,132 (9.7%)
Asian-758 (6.5%)
Hispanic-528 (4.5%)
Native American-52 (.4%)
The num ber of faculty members who w ere tenured, tenure-track, and in
systems with no tenure by ethnic group is represented in Table 4.1.
Tenured faculty. Approximately 42 percent of Native Am erican
(n=22), African-American (n=472), and Hispanic (n=223) faculty m em bers
were tenured. Sixty percent of White faculty (n=5,469) was tenured and 47
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
percent of Asian American faculty (n=355) was tenured. Eightv-four percent of
all tenured faculty was White, while only 16 percent of tenured faculty was
m inority.
Tenure-track faculty. However, fewer Caucasian professors (26%) were
in tenure-track positions. Consistently, m ore faculty of color than W hite
faculty were in tenure-track positions~of the Hispanic Sample, 43 percent
(n=226) held tenure-track positions; of the Native American Sam ple, 40
percent (n=21) held tenure-track positions; of the Black sam ple, 39 percent
(n=439) held tenure-track positions; and of the Asian Sample, 35 percent
(n=268) held tenure-track positions.
Non-tenure-track faculty. M inority faculty also held m ore non tenure-
track positions than their White colleagues. The breakdown consisted of 20
percent Black (n=221), 18 percent Asian (n=135), 17 percent Native A m erican
(n=9), 15 percent Hispanic (n=79), and 14 percent White (n=l,287).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.1 Number and Percentage of Faculty according to
Tenure Status by Ethnicity
C ount
Row Pet
Col. Pet
T enured T enure
Track
No T enure
System
Row
Total
22 21 9 52
N ative A m erican 42.3 40.4 17.3 .4
.3 .6 .5
355 268 135 758
A sian 46.8 35.4 17.S 6.5
5.4 8.0 7.8
472 439 221 1132
Black 41.7 38.8 19.5 9.7
7.2 13.1 12.8
223 226 79 528
H ispanic 42.2 42.8 15.0 4.5
3.4 6.7 4.6
5469 2408 1287 9164
W h ite 59.7 26.3 14.0 78.8
83.6 71.6 74.4
C o lu m n 6541 3362 1731 11634
Total 56.2 28.9 14.9 100.0
♦ X2(8)=227.99/ £<05
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Q uestion 2: Is there an association betzveen ethnicity and discipline?
The relationship betzveen ethnicity and discipline was assessed using a
chi-square (X^) test statistic. The relationship was statistically significant
'• j
(X-(28)=615.62, ]2<001). The num ber of faculty m em bers concentrated within
specific disciplines (Business, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts and
Humanities, H ealth Sciences, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences or Other) by
ethnic group is represented in Table 4.2. The largest representation of one
minority group in a single discipline was that of Hispanics in Fine Arts (35%),
followed by Asian faculty in Social Science disciplines (30%). W hite faculty
widely occupied all the disciplines except Business (6.8%), Education (8%), and
Engineering (3.5%).
N ative A m erican. Twenty-one percent of Native American faculty
was in Social Science disciplines; 11.5 percent was in Business (n=6); another
11.5 percent w as in N atural Sciences (n=6). On average, 12 percent of all other
groups (Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites) was distributed across Social
Science disciplines except the Native American faculty, of which 2 percent
(n=l) was in Engineering.
A sian. The highest concentration of Asian faculty perform ed research
in the N atural Science (30.1%) and Engineering (15.3%) disciplines. Further,
Asian faculty com posed the largest percentage of m inority faculty in the
Engineering (23%) and Natural Science (11%) disciplines. The lowest num ber
of Asian faculty w as in Education (2.6%).
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
African Am erican. Overall the African-American spread was
concentrated more in the Fine Arts and H um anities (19.1%), and Education
(16%) disciplines than in the Engineering (3%), N atural Science (10.2%) and
Business (6%) disciplines.
Hispanic. Hispanics were significantly more likely to teach in Fine
Arts and Hum anities departm ents (35%). However, Hispanics were
underrepresented in Education (7%) and Engineering (6%) disciplines, and
com prised only 3 percent of all faculty in Business disciplines.
W h ite. Caucasian faculty out num bered all other groups in every
discipline. Out of eight disciplines, more than 1,000 W hite faculty w ere found
in at least five: Fine Arts and Humanities-2,254 (25%); Health Sciences-1,139
(12%); Natural Sciences-1,596 (17%); Social Sciences-1,078 (12%); and Other-
1,413 (15%).
In sum, Caucasian faculty had a fairly even representation across
disciplines with its highest concentration in Fine Arts and Hum anities as
com pared to column total. For example, the lowest raw num ber of W hite
faculty— which was in Engineering (318 or 4%), was still greater than the
highest num ber of m inority faculty in any given discipline— Asian faculty in
N atural Sciences (228 or 30%). The total num ber of Native American faculty
was only 52 out of 11,634 faculty. In disciplines w here the distribution of
N ative Americans seems high— 21 percent in both Social Sciences and Fine
A rts— the percentage is relative and m ust be weighed against the total
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
num ber. In this case, 21 percent is equivalent to six and eleven professors
respectively.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Faculty according to Discipline by Ethnicity
Count
Row Pet
Col. Pet
Business Education Engineer Fine Art Health
Science
Natural
Science
Social
Science
Other Row
Total
Native 6 5 1 11 5 6 11 7 52
American 11.5 9.6 1.9 21.2 9.6 11.5 21.2 13.5 .4
.8 .5 .2 .4 .3 .3 .8 .4
71 20 116 81 87 228 70 85 758
Asian 9.4 2.6 15.3 10.7 11.5 30.1 9.2 11.2 6.5
9.1 2.0 23.2 7.9 6.1 11.2 5.0 4.8
63 181 33 216 142 115 167 215 1132
Black 5.6 16.0 2.9 19.1 12.5 10.2 14.8 19.0 9.7
8.1 18.4 6.6 7.9 9.9 5.7 12.0 12.1
16 35 33 183 59 84 63 55 528
Hispanic 3.0 6.6 6.3 34.7 11.2 15.9 11.9 10.4 4.5
2.1 3.6 6.6 6.7 4.1 4.1 4.5 3.1
624 742 318 2254 1139 1596 1078 1413 9164
White 6.8 8.1 3.5 24.6 12.4 17.4 11.8 15.4 78.8
80.0 75.5 63.5 82.1 79.5 78.7 77.6 79.6
Column 780 983 501 2745 1432 2029 1389 1775 11634
Total 6.7 8.4 4.3 23.6 12.3 17.4 1 1.9 15.3 100.0
* X2(28)=615.62, g<05
Research Q uestion 3: W hat are the relationships among the various indices
o f attitude, workload, and productivity?
A Pearson Correlation statistic w as used to determ ine relationships
among all the variables, ethnicity, status, discipline, attitude, workload, and
productivity (See Table 4.3).
Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion. A ttitude toward
teaching as a prom otion criterion yielded a significantly positive correlation
with time spent on teaching (.237). A ttitude toward teaching as a prom otion
criterion yielded a significantly negative correlation with attitude toward
research as a prom otion criterion (-.238) and with the am ount of time spent
on research (-.290).
Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion. A ttitude toward
research as a prom otion criterion yielded a significantly negative correlation
w ith time spent on teaching (-.213). Positive relationships w ere apparent
betw een attitude tow ard research as a prom otion criterion and time spent on
research (.254).
Productivity and workload. Overall, workload factors revealed
statistically significant relationships with productivity factors. Correlation
coefficients indicate a statistically significant negative relationship between
research and teaching (-.584), as one activity increases, the other decreases.
The sam e relationship exits between teaching and service (-.272).
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In sum m ary, faculty who considered teaching as a viable criterion for
tenure, spent a corresponding am ount of time on teaching activities. These
professors reported a lower consideration for research as criteria for tenure
and reported, spending less time on research. Conversely, faculty w ith
positive regard for research as a tenure criterion spent more time on research
than on teaching. Furtherm ore, the negative relationship between teaching
and research infers an inverse in role behavior~as teaching effort increases,
research effort decreases and vice versa. In like m anner, a decrease in service
effort corresponds to an increase in teaching or vice versa.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.3 Inter Correlation Coefficients, among Attitude, Workload, and Productivity (n=7927)
MEASU
RE
ATEAC
H
ARES AMIN PROF TEACH RES SERV PUB FUND
ATEACH
1.000
ARES -.237644 1.000
AMIN .02604 .0132 1.000
PROF
.08314 4 .0068 . 16434 4 1.000
TEACH .237044 -.212644 -.0118 -.0208 1.000
RES -.289644 .253744 .0143 -.0205 -.583744 1.000
SERV .0134 -.02784 -.03694 4 -.0013 -.271944 15664 4 1.000
PUB -. 11064 4 .095l 4 4 -.0215 -.0045 -14134 . 12974 4 .05044 4 1.000
FUND
-.05614 4 .03844 4 .0138 .0194 -.10274 4 .09254 .0075 .05474 4 1.000
4 = significance at .05
4 4 = significance at .01
89
Part II. Research Questions 4 -6
The next three research questions, are concerned w ith relationships
that may be present among ethnicity, tenure status, discipline, attitude,
workload, and productivity- Associations found in this section w ould allow
conclusions to be draw n about w orkload choices. Specifically, know ing
w hether faculty roles are influenced by a person's ethnicity is crucial to
integrating faculty socialization to the tenuring process. Associations to
w orkload and productivity also illuminate behavior patterns that are
necessary for developing policy, considering tenure and other faculty rewards.
Im proving faculty productivity is just one objective of tracking faculty
attitude and work behavior. Knowing faculty characteristics according to the
discipline in which they have chosen to conduct research, is im portant to
developing future workforces.
Research Question 4: To w h a t extent is there a relationship between ethnicity
and attitude, workload. and productivity?
A ttitude for this research was defined through the 1992-93 National
Study of Postsecondary Faculty as; the extent to which respondents agree or
disagree to the following statement(s). The respondents w ere asked to
indicate their opinion using a Likert four-point scale— higher num bers
indicated levels of agreem ent (1= disagree; 2= strongly disagree; 3= agree;
4= strongly agree). For exam ple, one item on attitude regarding the treatm ent
of m inority faculty requested a response to the following statem ent:
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
"Faculty who are members of racial or ethnic minorities are treated fairly at
this institution." Faculty also responded to similar statem ents that profiled
group differences in w orkload and productivity.
The relationships betzveen ethnicity and attitude, ethnicity and
zuorkload, and ethnicity and productivity were assessed using m ultivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedures. A statistically significant
O m nibus on ethnic groups w as obtained [F(36,31668)=20.09, pc.OOl]. Nine
separate ANOVAs and Scheffe post hoc tests were examined, one for each of
the following dependent variables: (1) attitude toward teaching, research,
treatm ent of minority faculty, and toward the profession of higher education
(ATEACH, ARES, AMIN, PROF); (2) time spent on teaching, research, and
service (TTEACH, TRES, TSERV); (3) the number of publications (PUB); and,
(4) the am ount of research funding (FUND) received by ethnicity (see Tables
4.4 and 4.5).
Attitude
As represented in Tables 4.4 and 4.5, attitude tow ard teaching as a
prom otion criterion was statistically significant [F(4,7922)=3.70, p<.05]. Blacks
reported significantly higher levels of teaching as a prom otion criterion
(x=3.09) than Asians (x=2.92). African-American faculty considered teaching
m ore im portant as a criterion for prom otion than Asian professors.
Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion. Attitude toward
research as a prom otion criterion w as statistically significant [F(4,7922)=33.71,
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
g<. 05]. A sian faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward
research as a prom otion criterion (x=2.65) than Native Americans (x=2.14),
Blacks (2.18), Whites (x=2.23), and Hispanics (x=2.45).
Hispanics also reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward
research as a prom otion criterion (x=2.45) than Whites (x=2.23) and Blacks
(x=2.18).
Attitude toward whether minorities are treated fairly. Attitude toward
w hether minorities are treated fairly was statistically significant
[F(4,7922)=84.97, p<.05]. W hite faculty reported significantly higher levels on
attitude toward the fair treatm ent of minorities (x=3.11) than Blacks (x=2.54),
Native Americans (x=2.59), Hispanics (x=2.73), and Asians (x=2.81).
Asians also reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward the
fair treatm ent of minorities (x=2.81) than Blacks (x=2.54).
Hispanics reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward the
fair treatm ent of minorities (x=2.73) than Blacks (x=2.54).
Attitude toward the profession of higher education. Attitude toward
the profession of higher education was statistically significant [F(4,7922)=21.53,
j><.05]. Black faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward
the profession (x=2.15) than Native Americans (x=1.8), W hite (x=2.00),
Hispanics (2.01), and Asians (x=2.04).
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To conclude, in descending order, White faculty followed by Asian and
Hispanic faculty, revealed the strongest agreem ent that m inority faculty are
treated fairly. In the least agreem ent that m inority faculty are treated fairly
were Black faculty m em bers. Yet, African-American professors felt stronger
than White and H ispanic faculty regarding the profession of higher
education.
W orkload
Time spent on research. Time spent on research by different ethnic
groups was statistically significant [F(4,7922)=17.33, £<.05]. A sian professors
spent a significantly greater proportion of their time on research activities
(x=36.05) than their Black (x=22.78), White (x=28.46), and Hispanic (x=29.61)
colleagues.
Time spent on service. No two groups were significantly different in
the am ount of time spent on service, nor did any tw o groups differ
significantly (.05 level) on the am ount of time devoted to teaching.
Productivity
Num ber of publications. The num ber of publications published during
1991 through 1993 by ethnic groups revealed no statistically significant (.05)
group differences, nor w ere any two groups significantly different in the
am ount of research dollars produced to the university' through contracts and
grants.
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.4 Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on the Attitude, Workload and Productivity
Measures for Ethnicity Sample
Measure Native
n=37
Am Asian
n=569
Black
n=676
Hispanic
n=377
White
n=6268
Total
n=7927
Attitude
Toward
University
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Teaching 3.19 .88 2.92 .94 2.99 .90 2.92 .95 2.99 .95 2.99 .95
Research 2.14 .92 2.65 .92 2.27 .83 2.45
.90
2.23 .91 2.27 .91
Minority 2.60 .96 2.81 .93 3.02 .99 2.73 1.01 3.11 .86 3.02 .91
Toward
Profession
1.84 .45 2.04 .43 2.01 .45 2.01 .45 1.20 .41 2.01 .42
Workload
Teaching 48.62 27.17 50.11 27.10 50.99 25.74 52.57 25.53 50.79 26.72 50.99 26.61
Research 28.22 21.30 36.05 25.95 28.83 19.83 29.61 22.33 28.46 23.22 28.83 23.21
Service 7.081 11.89 5.96 12.36 6.95 12.52 7.39 13.06 6.89 12.44 6.95 12.47
Productivity
Publications 15.60 21.55 10.95 14.09 11.75 15.12 12.04 13.75 11.98 16.46 11.75 16.11
a Funding
238 1299 202 989 146 1072 77 581 141 924 146 932
a Dollar amount for funding is represented in thousands.
94
Table 4.5 Mean Scores for the Attitude, W orkload and
Productivity for Each Ethnic G roup
M easure F P
^G roup Com parison
A ttitude
Toward
U niversity
Teaching
Research
M inority
Toward
Profession
3.7036
33.7067
84.9694
21.5277
.0052
.0000
.0000
.0000
B>A
A, H>B, W; A>N, H
A, H N, H, A
B>N, W, H, A
W orkload
Teaching
Research
Service
1.4821
17.3345
2.4952
.2050
.0000
.0411
A>B, W, H
Productivity
Publications
a Funding
3.2811
1.3225
.0109
.2592
------------
* M ultivariate Test Result, F (36,31668) = 20.09 p < .05
a Dollar am ount for funding is represented in thousands,
b N: Native American, A: Asian, B: Black, H: Hispanic and W: White
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question 5: W hat is the association o f tenure status to attitude,
ivorkload, and productivity?
The relationship betiveen tenure status and attitude, zvorkload, and
productivity was assessed using m ultivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) procedures. A statistically significant Om nibus on tenure status
was attained using the Pillais Test [F(18,15834)=22.56, p<.05]. Nine separate
ANOVAs and Scheffe post hoc tests were calculated, one for each of the
following variables: (1) attitude tow ard teaching, research, treatm ent of
minority faculty, and tow ard the profession of higher education (ATEACH,
ARES, AMIN, PROF); (2) time spent on teaching, research, and service
(TTEACH, TRES, TSERV); (3) the num ber of publications (PUB); and, (4) the
am ount of research funding (FUND) received by tenure status are represented
in Tables 4.6 and 4.7.
A ttitude
A ttitude tow ard teaching as a prom otion criterion. A ttitude toward
teaching as a prom otion criterion was statistically significant [F(2,7924)=26.04,
p<.05]. Faculty with no tenure system reported significantly higher levels on
attitude toward teaching as a prom otion criterion (x=3.17) than tenured
(x=2.94) and tenure-track faculty (x=3.03). Tenure-track faculty reported
significantly higher levels on attitude toward teaching as a prom otion
criterion (x=3.03) than tenured faculty (x=2.94).
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion. A ttitude tow ard
research as a prom otion criterion was statistically significant [F(2,7924)=8.11,
p<.05]. T enured faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude
toward research as a prom otion criterion (x=2.30) than faculty w ith no tenure
system (x=2.20) and tenure-track faculty (x=2.22).
Attitude toward whether minorities are treated fairly. A ttitude tow ard
whether m inorities are treated fairly was statistically significant
[F(2,7924)=47.11, £<.05]. T enured faculty reported significantly higher levels
on attitude tow ard the fair treatm ent of minorities (x=3.10) than tenure-track
faculty (x=2.88) and faculty with no tenure system (x=2.96).
Attitude toward the profession of higher education. A ttitude toward
the profession of higher education was not statistically significant. There was
no difference found am ong tenured faculty, tenure-track faculty, and faculty
with no tenure system .
Workload
Time spent on teaching. Time spent on teaching was significantly
different according to tenure status [F(2,7924)=36.77, £<.05]. Professors on
tenure-track allocated significantly larger am ounts of time to teaching
(x=54.49) than non tenure-track (x=46.30) and tenured faculty (x=50.13).
T enured faculty spent significantly more time on teaching (x=50.13) than
faculty at schools w ith no tenure system (46.30).
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Time spent on research. Time spent on research show ed no significant
difference according to tenure status. However, time spent on sendee bv
different ethnic groups was statistically significantly [F(2,7924)=31.92, p<.05].
Faculty at schools with no tenure system allocated a greater proportion of
their time to sendee related activities (x=9.50) than tenured (x=6.14) and
tenure-track faculty (x=7.60).
Time spent on service. Tenure-track faculty allocated a greater
proportion of their time to sendee related activities (x=7.60) than did tenured
faculty (x=6.14).
Productivity
Number of publications. The num ber of publications published during
1991 through 1993 by faculty according to tenure status was statistically
significantly [F(2,7924)=11.05, p<.05]. T enured faculty published a significantly
higher num ber of publications (x=12.37) than faculty at schools w ith no
tenure system (x=9.82) and tenure-track faculty (x=11.25).
Amount of funding. The am ount of funding secured for the
university through contracts and grants according to tenure status was
statistically significantly [F(2,7924)=3.02, p<.05]. Faculty at schools w ith n o
tenure system garnered a larger am ount of research dollars (x=208,905) than
tenure-track faculty (x=118,873).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.6 Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on the Attitude,
Workload and productivity Measures for Tenure Status Sample
Measure Tenured Tenure Track No Tenure Total
n=4697 n=2341 n=889 n=7927
Attitude M ean SD M ean SD M ean SD M ean SD
Toward
U niversity
Teaching 2.94 .98 3.03 .93 3.17 .81 2.99 .95
Research 2.30 .93 2.22 .89 2.20 .88 2.27 .91
M inority 3.10 .88 2.88 .94 2.96 .90 3.02 .90
Toward
Profession
2.02 .41 2.00 .44 2.04 .43 2.01 .42
Workload
Teaching 50.13 25.97 54.49 25.40 46.31 31.57 50.99 26.61
Research 28.62 22.64 28.55 21.68 30.63 29.19 28.83 23.21
Service 6.14 10.42 7.59 13.74 9.50 17.47 6.95 12.47
Productivity
Publications 12.37 16.14 11.25 16.01 9.82 15.87 11.75 16.11
a Funding
147 924 119 870 209 1111 146 932
a Dollar am ount for funding is represented in thousands.
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.7. Mean Scores for Attitude, Workload, and
Productivity for each Tenure Status Group
M easure F P
^G roup C om parison
A ttitude
Toward U niversity
Teaching
Research
M inority
Toward Profession
26.0410
8.1056
47.1076
2.6933
.0000
.0003
.0000
.0679
TT, NT>T, TT
T>NT, TT
T>TT>NT
W orkload
Teaching
Research
Service
36.7657
3.0431
31.9248
.0000
.0479
.0000
TT, T>NT; TT>T
NT, TT>T; NT>TT
Productivity
Publications
a Funding
11.0464
3.0227
.0000
.0489
T>NT; T>TT
NT>TT
* M ultivariate Test F (18,15834) = 22.56, p < .05
a Dollar am ount for funding is represented in thousands,
b T = Tenured, TT = Tenure Track, NT = No Tenure System
1 0 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question 6: Is disciplinary a ffiliation a predictor o f attitude,
workload., or productivity?
The relationships among discipline, attitude, workload, and productivity
were assessed using m ultivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
procedures. A statistically significant Omnibus on discipline was achieved
using the Pillais Test [F(63,17857)=11.51, j><.05]. Nine separate ANOVAs and
Scheffe post hoc tests were calculated, one for each of the follow ing variables:
(1) attitude toward teaching, research, and treatm ent of m inority faculty
(ATEACH, ARES, AMIN, PROF); (2) time spent on teaching, research, and
sendee (TTEACH, TRES, TSERV); (3) the num ber of publications (PUB); and,
(4) the am ount of research funding (FUND) received according to discipline
are presented in Table 4.11. The following Table 4.8 show s a delineation of
faculty attitudes (ranging from high to low in descending order) according to
discipline.
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.8 Rank-Ordered listing of Faculty Attitudes by Discipline
Teaching Research Minority Profession
Education Engineer N atural Sciences Education
Fine Arts N atural Sciences Business O ther
O ther Social Sciences Engineer Health Sciences
Business Health Sciences Fine Arts Fine Arts
H ealth Sciences O ther Health Sciences Business
Social Sciences Fine Arts O ther Social Sciences
Engineer Business Education Engineer
N atural Sciences Education Social Sciences N atural Sciences
Attitude
Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion. A ttitude toward
teaching as a prom otion criterion was statistically significant [F(7,7919)=36.37,
p<.05]. Faculty in Education reported significantly higher levels on attitude
tow ard teaching as a prom otion criterion (x=3.27) than faculty in the
following disciplines: N atural Sciences (x=2.73), Engineering (x=2.81), Social
Science (x=2.90), Health Sciences (x=2.92), and Other (x=3.09).
Fine Arts faculty (x=3.14) and faculty in O ther disciplines (x=3.09)
com bined, reported significantly higher levels on attitude tow ard teaching as
a prom otion criterion than faculty in Natural Sciences (x=2.73), Engineering
(x=2.81), Social Sciences (x=2.91), and Health Sciences (x=2.92).
1 02
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Business faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward
teaching as a prom otion criterion (x=3.07) than faculty in Natural Sciences
(x=2.73) and Engineering (x=3.07).
H ealth Science professors (x=2.92) and Social Science professors (x=2.91)
reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward teaching as a
prom otion criterion than faculty in Natural Sciences (x=2.73).
A ttitude tow ard research as a prom otion criterion. Attitude toward
research as a prom otion criterion was statistically significant [F(7,7919)=13.64,
p<.05]. Faculty in Engineering reported significantly higher levels on attitude
tow ard research as a promotion criterion (x=2.48) than faculty in all other
disciplines— Education (x=2.10), Business (x=2.15), Fine Arts (x=2.19), and
Other (x=2.21).
N atural Sciences faculty revealed a significantly different attitude
toward research as a promotion criterion (x=2.26) than faculty in Education
(x=2.10), Business (x=2.15), Fine Arts (x=2.19), and Other (x=2.21).
Social Sciences faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude
toward research as a promotion criterion (x=2.26) than faculty in Education
(x=2.10), Business (x=2.15), and Fine Arts (x=2.19).
H ealth Sciences faculty presented a significantly different attitude
toward research as a promotion criterion (x=2.32) than Education professors
(x=2.10).
1 03
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A ttitude Tow ard Fair Treatm ent of M inorities. Attitude tow ard
w hether m inorities are treated fairly was statistically significant
[F(7. 7919)=11.70, £<.05]. Faculty in N atural Science consistently reported a
significant difference on whether m inority faculty were treated fairly (x=3.17)
than faculty in Social Science (x=2.90), Education (x=2.92), Other (x=3.01), and
Health Science (x=3.01).
Business faculty had a significantly different attitude tow ard the
treatm ent of m inority faculty (x=3.11) than faculty in Social Sciences (x=2.90).
E ngineering faculty also revealed a significantly different attitude
toward the treatm ent of minority faculty (x=3.10) than Social Sciences faculty
(x=2.90).
A ttitude tow ard the profession of higher education. A ttitude tow ard
the profession of higher education was statistically significant [F(7,7919)=13.49,
£<•05]. Education faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude
toward the profession of higher education (x=2.13) than faculty in any other
discipline: N atural Sciences (x=1.97), Engineering (x=1.97), Social Sciences
(x=1.99), Business (x=1.99), Fine Arts (x=2.01), Health Sciences (x=2.02), and
Other (x=2.07).
Faculty in O ther disciplines reported significantly higher levels on
attitude tow ard the profession of higher education (x=2.07) than faculty in
N atural Sciences (x=1.97), Engineering (x=1.97), and Social Sciences (x=1.99).
1 04
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.9 Rank-Ordered listing of Faculty Workload by Discipline
Teaching Research Service
Fine Arts N atural Sciences Health Sciences
Business Engineering O ther
E ducation O ther Education
Social Sciences Social Sciences Business
E ngineering Business Social Sciences
N atural Sciences Health Sciences Engineering
O ther Fine Arts Fine Arts
H ealth Sciences Education Natural Sciences
Teaching W orkload
T im e sp en t on teaching. Time spent on teaching was significantly
different by discipline [F(7,7919)=43.76, p<.05]. Professors with careers in Fine
A rts allocated significantly larger am ounts of time to teaching (x=57.31) than
faculty in H ealth Sciences (x=41.54), O ther (x=46.44), Engineering (x=48.09)7
N atural Sciences (x=48.74), and Social Sciences (x=52.90). Table 4.9 gives a
sum m ary of faculty workload variables in descending order according to
discipline.
B usiness professors (x=54.13) along w ith faculty in Social Science
(x=52.90) allocated significantly more tim e to teaching than faculty in H ealth
Sciences (x=41.54), O ther (x=46.44), and N atural Sciences (x=48.74).
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Education professors spent significantly m ore time on teaching
(x=56.60) than those in Health Sciences (x=41.54), O ther (x=46.44), and N atural
Sciences (x=48.74).
Faculty in Social Sciences (x=54.40) and N atural Sciences (x=53.64) spent
significantly m ore tim e on teaching than professors in Health Science
(x=41.54) and O ther (46.44) disciplines.
Research W orkload
Time spent on research. Time spent on research was significantly
different according to discipline [F(7,7919)=45.66, j><.05]. Professors with
careers in N atural Sciences (x=36.36) reported spending significantly more
time on research than Education (x=20.21), Fine Arts (x=25.23), Health
Sciences (x=27.34), Business (x=28.52), Social Sciences (x=28.81), and Other
(x=29.64).
Engineering faculty reported having spent higher levels of time on
research (x=34.59) than Education (x=20.21), Fine Arts (x=25.23), Health
Sciences (x=27.34), Business (x=28.52), and Social Science (x=28.81) professors.
Social Sciences faculty (x=29.64) and faculty in O ther disciplines (29.64)
reported spending m ore time on research than Education (x=20.21) and Fine
Arts faculty (x=25.23).
Professors w ith careers in Business (x=28.52), Health Sciences (x=27.34),
and Fine Arts (x=25.23), reported significantly higher levels of time spent on
research than Education faculty (x=20.21).
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Service Workload
Time spent on service. Time spent on service was significantly
different according to discipline [F(7,7919)=129.16, gc.05]. Faculty in H ealth
Science allocated significantly more time to sendee activities (x=17.34) than
Natural Science (x=4.30), Fine Arts (x=4.61), Engineering (x=5.27), Social
Science (x=5.37), Business (x=5.43), Education (x=7.88), and Other disciplines
(x=8.28).
Faculty in O ther (x=8.28) disciplines allocated significantly more time to
sendee activities than faculty in Natural Sciences (x=4.30), Fine Arts (x=4.61),
Engineering (x=5.27), Social Sciences (x=5.37), and Business (x=5.43).
Education faculty (x=7.88) allocated significantly more time to sendee
activities than faculty in Natural Sciences (x=4.30). Table 4.10 delineates
faculty productivity according to discipline.
1 0 7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.10 Rank-Ordered Listing O f Productivity In D escending Order
By Discipline
Publication Funding
Engineering Engineering
Health Sciences Health Sciences
Education Natural Sciences
Fine Arts Education
O ther Other
N atural Sciences Social Sciences
Social Sciences Business
Business Fine Arts
Publication Productivity
N um ber of publications. The num ber of publications published during
1991 through 1993 bv faculty according to discipline was statistically
significantly [F(7,7919)=8.37 {><.05]. Engineering faculty published a
significantly higher num ber of publications (x=15.11) than faculty in Business
(x=9.00), Social Sciences (x=10.44), Natural Sciences (x=11.03), and Fine Arts
(11.75).
H ealth Sciences faculty published a significantly higher num ber of
publications (x=13.72) than faculty in Business (x=9.00), Social Science
(x=10.44), and Natural Science (x=11.03).
1 08
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Faculty in Education (x=10.21) published a significantly higher number
of publications (x=13.07) than faculty in Business (x=9.00).
Funding Productivity
A m ount of funding. The am ount of funding brought to the university
through contracts and grants by discipline was statistically significant
[F(7,7919)=7.64, p<.05]. Faculty in the fields of Engineering (x=280,575), Health
Sciences (x=245,263), and N atural Sciences (x=208,140) garnered significantly
higher am ounts of research dollars than faculty in Fine Arts (x=43,550).
1 0 9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.11 Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on Attitude, Workload, and Productivity
Measures for Discipline Sample
BUSINESS EDUCATE ENGINEER FINE ARTS HEALTH NATURAL SOCIAL OTHER TOTAL
MEASURE SCIENCE SCIENCE SCIENCE
N=481 N=581 N=389 N=2027 N=9l)8 N=1418 N=1011 N=1112 N=7927
A ltitude
Toward
University
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean Mean Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Teaching 3.07 .94 3.27 .84 2.81 .93 3.14 .91 2.92 .91 2.73 1.01 2.90 .98 3.09 .90 2.99 .95
Research 2.15 .94 2.10 .82 2.48 .88 2.19 .92 2.32 .87 2.37 .97 2.35 .93 2.22 .86 2.27 .93
Minority 3.11 .93 2.92 .96 3.10 .89 3.01 .91 3.01 .91 3.17 .81 2.90 .96 2.95 .88 3.02 .90
Toward Profession 1.99 43 2.13 .41 1.97 .40 2.01 .43 2.02 .42 1.96 .40 1.99 .41 2.07 .42 2.01 .42
W orkload
Teaching 54.13 22.83 53.93 26.63 48.09 23.43 57.31 24.91 41.54 27.96 48.74 27.07 52.‘K ) 24.30 46.44 28.93 50.99 26.61
Research 28..12 19.60 20.21 17.21 34.59 21.47 25.23 20.81 27.34 23.57 36.36 25.98 28.81 21.15 29.64 26.47 28.83 23.21
Service 5.43 6.92 7.88 10.56 5.27 10.08 4.61 8.23 17.34 22.15 4.29 8.55 5.37 8.24 8.28 14.22 6.95 12.47
Productivity
Publications 9.00 10.34 13.07 16.52 15.11 17.41 11.75 20.0 13.72 16.53 11.03 14.14 10 44 12.24 11.59 13.91 11.75 16.11
A FUNDING
79 909 184 114.2 281 1211 44 518 245 1155 208 992 127 960 150 966 146 932
a Dollar amount for funding is represented in thousands
1 10
CHAPTER FIVE
RESEARCH FIN D IN G S, CONCLUSIONS A N D
RECOM M ENDATIO NS
Introduction
The study culminates in Chapter Five with a sum m ary of findings,
conclusions, implications, and recom mendations from the statistical results
' L '
of the six research questions presented in Chapter Four. A discussion of
Research Questions One, Two, and Three is presented first to provide
relationships am ong the variables in the study, and thereby establish a
foundation from which to discuss the remaining Research Questions: Four,
Five And Six. Associations between ethnicity and tenure status, ethnicity
and discipline, as well as relationships among attitude, workload, and
productivity are taken into account, as foundational inform ation on which
inferences are m ade about how tenure status, ethnicity and discipline might
influence attitude, workload, and productivity.
Research Questions
Research Question 1: Is there any association between ethnicity and tenure
status?
Research Question 2: Is there an association betiveen ethnicity and discipline?
Research Question 3: What are the relationships among the various indices
of attitude, workload, and productivity?
1 1 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question 4: To zvhat extent is there a relationship between eth n icity
and attitude, ivorkload and productivity?
Research Question 5: What is the association of tenure status to attitude,
ivorkload, and productivity?
Research Question 6: Is disciplinary affiliation a predictor of attitude,
ivorkload, or productivity?
Discussion
This body of research reveals that w ith respect to faculty of color,
tenure inequities exposed and discussed fifty, thirty, and even ten years ago,
are still present. And as the new century approaches, White faculty
(in particular W hite males) still hold the m ajority of tenured positions.
Despite an influx of students of color into higher education during the last
twenty-five years, faculty of color-regardless of tenure status, languish in the
professoriate in very small numbers.
A lthough, it is tem pting to assert that the num bers rem ain sm all for
m inority faculty because of institutionalized racism, and conclude the
discussion at that— this study was conducted to illustrate how understanding
faculty decision behavior within the constraints of racism, could be useful for
policy and staff developm ent, and to the overall productivity of higher
education, as it relates to faculty roles and further diversifying the academ y.
The assum ption was made at the onset of the study that a direct link is
present betw een the information used by decision m akers and decision
1 1 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
making behavior. To reiterate, academic deans and faculty com m ittees make
decisions about tenure determ ined by a set criteria for teaching, service, and
research perform ance. Similarly, tenure-track faculty incorporate the same
guidelines w hen deciding how much tim e and effort to allocate to their
various roles: teaching m ethods, com m ittee participation and research
decisions. H ow ever, once they make the decision, the data indicate that
disciplines differ on faculty workload and which component is valued m o re-
teaching, research or service.
This disparity in faculty w orkload heightens the relative differences in
the formula em ployed to determ ine career orientation. In addition, the
ability to gam er research funding external to the institution, plays a m ajor
role in a productive research career and a positive tenure decision.
Specifically, the outcomes of this study bring to light to the following points:
1. W hite faculty receive tenure m ore frequently than do faculty' of
color.
2. W hite faculty are more likely to advance successfully through the
tenure process than faculty of color.
3. M inority faculty are hired m ore often than White faculty into
positions w ith no tenure system present.
The above points (discussed further under Research Q uestion One of
the Summary of Findings section), substantiate a theory' critically posed by
Merton (1973), entitled the "O utsider/Insider" doctrine. Over tw enty years
1 1 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
later, Benjamin and Carroll (1996) counter M erton's critique by defending the
merits of such a doctrine because the "professionals organized around the
structuring principle of a field of knowledge are the only ones equipped to
govern themselves, to decide w hat new subfields should be covered, w hat
should be taught, and who should be hired, promoted, or fired." M erton
(1973) believed that "outsiders, no m atter how great their know ledge, skills,
. . . lack the shared understanding needed to effectively contribute to such
discussions" (p.102). Such assertions disturb minority faculty, because due to
their education and professional training they are without question
"insiders" in academe, but are treated like "outsiders." U nfortunately,
because in most cases a minoritv faculty is certainly no less credentialed than
a W hite colleague, the only obvious differential between being an insider or
outsider is race.
In the early seventies, this issue w as the genesis of M erton's (1973)
position regarding the long-standing problem in the "sociology of
knowledge." He discussed the notion of patterned differentials am ong social
groups and strata in access to knowledge. Merton was of the opinion that
". . . particular groups in each m om ent of history have m onopolistic access'
to certain kinds of knowledge. . . some groups have privileged access', with
other groups also being able to acquire that knowledge for them selves but at a
greater risk or cost" (1973, p.102). Nearly three decades later, this still holds
1 1 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
true, and is supported by researcher evidence of the differential experiences of
faculty of color and w om en faculty from their W hite male colleagues.
The difference betw een White and minority faculty is too often
attributed to the relative group size of their participation in higher education.
This rationale has been accepted for many years as a problem, yet only
m eager strides have been m ade to improve the status of m inority faculty, and
increase their participation in the academy. Even efforts m otivated by
Affirmative Action law s— w hether administered in earnest or under duress,
did not increase num bers of any significance. M oreover, with legislation
such as California's Proposition 209 becoming law, the plight of minority
faculty is more precarious than ever, unless the academ y decides to
proactively develop new ways of "measuring the m easures" of the tenure
process.
Of course, we can not begin to assess productivity until we can agree on
a common m easure of assessment. Little agreem ent is found in the literature
on standards or metrics to assess teaching or research outcomes. Theoretically
speaking, a com prehensive workload formula is desired, unfortunately, it has
not been accomplished through research nor with the academ y's current
structures of leadership.
Consideration m ust be given to the tenuring process and to the
socialization of faculty into the academy. "Despite the grow ing press and
inclination to do research, the majority' of the American professiorate, except
11 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in research institutions, believe that teaching effectiveness should be the
prim ary criterion for achieving tenure" (Mingle, 1992). Interestingly, but not
surprising, professors w ho m aintained a strong attitude for research as a
criterion for tenure, also p u t forth relative efforts in research w orkload.
Nonetheless, the m inority professor is of particular concern, because of
the high percentage of faculty of color who are:
1. Systematically and culturally socialized tow ard academic careers in "soft
science" disciplines. According to the data, these non-scientific disciplines
are correlated to low productivity.
2. Because m inority faculty are typically om itted from the m ainstream
faculty socialization processes, their experiences are different from their
W hite colleagues, w hich usually results in disparate conditions
(e.g., overload of com m ittee assignm ents and teaching assignm ents).
As disclosed by the data, m inority faculty spent m ore time on teaching
than on research activities.
Traditionally, higher education (private and public), has been m ainly
supported by tuition revenue, coupled with local, state, and federal funding.
Recently, more em phasis has been placed on increasing endow m ent earnings,
gifts and revenues from sale of university products and services~and m ore
importantly, grants secured through research projects. This shift is leading to
major policy im plications for colleges and universities, notw ithstanding
changing demographics, a service-driven economy, and public policy that in
1 1 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
theory supports equal opportunity, but legislatively limits how much support
is provided to that end. Therefore, as institutions grapple with a changing
fiscal paradigm , and strive to assess its impact on workload and productivity
issues for the professoriate at large, faculty of color would benefit from
m aking career decisions based on this economic evolution of the academ y.
Massy and W ilger (1995) present a com pelling argum ent for utilizing
economic theory as a basis for defining faculty productivity. Their idea of
grantsm anship as a productivity m easure has evolved and could certainly
provide one standard of m easure for evaluating productivity. However, it
should not serve as the only gauge. Albeit little research has been done in the
area of grantsm anship as a m easure of productivity, institutions are
increm entally acknow ledging through word or deed, that research funding
plays a m ajor role in defining productive behavior within the professoriate.
Consequently, funding is recognized in this study as a viable contribution to
productivity.
Junior faculty w ho are successful in garnering outside resources to
support their research efforts would likely produce "more," thereby m aking
themselves m ore attractive to receive tenure. Professors who are able to
obtain research grants are in a better position to allocate their time. They gain
leverage in all three com ponents weighed in the tenure process:
(1) they acquire hum an and technical resources that help in their research,
which (2) position them as bringing prestige to the institution through
1 1 7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
external funding, and (3) they can negotiate (thereby limit) the num ber
courses they teaching. Consequently they gain leverage in the tenure process.
Ideally, this type of time allocation will increase one’ s productivity level, and
thereby, bring the tenure process to a successful conclusion.
Query is, could this model work for faculty of color in light of the
associations am ong ethnicity, tenure status, and discipline as well as attitude,
workload and productivity? The data suggest the possibility of a positive
result, if:
• Faculty socialization is embraced w ithin the institution by all shareholders
including senior adm inistration, and enforcem ent from the top dow n;
• Tenure policy is modified to incorporate flexibility in the com bination of
workload standards that individual faculty members have chosen for
them selves;
• Minority faculty members take a stronger role in controlling the success of
their professorial careers by purposefully transform ing their decision
behavior to em ulate that of tenured professors.
• Adm inistrations hasten to em ploy other types of productivity m odels that
recognize individual as well as departm ental endeavors; and
• From a societal perspective, m inority students must receive the guidance
and support necessary to direct and influence their academic aspirations
toward research-oriented "hard sciences." These areas not only tend to
1 1 8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
receive m ore external funding than other disciplines, but are fast
becom ing the foundation of our country's sendee-driven econom y for the
21st Century.
• Finally, students who choose to pursue the "soft sciences,"
are encouraged to integrate higher levels of research— not just for
publication, but for the acquisition of external finances to fund said
research.
Summary of Findings
Research Question 1: Is there any association between ethnicity and tenure
status?
In the United States, the majority of faculty regardless of status are
White, and m ost tenured faculty are both W hite and predom inately male.
Slightly less than one half of all m inority faculty are tenured. Overall, the
ethnic racial breakdow n of this sam ple m irrored records collected by United
States D epartm ent of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Growth in various minority faculty groups from 1981 through 1991 was
delineated in Chapter One (see Table 1.1). In Chapter Two, conclusions were
draw n about the underrepresentation of faculty of color in the Am erican
postsecondary education system.
C om m on patterns em erged am ong the various m inority faculty groups
studied according to tenure status. The num ber of faculty m em bers that were
tenured, on tenure-track and in system s w ith no tenure for each ethnic group
1 1 9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is presented in Tables 5.2 to 5.4. Findings from this study are consistent with
those num bers docum ented by the United States D epartm ent of Education,
N ational Center for Education Statistics. The figures show n in Table 5.1 are
representative of the m inority faculty in higher education nationw ide. These
data only begin to outline the dire situation faculty of color face as this
century's elusive prom ise of equal opportunity carries over to the 21st—
possibly to linger for m any m ore years.
Only those faculty m em bers that received tenure betw een the years of
1964 and 1993 were used in this study. This time period was delim ited for two
reasons:
1.) This time span provides a near thirty-year w indow from which to
study the overall grow th of faculty of color in higher education; and
2.) The year 1964 was at the heels of the civil rights m ovem ent which
m arked the beginning of Affirmative Action, and thereby, allows us the
opportunity to investigate tenure and prom otion trends in higher education
that have evolved since the civil rights era.
1 2 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5.1 Number and Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by Racial
Ethnicity
Faculty Number Percentage
W hite 9,164 (78.8)
Black 1,132 (9.7)
Asian 758 (6.5)
Hispanic 528 (4.5)
Native American 52 (-4)
Total 11,634 (100)
Tenured Faculty. The data show relationships betw een ethnicity and
tenure status. White faculty dom inate tenured positions across academe. In
this study, over 78 percent of all faculty was White, and W hite faculty
represented 83.6 percent of all tenured faculty. Whites com prised 60 percent
of tenured positions, yet fewer percentages of Whites w ere in tenure-track or
non tenure-track positions than any other individual group or collective
m inority group.
As shown in Table 5.2 approximately 42 percent of Native American
faculty, African-American faculty, and Hispanic faculty were tenured and 47
percent of Asian-American faculty was tenured, while 60 percent of White
faculty were tenured. Collectively, minority faculty represent only 16 percent
of tenured faculty across the nation. The raw num bers give a clearer and
bleaker picture of the representation of minority faculty in higher education.
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For example, 60 percent of White faculty translate to over five thousand
faculty' (out of 9,164) com pared to 42 percent of Native American faculty,
which is exactly' twenty-two professors (out of 52). Native American faculty'
rem ains the smallest represented group. In fact, the group size was too small
to achieve statistical pow er for many analy'ses.
Table 5.2 Number and Percentage of Tenured Faculty in Higher Education
by Ethnicity
Tenured Number Percentage
W hite 5,469 (59.7)
Asian 355 (46.8)
Native American 22 (42.3)
Hispanic 223 (42.2)
Black 472 (41.7)
Tenure-Track Faculty. Table 5.3 shows the com parison between
Caucasian faculty and m inority faculty in tenure-track positions. Each
minority' sample disclosed a similar percentage of tenure-track faculty.
An interesting finding points to fewer Caucasian faculty rem aining or being
initially appointed to tenure-track positions than m inority faculty.
Consistently, a higher percentage of minority faculty' than nonm inority
faculty were in tenure-track positions. This statistics su p p o rt the contention
that more White faculty receive tenure than their nonw hite counterparts.
1 22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5.3 Number and Percentage of Tenure-Track Faculty in Higher
Education by Ethnicity
Tenure-Track Num ber Percentage
Hispanic 226 (42.8)
Native American 21 (40.4)
Black 439 (38.8)
Asian 268 (35.4)
W hite 2,408 (26.3)
Faculty with no tenure system. Minority faculty also held m ore non
tenure positions than their W hite colleagues. More African-Am erican
faculty held positions with no tenure arrangem ent than any other group,
regardless of ethnicity. The least num ber of White faculty was found in the
category of no tenure system; indicating that White faculty were not allowed
to linger in the "academic netherland" of tenure-track and non tenure-track
positions, but were placed in tenured positions more quickly and more
readily than m inority professors. (See Table 5.4)
1 2 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5.4 Number and Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by Ethnicity
Who Are Employed w ith No Tenure System
No Tenure System Number Percentage
Black 221 (19-5)
Asian 135 (17.8)
Native American 9 (17.3)
Hispanic 79 (15.0)
W hite 1,287 (14.0)
In sum m ary, nonm inority professors continue to dom inate tenured
positions in higher education, while m inority faculty are relegated to no
tenure and tenure-track positions w here they seem to languish in academic
limbo.
Research Q uestion 2: Is there an association between ethnicity and
discipline?
It w as assum ed early in the study that faculty of color w ould
predom inate in certain disciplines; it was also reasonable to believe that some
disciplines w ere considered more labor intensive with respect to generating
research publication (e.g., soft sciences), and more lucrative w ith respect to
external funding (e.g., hard sciences) than others. The num ber of faculty
members concentrated within specific disciplines: Business, Education,
Engineering, Fine Arts and H um anities, H ealth Sciences, N atural Sciences,
Social Sciences or Other by ethnic group is represented in Table 5.5.
1 24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Com pared to White faculty, Asian faculty dom inated scientific
disciplines such as Engineering; African-American faculty concentrated more
in Education and Fine Arts disciplines. Hispanic faculty members were
significantly more likely to teach in the Fine Arts and Humanities
departm ent. Yet, Hispanics were underrepresented in Education and
Engineering, and comprised only 3 percent of all faculty in Business
disciplines. There are twice as many Black faculty (16%) who selected careers
in Education com pared to 8 percent of W hite faculty. The total num ber of
Native American faculty in the study was only 52 out of 11,634 faculty. As
reported earlier, in disciplines where the distribution of Native Am ericans
seemed high as in Social Sciences and Fine Arts, the percentage is relative and
m ust be weighed against the raw num ber. For example, 21 percent of Native
American faculty is represented in the Social Science and Fine Arts
disciplines, this fairly high percentage actually equals the appointm ent of six
and eleven professors respectively— a daunting indicator of the "tokenism "
described by Luz Reyes and Halcon (1988).
1 25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5. 5 Ethnic Racial Percentage of Higher Education Faculty
by Discipline
Discipline Native Am Asian Black Hispanic W hite
Business 11.5 9.4 5.6 3.0 6.8
Education 9.6 2.6 16.0 6.6 8.1
Engineer 1.9 15.3 2.9 6.3 3.5
Fine Arts 21.2 10.7 19.1 34.7 24.6
Health Sci 9.6 11.5 12.5 11.2 12.4
Natural Sci 11.5 30.1 10.2 15.9 17.4
Social Sci 21.2 9.2 14.8 11.9 11.8
Other 13.5 11.2 19.0 10.4 15.4
In conclusion, although the largest representation of any m inority
group in a single discipline was that of Hispanics in Fine Arts, followed by
Asian faculty in N atural Science disciplines, W hite professors were highly
represented in all disciplines, except Business, Education, and Engineering.
However, White faculty still out-numbered all other faculty in every
discipline; m ore than 1,000 White faculty were found in five out of eight
disciplines (Fine Arts and Humanities-2,254; H ealth Sciences-1,139; N atural
Sciences-1,596; Social Sciences-1,078; and Other-1,413).
Research Question 3: W hat are the relationships among the various indices
of attitude, w orkload. and productivity?
This section draw s attention to the relationships among all of the
variables in the study: ethnicity, tenure status, discipline, attitude, w orkload,
1 26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and productivity. Relationships found am ong attitude, workload, and
productivity factors can prove helpful in understanding faculty perceptions
toward their w ork, profession, and how faculty workload decisions affect their
productivity levels. Additionally, associations discovered betw een the
independent variables and the dependent variables bring to light inform ation
about how attitude, workload, and productivity are affected bv group
membership— especially by ethnicity, tenure status, and by discipline.
Overall, w orkload was inversely related to several other factors. As has
been enum erated in previous studies, time spent on teaching correlated
negatively w ith tim e spent on sendee and with time spent on research. This
negative correlation suggests a diametrically opposing relationship betw een
the two variables of teaching and research— thus, as one activity increases, the
other decreases. The sam e relationship exists between teaching and service—
an increase in service, translates to decreased teaching. Statistically significant
positive relationships were present between research and attitude tow ard
research. In total, seven correlations exceeded the practical criterion of
significance (e.g., .20). These correlations have been grouped together below
to highlight them es in faculty workload and attitude am ong the six variables:
Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion. A ttitude tow ard
teaching as a prom otion criterion produced inverse associations w ith attitude
toward research as a prom otion criterion (-.238) and the am ount of tim e spent
on research (-.290). Yet, attitude toward teaching as a prom otion criterion
1 27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
produced a m ildly positive correlation w ith and the am ount of time spent on
teaching (.237).
A ttitude tow ard research as a prom otion criterion. A ttitude tow ard
research as a prom otion criterion yielded a mildly negative relationship with
time spent on teaching (-.213). A slightly stronger positive relationship was
apparent betw een attitude toward research as a promotion criterion and time
spent on research (.254).
Correlation coefficients indicate a fairly strong negative relationship
between tim e spent on research and time spent on teaching (-.584) and time
spent on teaching revealed a m oderately negative correlation w ith time spent
on service (-.272).
On the whole, it is probable to expect a particular decision behavior
from professors that exhibit strong positive feelings for research or teaching as
a criterion for tenure. For instance, faculty that value teaching over research
will decide to put m ore time into teaching activities and less tim e tow ard
research activities. The opposite decision is expected from faculty that are bias
toward research as a standard for tenure. A similar prediction is applicable to
workload decisions betw een teaching with service and research w ith service.
A decision to increase one role results in a decrease in the other.
1 2 8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question 4: To w hat extent is there a relationship between ethnicity
and attitude, workload, and productivity?
Presum ptions about minority faculty incite thoughts and beliefs
regarding their acceptance into the field of higher education:
• How they are treated by their colleagues; their perceptions of the
profession of higher education, and
• How they feel about the w eights that are applied to the various
com ponents of tenure decision.
Research Q uestion Four permits a platform from which to com pare racial
ethnic differences that may be present in the attitudes of faculty. The decision
behavior of m inority faculty is examined by determ ining racial ethnic
differences that are associated with negotiating faculty workload~for example,
how m uch time is spent in either teaching, research or service. The
productivity variable furnishes the necessary data to analyze incongruities
that m ight exist among their productivity levels.
Ethnicity and A ttitude. Overall, attitudes toward teaching as a
prom otion criteria were similar am ong all ethnic groups, although Black
faculty had a slightly stronger attitude about the inclusion of teaching as a part
of the tenure decision than Asian professors. Asian faculty felt m ore strongly
toward research as a promotion criterion than all other ethnic groups: Native
Americans, Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Hispanic faculty reported a
1 29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
moderately stronger attitude toward research as a prom otion criterion than
Black faculty mem bers. (See Table 5.6)
Caucasian faculty's belief that m inority faculty members are treated
fairly was mildly higher than all other ethnic groups: Blacks, N ative
Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Black faculty felt stronger than Hispanic
and Asian faculty regarding the fair treatm ent of minorities.
There was a significant difference found am ong ethnic m inority
attitude toward the profession of higher education. Black faculty felt m ildly
stronger tow ard the field of higher education than Native Am erican, White,
Hispanic, and Asian faculty. When asked if they had to do it over again,
would they still choose an academic career, their responses ranged from
Disagree Strongly to Disagree Somewhat.
1 3 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5.6 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Attitude (toward
teaching, research, treatment of minority faculty, and higher
education profession) Measures for Ethnicity Group
Attitude Ethnicity Mean SD
Teaching N ative Am erican 3.19 .88
W h ite 2.99 .95
Black 2.99 .90
H ispanic 2.92 .95
A sian 2.92 .94
Research A sian 2.65 .92
H ispanic 2.45 .90
Black 2.27 .83
W h ite 2.23 .91
N ative Am erican 2.14 .92
Minority W h ite 3.11 .86
Black 2.54 .99
A sian 2.81 .93
H ispanic 2.73 1.01
N ative Am erican 2.60 .96
Profession A sian 2.04 .43
Black 2.15 .45
H ispanic 2.01 .45
N ative Am erican 1.84 .45
W h ite 1.20 .41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ethnicity and W orkload. Time spent on research by different ethnic
groups was statistically significant. Asians spent a m oderately greater
proportion of their time on research activities than their Black, White, and
Hispanic colleagues. No two groups were significantly different in the
am ount of time spent on service, nor did any two groups differ significantly
(.05 level) on the am ount of time devoted to teaching. (See Table 5.7)
Table 5.7 M ean Scores and Standard D eviations on W orkload
(time sp en t on teaching, research, and service)
M easures by Ethnic Group
W orkload Ethnicity M ean SD
Teaching H ispanic 52.57 25.53
Black 50.99 25.74
W h ite 50.79 26.79
A sian 50.11 27.10
N ative Am erican 48.62 27.17
Research A sian 36.05 25.95
H ispanic 29.61 22.33
Black 28.83 19.83
W h ite 28.46 23.22
N ative Am erican 28.22 21.30
Service H ispanic 7.39 13.06
N ative Am erican 7.08 11.89
Black 6.95 12.52
H ispanic 7.39 13.06
A sian 5.96 12.52
1 3 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ethnicity and Productivity. What can racial or ethnic group
m embership tell us about faculty productivity? Table 5.8 delineates the
num ber of publications published during 1991 through 1993 by racial
ethnicity. The study revealed no statistically significant (.05) group differences
in the am ount of publications produced during the specified years of 1991
through 1993. Nor w ere any two groups significantly different in the am ount
of research dollars produced to the university through contracts and grants
during the same years.
Table 5.8 M ean Scores Standard Deviations on Productivity
(time sp en t on teaching, research, and service)
M easures by Ethnic Group
Productivity Ethnicity M ean SD
Publication N ative Am erican 15.60 21.55
Hispanic 12.04 13.75
W h ite 11.98 16.46
A sian 10.95 14.09
Black 9.97 15.12
a Funding
N ative American 238 1299
A sian 202 989
Black 146 1072
W h ite 141 924
H ispanic 77 581
a Dollar am ount for funding is represented in thousands.
1 3 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Question 5: W hat is the association o f tenure status to attitude.
workload, and productivity?
Tenure Status and Attitude. Faculty with no tenure system felt m ildly
stronger tow ard teaching as a promotion criterion than tenured and tenure-
track faculty. Faculty attitudes toward teaching as a prom otion criterion by
tenure-track faculty is slightly reported as higher than tenured faculty.
Tenured faculty felt slightly stronger that research should be considered
as a prom otion criterion than faculty with no tenure system and tenure-track
faculty. Tenured faculty also displayed a small difference in their belief
toward the fair treatm ent of minorities than tenure-track faculty and faculty
w ith no tenure system . There was no significant difference found among
tenured faculty, tenure-track faculty*, and faculty w ith no tenure system
regarding their attitudes toward the profession of higher education
(see Table 5.9).
1 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5.9 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Attitude (toward
teaching, research, treatment of m inority faculty, and higher
education profession) Measures for Tenure Status Group
Attitude Tenure Status Mean SD
Teaching No Tenure 3.17 .81
T enure Track 3.03 .93
T en u red 2.94 .98
Research T en u red 2.30 .93
T enure Track 2.22 .89
No Tenure 2.20 .88
Minority T en u red 3.10 .88
No T enure 2.96 .90
T enure Track 2.88 .94
Profession No Tenure 2.04 .43
T en u red 2.02 .41
T enure Track 2.00 .44
Tenure status and Workload. Reported in Table 5.10, time spent on
teaching was significantly different according to tenure status. Tenured
faculty showed a slight difference in the am ount of time on teaching than
faculty with no tenure system. Professors on tenure-track allocated slightly
larger am ounts of tim e to teaching than and faculty w ith no tenure system .
No significant difference according to tenure status was revealed in the
am ount of time sp en t on research. Faculty w ith no tenure system allocated
1 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a small to m ildly greater proportion of their time to service-related activities,
than did tenured and tenure-track faculty. Tenure-track faculty allocated a
mildly higher proportion of their tim e to service-related activities than
tenured facultv.
Table 5,10 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Workload
(time spent on teaching, research, and service) Measures
for Tenure Status Group
Workload Tenure Status Mean SD
Teaching Tenure Track 52.57 25.53
No Tenure 50.99 25.74
T enured 50.79 26.79
Research No Tenure 30.63 29.19
T enured 28.62 22.64
Tenure Track 28.55 21.68
Service No Tenure 9.50 13.06
Tenure Track 7.59 13.74
T enured 6.14 10.42
Tenure Status and Productivity. W hether faculty are m ore productive
prior to attainm ent of tenure (Massy and Sykes, 1988; Bennett and Chater,
1984) or w hether faculty productivity ebbs and flows then turns to
"deadwood" after the tenure years (Massy and Zemby, 1994) has been debated
time and time again. It is believed that junior faculty work harder during this
early role continuance phase (Tierney and Rhoads, 1993) of their careers,
because m uch is at stake for this group given the "publish or perish" nature
1 36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of the profession. The United States Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics found from its 1988 National Survey of
Postsecondarv Faculty, that productivity does not rapidly dim inish after
having achieved tenure. Findings in this study support the latter view, that
tenured faculty are in fact productive after the tenure years.
The num ber of publications published during 1991 through 1993 by
faculty according to tenure status was statistically significant. Findings
concluded significant but slight differences in publication count by all three
groups— tenured, tenure track and faculty with no tenure system .
The am ount of funding secured for the university through contracts
and grants according to tenure status was also statistically significant (see
Table 5.11). Tenured faculty published a slight but significantly higher
num ber of publications than faculty with no tenure system and tenure-track
faculty. Faculty with no tenure system garnered a larger am ount of research
dollars than tenure-track faculty. This outcome is perhaps largely due to
governm ent funded program s as opposed to governm ent (externally) funded
research.
1 3 7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5.11 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Productivity
(number of publications and amount of funding generated)
Measures for Tenure Status Group
Productivity Tenure Mean SD
Publication T en u red 12.37 16.14
T enure Track 11.25 16.01
No T enure 9.82 15.87
a Funding
No T enure 209 1111
T enure Track 119 870
T en u red 147 924
a Dollar am ount for funding is represented in thousands.
Research Question 6: Is disciplinary a ffiliation a predictor o f attitude,
workload, or productivity?
Discipline and Attitude. Differences in attitude tow ard teaching as a
prom otion criteria am ong faculty in various disciplines w as statistically
significant. Professors w ith careers in "soft sciences" (Education, Business,
Fine Arts, and Other), identified m ore with the concept of teaching as a
prom otion criteria, than faculty who worked in disciplines that are
considered "hard sciences" (N atural Sciences, Engineering, Social Sciences,
and Health Sciences). (See Table 5.12)
Education faculty reported a stronger attitude tow ard teaching as a
prom otion criterion than professors who worked in N atural Sciences,
Engineering, Social Sciences, Health Sciences, and in O ther disciplines.
1 38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fine Arts faculty and professors who worked in all O ther disciplines
com bined, reported significantly higher levels on attitude tow ard teaching as
a prom otion criterion than faculty in Natural Sciences, Engineering, Social
Sciences, and Health Sciences. Business faculty reported significantly higher
levels on attitude tow ard teaching as a promotion criterion than faculty in
N atural Sciences and Engineering. Health Sciences professors and Social
Science professors reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward
teaching as a prom otion criterion than faculty in N atural Sciences.
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5.12 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Attitude (toward
teaching, research, treatment of minority faculty, and higher
education profession) Measures for Discipline Group
Attitude Discipline Mean SD
Teaching Education 3.27 .84
Fine Arts 3.14 .91
O ther 3.09 .90
Business 3.07 .94
H ealth Sciences 2.92 .91
Social Sciences 2.90 .98
Engineering 2.81 .93
N atural Sciences 2.73 1.01
Research E ngineering 2.48 .88
N atural Sciences 2.37 .97
Social Sciences 2.35 .93
H ealth Sciences 2.32 .87
O ther 2.22 .86
Fine Arts 2.19 .92
Business 2.15 .94
Education 2.10 .82
Minority N atural Sciences 3.17 .81
Business 3.11 .93
Engineering 3.10 .89
Fine Arts 3.01 .91
H ealth Sciences 3.01 .91
O ther 2.95 .88
Education 2.92 .95
Social Sciences 2.90 .96
Profession Education 2.13 .41
O ther 2.07 .42
H ealth Sciences 2.02 .42
Fine Arts 2.01 .43
Business 1.99 .43
Social Sciences 1.99 .41
E ngineering 1.97 .40
N atural Sciences 1.96 .40
1 4 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A ttitude tow ard research as a promotion criterion. Attitude toward
research as a promotion criterion was statistically significant. Professors with
careers in "hard” sciences (Natural Sciences, Engineering, Social Sciences,
Health Sciences) identified more with the concept of research as a prom otion
criteria, than faculty w ho worked in disciplines that are considered "soft
sciences" (Education, Business, Fine Arts, and Other).
Engineering faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude
toward research as a prom otion criterion than faculty in all other disciplines:
Education, Business, Fine Arts, and Other. N atural Sciences faculty revealed
a m oderately stronger attitude toward research as a prom otion criterion than
faculty in Education, Business, Fine Arts, and Other. Social Sciences faculty
reported m oderately higher levels on attitude tow ard research as a prom otion
criterion than faculty in Education, Business, and Fine Arts. Health Sciences
faculty presented a m oderately different attitude tow ard research as a
prom otion criterion than Education professors.
A ttitude tow ard w hether minorities are treated fairly. Attitude toward
whether minorities are treated fairly was statistically significant. Faculty in
Natural Sciences strongly agreed that minority faculty w ere treated fairly than
faculty in Social Sciences, Education, Other, and H ealth Sciences (see Table
5.12). Business faculty had a significantly different attitude toward the
treatm ent of m inority faculty than faculty in Social Sciences. Engineering
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
faculty also revealed a significantly different attitude tow ard the treatm ent of
minority faculty than Social Sciences faculty.
A ttitude tow ard the profession. Attitude toward the profession of
higher education w as statistically significant. Education faculty reported
significantly higher levels on attitude toward the profession of higher
education than faculty in any other disciplines: N atural Sciences,
Engineering, Social Sciences, Business, Fine Arts, H ealth Sciences, and Other.
Faculty in Other disciplines reported significantly higher levels on attitude
toward the profession of higher education than faculty in N atural Sciences,
Engineering, Social Sciences.
D iscipline and W orkload. Time spent on teaching was significantly
different by discipline. Professors with careers in Fine Arts, Business,
Education and Social Sciences revealed mild differences in the am ount of
time perm itted for teaching activities than their colleagues in Health Science,
Engineering, N atural Sciences and Other disciplines (see Table 5.13). Fine
Arts allocated m ildly larger am ounts of time to teaching than professors in
Health Sciences, O ther, Engineering, Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences.
Business professors along w ith Social Science professors allocated
significantly more tim e to teaching than professors in Health Sciences, Other,
and Natural Sciences. Education professors spent m ore time on teaching
than professors in H ealth Sciences, Other, and N atural Sciences. Social
1 42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Science and Natural Science professors spent significantly m ore time on
teaching than professors in Health Science and Other disciplines.
1 4 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5.13 Mean Scores and Deviations on Workload
(time spent on teaching, research, and service)
Measures for Discipline Group
W orkload Discipline Mean SD
Teaching Fine Arts 57.31 24.91
Business 54.13 22.83
Education 53.93 26.63
Social Sciences 52.90 24.30
Engineering 48.09 23.43
N atural Sciences 48.74 27.07
O ther 46.44 28.93
Health Sciences 41.54 27.96
Research N atural Sciences 36.36 25.98
Engineering 34.59 21.47
O ther 29.64 26.47
Social Sciences 28.81 21.15
Business 28.52 19.60
Health Sciences 27.34 23.57
Fine Arts 25.23 20.81
Education 20.21 17.21
Service Health Sciences 17.34 22.15
O ther 8.28 14.22
Education 7.88 10.56
Business 5.43 6.92
Social Sciences 5.37 8.24
Engineering 5.27 10.08
Fine Arts 4.61 8.23
N atural Sciences 4.29 8.55
1 4 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Time spent on research was significantly different according to
discipline. Professors with careers in the following disciplines: N atural
Sciences, Engineering, Social Sciences, and Business reported spending larger
amounts of their time to research. Natural Science fields reported spending
significantly more time on research than Education, Fine Arts, H ealth
Sciences, Business, Social Sciences, and Other. Engineering faculty reported
higher levels of time on research than Education, Fine Arts, Health Science,
Business, and Social Sciences. Social Sciences faculty and faculty in Other
disciplines reported spending more time on research than Education and Fine
Arts faculty. Business, Health Science, and Fine Arts professors reported
significantly higher levels of time spent on research than Education faculty.
Time spent on service was significantly different according to
discipline. Reportedly, faculty in Health Sciences allocated significantly more
time to service activities than Natural Sciences, Fine Arts, Engineering, Social
Sciences, Business, Education, and Other disciplines. This anomaly can be
attributed to the nature of the Health profession. Faculty in O ther disciplines
allocated significantly more time to sendee activities than faculty in Natural
Sciences, Fine Arts, Engineering, Social Sciences, and Business. Education
faculty allocated significantly more time to service activities than faculty in
Natural Science.
1 45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
D iscipline and Productivity. The number of publications published
during 1991 through 1993 by faculty according to discipline was statistically
significantly. Equally important, the am ount of funding brought to the
university through contracts and grants by discipline was statistically
significant. Engineering faculty published a m ild to moderately higher
num ber of publications than faculty in Business, Social Sciences, N atural
Sciences, and Fine Arts. Health Sciences faculty revealed small differences in
the num ber of publications produced than faculty in Business, Social Science
and Natural Sciences. Faculty in Education published a significantly higher
num ber of publications than faculty in Business. Faculty in the fields of
Engineering, H ealth Sciences, and Natural Sciences garnered significantly
higher am ounts of research dollars than faculty in Fine Arts.
1 4 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5.14 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Productivity
(number of publications and amount of funding generated)
Measures for Discipline Group
Productivity D iscipline M eans SD
Publication E ngineering 15.11 17.41
H ealth Sciences 13.72 16.53
E ducation 13.07 16.52
Fine Arts 11.75 20.07
O ther 11.59 13.91
N atural Sciences 11.03 14.14
Social Sciences 10.44 12.24
Business 9.00 10.34
a Funding
E ngineering 281 1211
H ealth Sciences 245 1155
N atural Sciences 208 992
E ducation 184 1142
O ther 150 966
Social Sciences 127 960
B usiness 79 909
Fine Arts 44 518
a Dollar am ount for funding is represented in thousands.
1 4 7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Conclusions
The association between ethnicity and tenure status
The differences in tenure status provoke questions around who is
getting tenured and at w hat rates are they being tenured. Equally im portant is
the ratio of tenured to tenure-track professors among Caucasian faculty;
especially when this ratio is compared to that of m inority faculty. The data
prom pts one to assess the following observations:
(1) There are twice as manv tenured facultv than tenure-track facultv
' ' j * *
am ong White professors. Minority faculty are m ainstream ing m ore to
predom inately white institutions and or tenure granting universities, thereby
producing a higher proportion of tenure-track faculty, com pared to their
w hite tenured colleagues. Results from this study follow the trend of slow
grow th in tenured m inority faculty as those portrayed betw een 1981 and 1991.
As highlighted in Chapter One, Table 1.1 documents a ten year (1981-1991)
span of growth among postsecondary faculty- These records show that full
time minority instructional staff in institutions of postsecondary education
grew as much as 1 percent for Asian faculty and as little as .4 percent for both
Black and Hispanic faculty.
(2) While these data do not answer the question of w hy the percentage
of Caucasians that rem ain in tenure-track positions is m uch lower than any
single minority group; one conclusion for this differential is that White
1 48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
faculty members are granted tenure at a higher frequency than minority
faculty. Further research is needed to validate this suspicion.
The association between ethnicity and discipline
The association betw een ethnicity and discipline affords us a different
way by which to study the institution-from an organizational behavioral
analysis. The data gleans descriptive information about disciplines in which
m inority faculty choose to teach and do research. One very significant
inference brings us to the natural order of organizational fit by discipline
w ithin the academy. It is comm on statistical knowledge that due to cultural
and socio-economic factors, Asian students fare academically better in grades
one through twelve in M ath and Science, while African-American and
Hispanic students do not. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that specific
m inority student populations have been socialized early by cultural and
socio-economic factors in their educational process tow ard certain disciplines
as well. Yet, it is counter intuitive to find 35 percent of all Hispanic faculty
concentrating in Fine Arts disciplines. The implication for higher education
at large is that having so few faculty of color in general, coupled with small
concentrations of m inorities in a few select disciplines exacerbates the
underrepresentation of m inority faculty across other disciplines.
1 4 9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The relationships among the various indices o f attitude, w orkload. and
productivity
Attitude is as m uch a part of work as the actual w ork itself. Professors
that have strong feelings about teaching as a prom otion criterion will
naturally dem onstrate behavior that supports teaching and its related
activities. Consequently, they will probably spend more time on teaching
related activities than on research or sendee functions. To the contrarv,
j '
professors who possess strong feelings for teaching as a prom otion criterion
have a high probability of exhibiting a negative attitude tow ard research as a
prom otion criteria, and subsequently will spend less tim e on research
activities. Conversely, faculty who show a strong disposition for research as a
prom otion criterion, will not be as interested in using as m uch of their time
for teaching activities as they would for research. M oreover, faculty who
expend large am ounts of time on research will put less effort into teaching.
The reverse is true for faculty who allot more time to teaching; a reduced
am ount of time is allocated to research. Furthermore, faculty w ho spend
m ore time teaching will set fewer hours toward service activities.
The following section of Chapter Five is directed tow ards an
understanding of how a faculty member s ethnicity, tenure status and
discipline choice, can effect his or her attitude, workload, and productivity.
1 50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The relationship between ethnicity and attitude, w orkload and productivity
If we were to look at the criteria for tenure, one m ight presum e that
faculty of color do not receive tenure because they are not as productive as
their W hite colleagues. Studies affecting faculty research productivity have
included cultural and organizational variables (Conrad and Blackburn, 1986)
as well as individual attributes such as age, gender, and educational
background (Braxton and Bayer, 1986; Clark and Lewis, 1985; Creswell, 1985;
Tien and Blackburn, 1996). As w as revealed from Research Q uestion Two
regarding the association betw een ethnicity and discipline, there is a high
concentration of Asian faculty in scientific disciplines, which is fostered by the
cultural and socio-economic socialization of Asian students tow ard m ath and
science early in their education. Therefore, findings regarding how strongly
the faculty groups (particularly Asian faculty) felt about w hether teaching and
research should be considered as criterion for prom otion and tenure w ere not
surprising.
Overall, attitudes tow ard teaching as a prom otion criterion were
sim ilar am ong all ethnic groups, although Black faculty had a slightly
stronger attitude about the inclusion of teaching as a part of the tenure
decision than Asian professors. Asian faculty cared m ore about research
being weighted as a prom otion criterion than all other racial ethnic groups.
Consistent with Asian faculty m em bers' attitude tow ard research is w here
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Asian professors focused their workload effort; they com m itted m ore time to
research than any of their colleagues in this study. The rudim entary
progression that is experienced by the Asian student begins as early as
elem entary school and culm inates w ith his or her career in postsecondary
education.
Caucasian faculty's belief of the fair treatm ent of m inority faculty
m em bers is mild to m oderately higher than all ethnic groups: Blacks, Native
Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. African-American faculty felt stronger
than Hispanic and Asian faculty tow ard the fair treatm ent of minorities.
Understandably, African-Americans have a longer history of verbalizing their
concern for equal participation in higher education than other minority
groups. Other minority groups (Hispanics and Asians) have developed a
stronger voice (in more recent years) regarding their participation in higher
education.
The association o f tenure status to attitude, workload, and productivity
The research findings tell us that junior faculty tend to w ork harder
than senior faculty. Tenure-track professors expend m ore hours on teaching
and sendee activities than their tenured colleagues. In other w ords, since no
two groups differed significantly in the am ount of time devoted to their
research, it can be assum ed that senior faculty are actually w orking "smarter"
by focusing their workload tow ard research activities that w ould yield greater
rew ards (Barnett, 1992; Massy, Wilger & Colbeck, 1994; Cargile & Bublitz, 1986;
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Schultz, Meade, & Khurana, 1989; Milne and Vent, 1987; Campbell and
M organ, 1987; Hagerm an and Hagerman, 1989; O m undson and Mann, 1994),
prestige, and notoriety from visibility of publishing.
According to where faculty chose to do research, professors in scientific
disciplines cared least about teaching, and faculty in applied sciences cared
m ost about teaching. The inverse was true regarding research. Faculty in
scientific disciplines cared more about research, and faculty in applied sciences
cared least about research. Health Science professors reported spending the
highest am ount of their time in service activities. This anom aly with Health
Science professors can be attributed to the nature of the profession-giving
patient care to the subjects of their research.
T he affiliation o f discipline as a predictor o f attitude, workload, or
productivity.
Professors with careers in "soft sciences" (Education, Business, Fine
Arts, Social Sciences, and Other), identified more w ith the concept of teaching
as a prom otion criterion. Accordingly, they allocated more of their time to
teaching. Professors w ith careers in "hard sciences" (Natural Sciences,
Engineering, Health Sciences) identified more with the concept of research as
a prom otion criterion and subsequently devoted m ore time to it.
Hence, publication rate and external funding were higher for faculty in
scientific disciplines.
1 53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Implications and Recommendations
Ethnicity and tenure sta tu s
The inequities in the num bers of faculty of color are quite telling
according to their tenure status. The differences found in the am ount of
m inority faculty in the academ y com pared to C aucasian faculty is one point of
discord. A second point of contention lies w ithin the percentages of tenured
versus tenure-track faculty of color compared to W hite faculty. One possible
implication is that of institutional racism. These num bers lend statistical
evidence to the presum ption of institutional racism in the academy.
W hether viewed as "overt racism" or "covert racism ," the findings support
Brown's (1989) assertion that disproportionately sm all num bers of minorities
reflected on the faculty translate to some form of racism w ithin that
institution. As stated earlier, and evidenced by the results of this research,
this type of attitude m anifests and festers in the academ y— it acts as a barrier to
tenure.
While this study does not analyze w hether W hite faculty achieve
tenure at a faster rate than m inority faculty— w ithin the standard seven year
tenure process— the assum ption is that because W hite faculty are more
frequently tenured than non-W hite faculty, it is likely that they are also
taking fewer years than their non-W hite colleagues to achieve tenure.
N or do these findings support the assum ption that m inority professors seek
positions at institutions w here tenure is not a requirem ent, after having
1 54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
failed to gain tenure at institutions where they were previously em ployed.
Therefore, the following recom mendations are submitted:
1). It is recom mended that further research be perform ed to
substantiate the supposition that m inority faculty are less likely to advance
through the tenure process at the same pace as their white colleagues.
Perhaps a qualitative design could provide stronger evidence of the extent to
which institutional racism exists within our institutions of postsecondarv
education. The findings do however, support Faculty Socialization Theory
(Tiemev and Rhoads, 1993). Therefore, it would behoove senior faculty' and
adm inistrators, (particularly departm ent deans and chairs) to create support
settings that direct and guide junior faculty through the tenure process.
". . . Organizations succeed because their employees can identify, embrace, and
act on the values of the organization" (Deal and Kennedy 1982, p. 21).
M odeling a faculty socialization process conducive to and culm inating in
tenure and prom otion supports the success of its employees, as well as
ensures the success of the organization (Baldwin, 1979; Kuh and W hitt, 1988;
Tierney and Rhoads, 1993; Van Maanen, 1976).
2). A second recommendation designed to provide an environm ent of
collegiality through faculty socialization (Tierney and Rhoads, 1993), w ould
require pairing new faculty members w ith post-tenure faculty-focusing on
the goal of collaboration to produce an article, grant proposal, innovative
teaching project or professional presentation— to enhance the junior faculty's
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tenure portfolio. Collegial organizations emphasize shared aspirations and
comm itm ents, power, consultation, and collective responsibilities. Thus,
reflecting com m unities that de-em phasize status difference and individuals
interact as equals (Massy, W.F., Wilger, A. K., & Colbeck, C., 1994).
Collaboration and m entorship through linking a junior faculty member with
a senior faculty person, provides a m entor for the neophyte; and, at the same
time, a culture of collaboration is being cultivated for the senior faculty,
underm ining the strength of the O utsider Theory (Merton, 1973).
Ethnicity and discipline
Organizational theory would conclude that effective organizational
change receives com m itm ent from the top of the organization, and is
transm itted dow nw ard throughout all levels of the organization. In higher
education, organizational change should emanate from the president of the
university to the academic departm ents. On the m atter of diversity, measures
for "inclusion" have been at best an annual discussion in the academy.
Despite the claims that the supplem ental factors of ethnicity, age and gender
are omitted from decisions pertaining to faculty personnel, the statistics
indicate this may not be the case. Therefore, every effort should be made to
level the playing field to alleviate the probability of categorical criteria being
used to discriminate against a person. Fairness and equality are two values
that seem to elude university decision makers today as junior faculty,
particularly m inority faculty, are being evaluated for tenure and promotion.
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Institutional interest is seemingly the prim ary factor for deciding w ho
gets tenured. Parenthetically speaking “Interest of the institution" is a catch
all statement, w hich is often used in the adm ission offices to explain
adm ission decisions that conflict with set guidelines. From this point of
view, institutional interest could serve to preclude a particular groups’
participation from higher education (Scott, 1981).
The dissem ination of minority faculty across disciplines poses a third
threat to equality for faculty of color. The problem being addressed is tw o
pronged. One is that of parity; the second is that of inclusion. Inclusion looks
specifically to the problem of a limited num ber of m inority faculty in the
academic pipeline (Blackwell, 1988). While the num ber of Whites in this
nation com pared to people of color has decreased, the num ber of White
students attending college has increased; the num ber of students of color
adm itted to college has decreased. This "bum ping dow n effect," coupled w ith
rising tuition costs and more exclusionary adm ission standards, continues to
dim inish the potential num ber of minority doctoral candidates and thus,
future faculty of color. Even though this study does not address the problem
of low num bers of m inority Ph.D.s (see Table 2.1), it does bring attention to
the need for increasing the pool of qualified faculty applicants.
The recom m endation is to impact the tenure process through
induction of m inority faculty using m entoring program s. Study the
induction process to determ ine whether W hite and non-W hite faculty
1 57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
undergo a sim ilar induction. This recom m endation would allow the
opportunity to test Faculty Socialization Theory (Tierney and Rhoads, 1993),
and its im pact on m inority faculty (attitude, workload, and productivity)
when paired w ith a W hite colleague, as well as w hen paired with another
faculty of color.
A second recom mendation w ould necessitate increasing the pool of
m inority faculty in the academy, by groom ing m inority students at all levels
of their education: elementary, secondary, and postsecondary for careers in
higher education. The rudim entary progression that is experienced by most
Asian Am erican students starts at elem entary school and culm inates with
their careers in postsecondary education— systematically geared for success.
The various indices o f attitude, w orkload. and productivity
H igher education has a lasting trend for intense research behavior
which in turn has set the standard for m easuring productivity am ong its
faculty. Few institutions deviate from this model. Only an institution type
and mission have been successful factors in defining productivity by
measures other than research publication or external funding. Consequently,
the probability of effecting change in attitudes tow ard criteria for tenure is
bleak. Likewise, such attitudes will probably continue to manifest in
w orkload decisions that emphasize research over teaching and service.
Further productivity studies are recom m ended to focus on the
outcomes of faculty work. Tangible evidence of student learning, research,
1 58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and public service (Wergin, 1994) is necessary to change how professors think
about and act out these roles.
Ethnicity and attitude, workload and productivity
Since merit is largely the basis of the tenure decision, clearer and well-
defined tenure guidelines are necessary for faculty to make better decisions
about their roles and how they will allot time and effort to specific w ork
activities on which they are eventually evaluated. An affirm ative tenure and
promotion process m ust be defined. Consistently, workload studies have
confirmed that distribution of faculty effort among their roles— teaching,
research, and service— is impacted by the mission of the institution
(Jordan, 1994). Despite this trend, Jordan concluded that faculty do believe that
teaching is very important, yet the evidence seems crystal-clear that rew ard
structures benefit those who have strong credentials in peer-review ed
research— research that is often associated with prestige and external funding
to the university.
Jordan (1994) also recognized from other workload m odels that by
examining individual contributions, consideration should be given to the
idea that individuals do not necessarily contribute equally to teaching,
research and service. Consequently, some institutions are m oving in the
direction of a new trend tow ard a m ore inclusive definition of teaching. As
w e understand the tenure standards today, research, service, and teaching are
pooled together as one standard of measure. Yet, the emphasis and w hat is
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
most clearly defined is the publication count. W ithout clear standards and
m arkers of success, chances are tenure and prom otion evaluation will remain
subjective, open to interpretation and even abysmal to some.
Recom m endation one outlines a model for restructuring faculty roles
and rew ards to expand and redistribute minority faculty. One such model
would disaggregate tenure criteria: teaching, research, and service and attach
very distinct objectives to each. Faculty roles w ould correspond to num eric
value and should total 1 0 0 percent in each category— thereby, allowing a
faculty member the flexibility' to choose a set of standards and weights by
which to evaluate his or her productivity. According to Monk (1990), the
most attractive inputs are those yielding high productivity relative to their
costs; the least desirable are those producing low productivity and high costs.
This concept is better understood using production function analysis
(Cohn and Geske, 1990), which shows a linkage between anticipated
outcomes, inputs, and the process whereby the inputs result into desired
outcomes.
The production function provides a m athem atical expression that
defines the m axim um output achievable with any given set of inputs.
Y equals the stated outcome(s), X represents the input(s), and F is the process
of transform ing the inputs to outputs. Production function m odels can
become quite complicated as the number of inputs increase or the
com bination of inputs vary. For illustration purposes, a nonlinear
1 60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
relationship betw een inputs and outputs is assum ed, w here tenure (T) is
viewed as a single output variable with no constraints. If T is the output, Xi,
X2 , X3 , represent input variables (i.e., teaching, research, service, professional
development), the production function will reflect the following;
T = f (a, Xi, X2, X3 , . . . X4 ). Tenure = f( publication, teaching, service, etc.).
Recom m endation two calls for m inority faculty to plav a stronger role
in controlling the success of their professorial careers. Rebne (1990), using
Ranter's theory of group interaction/tokenism , found that "ethnic minorities
may be socially isolated and therefore possibly less productive than
Caucasians" (p. 43). In spite of these findings, it is incum bent on minority
faculty to take responsibility for their research productivity. There are two
major reasons underlying this recommendation: (1 ) the tenure decision is so
heavily weighted tow ard research publication, and (2) California Proposition
209 will likely rew rite history and change the face of m inority participation in
higher education.
The association o f tenure status to attitude, w orkload. and productivity
If the production of publications and external funding is the basis for
which junior faculty7 are granted tenure, as discussed in Chapter Two, the
process is not a pure model. Conversely, the prom otion and tenure process
varies from one institution to another. At som e institutions, the model
includes several levels of administration, w hile at other schools the faculty
member is reviewed by several committees of colleagues. As the members
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
change, the "chance" for subjectivity increases. The subjective nature of the
process may contribute to the imbalance in the racial ethnic m akeup of faculty
in higher education.
The value judgm ent that is applied to the publication count of junior
faculty research adds subjective scrutiny to the tenuring process. This
situation puts the evaluator in an aw kw ard position. The underlying
assum ption is that evaluators (senior faculty and adm inistrators) assum e that
certain research carries greater value over other research. Again, the concept
of value is an ideal; it is next to impossible to standardize, and is more likely
to provide the opportunity for covert racism.
As revealed earlier in Table 5.2, the majority of tenured faculty is
white. Consequently, they dom inate senior adm inistration and tenure
comm ittees and thereby, set the standard that they use to review their peers
for tenure. Nonetheless, because the value standard is so nebulous, one
cannot begin to define it. W hat constitutes w orth to one, m ay not be seen as
valuable to another. Ideally, the impact of research, service, and teaching
should reflect society as a whole. Faculty of color tend to study their own
ethnic groups in the research they perform. How can this be done w ithout
criticism from colleagues claim ing that such studies are too limiting, cannot
be generalized, and therefore have little value (Luz Reyes and Halcon, 1988)?
The recom m endation calls for further research in this area to
determ ine if White faculty are researching m atters that bear significance and
1 62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
importance for people of color. These data become relevant when correlated
to tenure rate of that sample. An interesting research question is to w hat
extent do Caucasian faculty members perform research on issues pertaining to
people of color— and to w hat degree are these sam e faculty members (who
have research interest in m inority issues) tenured? Results from this type of
investigation m ight prove helpful in establishing a definition of "value" that
can be applied to the evaluation of all research.
Discipline affiliation as a predictor of attitude, workload, or productivity
Although disciplinary affiliation is a predictor of attitude, workload,
and productivity, most people will make career decisions based on interest
and others by cultural influences. Minority faculty representation in
disciplines outlined in Table 5.5 will probably rem ain constant in future years
unless society' can influence change on a broader scale, impacting education
policy' at governmental and system levels.
Departmental research goals are recom m ended to improve both faculty'
and departm ental productivity. It is conceivable that collaboration is
outgrow th of departm ental goals. A forced collaborative environm ent
should serve as a type of faculty development. Although departm ental
research productivity is criticized because of its relationship to organization
and faculty size (Dunbar and Lewis, 1997; Hercules, 1995; Kyvik, 1995),
research formulas that include departm ental efforts could enhance the
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
productive efforts of not only m inority professors, but for other junior faculty
as well.
Sum m ary
In conclusion, the outcom e of this research yields a prototype of a
productive faculty m ember. This person is typically found in a scientific
discipline; spends less tim e on teaching and sendee than on research; is
tenured or in a system w ith no tenure; and is typically Caucasian or Asian.
This prototype of the productive faculty places faculty into a box suggesting
that the faculty member whose racial ethnic background is other than those
stated above, is probably less productive. Faculty in "soft sciences" produce
fewer publications and secure less outside funding.
It is presum ed that professors who are student-centered or prefer
teaching over research are not productive contributors to the academy.
While these inferences are not necessarily true, they do shed light on the state
of the academy with faculty productivity— what is considered sacred and what
is in dire need of modification.
This study has implications for both policy and staff development.
Tenure policy is the focus of much debate, as overw helm ingly indicated by
the sheer num ber of publication and research on the subject. While this
study joins the debate, and my overall position is that there are merits to
keeping the ideal of tenure, however I am convinced that it is necessary to
modify current tenure policy. Considering workload and productivity
1 64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
findings of this study, apparently disciplines differ in their value of the tenure
com ponents— therefore, not all professors are high-level producers of research
publication, nor will the majority of professors generate external funding.
Moreover, inherent in some disciplines is the proclivity for research, and
because of the vast effort, over tim e these disciplines will yield higher
am ounts of funding on the basis of probability alone.
Massy and Wilger (1991), in their depiction of productivity levels of
university professors, describe the "output creep-academic ratchet." The
trend tow ard research, and therefore away from students, brought scrutiny to
the institution and set a precedent by which faculty defined their roles. The
call for the new millennium is for our institutions to develop new and
articulate policy on tenure and on its matriculation process, especially with
respect to w orkload and productivity. Restructuring prom otion and rew ard
system s to provide a fair and equitable distribution of w ork and rew ards could
have a positive im pact on the num ber of minority faculty in the academy,
their distribution throughout the academ y, and just as im portantly faculty
socialization.
Faculty socialization is im portant to the acclimation and success of new
faculty entering higher education-at-large, and to the academ y in particular.
Consequently, if im plem ented, the recom mendations of this study could
prove essential to the future careers of faculty of color, and perhaps critical to
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the academ y's survival~as the m inority population in this country continues
to increase.
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Association of University Professors (1915/1967). Academic
freedom and tenure in the quest for national security: report of a special
committee. In Joughin, L. (Ed.). (1967). Academic Freedom and Tenure: A
Handbook of the American Association of University Professors (pp. 47-56).
Madison, WI: The University of W isconsin Press.
Anderson, T. (1988). Black encounter of racism in white academe: A
critique of the system. Tournal of Black Studies. 18 (3), 259-272.
Aisenberg, N. & Harrington, M. (1988). W omen of Academe: O utsiders
in the Sacred Grove. Massachusetts: The University of Massachusetts.
American Council Association. (1981). Reshaping Faculty Careers
(1st ed.). W ashington, DC: Todd W. Fumiss.
American Association of University Professors. (1967). Academic
Freedom and Tenure (1st ed.). Wisconsin: American Association of
University Professors.
Baez, B., & Centra, J. A. (1995). Tenure. Prom otion, and
Reappointment: Legal and A dm inistrative Implications. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 1. W ashington, D C.: Association for the Study of
Higher Education.
Baldwin, R. G. (1987). The academic profession in search of Itself. The
Review of H igher Education. 11 (10), 103-112.
Baldwin, R. G. (1979). Adult and career development: W hat are the
implications for faculty? In R. Edgerton (Ed.). C urrent Issues in Higher
Education. W ashington D. C.: American Association of Higher Education.
Baldwin, R. G., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). The academic career as a
developmental process. Tournal of H igher Education. 52 (6 ), 598-614.
Barnett, R. (1992). Linking teaching and research. Journal of Higher
Education. 6 . 620-635.
Benjamin, R. & Carroll, S. J. (1996, December). Im pedim ents and
imperatives in restructuring higher education. Education A dm inistration
Quarterly. 32. 705-719.
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bennett, J. B. & Chater, S. S. (1984). Evaluating the performance of
tenured faculty members. Educational Record. 65 . 38-41.
Blackwell, J. E. (1987). Faculty issues: The impact on minorities. T he
Review of H igher Education. 11 (4), 417-434.
Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member: Supporting and Fostering
Professional Developm ent. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, H. R., & Schuster, J. H. (1986). American Professors: A
National Resource Im periled. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the
professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the A dvancem ent
of Teaching.
Braskamp, L. A. (1994). Memo to the College of Education Faculty:
Faculty Achievements and Contributions at UIC.
Braskamp, L. A., & Ory, J. C. (1994). Assessing faculty work: Enhancing
individual and institutional performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Braxton, J. M., & Bayer, A. E. (1986). Assessing faculty scholarly
performance. In J. W. Creswell (Ed.), M easuring faculty research
performance. New Directions For Institutional Research, (no. 50). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, D. (1989). Racism and Race Relations in the University.
University of Virginia Law Review. 76. 295-334.
Campbell, D. R., & Morgan, R. G. (1987, Spring). Publication
productivity for prom oted accounting faculty. Issue In Accounting Education.
28-43.
Cargile, B. R., & Bublitz, B . (1986, January). Factors contributing to
published research by accounting faculties. The Accounting Review. 158-178.
Carnegie Commission on Fligher Education. (1973). Governance of
H igher Education: Six Priority Problems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancem ent of Teaching (1987). A
Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
1 68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Centra, J. A. (1979). Determining faculty Effectiveness: Assessing,
teaching, and Service for Personnel decision and Im provem ent. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chait, R. P. (1981). Setting Tenure and Personnel Policies. H andbook
of College and University Trusteeship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chait, R. P., & Ford, A. T. (1982). Beyond Traditional Tenure: A G uide
to Sound Policies and Practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, B. R. (1987). The Academic Life. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancem ent of Teaching.
Clark, B. R. (1984). The higher education system: Academic
organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Clark, S. M., & Corcoran, M. (1986). Perspectives on the professional
socialization of w om en faculty, loum al of H igher Education. 57(1). 21-43.
Clark, S. M., & Lewis, D. R. (Eds.). (1985). Faculty Vitality and
Institutional Productivity: Critical Perspectives for Higher E ducation.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Cohn, E., & Geske, T. G. (1990). Economics of Education.
(3rd ed.). Pergam on Press, Oxford, England.
Collins, R. F. (1992). Academic freedom: American and European
contexts. In G. S. W orgul Jr. (Ed.), Issues in Academ ic Freedom. Pittsburgh:
Duquesne U niversity Press.
Creswell, J. W. (1985). Faculty Research Performance: Lessons from the
Sciences and the Social Sciences. ASHE-ERIC H igher Education Report No. 4.
W ashington, D C.: Association for the Study of H igher Education.
Conrad, C. F. & Blackburn, R. T. (1986). Program quality in higher
education: A review and critique of literature and research. In J. C. Sm art (Ed),
Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: A gathon
Press.
D'Souza, D. (1995). The End of Racism. New York: The Free Press.
1 6 9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. (1982). C orporate Cultures: The Rites And
Rituals Of C orprate Life. Reading, MA.: Addison-W esley.
Dube, E. (1985). The relationship betw een racism and education in
South Africa. H arvard Educational Review. 55. 86-100.
Dunbar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1997, March). D eterm inants of Research
Productivity in H igher Education. Paper presented at the meeting of
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Edington, C. R., Davis, T. M., & Hensley, L. D. (1994, September).
Trends in higher education: Implications for health, physical education, and
leisure studies, journal of Physical Education. Recreation and Dance. 65 (7),
51-57.
Ehie, I. C. & Karathanos, D. (1994). Business faculty performance
evaluation based on the new AACSB accreditation standards. Tournal
of Education for Business. 69 (5), 257-262.
Epps, E. G. (1989). Academic culture and the m inority professor.
Academe. 75 (5), 23-26.
Fairweather, J. S. (1997). The Highly Productive Faculty Member:
Confronting the M ythologies of Faculty Work. U npublished
M anuscript.
Fairweather, J. S. (1993). Faculty rew ard structures: Toward
institutional and professional hom ogenization. The Review of H igher
Education. 34 (51. 603-623.
Fairweather, J. S. (1993). Academic values and faculty rewards. The
Review of H igher Education. 17 (1), 43-68.
Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American A cadem ic Profession.
Columbus: Ohio State University.
Geiger, R., & Feller, I. (1995, May). The dispersion of academic
research in the 1980s. Toumal of Higher Education. 6 6 (3), 336-360.
Greenberg, M. (1994, Feb.). Should college faculty account for
their time? Education Digest. 59 (6 ), 52-55.
1 7 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Grogono, A. (1994, Winter). Tenure the teacher: Let research be
its own reward. Educational Record. 75 (1), 36-41.
Hagerman, R. L., & Hagerman, C. M. (1989, Fall). Research
promotion standards at selected accounting program s. Issues In
Accounting Education, pp. 265-279.
Hercules, D. M. (1995). Research activity and productivity in
chemistry departm ents 1985-1988. Journal of Chemical Education. 72
(9), 782-792.
Hofstadter, R., & Metzger, W. P. (1955). The developm ent of academ ic
freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hook, S. (1971). In Defense of Academic Freedom. New York: Pegasus.
Johnsrud, L. K. and Des Jarlais, C. D. (1994). Barriers to tenure for
women and m inorities. The Review of Higher Education. 17 (4), 335-352.
Jones, J. (1972). Prejudice and Racism. MA: Addison-W esley.
Jordan, S. M. (1994). W hat we have learned about faculty workload:
The best evidence. In J. F. W ergin (Eds.), New Directions For Institutional
Research, (no. 83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Katz, D. A. (1973). Faculty salary, prom otion, and productivity at a large
university. American Educational Review. 63. 469-477.
Kirk, R. (1955). Academic Freedom: An Essay in Definition. Chicago:
Henry Regnery Com pany.
Konrad, A. M., & Pfeffer, J. (1991). U nderstanding the hiring patterns of
women and m inorities in educational institutions. Sociology of Education.
64 (July), 141-157.
Kritek, P. B. (1984). Women's work and academ ic sexism. Educational
Record. 65 (3), 56-57.
Kuh, G. D., & W hitt, E. J. (1988). The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in
American Colleges and Universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report
No. 1. W ashington, D. C.: The George W ashington University.
1 7 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kykvik, S. (1995). Are big university departm ents better than small
ones? Higher Education. 30. 295-304.
Lawer, E. E. (1973). M otivation in W ork O rganizations. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Leap, T. L. (1995). Tenure, discrimination, and African-American
faculty. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 7 .103-106.
Lederman, D. (1991, April 14). W restling with the Issue of Race.
Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A19-A20.
Licata, C. M. (1986). Post-tenure Faculty Evaluation: Threat or
opportunity? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education (Report No. 1.). W ashington,
D. C.: The George W ashington University.
Lombardi, J. (October 1974). Faculty W orkload. UCLA, ERIC
clearinghouse for junior colleges, (Topical Paper No. 46). Los Angeles:
University of California at Los Angeles.
Luz Reyes, M., & Halcon, J. J. (1988). Racism in academia: The old wolf
revisited. Harvard Educational Review. 58(3). 299-314.
Massy, W. F., & W ilger, A. K. (1995). Im proving productivity: W hat
faculty think about it - and it's effect on quality. Change. 27 (4), 10-20.
Massy, W.F., Wilger, A. K., & Colbeck, C. (1994, July). Overcoming
"hollowed" collegiality. Change. 26 (4), 10-20.
Massy W. F., & Wilger A. K. (1991). Productivity in Postsecondarv
Education: A New Approach (Working Paper 18, pp. 1-15). Los Angeles:
University of Southern California, Consortium for Policy Research in
Education (CPRE).
Massy, W. F., & Zemsky, R. (1994, January). Faculty discretionary' time:
Departments and the "academic ratchet." Tournal of H igher Education. 65 (1).
1- 22.
McPherson, M. S., & W inston, G. C. (1983). The Economics of
Academic Tenure. Tournal of Economic Behavior and O rganization. 4.
163-184.
1 7 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Menges, R. J., & Exum, W. H. (1983). Barriers to the progress of wom en
and m inority faculty. Tournal of Higher Education. 5 4 .123-144.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and
Empirical Investigations. Chicago: The U niversity Press.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Illinois: The
Free Press.
Metzger, W. (1955). Academic Freedom in the Age of the U niversity.
New York: Colum bia University Press.
Miller, M. A. (1994). Pressures to m easure faculty work. In J. F. W ergin
(Ed.). Analyzing Faculty W orkload. New D irections for Institutional
Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Milne, R. A., & Vent, G. A. (1987, Spring). Publication productivity: A
com parison of accounting faculty m em bers prom oted in 1981 and 1984. Issues
In Accounting Education, pp. 94-102.
Mingle, J. R. (1992). Faculty W ork and the Cost of Q uality/A ccess
Collision. A presentation to the members of the board visitors of Virginia
Institutions, R ichm ond, VA.
Monk, D. H. (1990). Educational Finance: An Economic A pproach.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Moore, M. N. (1989). Tenure and the university reward structure.
N ursing Research. 38 (2), 111-116.
Moore, K. M., & Johnson, M. P. (1989). The status of w om en in the
professoriate: The role of affirmative activity and equity. In G. G. Loans and
M. J. Dooms (Eds.), M anaging Faculty Resources: New Directions for Faculty
Research, (no. 63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National C enter For Education Statistics. (1994). Faculty and
Instructional Staff: W ho Are they and W hat Do They Do? (NCES 94-346).
W ashington, D. C.: U. S. Departm ent of Education, Office of Educational
Research and Im provem ent.
National C enter For Education Statistics. (1991). Profiles of Faculty in
H igher Education Institutions-1988. (NCES 91-389). W ashington, D. C.: U. S.
D epartm ent of Education, Office of Educational Research and Im provem ent.
1 73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
N ational Center For Education Statistics. (1985-86). Digest of
Educational Statistics, (CS 86-400). W ashington, D. C.: U. S. D epartm ent of
G overnm ent Printing Office.
N ational Center For Education Statistics. (1995). Digest of Educational
Statistics. (NCES 95-029). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Departm ent of
Governm ent Printing Office.
N ational Research Council (1989-1993). U. S. Doctorate Survey.
W ashington, D. C.: Office of Engineering and Scientific Personnel.
O m undson, J. S., & Mann, G. J. (1994). Publication productivity and
prom otion of accounting faculty women: A com parative study, foum al of
Education for Business. 70(1). 17-24.
O'Toole, J. (1994). Tenure: A conscientious objection. Change. 26 (3),
pp. 78-89.
Owen, FI. (1987). Transform ation and Developm ent in O rganizations.
Maryland: A bbott Books.
Paulsen, M. B. & Feldman, K. A. (1995). Toward a reconceptualization
of scholarship: A hum an action system w ith functional imperatives. Tournal
of H igher Education. 6 6 ( 6 ), pp. 615-640.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). M anagement. Design and
Analysis: An Integrated Approach. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Pettigrew , T., Fredrickson, G., Knobel, D., Glazer, N., & Ueda, R. (1982).
Prejudice. Cam bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pp. 4-5.
Poch, R. K. (1993). Academic Freedom in American Higher E ducation.
ASHE-ERIC H igher Education (Report No. 4.). W ashington, D. C.: The
George W ashington University.
Rawls, J. (1973). A Theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap
Press.
Rebne, D. (1990). Determ inants of Individual Productivity: A Study of
Academic Researches. ASHE-ERIC H igher Education M onograph and
Research Series: 53. Los Angeles: The U niversity of California at Los Angeles.
1 74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reynolds, A. (1992). Charting the changes in junior faculty:
Relationships am ong socialization, acculturation, and gender, Tournal of
Higher Education. 63 (6 ), 637-652.
Roos, P. A., & Reskin, B. F. (1992). Occupational desegregation in the
1970s: Integration and economic equity. Sociological Perspectives. 35. 69-91.
Russell, C. (1993). Academic Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Sandler, B. (1975). Affirmative Action on the campus: Progress,
problems, and perplexity. In Affirmative action in em ploym ent in higher
education. A consultation sponsored by the United States Commission on
Civil Rights, W ashington, D. C., September 9-10.
Sartorius, R. (1972). Tenure and academic freedom. In Pincoffs, E.
(Ed.). The Concepts of Academic Freedom (pp. 133-158). Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Schapiro, M. O. (1994). The concept of productivity to US Higher
Education. In M. O. Schapiro and G. W inston (Eds.), Paying the Piper:
Productivity. Incentives, and Financing in US Higher Education (pp. 37-68).
Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational Socialization. Industrial
M anagement Review. 9 (2), 1-16.
Schultz, J. J., Meade, J. A ., & Khurana, I. (1989). The changing role of
teaching, research, and service in the prom otion and tenure decisions for
accounting faculty. Issues in Accounting Education. Spring, pp. 109-119.
Scott, R. R. (1981). Black faculty productivity and interpersonal
academic contracts. Tournal of Negro Education. 50 (3), 224-236.
Shaw, B. N. (1971). Academic Tenure in American Education.
Chicago: Adam s Press.
Smith, D. G. (1996). Achieving Faculty Diversity. Association of
American Colleges and Universities, W ashington, D. C.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied M ultivariate Statistics for the Sciences. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
1 75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sykes, C. J. (1988). ProfScam: Professors and the Demise of H igher
Education. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Tang, T. L., & Chamberlain, M. (1997). Attitudes toward research and
teaching: Differences between adm inistrators and faculty m embers. Tournal
of Higher Education, 6 8 (2), 213-227.
Tien, F. F., & Blackburn, R. T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research
m otivation, and faculty research productivity. Tournal of H igher Education.
6Z (1), 2 -2 2 .
Tiem ev, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Rethinking Prom otion and
Tenure: C om m unity and Socialization in Academe. New York: SUNY Press.
Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1993). Enhancing Prom otion. T en u re
and Beyond: Faculty Socialization as a C ultural Process. ASHE-ERIC H igher
Education (Report No. 93-6). W ashington, D. C.: The George W ashington
U niversitv.
j
Van Alstvne, W. (1994). Tenure: A conscientious objection. C hange. 26
(3), 8 8 .
Van M aanen, J. (1983). People processing: Strategies of organizational
socialization. In R. Allen & L. W. Porter (Eds.), O rganizational Influence
Processes. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Com pany.
Van M aanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin
(Ed.), H andbook of W ork. Organization and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Van M aanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of
organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in O rganizational
Behavior 1. 209-264. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van W aes, R. (1994). The debate on tenure. Change. 26 (3), 8 6 .
Volkwein, J. F., & Carbone, D. A. (1994). The impact of departm ental
research and teaching climates on undergraduate grow th and satisfaction,
Tournal of H igher Education. 65.147-16.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). W ork and M otivation. New York: John W iley &
Sons, Inc.
1 7 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
W anner, R. A., Lewis, L. S., & Gregorio, D. I. (1981). Research
productivity in academia: A com parative study of Sciences, Social Sciences
and H um anities. Sociology of Education. 54. 235-253.
W anous, J. P. (1992). O rganizational Entry: Recruitm ent. Selection.
O rientation and Socialization of N ew com ers (2nd ed.). Mass.: A ddison-
W esley.
W anous, J. P. (1972b). Occupational preferences perceptions of valence
and instrum entality and objective data, loum al of Applied Psychology. 56.
152-155.
W ellman, D. T. (1977). Portraits of White Racism. Cam bridge:
Cam bridge University Press.
W ergin, J. F. (1994). Analyzing faculty workload. In J. F. W ergin (Eds.),
New Directions For Institutional Research, (no. 83). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Woolf, H. B. (Ed). (1973). W ebster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
Springfield, MA: G & C. Merriam.
Yuker, H. E. (1984). Faculty W orkload: Research. Theory, and
Interpretation. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 10. W ashington,
D. C.: Association for the Study of H igher Education.
1 7 7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX I :
The following questions have been adapted from the U. S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics'
1993 NATTONAI. STUDY OF FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE.
ETHNICITY
#53. What is your race? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1. American Indian or Alaskan Native
2. Asian or Pacific Islander
3. African American/Black
4. White
5. Other (WRITE IN BELOW)
STATUS
#7. What was your tenure status at this institution during the 1992 Fall Term?
1- Tenured
2- On tenure track but not tenured
3- Not on tenure track
DISCIPLINE
#13. What is your principal area of research? If equal areas, select one.
(IF YOU HAVE NO RESEARCH AREA, CIRCLE "NA")
1- Natural Science/Engineering
2- Education
3- Health Science
4- Social Science
1 78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ATTITUDE: INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
#59. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the
following statements. (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH STATEMENT)
Disagree Disagree Agree
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2
1 2 3
1 2
Agree
Strongly
4 a. Teaching effectiveness
should be the primary criterion
for promotion of college
teachers at this institution.
4 b. Research publications should
be the primary criterion for
promotion of college teachers at
this institution.
4 c. At this institution, research
is rewarded more than
teaching.
4 d. State or federally mandated
assessment requirements will
improve the quality of
undergraduate education.
4 e. Female Faculty members are
treated fairly at this
institution.
4 f. Faculty' who are members or
racial ethnic minorities are
treated fairly at this
institution.
4 g. If I had it to do over again, I
would still choose an academic
career.
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ATTITUDE: PROFESSION
#60. Please indicate vour opinion regarding whether each of the following has
worsened. (CIRCLE ONE FOR EACH ITEM)
Worsened
1
Stayed
the Same Improved
3
Don't
Know
DK a. The quality of students who
choose to pursue academic
careers in mv field
DK b. The opportunities junior
faculty have for advancement
in mv field
DK c. The professional competence
of individuals entering my
academic field
1
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
DK d. The ability of this
institution to meet
the educational needs of
entering students
DK e. The ability of faculty to
obtain external funding
D K f. Pressure to increase faculty
workload at this institution
DK g. The quality of undergraduate
education at this institution
DK h. The atmosphere for free
expression of ideas
DK i. The quality of research at
this institution
180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
WORKLOAD
#37. In column A, vve ask you to allocate your total work time in the Fall of 1992
(as reported in question 36) into several categories. We realize that thev are not mutually
exclusive categories (e.g., research may include teaching; preparing a course may be a part of
professional growth). We ask, however, that you allocate as best you can the proportion of
your time spent in these activities whose primary focus falls in the indicated categories.
(WRITE IN A PERCENTAGE ON EACH LINE, IF NOT SURE, GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE;
IF NON, WRITE IN "O ")
A. %of
Work
Time
Spent
° / n
Teaching ( including teaching, grading papers,
preparing courses; developing new curricula;
advising supervising students; working with
student organizations or intramural athletics)
Research/Scholarship (including research; reviewing
or preparing articles or books; attending or
preparing for professional meetings or
conferences; reviewing proposals; seeking
outside funding; giving performances or
exhibitions in the fine or applied arts, or
giving speeches)
Service/Other Non-Teaching Activities (including
providing legal or medical services or
psychological counseling to clients or patients;
paid or unpaid community or public service,
service to professional societies/associations;
other activities or work not listed in a-e)
Other professional growth. Administration,
outside counseling.
100%
PLEASE BE SURE THAT THE PERCENTAGES YOU
PROVIDE ADD UP TO 100% OF THE TOTAL
TIME.
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PRODUCTIVITY: PUBLICATION
#20. About how many of each of the following have you presented/published/etc.
during your entire career and during the last 2 years? For publications, please include only
works that have been accepted for publication. Count multiple presentations/publications of
the same work onlil once. (CIRCLE "NA" IF YOU HAVE NOT PUBLISHED OR PRESENTED)
Type of Presentation/Publication/etc.
(1) Articles published in refereed professional or
trade journals
(2) Articles published in non refereed professional or
trade journals
(3) Creative works published in juried media
(4) Creative works published in nonjuried media or
in-house newsletters
(5) Published reviews of books, articles, or creative
works
(6) Chapters in edited volumes
(7) Textbooks
(8) Other books
(9) Monographs
(10) Research or technical reports disseminated
internally or to clients
(11) Presentations at conferences, workshops, etc.
(12) Exhibition or performances in the fine or applied
arts
(13) Patents or copyrights (excluding thesis or
dissertations)
(14) Computer software products
1 8 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
PRODUCTIVITY: FUNDING
#30. During the 1992 Fall Term, were you engaged in any funded research or funded
creative endeavors? Include any grants, contracts, or institutional aw ards. Do
not includ e consulting services. (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1. Yes 2 No (SKIP TO QUESTION 34)
#33. Fill in the total funds for 1992-93 A cadem ic year. If not sure, give your best
estim ate. S________________________________________
1 8 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX II
OMB No. 1850-0608
Expiration Date. 12/93
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
National Center for Education Statistics
1993 NATIONAL STUDY OF POSTSECONDARY FACULTY
FACULTY
QUESTIONNAIRE
All inform ation on this form will be kept confidential and will not be
disclosed or released to your institution or any other group or individual.
Co-sponsored by: National Science Foundation
National Endowment for the Humanities
Contractor: National Opinion Research Center (NORC)
University of Chicago
Mailing Address:
1525 East 55th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60615
Toll-Free Number 1-800-733-NORC
(Reprinted with permission, for purposes of this document.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NATIONAL STUDY OF POSTSECONDARY FACULTY:
Faculty Questionnaire
During the 1992 Fall Term, did you have any instructional duties at this institution
(e.g., teaching one or more courses or advising or supervising students' academic activities)?
(C IR C LE O N E N U M B E R )
1. Yes (ANSWER IA) 2. No (SKIP TO QUESTION 2)
IA. During the 1992 Fall Term, were ... ( C I R C L E O N E N U M B E R )
1. all of your instructional duties related to credit courses,
2. some of your instructional duties related to credit courses or advising or supervising academic
activities for credit, or
3. all of your instructional duties related to noncredit courses or advising or supervising noncredit
academic activities?
What was your principal activity at this institution during the 1992 Fall Term? If you have equal
responsibilities, please select one. (C IR C LE O N E N U M B E R )
1. Teaching
2. Research
3. Technical activities (e.g., programmer, technician, chemist engineer, etc.)
4. Clinical service
5. Community/public sendee
6. Administration ( W R I T E I N T IT L E O R P O S I T I O N )
7. On sabbatical from this institution
8. Other (subsidized performer, artist-in-residence, etc.)
During the 1992 Fall Term, did you have faculty status at this institution? (C IR C L E O N E
N U M B E R )
1. Yes
2. No, I did not have faculty status
3. No, no one has faculty status at this institution
SECTION A. NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT
4. During the 1992 Fall Term, did this institution consider you to be employed
part-time or full-time? ( C IR C L E O N E N U M B E R )
1. Part-time (ANSWER 4A) 2. Full-time (SKIP TO QUESTION 5)
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4A. Did you hold a part-time position at the institution during the 1992 Fall
Term because ... (C IR C L E "I" O R "2" F O R E A C H R E A S O N )
Yes No
2
a.
2
b.
2
c.
2
d.
2
e.
2
f.
you preferred working on a part-time basis?
a full-time position was not available?
you were supplementing your income from other employment?
you wanted to be part of an academic environment?
you were finishing a graduate degree?
of other reasons?
5. Were you chairperson of a department or division at this institution
during the 1992 Fall Term? (C IRC LE O N E N U M B E R )
1. Yes
2. No
6. In what year did you begin the job you held at this institution during the
1992 Fall Term? Include promotions in rank as part of your Fall 1992 job.
(W R IT E I N Y E A R )
19
7. What was your tenure status at this institution during the 1992 Fall Term?
(C IR C LE O N E N U M B E R )
1. Tenured — > 7 A. In what year did you achieve tenure at this institution?
19
2. On tenure track but not tenured (SKIP TO QUESTION 9)
3. Not on tenure track
4. No tenure system for my faculty status
5. No tenure system at this institution
8. During the 1992 Fall Term, what was the duration of your contract or
appointment at this institution? (C IR C LE O N E N U M B E R )
1. One academic term
2. One academic/calendar year
3. A limited number of years (i.e., two or more academic/calendar years)
4. Unspecified duration
5. Other
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9. W hich of the follow ing best describes your academic rank, title, or position at this
institution during the 1992 Fall Term? ICIRCLE ONE NUMBER. OR ~NA~>
NA. Mot applicable: no ranks designated at this institution (SKIP TO QUESTION 11 )
1. Professor
2. Associate Professor
3. Assistant Professor
4. Instructor
5. Lecturer
6 . Other (WRITE IN)____________________________________________________
10. In what year did you first achieve this rank?
(WRITE IN YEAR)
19
11. During the 1992 Fall Term , which of the following kinds of appointm ents did you hold
at this institution? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
1. Acting
2. Affiliate or adjunct
3. Visiting
4. Assigned by religious order
5. C linical
(WRITE IN TITLE OR P O S IT IO N ) _________________________________________
6 . Research
(WRITE IN TITLE OR P O S IT IO N ) _________________________________________
7. None of the above
12. W hat is your prin cip al field or discipline of teaching? (REFER TO THE LIST OF MAJOR
FIELDS OF ST U D Y O N PAGES -5 AND 6 A N D ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE
NUMBER A N D N A M E BELOW. IF YOU HAVE NO FIELD OF TEACHING. CIRCLE "NA~)
NA. Mot Applicable
CODE FOR FIELD _______________________________
OR DISCIPLINE: NAME OF PRINCIPAL FIELD/DISCIPLINE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13. What is your principal area of research? If equal areas, select one. (IF YOU H AV E .VO
RESEARCH AREA. CIRCLE " \ rA">
NA. N ot A pplicable
CODE FOR FIELD ________________________________
OR DISCIPLINE: NAME OF PRINCIPAL HELD/DISCIPLINE
CODES FOR MAJOR FIELDS OF STUDY AND ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES
AGRICULTURE COMPUTER SCIENCE
101 Agribusiness & A gricultural Production 201 C om puter Sc Inform ation Sciences
102 Agricultural, Anim al, Food, Sc Plant Sciences 202 C om puter Program m ing
10.1 Renewable N atural Resources, including Conservation. 203 Data Processing
Fishing, and Forestry 204 Svstems Analysis
110 O ther A griculture 210 O ther C om puter Science
ARCHITECTURE Sc ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN EDUCATION
121 A rchitecture Sc Environm ental Design 221 Education. General
122 City. Com m unity, Sc Regional Planning
s is
Basic Skills
123 Interior Design 223 Bilingual/C ross-cultural Education
124 la n d Use M anagem ent Sc Reclam ation 224 C urriculum Sc Instruction
130 O ther Arch. Sc Environm ental Design 225 Education A dm inistration
226 Education Evaluation Sc Research
.ART Educational Psychology
141 Art H istory i A ppreciation 228 Special Education
142 C rafts 229 S tudent C ounseling Sc Personnel Svcs
143 Dance 230 O ther Education
144 Design (other than Arch, or Intenor)
145 Dramatic Arts TEACHER EDUCATION
146 Film Arts 241 Pre-Elem entarv
147 Fme Arts 242 Elementary
14S M usic 243 Secondary
149 M usic H istory Sc A ppreciation 244 A dult Sc C ontinuing
150 O ther Visual Sc Perform ing Arts 245 O ther General Teacher Ed. Program s
250 Teacher Education in Specific Subiects
BUSINESS
161 Accounting ENGINEERING
162 Banking Sc Finance 261 Engineenng, General
163 Business A dm inistration Sc M anagem ent 262 Civil Engineenng
164 Business A dm inistrative S upport (e.g.. Bookkeeping, 263 Electncal. Electronics. Sc
Office M anagem ent, Secretanal) Com m unication Engineenng
264 M echanical Engineenng
165 H um an Resources D evelopm ent 265 Chemical Engineenng
166 O rganizational Behavior 270 O ther Engineering
167 M arketing Sc D istnbudon 2S0 Engineering-Related Technologies
170 O ther Business
ENGLISH A N D LITERATURE
COM M U N ICA TIO N S 291 English, General
181 Advertising 292 C om position Sc Creative W nting
182 Broadcasting Sc Journalism 293 A m encan Literature
183 C om m unications Research 294 English Literature
184 C om m unication Technologies 295 Linguistics
190 O ther com m um cadons 296 Speech. Debate. Sc Forensics
297 English as a Second Language
300 English. O ther
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
FOREIGN' LANGUAGES 510 PSYCHOLOGY
311 C hinese (M andarin. C antonese, or O ther Chinesei
312 French 520 PUBLIC AFFAIRS (e.g.. Com m unity
313 G erm an Services, Public Adm inistration. Public
314 Italian Works. Soaal Work)
315 Latin
316 Japanese 530 SCIENCE TECHNOLOGIES
317 O ther Asian
318 Russian or O ther Slavic SOCIAL SCIENCES .AND HISTORY
319 Spanish 541 S o aal Saences. General
320 O ther Foreign Languages 542 Anthropology
543 Archeology
HEATH SCIENCES 544 Area ic Ethnic Studies
331 Allied H ealth Technologies ic Services 545 Dem ography
332 Dentistry 546 Economics
333 H ealth Services A dm inistration 547 G eography
334 Medicine, including Psychiatry 548 History
335 N ursing 549 International Relations
33b Pharm acy 550 Political S aence ic G overnm ent
337 Public H ealth 551 Sociology
338 Veterinary M edicine 5e0 O ther S o aal Saences
340 O ther Health Sciences
VOCATIONAL TRAINING
350 HOM E ECONOM ICS
CONSTRUCTION TRADES
360 INDUSTRIAL ARTS 601 C arpentry
602 Electncian
370 LAW 603 Plumbing
oil) O ther C onstruction Trades
380 LIBRARY ic ARCHIVAL SCIENCES
CONSUMER. PERSONAL. it MISC. SERVICES
NATURAL SCIENCES. BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 621 Personal Services (e g . Barbenng, Cosmetology)
391 Biochemistry 630 O ther consum er Services
392 Biology
393 Botany
MECHANICS AND REPAIRERS
394 Genetics 641 Electrical ic Electronics Equipm ent Repair
395 Immunology 642 H eating, Air Conditioning, ic Retngerahon
396 Microbiology M echanics ic Repairers
397 Physiology 643 Vehicle ic M obile Equipm ent Mechanics ic
39S Zoology Repairers
400 Biological Sciences, O ther o44 O ther M echanics ic Repairers
NATURAL SCIENCES PHYSICAL SCIENCES PRECISION PRODUCTION
411 Astronomy 661 Drafting
412 Chem istry 662 G raphic ic P nnt Com m unications
413 Physics 663 Leatherw orking ic Upholstering
414 Earth. A tm osphere, a n d O ceanographic 664 Precision M etal Work
(Geological Sciences) 665 W oodworking
420 Physical Sciences, O ther 670 O ther Precision Production Work
430 MATHEMATICS TRANSPORTATION AND MATERIAL
M O VING
681 Air T ransportation (e.g.. Piloting, Traffic Control
440 STATISTICS R ight A ttendance. A viation M anagement)
b82 Land V ehide ic Equipm ent Operation
450 MILITARY STUDIES 683 W ater Transportation (e.g.. Boat ic Fishing
O perations, Deep W ater Diving, M anna
460 M ULTI/INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES O perations, Sailors, ic Deckhands)
690 O ther T ransportation ic M atenal Moving
470 PARKS ic RECREATION
900 OTHER (IF YOU USE THIS CODE. BE SURE TO
480 PHILOSOPHY A N D RELIGION WRITE IN A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION
AT QUESTIONS 12-13. AND 16)
490 THEOLOGY
500 PROTECTIVE SERVICES (e.g.. Crim inal Justice,
Fire Protection)
189
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SECTION B. ACADEMIC/PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
14. Which of the follow ing undergraduate academic honors or awards, if any, did
you receive? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
1. National academic honor society, such as Phi Beta Kappa, Tau Beta Pi, or other field-
specific national honor society
2. Cum laude or honors
3. Magna cum laude or high honors
4. Summa cum laude or highest honors
5. Other undergraduate academic achievement award
6. None of the above
15. When you were in graduate school, which of the following forms or financial assistance, if
any, did you receive? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY, OR CIRCLE "NA”)
NA. Not applicable; did not attend graduate school (GO TO QUESTION 16)
1. Teaching assistantship
2. Research assistantship
3. Program or residence hall assistantship
4. Fellowship
5. Scholarship or traineeship
6. Grant
7. G.I. Bill or other veterans' financial aid
8. Federal or state loan
9. Other loan
10. None of the above
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16. Please list below the degrees or other formal awards that you hold, the year
you received each one, the field code (from pages 5-6) that applies, name or
the field, and the name and location of the institution from which you
received each degree or award. Do not list honorary degrees. (COMPLETE
ALL COLUMNS FOR EACH DEGREE)
CODES FOR TYPE OF DEGREE
1. Professional degree (MD., D.D.S., L.L.B., etc.)
2. Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., etc.)
3. Master's degree or equivalent
4. Bachelor's degree or equivalent
5. Certificate, diploma, or degree for completion of undergraduate program
of more than 2 year but less than 4 years in length
6 . Associate's degree or equivalent
7. Certificate, diplom a, or degree for completion of undergraduate program
of at least 1 year but less than 2 years in length
A. B. C. D. E.
Degree Field N am e of N am e of Institution (a)
Code C ode Field and
(see Year (from (from City and State/C ountry
above) Received pp. 5-6) pp. 5-6) of Institution (b)
U) Highest ____ 19_____ a.________________________
(2) N'ext
H ig h est 19_
(?) Next
Highest _____ 19_
(4) Next
Highest _____ 19_
17. During the 1992 Fall Term, were you employed only at this institution, or did you also have
other employment including any outside consulting or other self-owned business or private
practice? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1. Employed only at this institution (SKIP TO QUESTION 19)
2. Had other employment, consulting, self-owned business, or private
practice
191
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17A. H ow many different jobs, other than your employment at this institution, did you
have during the 1992 Fall Term? Include all outside consulting, self-ow ned business, and
private practice. (WRITE in NUMBER)
_____________ Number of Jobs
18. Not counting any employment at this institution, what was the employm ent sector of the
main other job you held during Fall 1992? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1. 4-vear college or university, graduate or professional school
2 . 2 -vear or other postsecondarv institution
3. Elem entary or secondary school
4. Consulting, freelance work, self-owned business, or private practice
5. H ospital or other health care or ciinical setting
6 . Foundation or other nonprofit organization other than health care organization
7. For-profit business or industry in the private sector
8 . Federal governm ent, including military, or state or local government
9. O ther (W RITE IN )__________________________________________________
18A. W hat year did vou begin that job?
(WRITE IN YEAR)
19__________
18B. W hat was your prim ary responsibility in that job? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER/
1. Teaching
2. Research
3. Technical activities (e.g., program m er, technician, chemist, engineer, etc.)
4. Clinical service
5. C om m unity/public service
6 . A dm inistration
7. O th e r
18C. Was that job full-time or part-time? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1. F ull-tim e
2. P art-tim e
192
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19. The next questions ask about jobs that ended before the beginning of the 1992 Fall
Term. For the three most recent and significant main jobs that you held during the
past 15 years, indicate below the year you began and the year you left each job, the
employment sector, your primary responsibility, and whether you were employed
full-time or part-time.
* Do not list promotions in rank at one place of em ploym ent as different jobs.
* Do not include temporary positions (i.e., sum m er positions) or work as a graduate student
* List each job (other than promotion in rank) separately.
If not applicable, circle 'NA' NA
A
NA
B.
NA
C
(1) YEARS JOB HELD
FROM:
TO:
MOST RECENT NEXT NEXT
MAIN JOB (PRIOR MOST RECENT MOST RECENT
TO FALL 1992) MAIN JOB MAIN JOB
19_
19
19_
19
19_
19_
(2) EMPLOYMENT SECTOR
4-vear college or university, graduate
or professional school
2-year or other postsecondary institution
Elementary or secondary school
Consulting, freelance work, self-owned
business, or private practice
Hospital or other health care or clinical
setting
Foundation or other nonprofit
organization other than health
care organization
Fcr-profit business or industry in the
private sector
Federal government, including military,
or state or local government
(CIRCLE ONE)
1
(CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE)
1 1
3
4
Other
(3) PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE)
Teaching 1 1 1
Research 2 2
Technical activities (e.g., programmer,
technicians chemist, engineer, etc)
3 3 3
Clinical service 4 4 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Community/public service 5 ? 5
Administration 6 0 6
Other 7 7 7
(4) SLL-TIMi/PART~TIME (CIRCLElDNE1 ~CmCLEoWE)~~aRCLEONE)
Full-tim e 1 1 1
Part-time 2 2 2
20. About how many of each of the following have you presented/published/etc. during your
entire career and during the last 2 years? For publications, please include only works that have
been accepted for publication. Count multiple presentations/publications of the same work only
once. (CIRCLE "NA" IF YOU HAVE NOT PUBLISHED OR PRESENTED)
MA. No presentations/publications/etc. (GO TO QUESTION 21)
(WRITE IN A NUMBER ON EACH
LINE; IF NONE. WRITE IN “O")
A B.
Type of Presentation/Publication/etc. Total during Number in
career past 2 years
(1) Articles published in refereed professional or trade journals________ ________ ________
(2) Articles published in nonrefereed professional or trade journals ________ ________
(3) Creative works published in juried media ________ ________
(4) Creative works published in nonjuried media or in-house newsletters________ ________
(5) Published reviews of books, articles,_____________________________________ ________
or creative works
(6) Chapters in edited volumes _______ ________
(7) Textbooks _______ ________
(8) Other books _______ ________
(9) Monographs _______ ________
(10) Research or technical reports disseminated internally or to clients ________ ________
(11) Presentations at conferences, workshops, etc. ________ ________
(12) Exhibitions or performances in the fine or applied arts ________ ________
(13) Patents or copyrights (excluding thesis or dissertation)____________________ ________
(14) Computer software products__________________________________ ________ ________
194
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SECTION C. INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND WORKLOAD
21. During the 1992 Fall Term, how many undergraduate or graduate thesis or dissertation
committees, comprehensive exams, orals committees, or examination or certification committees
did you chair and/or serve on at this institution? (CIRCLE "NA" IF Y O U D ID N O T SERVE O N
A N Y COM M ITTEES)
NA. Did not serve on anv undergraduate or graduate committees
(GO TO QUESTION 22)
(WRITE IN A N U M BER O N EACH
LINE: IF N ONE, WRITE IN "0")
A. B.
Of that number.
Type of Committee Number how many did
served on you chair?
(1) Undergraduate thesis or dissertation committees________ _______ ______________
(2) Undergraduate comprehensive exams or orals
committees (other than part of thesis/dissertation
committees) _______ ______________
(3) Undergraduate examination/certification committees _______ ______________
(4) Graduate thesis or dissertation committees _______ ______________
<5) Graduate comprehensive exams or orals committees
(other than as part of thesis/dissertation committees) _______ ______________
(6 ) Graduate examination/certification committees _______ ______________
22. During the 1992 Fall Term, what was the total number of classes or sections you taught at
this institution? Do not include individualized instruction, such as independent study or
individual performance classes. Count m ultiple sections of the same course as a separate class,
but not the lab section of a course. (WRITE IN A NUMBER, OR CIRCLE " 0")
0. No classes caught (SKIP TO QUESTION 25)
_______ Number of classes/sections (ANSWER 22A)
22A. How many of those classes were classes for credit?
0. No classes for credit (SKIP TO QUESTION 25)
_______ Number of classes/sections for credit (ANSWER QUESTION 23)
23. For each class or section that you taught for credit at this institution during the 1992 Fall
Term, please answer the following items. Do not include individualized instruction, such as
independent study or individual one-on-one performance classes.
If you taught multiple sections of the same course, count them as separate classes, but do not
include the lab section of the course as a separate class. For each class, enter the code for the
academic discipline of the class. (Refer to pages 5-6 for the codes. Please enter the code rather
than the course name.)
195
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A. B .
FIRST FOR-CREDIT SECOND FOR-CREDIT
CODE FOR ACADEMIC
DISCIPLINE OF CLASS (from pp. 5-ot
( 2 ) DURING 1992 FALL TERM
N um ber of weeks the class met? a. _________
N um ber ot credit h ours’ b _________
N um ber of hours the class m et per w eek’ c. _________
N um ber of teaching assistants, readers’ d. _________
N um ber of students enrolled? e. _________
Was this class team taught? f. 1 Yes 2 N o
Average f hours per w eek you taught the class? g ________
I Yes 2.No
(3) PRINLARY LEVEL OF STUDENTS
Lower division stu d e n ts (first or second year postsecondary a
U pper division students (third or fourth year postsecondary I a
G raduate or any other post-baccalaureate students, a
All other students?
(4) PRIMARY INSTRUCTIONAL M ETHOD USED
Lecture
Seminar
Discussion group or class presentations
Lab. clinic or problem session
A pprenticeship, internship, field work, or field tnps
Role playing, sim ulation, or other perform ance (e g , art. music, dramai
TV or radio
G roup projects
C ooperative learning groups
' CIRCLE O.VE.'
1
' CIRCLE ONE,.
1
. CIRCLE O.VE)
1
4
CIRCLE O.VE'
1
THIRD FOR-CREDIT
CLASS
FOURTH FOR-CREDIT
CLASS
FIFTH FORCRED1T
CLASS
f. 1. Yes 2. No
d.
f. 1. Yes 2. No f. 1 Yes 2. No
a. N um ber of w eeks the
class met
b. N um ber of credit hours
c. N um ber of hours the class
m et per w eek
d. N um ber of teaching
assistants, readers
e. N um ber of students
enrolled
f. Was this class team
taught?
g Average # hours per
week you taught
196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(CIRCLE ONrE) iCIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE)
1 1 I Lower division students
2 - 2 L'pper division students
3 3 3 G raduate, po st
baccalaureate students
■ 1 4 4 All other students
(CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE)
1 I I Lecture
2 1 2 Seminar
3 3 3 Discussion group or class
presentations
4 4 4 Lab. clinic or problem session
5 5 5 A pprenticeship, internship.
etc.
ft 6 6 Role playing, simulation.
perform ance, etc.
7 7 7 TV or radio
S 8 8 G roup projects
9 4 9 Cooperative learning groups
24. Did you teach any undergraduate courses for credit during the 1992 Fall Term
at this institution?
1. Yes (ANSWER 24A) 2. No (SKIP TO QUESTION 25)
24A. In how many of the undergraduate courses that you taught for credit during the 1992
Fall Term did you use ... (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH ITEM)
None Some All
2 3 a. Computational tools or software’
2 3 b. Computer-aided or machine-
aided instruction?
2 3 c. Student presentations?
2 3 d Student evaluations of each other s
work?
2 3 e. Vtultiple-choice midterm and/or
final exam?
2 3 f. Essay midterm and/or final
exams?
2 3 g Short-answer midterm and/or final
exams?
2 3 h. Term/research papers?
2 3 i. Multiple drafts of written work?
2 3 i. Grading on a curve?
2 3 k. Competency-based grading?
25. For each type of student listed below, please indicate how many students
received individual instruction from you during the 1992 Fall Term, (e.g., independent study
or one-on-one instruction, including working with individual students in a clinical or research
setting), and the total number of contact hours with these students per week. Do not count
regularly scheduled office hours. (WRITE IN A NUMBER ON EACH LINE; IF NONE, WRITE IN
"0")
A B .
Type of students receiving Formal Individualized Instruction Number of Total contact
students hours per week
(1)Lower division students (fire or second year postsecondary)
(2)Upper division students (third or fourth vear postsecondary)
(3)Graduate or any other post-baccalaureate students
(4)A 11 other students
197
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26. During the 1992 Fall Term, how many regularly scheduled office hours did you
have per week? (WRITE IN A NUMBER; IF NONE, WRITE IN ”0")
.N um ber of hours per week
27. During the 1992 Fall Term, how much informal contact with students did
you have each week outside of the classroom? Do not count individual
instruction, independent study, etc., or regularly scheduled office hours.
(WRITE IN A NUMBER; IF NONE, WRITE IN "0")
_______N um ber of hours per week
28. During the 1992 Fall Term, were you engaged in any professional research,
writing, or creative works?
1. Yes (ANSWER QUESTION 29) 2. No (SKIP TO QUESTION 34)
29. How would you describe your primary professional research, writing, or
creative work during the 1992 Fall Term? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1. Pure or basic research 4. Literary or expressive
2. Applied research 5. Program/Curriculum design and development
3. Policy-oriented research or analysis 6 . Other
30. During the 1992 Fall Term, were you engaged in any funded research or funded creative
endeavors? Include any grants, contracts, or institutional awards. Do not include consulting
services. (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1 . Yes 2. No (SKEPTO QUESTION 34)
31. During the 1992 Fall Term, were you a principal investigator (PI) or co-principal investigator
(Co-PI) for any grants or contracts? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1. Yes 2. No (SKIP TO QUESTION 33)
32. During the 1992 Fall Term, how many individuals other than yourself were supported by all
the grants and contracts for which you were PI or Co-PI? (WRITE IN NUMBER; IF NONE, WRITE
IN “0 ”)
N um ber of individuals
33. Fill out the information below for each funding source during the 1992 Fall Term. If not
sure, give your best estimate.
A. B . C. D. E.
Number Total funds
Fundingsource of Work done as... for 1992-93
(CIRCLE'1 'O R '2' Grants/Contracts (CIRCLE ALL academic How funds were used
FOR EACH SOURCE) THAT APPLY) vear (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
(1 )This institution? 1 Yes 1 . PI
2. Co-PI
2. N o
3 Staff
1 . Research
2. P ro g ram /cu m cu lu m
developm ent
3. O ther
(2)Foundation other 1. Yes
nonprofit orgaruzation?
2. N o
1. PI
2. Co-PI
3. Staff
1 Research
2. P ro g ram /cu m cu lu m
developm ent
3. O ther
198
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(3)For profit business 1. Yes i p i Research
or m dustrv m the 2. Co-PI S Program • curriculum
pnvate sector’ 2. No developm ent
.v Staff .V O ther
(4)State or local 1. Yes I PI 1 . Research
governm ent? 2. Co-PI s P rogram / C urriculum
2. .M o developm ent
3. Staff O ther
(5)Federal 1 Yes 1 PI I. Research
Government? 2. Co-PI s
n
Program / C urriculum
2. Mo developm ent
3. Staff 3. O ther
(6)O ther source? 1. Yes 1. PI 1 . Research
(WRITE INi 2. Co-PI s P rog ram /C u rricu lu m
0
Z
r i
developm ent
3 Staff 3. O ther
34. How would you rate each of the following facilities or resources at this institution that
were available for your own use during the 1992 Fall Term? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER. OR
"N A O N EACH LINE)
Not Available/ Very Very
Not Applicable Poor Poor Good Good
NA 1 2 3 4 a . Basic research equipm ent/instrum ents
NA 1 2 3 4 h. Laboratory space and supplies
NA 1 2 3 4 c. Availability of research
assistants
NA 1 2 3 4 d. Personal computers
NA 1 2 3 4 e. Centralized (m ain frame)
com puter facilities
NA 1 2 3 4 f. Com puter netw orks w ith
other institutions
NA 1 2 3
4 g-
Audio-visual equipm ent
NA 1 2 3 4 h. Classroom space
NA 1 2 3 4 i . Office space
NA 1 2 3
4 i-
Studio/perform ance space
NA 1 2 3 4 k. Secretarial su p p o rt
NA 1 2 3 4 1. Library holdings
35. Listed below are some ways that institutions and departments may use internal funds for
the professional development of faculty.
A.
W as institutional o r departm ent fu n d in g av ailable
fo r yo u r use d u rin g the past two years for ...
B .
Did you use any of those
funds at this in stitution?
W ere th o se fu n d s adequate
fo r y o u r purposes?
(1 (tuition remission at this or
other institutions?
(2)professional association
memberships and/or
registration fees?
(3)professional travel?
(4)training to improve research
teaching skills?
(5)retraining for fields in higher
demand?
1. Yes 1 . Yes 1 . Yes
2. No 2. No Z No
DK. Don t know
1 . Yes 1 . Yes 1 . Yes
Z No 2. No 2. No
DK. Don't know
1 . Yes 1 . Yes 1. Yes
Z No 2. No Z No
DK. Don't know
1. Yes 1 . Yes 1. Yes
Z No 2. No 2. No
DK. Don't know
1. Yes 1. Yes 1 . Yes
Z No 2. No Z No
DK. Don't know
199
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(6 ) sabbatical leave? l.Yes 1 . Yes 1 . Yes
2. No 2. No 2. No
DK. Eton t krtcnv
36. On the average, how many hours per w eek did you spend at each of the follow ing kinds of
activities during the 1992 Fall Term? (IF NOT SURE, GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATES)
Average num ber hours per week during the 1992 Fall Term
_____________ a. All paid activities at this institution (teaching, research, adm inistration,
etc.)
__________ b. All unpaid activities at this institution
___________ c. Any other paid activities outside this institution (e.g., consulting, w orking on
other |obs)
___________ d. Unpaid (pro bono) professional service activities outside this institution
37. In column A, we ask you to allocate your total work time in the Fall of 1992 (as
reported in Question 36) into several categories. We realize that they are not mutually
exclusive categories (e.g., research may include teaching; preparing a course may be part of
professional growth). We ask, however, that you allocate as best you can the proportion of your
time spent in activities whose primary focus falls within the indicated categories. In column B,
indicate what percentage of your time you would prefer to spend in each of the listed categories.
A. B.
% of Work (WRITE IN A PERCENTAGE ON EACH LINE. IF NOT SURE % of W ork
Time Spent GIVE YOUR B EST ESTIMATE; IF NONE. WRITE IN "O' ) Time Preferred
a. Teaching (including teaching, grading papers, prepanng courses; °
developing new curricula; advising or supervising students; working
with student organizations or intramural athletics)
b. Research/Scholarship (including research; reviewing or prepanng °
articles or books; attending or preparing for professional meetings
or conferences; reviewing proposals; seeking outside funding; giving
performances or exhibitions m the fine or applied arts, or giving speeches)
c. Professional Growth (including taking courses, pursuing an a d v a n c e d ______ “
degree; other professional development activities, such as practice or
activities to remain current in vour field)
% d. Administration %
°q e. Outside Consulting or Freelance Work ______
“o f. Service/Other Non-Teaching Activities (including providing legal or ______ %
medical services or psychological counseling to clients or patients; paid
or unpaid community or public service, service to professional societies/
associations; other activities or work not listed in a-e)
100% PLEASE BE SURE THAT THE PERCENTAGES YOU PROVIDE 100%
ADD UP TO 100% OF THE TOTAL TIME.
38. Are you a member of the union (or other bargaining association) that represents faculty at
this institution?
1. Union is available, but I am not eligible
2. I am eligible, but not a member
3. I am eligible, and a member
4. Union is not available at this institution
200
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SECTION D. JOB SATISFACTION ISSUES
39. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following aspects of your
instructional duties at this institution? (CIRCLE "NA” IF YOU HAD NO
INSTRUCTIONAL DUTIES)
NA. No instructional duties (GO TO QUESTION 40)
(CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH ITEM; IF AN ITEM DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU. WRITE IN "NA"
NEXT TO THE ITEM)
Very Som ewhat Somewhat Very
D issatisfied D issatisfied Satisfied Satisfied
4 a. The authority I have to make decisions
about content and methods in the courses I
teach
4 h. The authority I have to make decisions about
other (non-instructional) aspects of my jobs
4 c. The authorin’ I have to make decisions about
what courses I teach
4 d. Time available for working with students
as an advisor, mentor, etc.
4 e. Quality of undergraduate students
whom! have taught here
4 f. Quality' of graduate students whom I
have taught here
40. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you w ith the following aspects of your job at this
institutional? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH ITEM)
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very
D issatisfied D issatisfied Satisfied Satisfied
1
2
3 4 a. My work load
1
2
3 4 b. My 10b security
1
2
3 4 c. Opportunity' for advancement in rank at
this institution
1
2
3 4 d Time available for keeping current in my
field
1
2
3 4 e . Freedom to do outside consulting
1
2
3 4 f. My salarv
1
2
3 4
g
My benefits, generally
1
- >
3 4 h. Spouse or partner employment
1
- »
3 4 i.
opportunities in this geographic area
Mv job here, overall
41. During the next three years, how likely is it that you will leave this job to ...
(CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH ITEM)
N o t At
AH Likelv
Som ew hat
Likelv
Verv
Ukelv
42.
3 a.
3 b.
3 c.
3 d.
3 e.
you are most
accept a part-tim e job at a different p ostsecondary institution?
accept a full-time job at a different postsecondary institution?
accept a part-tim e p b not at a postsecondarv institution?
accept a full-time |ob not at a postsecondary institution?
retire from the labor force?
postsecondary institution? (WRITE IN AGE, OR CIRCLE "DK”)
__________ Years of age. DK. Don't know
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43. If you were to leave your current position in academia to accept another
position inside or outside of academia, how important would each of the
following be in your it position? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH ITEM)
Not
Important
Somewha
Important
Very
Important
a. Salary level
b. T enure-track /ten u red position
c. Job security
d O pportunities tor advancem ent
e Benefits
f No pressure to publish
g. G ood research facilities and equipm ent
h. G ood instructional facilities and equipm ent
i. G ood |ob or job opportunities for mv spouse o r
p a rtn e r
I G ood geographic location
k. G ood environm ent/ schools for m y children
1 . G reater opportunity to teach
m. G reater opportunity to do research
n. G reater opportunity for adm inistrative
responsibilities
44. If you could elect to draw on your retirement and still continue working at your institution
on a part-time basis, would you do so? (CIRCLE ONE)
1. Yes
2. No
DK. Don t know
45. If an early retirement option were offered to you at your institution, would you take it?
(CIRCLE ONE)
1. Yes
2. No
DK. Don't know
46. At which age do you think you are most likely to retire from all paid employment? (WRITE
IN AGE, OR CIRCLE "DK")
___________ Years of age
DK. Don't know
202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SECTION E. COMPENSATION
Note: Your responses to these items as with all other items in this questionnaire are voluntary and strictly
confidential. They w ill be used only in statistical summaries, and w ill not be disclosed to your institution or to
any individual or group. Furthermore, all information that w ou ld permit identification of individuals or
institutions w ill be removed from the survey files.
47. For the calendar year 1992, estimate your gross compensation before taxes from each of the
sources listed below. (IF NOT SURE, GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATES; IF NO COMPENSATION
FROM A SOURCE, WRITE IN " 0")
Compensation from this institution
s___________ a. Basic — * b. Type of appointm ent (e.g.. 9 m o n th s) lo t m onths
S___________ c. O ther teaching at this institution not included in basic salary (e.g., for sum m er session)
S___________ d. Supplem ents n o t included in basic salary (tor adm inistration, research, coaching sports, etc.)
S___________ e. N'on-m onetary com pensation, such as food, housing, car (Do not include em ployee benefits such
as m edical, dental, or lire insurance)
S___________ f. Any other incom e from this institution
Compensation from other sources:
S___________ g. Em ploym ent at another academic institution
S___________ h. Legal o r m edical services or psychological counseling
S___________ i. O utside consulting, consulting business or freelance w ork
S___________ |. Self-owned business (other than consulting)
S_________________ k. Professional perform ances or exhibitions
S___________ 1 . Speaking fees, honoraria
S______________ m. Royalties or commissions
S___________ n. Any o th er em ploym ent
S___________ o N'on-m onetary com pensation, such as food, housing, car
(Do not include em ployee benefits such as m edical, dental, or life insurance)
Other sources of earned income (WRITE IN BELOW):
s------------ P ____________________________.__ ________________
s----------------- q--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. For the calendar year 1992, how many persons were in your household
including yourself.
__________ Total number in household
49. For the calendar year 1992, what was your total household income?
$_________ Total household income
50. For the calendar year 1992, how many dependents did you have? Do not include yourself.
(A dependent is someone receiving at least half o f his or her support from you.)
Number of dependents
203
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SECTION F. SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
51. Are you ...
1. male, or
2. female?
52. In what month and year were you bom?
(WRITE IN MONTH AND YEAR)
__________ 19______
MONTH YEAR
53. What is your race? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1 . American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander (ANSWER 53A) 53A. What is your Asian or Pacific
Islander origin? If more than one.
3. African American/Black circle the one you consider the most
important part of vour background.
4. White (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
5. Other (WRITE IN BELOW) 1 . Chinese
2. Filipino
54. Are you of Hispanic descent? 3. Japanese
(CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
4. Korean
1. Yes (ANSWER 54A) 5. Southeast Asian (Vietnamese,,
Laotian, Cambodian/Kampuchean,
etc.)
2. No (SKIP TO QUESTION 55)
6. Pacific Islander
54A. What is your Spanish/Hispanic origin?
If more than one, circle the one you 7. Other (WRITE LN BELOW)
consider the most important part of
your background. ____________________
1. Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano
(SKIP TO QUESTION 55)
2. Cuban, Cubano
3. Puerto Rican, Puertorriqueno, or
Bouricuan
4. Other (WRITE IN)____________________________________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55. What is your current marital status?
(CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1. Single, never married
2. Married
3. Living with someone in a marriage-like relationship
4. Separated
5. Divorced
6. Widowed
56. In what country were you bom? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1. USA
2. Other (WRITE IN ) ___________________________________
57. What is your citizenship status? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1. United States citizen, native
2. United States citizen, naturalized
3. Permanent resident of the United States (immigrant visa)
COUNTRY OF PRESENT CITIZENSHIP
4. Temporary resident of United States (non-immigrant visa)
COUNTRY OF PRESENT CITIZENSHIP
58. What is the highest level of formal education completed by your mother and
your father? (CIRCLE ONE FOR EACH PERSON)
A. B.
M other Father
1 1 a. Less than high school diploma
2 2
b. High school diploma
3 3 c. Some college
4 4 d. Associate's degree
5 5 e. Bachelor's degree
6 6 f. Master's degree
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DK
8
DK
g. Doctorate or professional degree
(e.g., Ph.D., M.D., D.V.M., J.D./L.L.B.)
h. Other
i. Don't know
59. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the
following statements. (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH STATEMENT)
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
1 2 3 4 a. Teaching effectiveness should be the
primary criterion for promotion of
college'teachers at this institution.
1 2 3 4 b. Research/publications should be the
primary criterion for promotion or college
teachers, at this institution.
1 2 3 4 c. At this institution, research is rewarded
more than teaching.
1 2 3 4 d State or federally mandated assessment
requirements will improve the quality of
undergraduate education.
1 2 4 e. Female faculty members are treated
fairly at this institution.
1 2 4 f. Faculty who are members of racial or
ethnic minorities are treated fairly at this
institution.
1 2 4
S
If I had it to do over again, 1 would still
choose an academic career.
60. Please indicate your opinion regarding whether each of the follow ing has
worsened, stayed the same, or improved in recent years at this institution.
(CIRCLE ONE FOR EACH ITEM)
Staved Don't
Worsened the same Improved Know
1 2 3 DK a. The quality of students who choose to
pursue academic careers in my field
1 2 3 DK b. The opportunities junior faculty have for
advancement in my field
1 2 3 DK c. The professional competence of
individuals entering my academic field
1 2 3 DK d The ability of this institution to meet
the educational needs of entenng students
1 2 3 DK e. The ability" of faculty to obtain external
funding
1 2 3 DK f. Pressure to increase faculty workload
at this institution
1 2 3 DK
&
The quality of undergraduate education
at this institution
1 2 3 DK h. The atmosphere for free expression of
ideas
1 2 3 DK 1 . The quality of research at this institution
206
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION
Return this completed questionnaire in the enclosed prepaid envelope to:
National Opinion Research Center (NORC)
University of Chicago
1525 East 55th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60615
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (Q A -3 )
✓
v
1 .0
l.l
■ g | U | 2 £
|50 ■»==
^ I— 12.2
140 2.0
L8
1 .2 5
1 .4
1 . 6
150mm
II W IG E . In c
1653 East Main Street
Rochester. NY 14609 USA
Phone: 716/482-0300
Fax: 716/288-5989
0 1993. Applied Image. Inc.. Ail Rights Reserved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zed) Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Num ber: 9835135
Copyright 1997 by
Akins, Delores
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9835135
Copyright 1998, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Asset Metadata

Creator Akins, Delores (author)

Core Title The economics of tenure: understanding the effects of ethnicity, status and discipline on faculty attitude, workload and productivity

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education - Policy and Organization

Degree Conferral Date 1997-12

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag economics, general,education, administration,education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-327351

Unique identifier UC11350278

Identifier 9835135.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-327351 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9835135.pdf

Dmrecord 327351

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Akins, Delores

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA