University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007 This dissertation, written by Delores Akins .................................................................................. under the direction of h .. ::....... 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 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY .. ~ .... Dean of Gradu Studies Date .. P.~.9.~.WR.E?.F. •.• ~ • ., ... J.9.9..? ..... DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my husband George, who through his love, solace, understanding, and unwavering 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 wind beneath my wings, and will be the next Ph.D. in the family. i i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere appreciation to my Dissertation Committee Members: Professor William G. Tierney, my committee chairperson, whose commitment to developing new education theory and policy, coupled with his support of my 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 member, was a significant and inspirational role model to me with achievements in the academy as an administrator and faculty member, 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 academic 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 Magnolia Akins for without their love and support, especially of my education from the very beginning, this accomplishment would not have been possible. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. . viii 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 Outline of The Remainder of The Study ............................ . 14 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... . 16 Introduction .......................................................................................... . 16 Theoretical Framework ...................................................................... . 17 History of Academic Freedom And Tenure .................................. . 19 1940 Statement of Principles ................................................. . 22 Faculty Protections Formed in Tenure System ................. . 23 Due Process ................................................................................ . 23 Faculty Socialization Theory ............................................................. . 25 Definition of Socialization ..................................................... . 25 Organizational Culture ........................................................... . 26 Transmission of Culture ........................................................ . 27 Faculty Socialization ................................................................ . 28 Anticipatory Socialization .......................................... . 29 Organizational Socialization ..................................... . 29 Tenure as a Socializing Agent ................................... . 31 The Implications of Attitude ............................................................. . 35 Insider /Outsider Doctrine ...................................................... . 35 Institutional Racism ................................................................ . 37 Barriers To Tenure ............................................................................... . 38 Old Boys' Network ................................................................... . 38 Outsiders In Sacred Grove ...................................................... . 39 Typecasting Syndrome ............................................................ . 39 Revolving Door ........................................................................ . 40 Limited Workforce ............................................................................. . 40 Academic Pipeline Theory ..................................................... . 40 Shrinking Ph.D.s ....................................................................... . 41 iv The Decision Behavior of Tenure .................................................... . 44 Faculty Roles and Rewards .................................................... . 46 Workload 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 Method ................................................................................. . 61 Sample and Procedures .......................................................... . 61 Institutional Stratification ........................................ .. 62 Faculty ............................................................................ . 63 Research Limitations .............................................................. . 65 Instrumentation ...................................................................... . 66 Conceptual Model. .................................................................. . 68 Group I Variables, Membership ............................... . 68 Group II Variables, Demographics .......................... .. 69 Group III Variables, Attitude .................................... .. 69 Group IV Variables, Workload ................................ .. 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 Methodological Assumptions ......................................................... .. 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 v Asian.............................................................................. 83 African American.................................................. .. .. . 84 Hispanic......................................................................... 84 White/Caucasian........................................................ 84 What Are the Relationships Among the Various Indices of Attitude, Workload and Productivity?.............. 87 To What Extent Is There a Relationship Between Ethnicity and Attitude, Workload and Productivity?........... 90 What Is the Association of Tenure Status to Attitude, Workload, and Productivity?................................... 96 Is Disciplinary Affiliation a Predictor of Attitude, Workload or Productivity?....................................... 101 CHAPTER 5. RESEARCH FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................... 111 Introduction ......................................................................................... . Research Questions ............................................................................ . Discussion ............................................................................................. . Summary of Findings ........................................................................ . Is There Any Association Between Ethnicity and Tenure Status? .......................................................................... .. Is There Any Association Between Ethnicity and D .. 1' ? ISCip me ................................................................... .. What Are the Relationships Among the Various Indices of Attitude, Workload and Productivity? ........... .. 111 111 112 119 119 124 126 To What Extent Is There a Relationship Between Ethnicity and Attitude, Workload and Productivity?.......... 129 Ethnicity and Attitude................................................ 129 Ethnicity and Workload............................................. 132 Ethnicity and Productivity......................................... 133 What Is the Association of Tenure Status to Attitude, Workload, and Productivity? .................................. .. Tenure Status and Attitude ..................................... .. Tenure Status and Workload ................................... . Tenure Status and Productivity .............................. .. Is Disciplinary Affiliation a Predictor of Attitude, Workload or Productivity? ...................................... .. Discipline and Attitude .............................................. . Attitude Toward the Profession ............................... . Discipline and Workload ........................................... . Discipline and Productivity ...................................... .. Conclusions ........................................................................................... . Implications and Recommendations ............................................. .. Summary ............................................................................................... . 134 134 135 136 138 138 142 142 146 148 154 164 vi BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................... 167 APPENDIX I: Abbreviated Faculty Survey................................................ 178 APPENDIX II: Original Faculty Survey...................................................... 184 vii Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 LIST OF TABLES Full-time Instructional Staff in Situations of Post-secondary Education, by Race/Ethnicity, Academic Rank and Sex ...... 8 Race I Ethnic Status of Ph.D.s: Number and Percentage of US Citizens, 1989- 93............... 42 Number and Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by Racial Ethnicity...................... 64 Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by Discipline....... 65 Number and Percentage of Faculty According to Tenure Status and Ethnicity............................ 82 Number and Percentage of Faculty According to Discipline by Ethnicity...................................... 86 Inter Correlation Coefficients among Attitude, Workload, and Productivity.................................. 89 Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on the Attitude, Workload, and Productivity Measures for Ethnicity Samples............................................. 94 Mean Scores for the Attitude, Workload and Productivity for each Ethnic Group............................................................... 95 Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on the Attitude, Workload, and Productivity Measures for Tenure Status Sample........................................................................................ 99 Mean Scores for Attitude, Workload, and Productivity for each Tenure Status Group................................................ 100 Rank-Ordered Listing of Faculty Attitudes by Discipline.............................................................................. 102 Rank-Ordered Listing of Faculty Workload by Discipline.............................................................................. 105 viii Table 4.10 Rank-Ordered Listing of Productivity in Descending Order by Discipline....................................... 108 Table 4.11 Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on Attitude, Workload, and Productivity Measures for Discipline Sample............................................................... 110 Table 5.1 Number and Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by Racial Ethnicity.................................................................... 121 Table 5.2 Number and Percentage of Tenured Faculty in Higher Education by Ethnicity............................................................ 122 Table 5.3 Number and Percentage of Tenure-Track Faculty in Higher Education by Ethnicity......................................... 123 Table 5.4 Number and Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by Ethnicity with 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 Attitude Table 5.7 (toward teaching, research, treatment of minority faculty, and higher education profession) Measures for Ethnicity Group............................................ 131 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Workload (time spent on teaching, research, and service) Measures by Ethnic Group...................................................... 132 Table 5.8 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Productivity (time spent on teaching, research, and service) Measures by Ethnic Group...................................................... 133 Table 5.9 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Attitude (toward teaching, research, treatment of minority faculty, and higher education profession) Measures for Tenure Status Group......................................................... 135 Table 5.10 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Workload (time spent on teaching, research, and service) Measures for Tenure Status Group....................................... 136 ix Table 5.11 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Productivity (number of publications and amount of funding generated) Measures for Tenure Status Group...................................... 138 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................................................................ 140 Table 5.13 Mean Scores and Deviations on Workload(time spent on teaching, research, and service) Measures for Discipline Group.......................................................................................... 144 Table 5.14 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Productivity (number of publications and amount of funding generated) Measures for Discipline Group............................................. 147 X ABSTRACT The socialization and tenure process of minority faculty are not immune to institutionalized racism. Its presence diminishes tenure opportunity for faculty of color, because when racism fosters a negative socialization experience, it usually renders a negative tenure decision for minority faculty. Moreover, despite academe's professed stance that the main components of tenure review--teaching, research and service--should be weighed equally in tenure decisions, this study indicates that in practice greater weight is given to research and external funding. Considering the findings from this study, most minority faculty appear to emphasize teaching and service. Hence, this research analyzes ethnicity, tenure status, and workload factors in determining faculty productivity and tenure tractability. Biases that enter into the decision process for appointing minorities to tenure-track positions, and granting tenure are also evaluated. Conclusions are drawn about how minority faculty define their roles according to time allocated to teaching, research, and service activities, and the implications of these decisions upon their organizational fit within the academy. The sample of 11,634 subjects was extrapolated from the 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty sponsored by the National Center for Educational Statistics. xi The sample was composed of White (78.8%), Black (9.7%), Asian/Pacific Islander (6.5%), Hispanic (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 were analyzed using ANOV A, and MANOV A tests, correlation statistics, and the chi-square test. Although the results indicated slight to moderate differences between minority and non-minority groups on attitude, workload, and productivity, tenure status revealed a stronger impact on workload 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 more 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. Non-tenure track faculty (209) received more funding than tenure-track (119) faculty. This difference might be due to the prevalence of program funding (as opposed to research) to support non-tenure track faculty. xii CHAPTER ONE STATEMENT 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 Secondary Faculty {NSOPF-88) reported a higher percentage of minority 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 programs for minorities. More than likely, many will start their careers as part-time, 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 what the institution gains for itself, such as prestige, favorable publicity, or monetary rewards (i.e. external funding from contracts and grants), resulting from a particular research study. Therefore, research becomes the focal point of measuring productivity and thus deciding tenure. Furthermore, the impetus to increase the number of publications generated by tenured and tenure-track faculty overshadows other elements associated with research, such as creating new and scholarly knowledge for the good and social welfare of society. While quality is not entirely omitted, research and 1 the quantity of it, seem to outweigh other components of the tenure equation--teaching and service. Background Deans and other university administrators make decisions about tenure based on criteria that include teaching, service and research performance. Similarly, tenure-track faculty follow the same guidelines when deciding their teaching methods, service commitments and their research decisions. Logically, there should be a direct link between this criteria and the information used by decision makers (i.e., administrators, senior faculty) plus their decision making 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 unwritten, can drive the decision behavior and procedures of administrations who set faculty reward structures for tenure and promotion. Katz (1973) believes this unwritten 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 minority faculty away from their goal of tenure and promotion. The nature of their relationships with senior faculty and department heads could help advance their careers with the utilization of sponsorship, role modeling and mentorship (Clark and Corcoran, 1986; Tierney and Bensimon, 1996; 2 Tierney 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 members respond to their roles. Unfortunately, minority faculty tend to fall victim to "typecasting" whereby they are directed toward service and teaching, at the cost of research (Luz Reyes and Halcon, 1988). Consequently, they are not afforded the opportunity of mentor relationships, the foundation of the faculty socialization process that usually supports a tenure appointment. Aside from the faculty socialization process, it is also believed that work activities in which professors are involved should parallel the mission of the university. Braskamp and Ory (1994) echo the concern for equity as it relates to the allotment of time given to the various activities that constitute workload. They encourage balance among 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 imparts one general set of performance standards, they become varied as the different disciplines refine them to meet departmental idiosyncracies (Bowen and Schuster, 1986). Consequently, criteria, policies and procedures pertinent to the tenure review will differ across departments as well. Although tenure should not be soley or disproportinately influenced by research performance 3 (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 amount of funding generated. In view of the fact that the literature indicates that research productivity differs among disciplines (Wanner, Lewis and Gregorio, 1981), membership in a particular discipline does not necessarily predict research performance. Conversely, according to Creswell (1985), disciplinary membership might yield an indirect influence on research performance. In disciplines where there is a higher expectation for research, such as health sciences or engineering, policies might directly influence research behavior. From an institutional perspective, policy issues surrounding non-tenure-track faculty (such as promotion and tenure, health and retirement benefits, and timely notice for non renewal of contract) may be evaluated in light of faculty workload and productivity outcomes. Faculty workload and allocation of time present very important 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 determine whether racial biases or ethnic inequities exist at specific institutions. Similarities are believed to exist between the career experiences 4 of tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty. The probationary status of the junior faculty parallels the temporary nature of the non-tenure-track personnel. In theory, a terminal or limited-renewal non-tenure-track appointment 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 assumptions are: (1) the argument 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; Fairwearther, 1993; Tang and Chamberlain, 1997). Specific concern lies with the number of articles produced, the amount of student contact hours, and the amount of time spent on service-related activities. These assumptions 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 white counterparts. Specifically, faculty of color tend to encounter disparate working conditions (Clark and Corcoran, 1986; Finkelstein, 1984; Menges and Exum, 1983), are concentrated in lower academic ranks, and receive lower salaries. Further, the disparity in workload heightens the relative differences in the formula employed to determine 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 economic climate and government cutbacks in educational spending. Together, these factors create a need for greater flexibility in academic staffing; subsequently, more non-tenure-track positions are being used today in postsecondary education. However, that does not nullify the lack of tenured minorities at most major institutions. According to Chait (1981), Affirmative Action ensures that universities and colleges take positive steps to overcome effects of past discrimination against and exclusion of racial and ethnic minorities. Correspondingly, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1964, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), protect citizens against discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, veteran status or disability. Specifically, "race discrimination in promotion, tenure, and reappointment 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 Commission on Higher Education (1973) defines nondiscrimination as "the elimination of all existing discriminatory conditions, whether 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 discrimination than many state laws. Nonetheless, acts of discrimination still pervade the academy. 6 The inherent subjectivity of the promotion and tenure process coupled with individual differences make it difficult to ascertain what is fair and meritorious. Although university promotion 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 discrimination (Leap, 1995). Indeed most scholars would agree that without Affirmative Action, the faculty could lose the seemingly equal playing field (that has allowed the number of tenured faculty of color to grow as much 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 only 27% consisted of women and 73% of men (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 minority faculty is still grossly disproportional to their White colleagues. The percentages listed in Table 1.1 show a ten-year (1981 to 1991) period of growth in minority faculty delineated by rank and sex. Since discrimination affects employment, tenure, and promotion, there must be some other system of checks and balances to ensure fair and equitable conditions for all faculty. 7 Table 1.1 Full-Time Instructional Staff In Institutions Of Postsecondary Education, By Race/Ethnicity, Academic Rank, And Sex: Fall1981 & 1991 (Number and Percentage) Rank Total White, non- Black, non- Hispanic Asian American and Sex Fa cult:; Hiseanic Hiseanic Indian 1981 Professors 115,210(100) 107690(93.5) 2,396(2.1) 1,166(1.0) 3,759(3.3) 199(0.2) Men ............. 103,380(89.7) 97,017 (84.2) 1,716(1.5) 977(0.8) 3,507(3.1) 163(0.14) Women 11,830(11.0) 10,673 (9.3) 680 (0.6) 189(0.2) 252(0.2) 36 (0.03) Assoc. Prof 105,584(100) 96,959(91.8) 3,576(3.4) 1,438(1.4) 3,262(3.1) 349 (0.33) Men ............. 83,589(79.1) 77,268(73.2) 2,290(2.2) 1,109(1.1) 2,749(2.6) 173(0.17) Women ........ 21,995(21.0) 19,691(18.6) 1,286(1.2) 329(0.3) 513(0.5) 176(0.16) Asst. Prof 110,974(100) 99,154(89.3) 5,419(4.9) 1,771(1.6) 4,349(3.9) 281(0.3) Men ............. 73,810(66.5) 66,270(59.7) 2,749(2.5) 1,204(1.1) 3,390(3.0) 197(0.2) Women ........ 37,164(33.5) 32,884(29.6) 2,670(2.4) 567(0.5) 959(0.9) 84(0.1) Other Fac 119 ,790(1 00) 106,542(88.) 7,149(6.0) 2,524(2.1) 3,119(2.6) 456(0.4) Men ............. 70,151(58.6) 62,988(52.5) 3,245(2.7) 1,554(1.3) 2,079(1.7) 285(0.2) Women ....... 49,639(41.4) 43,554(36.4) 3,904(3.3) 970(0.8) 1040(0.9) 171(0.1) 1991 Professors 144,341(100) 132,065(92) 3,572(2.5) 2,038(1.4) 6,371(4.4) 295(0.2) Men ............. 123,173(85.3) 113,097(78) 2,466(1.7) 1,654(1.2) 5,721(4.0) 235(0.16) Women ........ 21,168(14.7) 18,968 (13.1) 1,106(0.8) 384(0.2) 650 (0.5) 60(0.04) Assoc. Prof 116,631(100) 103,918(89) 4,942(4.2) 2,107(1.8) 5,391(4.6) 273 (0.23) Men ............. 84,311(72.3) 75,341(64.6) 2,924(2.5) 1,490(1.3) 4,363(3.7) 193 (0.17) Women ....... 32,320(27.7) 28,577(24.5) 2,018(1.7) 617(0.5) 1,028 (0.9) 80 (0.06) Asst. Prof 126,344(100) 106,557(84) 7524(6.0) 3,246(2.6) 8,649 (6.8) 368 (0.3) Men ............. 76,129(60.3) 63,573 (50.3) 3,884 (3.1) 1,964(1.6) 6,511(5.2) 197 (0.2) Women ........ 50,215(39.7) 42,984 (34.0) 3,640 (2.9) 1,282(1.0) 2,138(1.7) 171 (0.1) Other Fac 133,008(100) 113,682(86) 8478(6.4) 4031(3.0) 6099(4.6) 718(0.5) Men ............. 71A62(53.7) 6U94(46.0) 3,782(2.8) 2,245(1.7) 3,886(2.9) 390(0.3) Women ........ 61,510(46.3) 52,488(39.5) 4,695(3.5) 1,786(1.3) 2218(1.7) 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. 8 Problem Statement One could argue that the problem of few tenured minorities stems not only from discrimination 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 administrations, who maintain they are committed to increasing and retaining the number 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 number decreases dramatically to levels of tokenism (i.e. one minority for every 100 White male faculty). Luz Reyes and Hakon (1988) agree that this factor places minority faculty in a precarious position, especially during the tenure years. When only a few faculty of color are hired in predominantly white institutions, their career decision behavior is burdened by a number of issues--especially in the ares of teaching and service--such as committee appointments, mentoring students, etc. Consequently, a large number of demands placed upon a limited number of faculty of color can prove stressful to those faculty members. Departments that are otherwise comprised predominantly of white males should find faculty of color very valuable. Such a faculty could bring both new perspectives and nonwhite community ties to the department, 9 thereby increasing collaboration across racial lines. Yet all too often, minority faculty are limited to joint or split appointments within a department (Johnsrud and DesJarlais, 1994), and consequently are overwhelmed by the number of committees to which they are assigned to represent "all minorities," as opposed to representing one's respective racial or faculty group. Acting as representative for all minority groups on several committees is stressful, time consuming and likely to result in less time available for research activities. However, most minority faculty are not tenured, and are therefore not in a position to refuse this type of request for service (e.g., service activity bolsters his/her chances for tenure). As a result, faculty of color are relegated to an unlevel playing field, and frequently become victim to the "one-minority-per-pot syndrome" of hiring only one minority faculty member per department (Luz Reyes and Halcon, 1988), or the "revolving door syndrome." Thus, they tend to leave the university after becoming discouraged due to the work overload or tenure denial--likely a result of a work overload (Cross, as cited in Tierney and Rhoads, 1993). Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to determine whether 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 employed by Caucasian and minority faculty. Faculty of color tend to place greater effort on teaching and 1 0 service activities, while white faculty exert more energy toward research. The net result of this decision behavior yields a smaller proportion of minority faculty than nonminority faculty receiving tenure. This project will attempt to explain the relationships between status, ethnicity and workload factors that determine tenure tractability. This study will investigate why there is a disparity between White and Nonwhite faculty related to tenure composition, 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 Asian/Pacific Islander; 4.9% were Black non-Hispanic; 2.5% were Hispanic and 0.5% were Native Americans (NCES, 1994). The number of minority faculty is neither proportionate to the number of white faculty, nor is the number of tenure track or tenure positions proportionate to that of their non-white cohorts. Relationships among 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 minorities to tenure-track positions, as well as for granting tenure to faculty of color. Their socialization process in the academy lends little support to their work toward becoming tenured, as they are overburdened by service and teaching activities which result in little time for research. 1 1 Conclusions can also be drawn about how minority faculty define their roles according to time 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. Furthermore, findings may encourage institutions to be more forthcoming with staff development and incentive programs designed to increase research output, which is highly valued at institutions that are white male-dominated and/or research oriented. Policy development 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. According to the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty-1988 (NCES, 1991), workload is made up of a combination of the following categories (with emphasis placed according to institutional orientation and faculty interest): teaching, research, administration, community service, professional development and other work. The sample population is extrapolated from the National Study of Postsecondary 1 2 Faculty-1993 (NSOPF-93) conducted by the National Center for Educational Statistics (1994) within the U. S. Department of Education. There are six variables: ethnicity, discipline, tenure status, attitude, workload and productivity. Ethnicity and discipline are self-determining; however, tenure status refers to the contractual appointment by which the faculty member 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. Workload in this project is limited to teaching, research, and service activities. Workload and productivity measures 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 among 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 Research Question 3: What are the relationships among the various indices of attitudes, workload, and productivity? Research Question 4: To what extent is there a relationship between faculty ethnicity and status to attitude, workload and productivity? Research Question 5: What 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 parameters of the other four chapters. In Chapter Two, a body of literature is summarized 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, promotion and reward structure; (2) research on respective minority faculty groups (Hispanics, Blacks, Asians) in academe; and (3) research on the components of faculty workload--research, teaching and service. A theoretical framework will be developed around faculty socialization, organizational decision behavior and institutitional racism. The methodology for the study is explained in Chapter Three regarding the sample, instrumentation, and data collection. A conceptual model is 14 provided. Each research question is listed, followed by an explanation of how and by whom the data were collected and, in addition, the statistical procedures performed to analyze the data pertaining to that question. Definitions of terms of are also found in this chapter. Chapter Four presents statistically significant research findings in detail, with respect to each research question. Chapter Five summarizes the major research findings. Conclusions, implications and recommendations are also discussed. Both literature and theory are integrated into the discussion to substantiate and support or to introduce critical new knowledge. 1 5 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 must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust." Gohn Rawls, 1971, p. 3) Introduction It is well established that tenure was originally created to protect the professoriate from institutional persecution and wrongful termination of those exercising their right of academic freedom and research. Today, research is discussed in the company of teaching and service. The quantity of research published comprises one of the components used to determine 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 membership tends to influence decision patterns, including how much time to spend on specific work activities. Minority faculty are often pressured by the administration and students to allocate more time to service (e.g. serving on committees) and to teaching-related activities such as mentoring (Lederman and Mooney, 1995). 1 6 Their white male counterparts are more likely to be free from administrative presumptions, thereby allowing more time to concentrate on research. Organizational decision behavior is significant to the understanding of how minority 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 academy. This chapter documents 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 make tenure. While misallocation of time might be the case in various situations, there are deeper explanations as to why minority faculty are not successful in securing tenure at a more frequent level--the discrimination that pervades the academy. This discrimination is embedded within the following environments: (1) a highly subjective tenure decision-making process; and (2) the socialization process among new faculty. Consequently, faculty of color find themselves competing on unequal playing fields. Theoretical Framework The literature has described organizational cultures in higher education environments that are discriminatory toward 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 moral fiber necessary to comprehend--and 1 7 therefore eradicate--injustices. In the context of faculty productivity, this investigation is grounded in the following theoretical framework: 1. When ad hominem acts are present in faculty socialization, faculty of color are moved to an unequal playing ground and the opportunity for tenure and promotion is diminished (Baldwin and Blackburn, 1981; Clark and Corcoran, 1986; Luz Reyes and Hakon, 1988). 2. On the other hand, feedback from a mentor can enhance the transition to the work environment as well as provide an entree to the discipline (Tierney and Rhoads, 1993), where scholarly networking and advice on publications, conferences, presentations and committee work can potentially elevate professional advancement. While a positive socialization process is fundamental to the career success of minority faculty, understandably, a negative process ladened with covert acts of racism (Anderson, 1988) is more likely to move these faculty members away from their goal of tenure and promotion (Boice, 1992; Boyer, 1990; Clark and Corcoran, 1986; Johnsrud and DesJarlais, 1994; Kritek, 1984; Luz Reyes and Hakon, 1988;Mengesand Exum, 1983; Moore and Johnson, 1989; Tierney and Ben simon, 1996; Tierney and Rhoads, 1993). Understanding the origin of academic freedom and tenure brings stronger perspective to the inequality of today's tenure and promotion process. 1 8 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 within a single country. In the American experience, academic freedom (at all American universities and colleges), is guided by a statement 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 American 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, without any control or authority of the rational methods 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 authority of rational inquiry. (In Kirk, 1955, p.10) The first higher education establishments in America (Harvard College and College of William and Mary) were modeled after the English University. The statutes of Harvard College were derived from values of the New England Puritan settlers, who were strong advocates of "knowing and 1 9 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 mature scholars, American colleges conversely were founded by community religious leaders. [Moreover, the American colleges] did not readily develop the mature 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 would follow was a two tier structure of governance: the president and faculty would be called a "corporation" and thus, operate resembling the English system, and a board of "overseers" (usually six magistrates and six ministers) would govern the college. Faculty were essentially isolated from the community which 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 majority of 20 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 emphasis began to shift farther away from higher education's rich intellectual vigor. However, by the middle of the 19th century, the need for practical application of knowledge surfaced, which ultimately replaced the denominational fervor. In addition, more and more faculty trained in German universities joined the American Professoriate. During this period (19th century), German universities were known for both "Lernfreiheit" (freedom of students) and "Lehrfreiheit'' (freedom of professors) (Hook, 1971). In contrast, the word "university" had maintained its medieval meaning of a corporate body of scholars (Poch, 1993). German faculty operated under the medieval university values and mores, actively participating in the university governance as well as scholarship. Lemfreiheit, Lehrfreiheit, capitalism, and urban growth plus the onset of industrialization added to the quest for a definition of academic freedom during the 19th century. Faculty felt it necessary to formally document standards by which they could govern their profession (Poch, 1993). When the AAUP was organized by philosophers Arthur Lovejoy and John Dewey (Hook, 1971), its mission was "to facilitate a more effective cooperation among teachers and research scholars ... to increase the usefulness and advance the standards, ideas, and welfare of the profession" (p. 3). 21 The AAUP and its standing committees 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 number of revisions and additional endorsements, the organization published the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (Joughin, 1967). The statement defines four basic academic freedoms: 1. To teach, 2. To research, 3. To publish research results, and 4. To communicate extramurally. This statement, plus its interpretations, were endorsed in 1941 by the Association and by the American Council on Education. Joughin (1967) summarizes: The purpose of the statement is to promote public understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement 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 common 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 fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student in freedom of learning. It carries with it duties correlative with learning. Tenure is the means to certain ends; specifically, (1) Freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities and (2) a sufficient degree of 22 economic security to make the profession attractive to men 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 must 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 commitment of advance notice to the professor of whether a permanent relationship will be initiated. • A negative decision usually comes one year prior to the end of the probationary period. • Appointment to tenure status if the professor is continued past the probationary period. • Tenure appointment will terminate only in the case of financial exigency, the professor has reached the age of retirement under an etablished retirement 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 member which parallel those of legal proceedings (such as the right to 23 assistance by counselor advisor, opportunity to cross examine, to submit argument, to present evidence). The 1940 Statement of Principles was developed and supplemented by other policy statements including the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in faculty dismissal proceedings, the 1961 Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of faculty members, and the 1964 Statement on the Standards for Notice of Non-appointment, (Joughin, 1967). These basic statements are further delineated with interpretations and specific procedural guidelines for indoctrination. Implied in these statements of faculty governance is a direct link between the guidelines used by the decision makers and decision-making behavior. Yet, history points to situations where faculty governance was overlooked and acts of discrimination prevailed. In some cases, minority faculty have resorted to the courts to air their complaints on racial discrimination (Baez and Centra, 1995; Poch, 1993). A number of tenure decisions involving these groups have been found unjust, and were subsequently overturned. Poch (1993) has described specific court rulings that show an alignment of the Supreme Court (constitutional protections), with institutional and professorial academic freedom to make academic-related judgments. 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 members alleging discrimination than does the United States Constitution. 24 Lederman (1995), emphasizing a "New Light On Tenure," describes what the experience is like for faculty of color. One female minority faculty member who was denied tenure described her sentiments in the following statement, "I felt very pressured [by administration], to do all this service stuff, which is not taken seriously at tenure time" (p. 21). This professor's distress is symptomatic of the distress felt by minority faculty across academe --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 minority faculty. Also described are some of the issues that faculty of color tend to encounter as they move through the socialization process and prepare for tenure in a white male-dominated institution. Faculty Socialization Theory Faculty Socialization Theory is explained in conjunction with 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 1s defined as the process by which values, attitudes, norms, knowledge and skills are acquired by individuals in order to exist in a given society (Merton, 1957). In other words, "socialization" is the transmission of culture to an individual. While socialization speaks to the "how," culture speaks to the "what." The transmission of culture can be discussed in three domains: 25 (1) Cognitive (knowledge and beliefs); (2) Affective (values and norms); and (3) Symbolic (verbal and non-verbal language). When a person moves to a new environment such as a social group or work setting, behavior patterns often change in response to those found within that organization. This type of culture is present in organizations, and is considered organizational culture. "Organizational culture is the body of solutions to problems that has worked consistently for a group and is therefore [brought] to new members as the correct way 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--communities in which status differences are de-emphasized and individuals interact as equals. They also conclude that members of collegial organizations share aspirations and commitments, have frequent face-to-face interactions, and use civil discourse. Persons working within 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 norms dictate appropriate ways to behave (Lawer, 1973; Vroom, 1964; Wanous, 1972a). For instance, the new faculty member becomes aware 26 of organizational norms and values from both formal and informal means. Policies, procedures, and mission statements represent a set of formal norms that are generally articulated at a meeting or learned from an employee handbook. Folkways are more trivial or informal norms (such as shaking of hands, code of dress, office politics, and protocol) which are transmitted through verbal and non-verbal ways. "Over time, organizational culture takes on new meaning 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. Although the process is ongoing, it is most evident among 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 dynamic, as new members 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 members' interaction with the organization. Essentially, socialization is continuous, involves many different actors, and consequently 27 has the potential to produce change at many different levels of the organization. Faculty Socialization Faculty socialization pertains here to a specific form of employee socialization that refers to the new professor in the context of a post-secondary institution. Since organizational cultures vary from one institution to the next, one should not hasten to predetermine 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 emphasis on teaching quality. Paulsen and Feldman (1995) assert that college missions and roles of faculty are described in terms of the trio of teaching, research, and service functions. Nevertheless, the word 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 imparted during the recruitment and selection process (Wanous, 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 Anticipatory 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 completing the dissertation; and finally (3) the expansion and continuation of acquired roles (Clark and Corcoran, 1986). Organizational socialization. Organizational socialization embodies two phases: initial entry and role continuance. The initial entry phase depicts the previously mentioned recruitment and selection process along with early organizational learning just after employment begins (Tierney and Rhoads, 1993). Upon entering the academic profession, new faculty begin to learn academic culture (Baldwin, 1979). Inherent in the culture of academe are four distinct but interrelated cultures that influence faculty socialization and ultimately promotion and tenure: (1) the culture of the academic profession, (2) the culture of the specific academic 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 must master the necessary academic and cultural skills to attain tenure" (Tierney and Rhoads, 1993, p. 23). 29 Both points of view seem to carry an underlying assumption 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 membership to an organization and, moreover, the price one pays for membership (Schein, 1968a). A person's success at this stage usually gauges to a certain extent how long he or she will remain at a given university. People continually migrate from one setting to another; they either learn to adapt to "the rules of the game" or move on to the next institution. Similarly, VanMaanen (1976) proposes organizational socialization to explain the matching 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 employees and guidelines for their day-to-day behavior. "Organizations succeed because their employees can identify, embrace, and act on the values of the organization" (Deal and Kennedy 1982, p. 21). With this in mind, it seems incumbent upon senior faculty and administrators (particularly department 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 Whitt, 1988; 30 Tierney and Rhoads, 1993) conducive to and culminating in tenure and promotion. Tenure as a Socializing Agent 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 means (to an end), and serves as a socializing agent. Tierney and Rhoads (1993) describe the promotion 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 performance for a job well done. The tenure decision also connotes future patterns of activity. Merton (1973) would have recognized the tenure decision as an instrumental sense of recognition: "It directs our attention to the possibility that, to some unknown extent, much human capacity for socially valued accomplishment remains latent and undeveloped. It assumes that much talent fails to find expression because it is subjected to adverse conditions" (p. 419). Some researchers agree that formal and informal mechanisms should be encouraged at both the disciplinary and institutional levels. From an institutional level, where policy is formulated, information regarding the tenure process should be systematic and disseminated to all persons 3 1 involved. There is a direct link between the information used by decision makers and decision making behavior. Academic deans and faculty committees make decisions about tenure based on set criteria for teaching, service, and research performance. Likewise, tenure-track faculty follow the same guidelines when deciding their teaching methods, committee participation and research decisions. These guidelines are detailed in faculty handbooks in general and delineated specifically <=!Cross 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 achievement of institutional goals, provides bases for improvement, is results oriented, has clearly stated criteria, and is explicitly linked to the reward system--merit pay, reappointment, 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 departments, determinations should be made about where to place the emphasis for research, teaching, or service performance. Likewise, specific procedures and standards used to assess faculty performance should be discussed in advance (Centra, 1979). Additionally, department chairs can facilitate the socialization of a new faculty member by pairing the individual with a productive and successful senior faculty member as a mentor. Feedback from a mentor can enhance the transition to the work environment 32 as well as provide an entree to the discipline {Tierney and Rhoads, 1993), where scholarly networking and advice on publications, conferences, presentations and committee work can potentially elevate professional advancement. Given these assumptions, 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 and/ or is it modified according to differences among people (recruits)? VanMaanen (1983) posits eliciting desired behavior from newcomers by organizing tasks and social relations for them in particular ways. "Organizational socialization, then, is about recruit responses to agent demands as tamed or accentuated by the task and social organization characterizing a given setting" (VanMaanen 1983, p. 211). In addition, VanMaanen 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 norms, values and attitudes of the organization. Van Maanen's summation of organizational socialization moves the reader toward a less than favorable interpretation. Many illustrations could be drawn to depict a negative socialization experience according to the above explanation of organizational socialization. For example, a negative experience is often embedded in the process of the minority faculty member who is overburdened by participation on too many committees and classes to teach. In which case, this type of schedule leaves 33 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 typifies the situation for many faculty of color at most white-male dominated or research oriented universities. As emphasized by Tierney and Bensimon (1996), in an ideal world, faculty socialization would 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 minority faculty. An unwritten tenure code may surround social context and thus weighs physical attributes, social connections, and gender (Katz, 1973). Moore (1989) investigated interdisciplinary perceptions of reward criteria using the Tenure Decision Factor Inventory composed of Achievement (ACH), Ascriptive (ASCRIT), Internal (IP), and External (EP). She revealed that achievement behavior was perceived as a far more valuable reward criterion during the tenure process. Since faculty are governed by the same general expectations described in faculty handbooks or contracts, it is reasonable to think that workload and productivity levels would not vary significantly. 34 Therefore, reward structures should yield similar rewards 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 minority faculty. The Implications of Attitude 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 moment 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 Merton postulated this idea, it still holds true today. Insider/Outsider Doctrine Merton's insider doctrine (access to knowledge) and the outsider doctrine (exclusion from knowledge) is supported by research evidence of the differential experiences of minority faculty from their white male colleagues (Boice, 1992; Boyer, 1990; Clark and Corcoran, 1986; Johnsrud and DesJarlais, 1994; Kritek, 1984; LuzReyes and Hakon, 1988; Menges andExum,1983; Moore and Johnson, 1989; Tierney and Bensimon, 1996; Tierney and Rhoads, 1993). We must remember that organizational culture is often formed on historical and social patterns that are historically white male-oriented (Tierney and 35 Rhoads, 1993). Merton (1973) elaborates in his book, The Sociology of Science: "Although Insider Doctrines have been intermittently set forth by White elitists through centuries, White male insiders in American 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 must compare 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 worthy of their positions (Johnsrud and DesJarlais, 1994). One underlying issue is that of merit: "merit poses an obstacle ... because it produces group inequality" (D'Souza, 1995, p. 294). Some minority faculty credit the misperception 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 treatment for minorities. And that such preference is synonymous with mediocrity and lends credence to the "quota versus merit" argument. 36 Institutional racism. It is probable that at its core such anomalies stem around racism and discrimination in higher education. African Americans and other minority groups have referred these conditions as institutionalized racism. "Institutional racism refers to the complex of institutional arrangements and choices that restrict the life chances and choices of a socially defined racial group in comparison with those of the dominant group." (Pettigrew, 1982, pp. 4-5.) "Racism can mean culturally sanctioned beliefs which, regardless of the intentions involved ... justify policies, and institutional priorities that perpetuate racial inequalities." (Wellman, 1977, pp. xviii, 235.) 37 Although definitions of racism vary from one source to another, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Woolf, 1973) defined it simply as "the assumption that the characteristics and abilities of an individual are determined 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 numbers 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 Tenure. 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-appointments, promotions, and salary (Sandler, 1975). In fact, institutions relied on the "old boys' 38 network" 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 Hakon, 1988). This attitude manifests in decision behavior that makes it increasingly more difficult for minority professors to achieve tenure and promotion. In like manner, you can see this in the case of the female faculty member of color, who has difficulty cultivating positive relationships with departmental colleagues and department heads. Aisenberg and Harrington (1985) characterize these women (individuals) as "outsiders in the sacred" grove. Although this situation is discussed in gender-specific terms, it applies to minority faculty member as well. Luz Reyes and Hakon 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 programs (1988). This type of racism could limit a particular group to certain positions, making career change or advancement 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 administrative positions, such as department dean or chair. 39 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 Tierney and Rhoads, 1993). The revolving door syndrome 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 academic "pipeline," as a feasible reason for fewer tenured minority faculty members than White faculty. Smith (1996) believes "the supply and bidding arguments 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 minimal growth in the numbers of minority doctors of philosophy (see Table 2.1). Comparatively, fewer students of color than white students achieve doctorate degrees. Those who 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 number of tenured minority 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 century, the school populations of California, Texas, New York, and Florida, will consist of more than 60% non-white students. In 1992, Los Angeles Unified School District reported only 13 percent Anglo/White students in a population of nearly 650,000 students (Andersen Audit, 1992). Given these changing demographics, it has become imperative to analyze disparities in our educational systems--higher education in particular. One blatant disparity is the disproportion between minority faculty and minority students. Minority students are greatly underrepresented by their respective faculty on majority White campuses. Blackwell's analysis of the problem brings attention to the shrinking pool of minority group members in graduate school. He observes that nonminority students dominate enrollment in graduate education, thereby leading to a domino effect: (1) problems of access contribute to minorities' declining enrollment; (2) their underproduction of doctorates; and (3) ultimately their decreased number in the field of academe. Their underrepresentation in the number of doctorates produced is a serious indictment of both the American educational system and society as a whole for its failure to 41 increase and maintain the access of, retention in, and achievement within 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 Asian 626 (2.7) 641 (2.6) 787 (3.1) 828 (3.3) 891 White 20982 (91) 22162 (90) 22392 (89) 22718 (89) 23202 Hisp 583 (2.5) 717 (2.9) 730 (2.9) 755 (3.0) 834 Native 94 (0.4) 96 (0.4) 130 (0.5) 148 (0.6) 120 Source: Adapted from National Research Council, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, Survey of Earned Doctorates, 1989 -1993. Racial and ethnic minorities represent only 13.2% of full-time faculty (NCES, 1994). As this figure is delineated by racial ethnicity and further (4.2) (3.4) (89) (3.2) (0.5) disaggregated according to program areas, it decreases dramatically to levels of tokenism. Luz Reyes and Hakon (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. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics (1991), National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF-88). While the report indicates a higher percentage of minority full-time regular faculty across all institutions, at the same time, the statistics show a significantly higher percentage of non-minority faculty having tenure. Therefore, when only a few faculty of color are hired in predominantly white institutions on tenure track, the decision behavior is 42 burdened by a number of issues. Included in this list is providing quality classroom instruction, while finding the necessary time to produce scholarly research. Their commitment of mentoring students of color is shared with time required to represent minority groups on assigned committees. Consequently, a large number of demands to a limited number of faculty can prove stressful to that "privileged" few. Attitudes found in hiring practices can also limit the number of tenured minority faculty. A study done by Konrad and Pfeffer (1991) on hiring patterns of minorities 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 most important factors predicting the hiring of minorities (and women) were incumbency and compositional . Thus, minorities and women were most 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 number of minorities are likely to fill position vacancies with the same. 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 White group's attitude) 43 against groups outside their own. These attitudes and prejudices pervade higher education projecting a national perception of myths about minority faculty (Smith, 1996). The Decision Behavior Of Tenure The previous discussion surrounding tenure centered primarily around its necessity for the integrity of the profession and how certain leadership characteristics can lead to positive socialization experiences for junior faculty, and ultimately 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 reward drives decision behavior. The remaining sections in Chapter Two document 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" (0' Toole, 1994, p. 79). There is growing concern that the very grounds [academic freedom] on which tenure was based, are now obsolete. Today, the practicality of tenure in the academy is widely discussed (Massey and Wilger, 1995; 0' Toole, 1994; Schapiro, 1994; Tierney and Bensimon, 1996). 0' Toole (1994), a proponent for the elimination 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 some 44 institutions the decision may pass through as many as six committees. This type of scrutiny makes the tenure decision process long and costly, and without tangible measures in place, the subjectivity that is imposed 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 growth contracts to reduce the likelihood of promoting an adversarial professor versus a positive institution relationship. From an economic standpoint, Massy and Wilger (1995) believe that certain faculty productivity ebbs and flows and turns to "deadwood" after the tenure years, thus creating much debate about how to rid the university of such inefficiency. Sartorius (1972) claimed "deadwood" to be the biggest problem that universities adopting tenure would face. In an address to the association in 1994, James E. Perley, then president of the AAUP, denounced the idea of eliminating tenure as a valid response to controlling declining university budgets. Faculty tenure does not guarantee continued appointment through to retirement. Perley (Van Waes, 1994) reiterated that reorganization strategies that are employed to downsize, decrease or eliminate programs altogether. This strategy would in turn eliminate many types of inefficiency including tenured positions. In light of the current economic climate, there will be fewer opportunities for faculty seeking academic affiliation whether tenure stays or goes (Van Waes, 1994). 45 O'Toole (1994) justifies eliminating the need for tenure in terms of "Due Process," (Poch, 1993) by substituting it with the American legal system. Van Alstyne (1994) questions whether the legal system provides a sound solution, claiming that it is a good redress only to those who can afford the time and money 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 rewards 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 themselves with the profession and their (minority) colleagues. This section takes a close look at faculty roles and rewards. Workload and productivity formulas are discussed, as well as faculty attitudes about their work, profession, productivity and colleagues. The role of faculty has been discussed in a number of ways over the past decade, but 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 must learn to prioritize their time between their teaching and research roles. Particular attention is given to the 46 different weights placed on teaching, research publication, and on service as measures of productivity. Also emphasized is the relationship between 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 Hagerman (1989) suggest that publication quality standards differ between top public and private schools. The latter requires publication of a greater number of articles and in more prestigious journals. There is also concern about equity relating to the allotment 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. Workload formulas. Though the university imparts one general set of performance standards, these standards become varied as they are refined by different disciplines to meet departmental differences (Bowen and Schuster, 1986). Consequently, criteria, policies and procedures relating to the tenure review vary across departments as well. Currently, academic policies link tenure and promotion decisions to research productivity, thereby setting a standard for junior faculty to weight 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 some way related to his/her professional duties, 47 responsibilities and interest. Although little is known nationally about the extent of faculty participation in consulting and administrative activities (Finkelstein, 1984), workload is consistently discussed as being comprised of teaching, research, student advisement, administration and consulting (Clark, 1987). As defined in the 1988 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NCES, 1991), workload consists of a combination of the following categories with emphasis 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 reviewing articles and books, attending or preparing for professional meetings or conferences, seeking outside funding (including proposal writing); • Administration: administrative activities (including paperwork, staff supervision, serving on in-house committees, such as the academic senate), working with student organizations or intramural athletics; • Community service: paid or unpaid community or public service (civic, religious); • Professional development: taking courses, pursuing an advanced degree, other professional development activities, such as practice or other activities to remain current in one's field, and 48 • Other work: providing legal or medical services or psychological counseling to clients or patients, outside consulting or freelance work, working at self-owned business, other employment, giving performances or exhibitions in the fine or applied arts, speeches, or other activities. While the list is comprehensive, the probability of formulating a standard for measuring faculty productivity and establishing commensurate rewards is confounded by the sheer number of possible combinations. It is for this reason that no uniform workload formula has been developed across universities and colleges. Yet, limits have been set by state laws and university administrations in accordance to the 1969 AAUP Statement on Faculty Workload (Lombardi, 1974). Studies of faculty workload are also complicated by institutional and disciplinary differences, as well as the differences between graduate and undergraduate levels of instruction (Bowen and Schuster, 1986). Allocation of time. Student contact hours are negotiable by the number 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 involvement common in graduate and doctoral work. Weis (1991) makes the argument that universities emphasizing research, demand significantly greater amounts of time and energy for students. Small recitation-type classes, personal relationships, and mentoring that normally provide the nucleus for perhaps a business school education have been 49 supplanted by large lecture-type classes and by a student body and faculty who rarely interact (Weis, 1991). Even though workload is defined in most institutions as a combination of teaching, research, administration 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 comprehensive universities and community colleges. On the one hand, faculty at research universities are expected to commit more time to research-oriented activities. On the other hand, institutions with a strong service emphasis might require a larger amount of time spent on community service, both internal and outside the campus. Community colleges naturally place greater emphasis on teaching because teaching directly parallels their mission. There is usually little scholarly research performed at the community 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 make cross-study comparisons difficult. University reward structures are far from being uniform and additional variables may influence the tenure decision 50 (Moore and Johnson, 1989). Productivity and Rewards Increasingly, institutions of higher education are being held responsible for the outcomes of their efforts (Miller, 1994). Inputs such as the number of faculty lines, salaries, research equipment, and teaching loads are increasingly measured against outputs--such as scholarly productivity, grants received, and percentage of students passing licensure or certification examinations (Edington, Davis, and Hensley, 1994). When such inputs are attached to faculty productivity, many questions are raised including the following: How many hours do faculty work, both at their institution of employment and overall? How do faculty allocate their time across various types of professional and service activities? Do workload and time allocation vary by institutional type, departmental program, academic 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 time present very important issues in higher education in deciding budgets, salaries, and tenure. Greenberg (1994) gives credence to fiscal crisis as having propelled numerous studies of faculty productivity--he believes "faculty autonomy and accountability are at the core of many probes" (pp. 52-53). Studies in these areas have included cost analysis (Doi, 1974, as cited in NCES, 1991), equity 51 issues and management of grant proposals (Yuker, 1984). Additional work has been done in the area of monetary value of publications (Diamond, 1986; Siow, 1991; Tuckman and Leahey, 1975; Tuckman, 1976 as cited in NCES, 1991; Hercules, 1995). Research productivity is perceived to be increasingly important in promotion and tenure decisions and is considered above teaching, politics, and service--in tenure, promotion, and salary increase decisions (Cargile and Bublitz, 1986; Milne and Vent, 1987 and 1989; Schultz, Meade, and Khurana, 1989). Bowen and Schuster (1986) believe strongly that during the probationary period, faculty devote more time to research at the cost of time spent on teaching. Productivity thus decreases notably over time, following attainment of tenure or full professorship, which 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 commonly 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 amount 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 measure and number of articles published as a measure of output. Besides the number of articles produced, concern is with the amount of class time, student contact hours, the amount of time spent on community service (both on and outside the 52 campus) and the amount 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 Postsecondary Faculty. faculty spend approximately 56 percent of their time on teaching activities, 16 percent on research, 13 percent on administration, 4 percent on community 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 amount of time on research (39 to 47 percent) and a below average amount (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 number 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 administration (14 versus 11 percent). Tenure-track faculty also spent more 53 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 attainment 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 numbers 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-World War II period with virtually no faculty involvement in the debate. Much of the discourse surrounding workload has involved its effect on quality of instruction (Lombardi, 1974). Ironically, when the discussion of tenure comes to the table, workload takes on a new meaning. Research becomes the focal point of the conversation, and while quality is not entirely deleted from the conversation, the discussion moves toward 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 demands for research interfered with teaching" (Mooney, 1991c, p. A16). The Boyer (1990) Report stimulated many discussions around scholarship; polarizing teaching as the integral part of scholarship. The 54 importance of teaching is further emphasized by Perkins (1992), who reminds 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 importance to undergraduate teaching. They contend that "hours not used for teaching courses, for grading papers, or for meeting with 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 with increased or improved teaching, usually are not rewarded monetarily or otherwise. Yet, success or failure in other obligations carries significant rewards and penalties. Junior faculty who fall short in research and scholarship, even at most non-research institutions, are rejected tenure. Generally, deans and other university administrators make decisions about tenure based on set criteria for both teaching and research performance. Accordingly, tenure track faculty follow the same guidelines when deciding their teaching methods and research decisions. "Faculty rewards such as rank and salary are generally perceived to be based on performance in the areas of teaching, service, and research and publication" (Omundson and Mann, 1994). A flurry of productivity studies performed in the past decade (Cargile and Bublitz, 1986; Campbell and Morgan, 1987; Hagerman and Hagerman, 55 1989; Milne and Vent, 1987; Schultz, Meade, and Khurana, 1989) support the assumption that research and publication outweigh teaching and service in reward decisions. Tenure guidelines are referenced in faculty handbooks, across institutions and academic departments. Yet, the tenure decision process still remains subjective. Two assumptions underlie this element of subjectivity: (1) the argument of quality versus quantity, and (2) change versus insolvency. Together, these assumptions paint a picture of conflicting demands between departmental research and teaching quality. Equally important and embedded in these assumptions, is the impact 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 element in the formation of new academic disciplines (Barnett, 1992). The thrust is twofold: (1) institutions rely on research effort as a measure 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, Wilger, and Colbeck (1994) reported that in a "near-unanimous voice," faculty stressed the importance of research in hiring, tenure, promotion, and salary decisions. On the contrary, at liberal arts institutions where undergraduate education is emphasized, faculty still perceive research as the activity their institution rewards the most. These faculty also reported their institutions as defining research almost solely in terms of external funding and number of 56 publications. How teaching or research is formulated in the productivity requirement depends primarily on the emphasis of ( 1) the institution and (2) the department 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 amount of research is funded by government and quasi governmental agencies, as well as on a customer-contract basis. Barnett (1992) implies a metaphor 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), most would agree that creation of new knowledge through research and publication is essential to scholarship, although this conventional conception of scholarship is criticized as too narrow. Nevertheless, this "one-dimensional view" continues to be the "dominant fiction" that guides faculty in assessing their own 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 many researchers 57 chasing too few dollars. They believe this condition evolved in part because of an increasing number of universities' commitment to a research orientation. Moreover, there is sentiment in faculty time allocation about a possible decline in instructional quality--resulting from an overemphasis 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 rewards for increased or improved teaching that is associated with reductions in discretionary time. Yet, success or failure in other obligations carry significant rewards and penalties. The most obvious is the junior faculty member who falls short in research and scholarship, and is therefore denied tenure. What would happen if tenure and promotion 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 consuming fewer resources on writing, submitting, and evaluating large numbers of proposals. Grogono also believes that exciting research would flourish, students would see more of their senior professors, and education would reemerge as the ultimate priority at most institutions and among most professors. Massy and Wilger (1991) claim that reaching a consensus about exact definitions for quality is probably impossible. Nevertheless, some standard of measurement should be adopted. They link faculty productivity to productivity of university, and to 58 higher education as a whole. Finally, they advocate "benchmark indicators" to provide quantitative measurements of cost levels and performance standards. It appears that Massy and Wilgers' main concerns lie with "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 and/or national recognition. "Output creep" is most recognizable at elite research institutions. In contrast, Boice (1992) found a positive correlation between scholarly productivity and teaching quality. Nonetheless, he points to allegations by senior faculty that research and teaching are mutually interfering activities. Discipline and productivity. The relationship between discipline and productivity is of obvious importance given the role of faculty socialization in fostering faculty development. In a study by Hercules (1995) on research activity and productivity in chemistry departments, 1985-1988, four factors were selected as appropriate indicators of current research activity: (1) level of research funding, (2) number of publications, (3) number of graduate students enrolled, and, (4) number of postdoctoral researchers. Research activity was calculated to be the sum of these four normalized factors. The total research impact of a department was related to the aggregate number. However, Hercules noted that per capita research activity is probably a better way to compare departments of widely differing sizes (1995). Although the four factors are convolved, the aggregate of the four would represent a 59 better measure 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 department; albeit one department may emphasize postdoctoral training, a third may put substantial emphasis on research oriented master's degrees. Hercules' study gives strong support for the ideology of departmental based productivity. Implicit in the model are collegiality, shared governance and faculty socialization. Although resources wane, many faculty members strain already fragile relationships while they compete externally for grants and publication opportunities and internally for departmental resources (Massy, Wilger, and Colbeck, 1994). 60 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction Chapter Three sets forth a description of: (a) the characteristics of the sample; (b) the instrumentation employed in the study from which the data were extrapolated for the statistical analyses; (c) definitions of terms; (d) methods executed in the data analyses; and (e) an enumeration of methodological assumptions. Research Method Sample and Procedures The sample was drawn from the 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF-93) sponsored by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 1994) within the U.S. Department of Education. The National Study of Postsecondary Faculty is also supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The National Opinion Research Center (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. 61 Institutional stratification. All fifty states were included in the sampling frame of 3,256 postsecondary institutions. NORC received responses from 974 public and private nonproprietary higher education institutions. A modified Carnegie (1987) classification system was 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 awards substantial numbers of doctorates across many fields. 2. Other Ph.D.: Other doctoral-granting universities. 3. Comprehensive colleges and universities: Offer liberal arts and professional programs. The highest degree offered is the masters degree. 4. Liberal Arts colleges: Smaller and more selective than comprehensive colleges and universities, which offer bachelor degrees and some masters 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 9. Unknown: Carnegie classification was initially unknown, but was later categorized in one of the above eight classifications. Faculty. Female faculty representation was 36.8%, while male faculty represented 63.2% of the sample. In Table 3.1, race and ethnicity are delineated by: Native American/ Alaskan 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 month appointments. Slightly more than 50% of the sample 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. 63 Table 3.1 Faculty Total White Black Asian Hispanic Number and Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by Racial Ethnicity Number Percentage 11,634 (100) 9,164 (78.8) 1,132 (9.7) 758 (6.5) 528 (4.5) Native American 52 (.4) The sample 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 Humanities (23.6%), Health Science (12.3%), Natural Science (17.4%), Social Science (11.9%) and Other disciplines (15.3%). (See Table 3.2) 64 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 sample of 11,634 full-time faculty. The sample was developed around the following limitations: --Faculty were limited to four-year colleges and universities since these institution types require scholarly research. They also weigh research and publication as a criterion for performance 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 assumption is that all faculty have 65 an "equal starting point" to succeed (or fail) in their careers. Regarding minority faculty in higher education, Affirmative Action policies were instituted to ensure "level playing fields" in obtaining tenure. Affirmative Action laws were enacted during the early 1960's, and 1992 marks a thirty year time span from which analyses can be drawn to assess present day effects on tenure and promotion. --Tenured faculty were limited to those who received tenure between 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 comparing tenure trends preceding the enactment of Affirmative Action. --Tenure status was limited to three cohort groups representing tenured faculty, tenure-track faculty and non-tenure-track faculty. Instrumentation Items for this study were abstracted from the 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF, 1993) sponsored by the National Center for Educational Statistics (1994) within 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 "Write in the Blank;" and Likert-Type Scales: 1 = "Disagree Strongly," 2 = "Disagree Somewhat," 66 3 = "Agree Strongly," 4 = "Agree Somewhat." Five groups are used to summarize the variables on which the study is designed: Group !_Membership; Group II _Demographics; Group III _Attitude; Group IV_Workload; and Group V_Productivity. The model below provides a conceptual framework for introducing the study to the reader. 67 Figure I. CONCEPTUAL MODEL Group I Group II Group III Group IV Group V Membership Demographics Attitude Workload Productivity Time Spent on Teaching Institutional E) Support Publication I Eth nicilv I Time Spent on Researdl I Fundi'9 I Dscipline I ~fession I Tirre Spent on Service Group I Variables. Membership. The sample is delineated by race that includes: Native American; Asian; Black, not Hispanic; Hispanic and White, not Hispanic faculty members. Group membership is obtained from Questions 53 and 54 of the Questionnaire. Respondents were asked to identify their respective race by selecting the appropriate racial ethnicity. 68 Persons of Hispanic origin answered 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 Humanities, Health Science, Natural Science, Social Science or Other. Category Five (Fine Arts) and Category Seven (Humanities) were combined to make up the Fine Arts and Humanities discipline. Category One (Agriculture and Home Economics) was recoded as part of Category Ten, for "Other" disciplines. Group III Variables. Attitude. Attitude toward the institution was measured 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 numbers indicate a positive attitude toward the institution. An example of items for the teaching category is "Teaching effectiveness should be the primary criterion for promotion of college teachers at this institution." Respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with such items by circling: "Disagree 69 Strongly" (1); "Disagree Somewhat" (2); "Agree Somewhat" (3); or "Agree Strongly" (4). Question 60 (see Appendices I & II) pertains to the attitude toward 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 missing data and thus calculate faculty's attitude toward the profession. Reliability testing was performed on 60a to 60i to ensure that these items measured the same construct (Stevens, 1996), "attitude toward the profession." Reliability for attitude toward profession totaled .74. High numbers indicate a positive attitude toward the profession. The following are sample items to which subjects were asked to respond: "The ability of faculty to obtain external funding," and "Pressure to increase faculty workload at this institution." They were asked to indicate their opinion on each item and whether they thought the situation had: Worsened (1); Stayed The Same (2); Improved (3); or Don't Know (DK). Group IV Variables. Workload. Data constituting workload utilizes percentage scores of work time spent on teaching, research, and service. These data are compiled from Question 37 (see Appendices I & II). Time spent on teaching (TTEACH) is computed 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 (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 20b1 to 20b14 (see Appendices I & II), which indicates the total number of products published in years of 1991 to 1993. Publications include the following: research articles, creative works, chapters, textbooks, monographs, books published, presentations, technical reports, patents, computer software, exhibitions, book chapters. Research funding is determined by using item 30 and item 33 (see Appendices I & II). Item 30 was recoded to determine whether a professor received funding (FUND). If a professor answered "No/' the response was equivalent to zero funding. Answering "Yes" to Question 30 meant the professor did receive research funding. Item 33 provides total funds generated for 1992-93 academic year. Funding total was computed 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 within the institution. 71 Definition Of Terms Ethnicity is defined in the study by the following classifications; African-American/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); Hispanic (includes, Black and White Hispanics); Native American or Alaskan native (referred to throughout the study as Native American); and White, not Hispanic (White and Caucasian are used interchangeably throughout the study). Tenure Status refers to the contractual appointment 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 temporary contracts. Tenure-track faculty are hired on a more permanent 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. Tenure appointments will terminate only in the case of financial exigency, the professor has reached the age of retirement under an 72 established retirement system, or adequate grounds (AAUP Handbook, 1967). Discipline is defined in this study by: Business, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts and Humanities, Health Science, Natural Science, Social Science and Other. The list below gives a more comprehensive delineation: Business (Accounting, Banking and Finance, Business Administration and Management, Organizational Behavior, Human Resource Development, etc.); Education (General, Basic Skills, Bilingual or Cross-cultural Education, Curriculum & Instruction, Education Administration, Education Evaluation & Research, Educational Psychology, Student Counseling & Personnel Services, Teacher Education and Other Education); Engineering (Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, communication Engineering, and other Engineering-related technologies); Fine Arts and Humanities; Health Sciences (Allied Health Technologies & Services, Dentistry, Health Services Administration, Nursing, Pharmacy, Public Health, Veterinary Medicine, Other Health Sciences); Natural Sciences Biological & Physical Sciences (Biochemistry, Biology, Botany, Genetics, Immunology, Microbiology, Physiology, Zoology, 73 Astronomy, Physical Sciences Chemistry, Physics, Geological Sciences, Other Natural 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 measured 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 treatment of minority faculty. Profession: feelings harbored by a faculty member about the profession of higher education. Workload is made up of the amount 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 community or public service (civic, religious, etc.). 74 Productivity is defined by publication rate and the amount of external funding to the institution. Publication denotes the number of research articles published during 1991 through 1993. Funding is the amount of research dollars produced to the university through contracts and grants. Data Analysis There are five research questions. Research Questions 1 and 2 were analyzed using the chi-square test. The chi-square test (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991) was used to show associations between 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) were applied to Research Questions 3 through 5 to evaluate the relationships among 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) was used to analyze each independent variable separately for each dependent variable. Since more than one dependent variable is present, using MANOV A as an omnibus test reduces the probability of spurious results or an inflated type I error rate (Stevens, 1996). 75 Correlation statistics (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991) were performed 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 Question 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: What are the relationships among the various indices of attitude, workload, and productivity? A Pearson Correlation statistic was used to determine relationships , among the dependent variables: attitude, workload, and productivity. Research Question 4: To what extent is there a relationship between ethnicity and attitude, workload and produCtivity? MANOV A procedures were performed on: attitude toward teaching, research, treatment of minority faculty, and profession (ATEACH, ARES, AMIN, PROF); time spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES, TSERV); the number of publications (PUB); and the amount of research 76 funding received (FUND) by ethnicity. Separate one-way ANOV A procedures were performed on each dependent variable: attitude toward teaching, research, and treatment of minority faculty (A TEACH, ARES, AMIN, PROF); time spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES, TSERV); the number of publications (PUB); and the amount of research funding received (FUND) by ethnicity. Research Question 5: What is the impact of the tenure status on attitude, workload, and productivity? MANOVA procedures were performed on: attitude toward teaching, research, treatment of minority faculty, and profession (ATEACH, ARES, AMIN, PROF); time spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES, TSERV); the number of publications (PUB); and the amount of research funding received (FUND) by tenure status. Separate one-way ANOV A procedures were performed on each dependent variable: attitude toward teaching, research, and treatment of minority faculty (A TEACH, ARES, AMIN, PROF); time spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES, TSERV); the number of publications (PUB); and the amount of research funding received (FUND) by tenure status. Research Question 6: Is disciplinary affiliation a predictor of attitude, workload, or productivity? MANOV A procedures were performed on: attitude toward teaching, reach, treatment of minority faculty, and profession (A TEACH, ARES, AMIN, 77 PROF); time spent on teaching, research, and service {TTEACH, TRES, TSERV); the number of publications (PUB); and the amount of research funding received (FUND) by field. Separate one-way ANOV A procedures were performed on each dependent variable: attitude toward teaching, reach, and treatment of minority faculty (ATEACH, ARES, AMIN, PROF); time spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES, TSERV); the number of publications (PUB); and the amount of research funding received (FUND) by field. Methodological Assumptions The following methodological assumptions were present in this study: (1) It was assumed that the databases from which data were compiled were both comprehensive and accurate; (2) The sample was sufficiently representative of the faculty employed today in institutions of higher education; and (3) The design and statistical analysis used in this study appropriately address the intent of the investigation. 78 CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH FINDINGS Introduction This chapter delineates and interprets the statistical outcomes 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 multivariate statistics. Descriptive statistical analyses such as means, standard deviations, analysis of variances, and correlations establish relationships between the independent and dependent variables. The sample size for Research Questions One and Two is eleven thousand, six hundred and thirty-four (n=ll,634). The sample was reduced to seven thousand, nine hundred and twenty-seven (n=7,927) for Research Questions Three through Six due to missing data in funding and some attitude measures. In Research Questions One and Two, the cell percentages are compared to the column percentages since the percentage is highly dependent on the column total. Data Analysis Part I. Research Questions 1 - 3 The first three research questions set forth the foundation regarding the relationships among the independent variables: ethnicity, tenure status, 79 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 (X2) test statistic. The relationship was statistically significant (X2(8)=227.99, p.<OOl). There are more Whites in tenured positions (60%) and less Whites in tenure-track or non-tenure-track positions than any other group or collective minority group. White faculty is the only group that exceeded the average column total (56%) for tenured faculty (see Table 4.1). Overall, the ethnic racial breakdown of the sample was as follows: White, 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 number of faculty members who were 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 American (n=22), African-American (n=472), and Hispanic (n=223) faculty members were tenured. Sixty percent of White faculty (n=5,469) was tenured and 47 80 percent of Asian American faculty (n=355) was tenured. Eighty-four percent of all tenured faculty was White, while only 16 percent of tenured faculty was minority. Tenure-track faculty. However, fewer Caucasian professors (26%) were in tenure-track positions. Consistently, more faculty of color than White faculty were in tenure-track positions--of the Hispanic Sample, 43 percent (n=226) held tenure-track positions; of the Native American Sample, 40 percent (n=21) held tenure-track positions; of the Black sample, 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. Minority faculty also held more 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 American (n=9), 15 percent Hispanic (n=79), and 14 percent White (n=1,287). 8 1 Table4.1 Number and Percentage of Faculty according to Tenure Status by Ethnicity Count Tenured Tenure No Tenure Row Row Pet Track System Total Col. Pet 22 21 9 52 Native American 42.3 40.4 17.3 .4 .3 .6 .5 355 268 135 758 Asian 46.8 35.4 17.8 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 Hispanic 42.2 42.8 15.0 4.5 3.4 6.7 4.6 5469 2408 1287 9164 White 59.7 26.3 14.0 78.8 83.6 71.6 74.4 Column 6541 3362 1731 11634 Total 56.2 28.9 14.9 100.0 * x2(8)=227.99, J2<05 82 Research Question 2: Is there an association between ethnicity and discipline? The relationship between ethnicity and discipline was assessed using a chi-square (X2) test statistic. The relationship was statistically significant (X2(28)=615.62, 12<001). The number of faculty members concentrated within specific disciplines (Business, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts and Humanities, Health 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%). White faculty widely occupied all the disciplines except Business (6.8%), Education (8%), and Engineering (3.5%). Native American. Twenty-one percent of Native American faculty was in Social Science disciplines; 11.5 percent was in Business (n=6); another 11.5 percent was in Natural 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. Asian. The highest concentration of Asian faculty performed research in the Natural Science (30.1 %) and Engineering (15.3%) disciplines. Further, Asian faculty composed the largest percentage of minority faculty in the Engineering (23%) and Natural Science (11 %) disciplines. The lowest number of Asian faculty was in Education (2.6%). 83 African American. Overall the African-American spread was concentrated more in the Fine Arts and Humanities (19.1 %), and Education (16%) disciplines than in the Engineering (3%), Natural Science (10.2%) and Business (6%) disciplines. Hispanic. Hispanics were significantly more likely to teach in Fine Arts and Humanities departments (35%). However, Hispanics were underrepresented in Education (7%) and Engineering (6%) disciplines, and comprised only 3 percent of all faculty in Business disciplines. White. Caucasian faculty out numbered all other groups in every discipline. Out of eight disciplines, more than 1,000 White faculty were 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 Humanities as compared to column total. For example, the lowest raw number of White faculty--which was in Engineering (318 or 4%), was still greater than the highest number of minority faculty in any given discipline--Asian faculty in Natural Sciences (228 or 30%). The total number of Native American faculty was only 52 out of 11,634 faculty. In disciplines where the distribution of Native Americans seems high--21 percent in both Social Sciences and Fine Arts--the percentage is relative and must be weighed against the total 84 number. In this case, 21 percent is equivalent to six and eleven professors respectively. 85 Table 4.2 Number and Percentage of Faculty according to Discipline by Ethnicity Count Business Education Engineer Fine Art Health Natural Social Other Row Row Pet Science Science Science Total Col. Pet 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 11.9 15.3 100.0 * _x2(28)=615.62, p<05 86 Research Question 3: What are the relationships among the various indices of attitude, workload, and productivity? A Pearson Correlation statistic was used to determine relationships among all the variables, ethnicity, status, discipline, attitude, workload, and productivity (See Table 4.3). Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion. Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion yielded a significantly positive correlation with time spent on teaching (.237). Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion yielded a significantly negative correlation with attitude toward research as a promotion criterion ( -.238) and with the amount of time spent on research (-.290). Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion. Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion yielded a significantly negative correlation with time spent on teaching (-.213). Positive relationships were apparent between attitude toward research as a promotion 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 same relationship exits between teaching and service (-.272). 87 In summary, faculty who considered teaching as a viable criterion for tenure, spent a corresponding amount 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 with positive regard for research as a tenure criterion spent more time on research than on teaching. Furthermore, 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 manner, a decrease in service effort corresponds to an increase in teaching or vice versa. 88 Table4.3 Inter Correlation Coefficients, among Attitude, Workload, and Productivity (n=7927) MEASU ATEAC ARES RE H A TEACH 1.000 ARES -.2376** 1.000 AMIN .0260* .0132 PROF .0831** .0068 TEACH .2370** -.2126** RES -.2896** .2537** SERV .0134 -.0278* PUB -.1106** .0951 ** FUND -.0561 ** .0384** * =significance at .05 ** = significance at .01 AMIN 1.000 .1643** -.0118 .0143 -.0369** -.0215 .0138 PROF TEACH RES SERV PUB FUND 1.000 -.0208 1.000 -.0205 -.5837** 1.000 -.0013 -.2719** -.1566** 1.000 -.0045 -.1413* .1297** .0504** 1.000 .0194 -.1027** .0925* .0075 .0547** 1.000 89 Part II. Research Questions 4 - 6 The next three research questions, are concerned with relationships that may be present among ethnicity, tenure status, discipline, attitude, workload, and productivity. Associations found in this section would allow conclusions to be drawn about workload choices. Specifically, knowing whether faculty roles are influenced by a person's ethnicity is crucial to integrating faculty socialization to the tenuring process. Associations to workload and productivity also illuminate behavior patterns that are necessary for developing policy, considering tenure and other faculty rewards. Improving 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 important to developing future workforces. Research Question 4: To what extent is there a relationship between ethnicity and attitude, workload, and productivity? Attitude 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 were asked to indicate their opinion using a Likert four-point scale--higher numbers indicated levels of agreement (1= disagree; 2= strongly disagree; 3= agree; 4= strongly agree). For example, one item on attitude regarding the treatment of minority faculty requested a response to the following statement: 90 "Faculty who are members of racial or ethnic minorities are treated fairly at this institution." Faculty also responded to similar statements that profiled group differences in workload and productivity. The relationships between ethnicity and attitude, ethnicity and workload, and ethnicity and productivity were assessed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedures. A statistically significant Omnibus on ethnic groups was obtained [.E(36,31668)=20.09, 12.<.001]. Nine separate ANOV As and Scheffe post hoc tests were examined, one for each of the following dependent variables: (1) attitude toward teaching, research, treatment 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 amount 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 toward teaching as a promotion criterion was statistically significant [.E(4,7922)=3.70, 12.<.05]. Blacks reported significantly higher levels of teaching as a promotion criterion (x=3.09) than Asians (x=2.92). African-American faculty considered teaching more important as a criterion for promotion than Asian professors. Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion. Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion was statistically significant [.E( 4,7922)=33.71, 9 1 12<. 05]. Asian faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward research as a promotion 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 promotion criterion (x=2.45) than Whites (x=2.23) and Blacks (x=2.18). Attitude toward whether minorities are treated fairly. Attitude toward whether minorities are treated fairly was statistically significant [E(4,7922)=84.97, 12.<.05]. White faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward the fair treatment 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 treatment of minorities (x=2.81) than Blacks (x=2.54). Hispanics reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward the fair treatment 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 [.E(4,7922)=21.53, 12.<.05]. Black faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward the profession (x=2.15) than Native Americans (x=l.8), White (x=2.00), Hispanics (2.01), and Asians (x=2.04). 92 To conclude, in descending order, White faculty followed by Asian and Hispanic faculty, revealed the strongest agreement that minority faculty are treated fairly. In the least agreement that minority faculty are treated fairly were Black faculty members. Yet, African-American professors felt stronger than White and Hispanic faculty regarding the profession of higher education. Workload Time spent on research. Time spent on research by different ethnic groups was statistically significant [E(4,7922)=17.33, }2<.05]. Asian 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 amount of time spent on service, nor did any two groups differ significantly (.05 level) on the amount of time devoted to teaching. Productivity Number of publications. The number of publications published during 1991 through 1993 by ethnic groups revealed no statistically significant (.05) group differences, nor were any two groups significantly different in the amount of research dollars produced to the university through contracts and grants. 93 Table4.4 Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on the Attitude, Workload and Productivity Measures for Ethnicity Sample Measure Native Am Asian Black Hispanic White Total n=37 n=569 n=676 n=377 n=6268 n=7927 Attitude Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Toward University 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 1.84 .45 2.04 .43 2.01 .45 2.01 .45 1.20 .41 2.01 .42 Profession 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, Workload and Productivity for Each Ethnic Group Measure F p bGroup Comparison Attitude Toward University Teaching 3.7036 .0052 B>A Research 33.7067 .0000 A, H>B, W; A>N, H Minority 84.9694 .0000 A, H<B; B, W> N, H, A Toward 21.5277 .0000 B>N, W, H, A Profession Workload Teaching 1.4821 .2050 ---------- Research 17.3345 .0000 A>B, W, H Service 2.4952 .0411 ---------- Productivity Publications 3.2811 .0109 ---------- a Funding 1.3225 .2592 ---------- * Multivariate Test Result, F (36,31668) = 20.09 p < .05 a Dollar amount for funding is represented in thousands. b N: Native American, A: Asian, B: Black, H: Hispanic and W: White 95 Research Question 5: What is the association of tenure status to attitude, . workload, and productivity? The relationship between tenure status and attitude, workload, and productivity was assessed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOV A) procedures. A statistically significant Omnibus on tenure status was attained using the Pillais Test [E(18,15834)=22.56, p.<.05]. Nine separate ANOV As and Scheffe post hoc tests were calculated, one for each of the following variables: (1) attitude toward teaching, research, treatment 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 amount of research funding (FUND) received by tenure status are represented in Tables 4.6 and 4.7. Attitude Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion. Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion was statistically significant [E(2,7924)=26.04, p.<.05]. Faculty with no tenure system reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward teaching as a promotion 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 promotion criterion (x=3.03) than tenured faculty (x=2.94). 96 Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion. Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion was statistically significant [.E(2,7924)=8.11, ~<.05]. Tenured faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward research as a promotion criterion (x=2.30) than faculty with no tenure system (x=2.20) and tenure-track faculty (x=2.22). Attitude toward whether minorities are treated fairly. Attitude toward whether minorities are treated fairly was statistically significant [E(2,7924)=47.11, ~<.05]. Tenured faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward the fair treatment 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. Attitude toward the profession of higher education was not statistically significant. There was no difference found among 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 [E(2,7924)=36.77, ~<.05]. Professors on tenure-track allocated significantly larger amounts of time to teaching (x=54.49) than non tenure-track (x=46.30) and tenured faculty (x=50.13). Tenured faculty spent significantly more time on teaching (x=50.13) than faculty at schools with no tenure system (46.30). 97 Time spent on research. Time spent on research showed no significant difference according to tenure status. However, time spent on service by different ethnic groups was statistically significantly [E(2,7924)=31.92, J2<.05]. Faculty at schools with no tenure system allocated a greater proportion of their time to service 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 service related activities (x=7.60) than did tenured faculty (x=6.14). Productivity Number of publications. The number of publications published during 1991 through 1993 by faculty according to tenure status was statistically significantly [E(2,7924)=11.05, J2<.05]. Tenured faculty published a significantly higher number of publications (x=12.37) than faculty at schools with no tenure system (x=9.82) and tenure-track faculty (x=11.25). Amount of funding. The amount of funding secured for the university through contracts and grants according to tenure status was statistically significantly [E(2,7924)=3.02, J2<.05]. Faculty at schools with no tenure system garnered a larger amount of research dollars (x=208,905) than tenure-track faculty (x=118,873). 98 Table4.6 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 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Toward University 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 Minority 3.10 .88 2.88 .94 2.96 .90 3.02 .90 Toward 2.02 .41 2.00 .44 2.04 .43 2.01 .42 Profession 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 amount for funding is represented in thousands. 99 Table4.7. Mean Scores for Attitude, Workload, and Productivity for each Tenure Status Group Measure Attitude Toward University Teaching Research Minority Toward Profession Workload Teaching Research Service Productivity Publications a Funding F 26.0410 8.1056 47.1076 2.6933 36.7657 3.0431 31.9248 11.0464 3.0227 p .0000 .0003 .0000 .0679 .0000 .0479 .0000 .0000 .0489 bGroup Comparison TT, NT>T, TT T>NT, TT T>TT>NT TT, T>NT; TT>T NT, TT>T; NT>TT T>NT; T>TT NT>TT * Multivariate Test F (18, 15834) = 22.56, p < .05 a Dollar amount for funding is represented in thousands. b T = Tenured, TT = Tenure Track, NT = No Tenure System 100 Research Question 6: Is disciplinary affiliation a predictor of attitude. workload. or productivity? The relationships among discipline, attitude, workload, and productivity were assessed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedures. A statistically significant Omnibus on discipline was achieved using the Pillais Test [E(63, 17857):=11.51, I2<.05]. Nine separate ANOVAs and Scheffe post hoc tests were calculated, one for each of the following variables: (1) attitude toward teaching, research, and treatment of minority faculty (ATEACH, ARES, AMIN, PROF); (2) time spent on teaching, research, and service (TTEACH, TRES, TSERV); (3) the number of publications (PUB); and, (4) the amount of research funding (FUND) received according to discipline are presented in Table 4.11. The following Table 4.8 shows a delineation of faculty attitudes (ranging from high to low in descending order) according to discipline. 1 01 Table 4.8 Rank-Ordered listing of Faculty Attitudes by Discipline Teaching Research Minority Profession Education Engineer Natural Sciences Education Fine Arts Natural Sciences Business Other Other Social Sciences Engineer Health Sciences Business Health Sciences Fine Arts Fine Arts Health Sciences Other Health Sciences Business Social Sciences Fine Arts Other Social Sciences Engineer Business Education Engineer Natural Sciences Education Social Sciences Natural Sciences Attitude Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion. Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion was statistically significant [E(7,7919)=36.37, 12-<.0S]. Faculty in Education reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion (x=3.27) than faculty in the following disciplines: Natural 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 Other disciplines (x=3.09) combined, reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion than faculty in Natural Sciences (x=2.73), Engineering (x=2.81), Social Sciences (x=2.91), and Health Sciences (x=2.92). 102 Business faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion (x=3.07) than faculty in Natural Sciences (x=2.73) and Engineering (x=3.07). Health Science professors (x=2.92) and Social Science professors (x=2.91) reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion than faculty in Natural Sciences (x=2.73). Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion. Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion was statistically significant [E(7,7919)=13.64, J2<.05]. Faculty in Engineering reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward 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). Natural 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). Health Sciences faculty presented a significantly different attitude toward research as a promotion criterion (x=2.32) than Education professors (x=2.10). 103 Attitude Toward Fair Treatment of Minorities. Attitude toward whether minorities are treated fairly was statistically significant [E(7. 7919)=11.70, 12<.05]. Faculty in Natural Science consistently reported a significant difference on whether minority 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 toward the treatment of minority faculty (x=3.11) than faculty in Social Sciences (x=2.90). Engineering faculty also revealed a significantly different attitude toward the treatment of minority faculty (x=3.10) than Social Sciences faculty (x=2.90). Attitude toward the profession of higher education. Attitude toward the profession of higher education was statistically significant [E(7,7919)=13.49, 12<.05]. Education faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward the profession of higher education (x=2.13) than faculty in any other discipline: Natural Sciences (x=l.97), Engineering (x=l.97), Social Sciences (x=l.99), Business (x=1.99), Fine Arts (x=2.01), Health Sciences (x=2.02), and Other (x=2.07). Faculty in Other disciplines reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward the profession of higher education (x=2.07) than faculty in Natural Sciences (x=l.97), Engineering (x=l.97), and Social Sciences (x=l.99). 104 Table 4.9 Rank-Ordered listing of Faculty Workload by Discipline Teaching Research Service Fine Arts Natural Sciences Health Sciences Business Engineering Other Education Other Education Social Sciences Social Sciences Business Engineering Business Social Sciences Natural Sciences Health Sciences Engineering Other Fine Arts Fine Arts Health Sciences Education Natural Sciences Teaching Workload Time spent on teaching. Time spent on teaching was significantly different by discipline [E(7,7919)=43.76, 12<.05]. Professors with careers in Fine Arts allocated significantly larger amounts of time to teaching (x=57.31) than faculty in Health Sciences (x=41.54), Other (x=46.44), Engineering (x=48.09), Natural Sciences (x=48.74), and Social Sciences (x=52.90). Table 4.9 gives a summary of faculty workload variables in descending order according to discipline. Business professors (x=54.13) along with faculty in Social Science (x=52.90) allocated significantly more time to teaching than faculty in Health Sciences (x=41.54), Other (x=46.44), and Natural Sciences (x=48.74). 105 Education professors spent significantly more time on teaching (x=56.60) than those in Health Sciences (x=41.54), Other (x=46.44), and Natural Sciences (x=48.74). Faculty in Social Sciences (x=54.40) and Natural Sciences (x=53.64) spent significantly more time on teaching than professors in Health Science (x=41.54) and Other (46.44) disciplines. Research Workload Time spent on research. Time spent on research was significantly different according to discipline [E(7,7919)=45.66,J2<.05]. Professors with careers in Natural 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 Other disciplines (29.64) reported spending more time on research than Education (x=20.21) and Fine Arts faculty (x=25.23). Professors with 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 Service Workload Time spent on service. Time spent on service was significantly different according to discipline [E(7,7919)=129.16, p.<.05]. Faculty in Health Science allocated significantly more time to service activities (x=l7.34) 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 Other (x=8.28) disciplines allocated significantly more time to service 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 service activities than faculty in Natural Sciences (x=4.30). Table 4.10 delineates faculty productivity according to discipline. 107 Table 4.10 Rank-Ordered Listing Of Productivity In Descending Order By Discipline Publication Funding Engineering Engineering Health Sciences Health Sciences Education Natural Sciences Fine Arts Education Other Other Natural Sciences Social Sciences Social Sciences Business Business Fine Arts Publication Productivity Number of publications. The number of publications published during 1991 through 1993 by faculty according to discipline was statistically significantly [.E(7,7919)=8.37 p.<.05]. Engineering faculty published a significantly higher number of publications (x=15.11) than faculty in Business (x=9.00), Social Sciences (x=10.44), Natural Sciences (x=ll.03), and Fine Arts (11.75). Health Sciences faculty published a significantly higher number of publications (x=l3.72) than faculty in Business (x=9.00), Social Science (x=10.44), and Natural Science (x=ll.03). 108 Faculty in Education (x=l0.21) published a significantly higher number of publications (x=l3.07) than faculty in Business (x=9.00). Funding Productivity Amount of funding. The amount of funding brought to the university through contracts and grants by discipline was statistically significant [E(7,7919)=7.64,p.<.05]. Faculty in the fields of Engineering (x=280,575), Health Sciences (x=245,263), and Natural Sciences (x=208,140) garnered significantly higher amounts of research dollars than faculty in Fine Arts (x=43,550). 109 Table4.11 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=908 N=1418 N=lOll N=lll2 N=7927 - Attitude Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean Mean Mean S D Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Toward University 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 Workload 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 52.90 24.30 46.44 28.93 50.99 26.61 Research 28.52 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 11 0 CHAPTER FIVE RESEARCH FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The study culminates in Chapter Five with a summary of findings, conclusions, implications, and recommendations from the statistical results of the six research questions presented in Chapter Four. A discussion of Research Questions One, Two, and Three is presented first to provide relationships among 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 information on which inferences are made 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 between ethnicity and discipline? Research Question 3: What are the relationships among the various indices of attitude, workload, and productivity? 1 1 1 Research Question 4: To what extent is there a relationship between ethnicity and attitude, workload and productivity? Research Question 5: What is the association of tenure status to attitude, workload, and productivity? Research Question 6: Is disciplinary affiliation a predictor of attitude, workload, or productivity? Discussion This body of research reveals that with 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 White males) still hold the majority 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. Although, it is tempting to assert that the numbers remain small for minority 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 development, and to the overall productivity of higher education, as it relates to faculty roles and further diversifying the academy. The assumption was made at the onset of the study that a direct link is present between the information used by decision makers and decision 1 1 2 making behavior. To reiterate, academic deans and faculty committees make decisions about tenure determined by a set criteria for teaching, service, and research performance. Similarly, tenure-track faculty incorporate the same guidelines when deciding how much time and effort to allocate to their various roles: teaching methods, committee participation and research decisions. However, once they make the decision, the data indicate that disciplines differ on faculty workload and which component is valued more- teaching, research or service. This disparity in faculty workload heightens the relative differences in the formula employed to determine career orientation. In addition, the ability to garner research funding external to the institution, plays a major 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. White faculty receive tenure more frequently than do faculty of color. 2. White faculty are more likely to advance successfully through the tenure process than faculty of color. 3. Minority faculty are hired more often than White faculty into positions with no tenure system present. The above points (discussed further under Research Question One of the Summary of Findings section), substantiate a theory critically posed by Merton (1973), entitled the "Outsider/Insider" doctrine. Over twenty years 1 1 3 later, Benjamin and Carroll (1996) counter Merton'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 what new subfields should be covered, what should be taught, and who should be hired, promoted, or fired." Merton (1973) believed that "outsiders, no matter how great their knowledge, 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." Unfortunately, because in most cases a minority faculty is certainly no less credentialed than a White colleague, the only obvious differential between being an insider or outsider is race. In the early seventies, this issue was the genesis of Merton's (1973) position regarding the long-standing problem in the "sociology of knowledge." He discussed the notion of patterned differentials among social groups and strata in access to knowledge. Merton was of the opinion that " ... particular groups in each moment 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" (1973, p.102). Nearly three decades later, this still holds 11 4 true, and is supported by researcher evidence of the differential experiences of faculty of color and women faculty from their White male colleagues. The difference between 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 meager strides have been made to improve the status of minority faculty, and increase their participation in the academy. Even efforts motivated by Affirmative Action laws--whether administered in earnest or under duress, did not increase numbers of any significance. Moreover, with legislation such as California's Proposition 209 becoming law, the plight of minority faculty is more precarious than ever, unless the academy decides to proactively develop new ways of "measuring the measures" of the tenure process. Of course, we can not begin to assess productivity until we can agree on a common measure of assessment. Little agreement is found in the literature on standards or metrics to assess teaching or research outcomes. Theoretically speaking, a comprehensive workload formula is desired, unfortunately, it has not been accomplished through research nor with the academy's current structures of leadership. Consideration must be given to the tenuring process and to the socialization of faculty into the academy. "Despite the growing press and inclination to do research, the majority of the American professiorate, except 1 1 5 in research institutions, believe that teaching effectiveness should be the primary criterion for achieving tenure" (Mingle, 1992). Interestingly, but not surprising, professors who maintained a strong attitude for research as a criterion for tenure, also put forth relative efforts in research workload. Nonetheless, the minority professor is of particular concern, because of the high percentage of faculty of color who are: 1. Systematically and culturally socialized toward academic careers in "soft science" disciplines. According to the data, these non-scientific disciplines are correlated to low productivity. 2. Because minority faculty are typically omitted from the mainstream faculty socialization processes, their experiences are different from their White colleagues, which usually results in disparate conditions (e.g., overload of committee assignments and teaching assignments). As disclosed by the data, minority faculty spent more time on teaching than on research activities. Traditionally, higher education (private and public), has been mainly supported by tuition revenue, coupled with local, state, and federal funding. Recently, more emphasis has been placed on increasing endowment earnings, gifts and revenues from sale of university products and services--and more importantly, grants secured through research projects. This shift is leading to major policy implications for colleges and universities, notwithstanding changing demographics, a service-driven economy, and public policy that in 116 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 making career decisions based on this economic evolution of the academy. Massy and Wilger (1995) present a compelling argument for utilizing economic theory as a basis for defining faculty productivity. Their idea of grantsmanship as a productivity measure has evolved and could certainly provide one standard of measure for evaluating productivity. However, it should not serve as the only gauge. Albeit little research has been done in the area of grantsmanship as a measure of productivity, institutions are incrementally acknowledging through word or deed, that research funding plays a major role in defining productive behavior within the professoriate. Consequently, funding is recognized in this study as a viable contribution to productivity. Junior faculty who are successful in garnering outside resources to support their research efforts would likely produce "more," thereby making themselves more 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 components weighed in the tenure process: (1) they acquire human and technical resources that help in their research, which (2) position them as bringing prestige to the institution through 11 7 external funding, and (3) they can negotiate (thereby limit) the number courses they teaching. Consequently they gain leverage in the tenure process. I 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 among 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 within the institution by all shareholders including senior administration, and enforcement from the top down; • Tenure policy is modified to incorporate flexibility in the combination of workload standards that individual faculty members have chosen for themselves; • Minority faculty members take a stronger role in controlling the success of their professorial careers by purposefully transforming their decision behavior to emulate that of tenured professors. • Administrations hasten to employ other types of productivity models that recognize individual as well as departmental endeavors; and • From a societal perspective, minority 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 receive more external funding than other disciplines, but are fast becoming the foundation of our country's service-driven economy 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 most tenured faculty are both White and predominately male. Slightly less than one half of all minority faculty are tenured. Overall, the ethnic racial breakdown of this sample mirrored records collected by United States Department 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 drawn about the underrepresentation of faculty of color in the American postsecondary education system. Common patterns emerged among the various minority faculty groups studied according to tenure status. The number of faculty members that were tenured, on tenure-track and in systems with no tenure for each ethnic group 11 9 is presented in Tables 5.2 to 5.4. Findings from this study are consistent with those numbers documented by the United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The figures shown in Table 5.1 are representative of the minority faculty in higher education nationwide. These data only begin to outline the dire situation faculty of color face as this century's elusive promise of equal opportunity carries over to the 21st- possibly to linger for many more years. Only those faculty members that received tenure between the years of 1964 and 1993 were used in this study. This time period was delimited for two reasons: 1.) This time span provides a near thirty-year window from which to study the overall growth of faculty of color in higher education; and 2.) The year 1964 was at the heels of the civil rights movement which marked the beginning of Affirmative Action, and thereby, allows us the opportunity to investigate tenure and promotion trends in higher education that have evolved since the civil rights era. 120 Table 5.1 Number and Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by Racial Ethnicity Faculty Number Percentage White 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 between ethnicity and tenure status. White faculty dominate tenured positions across academe. In this study, over 78 percent of all faculty was White, and White faculty represented 83.6 percent of all tenured faculty. Whites comprised 60 percent of tenured positions, yet fewer percentages of Whites were in tenure-track or non tenure-track positions than any other individual group or collective minority 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 numbers give a clearer and bleaker picture of the representation of minority faculty in higher education. 121 For example, 60 percent of White faculty translate to over five thousand faculty (out of 9,164) compared to 42 percent of Native American faculty, which is exactly twenty-two professors (out of 52). Native American faculty remains the smallest represented group. In fact, the group size was too small to achieve statistical power for many analyses. Table 5.2 Number and Percentage of Tenured Faculty in Higher Education by Ethnicity Tenured Number Percentage White 5A69 (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 comparison between Caucasian faculty and minority faculty in tenure-track positions. Each minority sample disclosed a similar percentage of tenure-track faculty. An interesting finding points to fewer Caucasian faculty remaining or being initially appointed to tenure-track positions than minority faculty. Consistently, a higher percentage of minority faculty than nonminority faculty were in tenure-track positions. This statistics support the contention that more White faculty receive tenure than their nonwhite counterparts. 122 Table 5.3 Number and Percentage of Tenure-Track Faculty in Higher Education by Ethnicity Tenure-Track Number Percentage Hispanic 226 (42.8) Native American 21 (40.4) Black 439 (38.8) Asian 268 (35.4) White 2,408 (26.3) Faculty with no tenure system. Minority faculty also held more non- tenure positions than their White colleagues. More African-American faculty held positions with no tenure arrangement than any other group, regardless of ethnicity. The least number 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 minority professors. (See Table 5.4) 123 Table 5. 4 Number and Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by Ethnicity Who Are Employed with 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) White 1,287 (14.0) In summary, nonminority professors continue to dominate tenured positions in higher education, while minority faculty are relegated to no tenure and tenure-track positions where they seem to languish in academic limbo. Research Question 2: Is there an association between ethnicity and discipline? It was assumed early in the study that faculty of color would predominate in certain disciplines; it was also reasonable to believe that some disciplines were considered more labor intensive with respect to generating research publication (e.g., soft sciences), and more lucrative with respect to external funding (e.g., hard sciences) than others. The number of faculty members concentrated within specific disciplines: Business, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts and Humanities, Health Sciences, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences or Other by ethnic group is represented in Table 5.5. 124 Compared to White faculty, Asian faculty dominated 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 department. 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 compared to 8 percent of White faculty. The total number 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 Americans seemed high as in Social Sciences and Fine Arts, the percentage is relative and must be weighed against the raw number. 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 appointment of six and eleven professors respectively--a daunting indicator of the "tokenism" described by Luz Reyes and Hakon (1988). 125 Table 5. 5 Ethnic Racial Percentage of Higher Education Faculty by Discipline Discipline Native Am Asian Black Hispanic White 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 minority group in a single discipline was that of Hispanics in Fine Arts, followed by Asian faculty in Natural Science disciplines, White professors were highly represented in all disciplines, except Business, Education, and Engineering. However, White faculty still out-numbered all other faculty in every discipline; more than 1,000 White faculty were found in five out of eight disciplines (Fine Arts and Humanities-2,254; Health Sciences-1,139; Natural Sciences-1,596; Social Sciences-1,078; and Other-1 A 13). Research Question 3: What are the relationships among the various indices of attitude, workload, and productivity? This section draws attention to the relationships among all of the variables in the study: ethnicity, tenure status, discipline, attitude, workload, 126 and productivity. Relationships found among attitude, workload, and productivity factors can prove helpful in understanding faculty perceptions toward their work, profession, and how faculty workload decisions affect their productivity levels. Additionally, associations discovered between the independent variables and the dependent variables bring to light information about how attitude, workload, and productivity are affected by group membership--especially by ethnicity, tenure status, and by discipline. Overall, workload was inversely related to several other factors. As has been enumerated in previous studies, time spent on teaching correlated negatively with time spent on service and with time spent on research. This negative correlation suggests a diametrically opposing relationship between the two variables of teaching and research--thus, as one activity increases, the other decreases. The same relationship exists between teaching and service- an increase in service, translates to decreased teaching. Statistically significant positive relationships were present between research and attitude toward research. In total, seven correlations exceeded the practical criterion of significance (e.g., .20). These correlations have been grouped together below to highlight themes in faculty workload and attitude among the six variables: Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion. Attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion produced inverse associations with attitude toward research as a promotion criterion ( -.238) and the amount of time spent on research (-.290). Yet, attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion 127 produced a mildly positive correlation with and the amount of time spent on teaching (.237). Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion. Attitude toward research as a promotion criterion yielded a mildly negative relationship with time spent on teaching ( -.213). A slightly stronger positive relationship was apparent between attitude toward research as a promotion criterion and time spent on research (.254). Correlation coefficients indicate a fairly strong negative relationship between time spent on research and time spent on teaching (-.584) and time spent on teaching revealed a moderately negative correlation with 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 more time into teaching activities and less time toward 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 between teaching with service and research with service. A decision to increase one role results in a decrease in the other. 128 Research Question 4: To what extent is there a relationship between ethnicity and attitude, workload, and productivity? Presumptions 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 weights that are applied to the various components of tenure decision. Research Question Four permits a platform from which to compare racial ethnic differences that may be present in the attitudes of faculty. The decision behavior of minority faculty is examined by determining racial ethnic differences that are associated with negotiating faculty workload--for example, how much time is spent in either teaching, research or service. The productivity variable furnishes the necessary data to analyze incongruities that might exist among their productivity levels. Ethnicity and Attitude. Overall, attitudes toward teaching as a promotion criteria were similar among 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 more strongly toward research as a promotion criterion than all other ethnic groups: Native Americans, Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Hispanic faculty reported a 129 moderately stronger attitude toward research as a promotion criterion than Black faculty members. (See Table 5.6) Caucasian faculty's belief that minority faculty members are treated fairly was mildly higher than all other ethnic groups: Blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Black faculty felt stronger than Hispanic and Asian faculty regarding the fair treatment of minorities. There was a significant difference found among ethnic minority attitude toward the profession of higher education. Black faculty felt mildly stronger toward the field of higher education than Native American, 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. 130 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 Native American 3.19 .88 White 2.99 .95 Black 2.99 .90 Hispanic 2.92 .95 Asian 2.92 .94 Research Asian 2.65 .92 Hispanic 2.45 .90 Black 2.27 .83 White 2.23 .91 Native American 2.14 .92 Minority White 3.11 .86 Black 2.54 .99 Asian 2.81 .93 Hispanic 2.73 1.01 Native American 2.60 .96 Profession Asian 2.04 .43 Black 2.15 .45 Hispanic 2.01 .45 Native American 1.84 .45 White 1.20 .41 1 31 Ethnicity and Workload. Time spent on research by different ethnic groups was statistically significant. Asians spent a moderately greater proportion of their time on research activities than their Black, White, and Hispanic colleagues. No two groups were significantly different in the amount of time spent on service, nor did any two groups differ significantly (.05 level) on the amount of time devoted to teaching. (See Table 5.7) Table 5.7 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Workload (time spent on teaching, research, and service) Measures by Ethnic Group Workload Ethnicity Mean SD Teaching Hispanic 52.57 25.53 Black 50.99 25.74 White 50.79 26.79 Asian 50.11 27.10 Native American 48.62 27.17 Research Asian 36.05 25.95 Hispanic 29.61 22.33 Black 28.83 19.83 White 28.46 23.22 Native American 28.22 21.30 Service Hispanic 7.39 13.06 Native American 7.08 11.89 Black 6.95 12.52 Hispanic 7.39 13.06 Asian 5.96 12.52 132 Ethnicity and Productivity. What can racial or ethnic group membership tell us about faculty productivity? Table 5.8 delineates the number of publications published during 1991 through 1993 by racial ethnicity. The study revealed no statistically significant (.05) group differences in the amount of publications produced during the specified years of 1991 through 1993. Nor were any two groups significantly different in the amount of research dollars produced to the university through contracts and grants during the same years. Table 5.8 Mean Scores Standard Deviations on Productivity (time spent on teaching, research, and service) Measures by Ethnic Group Productivity Ethnicity Mean SD Publication Native American 15.60 21.55 Hispanic 12.04 13.75 White 11.98 16.46 Asian 10.95 14.09 Black 9.97 15.12 a Funding Native American 238 1299 Asian 202 989 Black 146 1072 White 141 924 Hispanic 77 581 a Dollar amount for funding is represented in thousands. 133 Research Question 5: What is the association of tenure status to attitude, ., workload, and productivity? Tenure Status and Attitude. Faculty with no tenure system felt mildly stronger toward teaching as a promotion criterion than tenured and tenure- track faculty. Faculty attitudes toward teaching as a promotion 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 promotion criterion than faculty with no tenure system and tenure-track faculty. Tenured faculty also displayed a small difference in their belief toward the fair treatment of minorities than tenure-track faculty and faculty with no tenure system. There was no significant difference found among tenured faculty, tenure-track faculty, and faculty with no tenure system regarding their attitudes toward the profession of higher education (see Table 5.9). 134 Table 5.9 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Attitude (toward teaching, research, treatment of minority faculty, and higher education profession) Measures for Tenure Status Group Attitude Tenure Status Mean SD Teaching No Tenure 3.17 .81 Tenure Track 3.03 .93 Tenured 2.94 .98 Research Tenured 2.30 .93 Tenure Track 2.22 .89 No Tenure 2.20 .88 Minority Tenured 3.10 .88 No Tenure 2.96 .90 Tenure Track 2.88 .94 Profession No Tenure 2.04 .43 Tenured 2.02 .41 Tenure 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 amount of time on teaching than faculty with no tenure system. Professors on tenure-track allocated slightly larger amounts of time to teaching than and faculty with no tenure system. No significant difference according to tenure status was revealed in the amount of time spent on research. Faculty with no tenure system allocated 135 a small to mildly 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 time to service-related activities than tenured faculty. 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 Tenured 50.79 26.79 Research No Tenure 30.63 29.19 Tenured 28.62 22.64 Tenure Track 28.55 21.68 Service No Tenure 9.50 13.06 Tenure Track 7.59 13.74 Tenured 6.14 10.42 Tenure Status and Productivity. Whether faculty are more productive prior to attainment of tenure (Massy and Sykes, 1988; Bennett and Chater, 1984) or whether 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 much is at stake for this group given the "publish or perish" nature 136 of the profession. The United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics found from its 1988 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty, that productivity does not rapidly diminish after having achieved tenure. Findings in this study support the latter view, that tenured faculty are in fact productive after the tenure years. The number 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 amount 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 number of publications than faculty with no tenure system and tenure-track faculty. Faculty with no tenure system garnered a larger amount of research dollars than tenure-track faculty. This outcome is perhaps largely due to government funded programs as opposed to government (externally) funded research. 137 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 Tenured 12.37 16.14 Tenure Track 11.25 16.01 No Tenure 9.82 15.87 a Funding No Tenure 209 1111 Tenure Track 119 870 Tenured 147 924 a Dollar amount for funding is represented in thousands. Research Question 6: Is disciplinary affiliation a predictor of attitude, workload, or productivity? Discipline and Attitude. Differences in attitude toward teaching as a promotion criteria among faculty in various disciplines was statistically significant. Professors with careers in "soft sciences" (Education, Business, Fine Arts, and Other), identified more with the concept of teaching as a promotion criteria, than faculty who worked in disciplines that are considered "hard sciences" (Natural Sciences, Engineering, Social Sciences, and Health Sciences). (See Table 5.12) Education faculty reported a stronger attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion than professors who worked in Natural Sciences, Engineering, Social Sciences, Health Sciences, and in Other disciplines. 138 Fine Arts faculty and professors who worked in all Other disciplines combined, reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion than faculty in Natural Sciences, Engineering, Social Sciences, and Health Sciences. Business faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion than faculty in Natural Sciences and Engineering. Health Sciences professors and Social Science professors reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward teaching as a promotion criterion than faculty in Natural Sciences. 139 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 so Teaching Education 3.27 .84 Fine Arts 3.14 .91 Other 3.09 .90 Business 3.07 .94 Health Sciences 2.92 .91 Social Sciences 2.90 .98 Engineering 2.81 .93 Natural Sciences 2.73 1.01 Research Engineering 2.48 .88 Natural Sciences 2.37 .97 Social Sciences 2.35 .93 Health Sciences 2.32 .87 Other 2.22 .86 Fine Arts 2.19 .92 Business 2.15 .94 Education 2.10 .82 Minority Natural Sciences 3.17 .81 Business 3.11 .93 Engineering 3.10 .89 Fine Arts 3.01 .91 Health Sciences 3.01 .91 Other 2.95 .88 Education 2.92 .95 Social Sciences 2.90 .96 Profession Education 2.13 .41 Other 2.07 .42 Health Sciences 2.02 .42 Fine Arts 2.01 .43 Business 1.99 .43 Social Sciences 1.99 .41 Engineering 1.97 .40 Natural Sciences 1.96 .40 140 Attitude toward 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 promotion criteria, than faculty who 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 promotion criterion than faculty in all other disciplines: Education, Business, Fine Arts, and Other. Natural Sciences faculty revealed a moderately stronger attitude toward research as a promotion criterion than faculty in Education, Business, Fine Arts, and Other. Social Sciences faculty reported moderately higher levels on attitude toward research as a promotion criterion than faculty in Education, Business, and Fine Arts. Health Sciences faculty presented a moderately different attitude toward research as a promotion criterion than Education professors. Attitude toward whether minorities are treated fairly. Attitude toward whether minorities are treated fairly was statistically significant. Faculty in Natural Sciences strongly agreed that minority faculty were treated fairly than faculty in Social Sciences, Education, Other, and Health Sciences (see Table 5.12). Business faculty had a significantly different attitude toward the treatment of minority faculty than faculty in Social Sciences. Engineering 141 faculty also revealed a significantly different attitude toward the treatment of minority faculty than Social Sciences faculty. Attitude toward the profession. Attitude toward the profession of higher education was statistically significant. Education faculty reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward the profession of higher education than faculty in any other disciplines: Natural Sciences, Engineering, Social Sciences, Business, Fine Arts, Health Sciences, and Other. Faculty in Other disciplines reported significantly higher levels on attitude toward the profession of higher education than faculty in Natural Sciences, Engineering, Social Sciences. Discipline and Workload. 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 amount of time permitted for teaching activities than their colleagues in Health Science, Engineering, Natural Sciences and Other disciplines (see Table 5.13). Fine Arts allocated mildly larger amounts of time to teaching than professors in Health Sciences, Other, Engineering, Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences. Business professors along with Social Science professors allocated significantly more time to teaching than professors in Health Sciences, Other, and Natural Sciences. Education professors spent more time on teaching than professors in Health Sciences, Other, and Natural Sciences. Social 142 Science and Natural Science professors spent significantly more time on teaching than professors in Health Science and Other disciplines. 143 Table 5.13 Mean Scores and Deviations on Workload (time spent on teaching, research, and service) Measures for Discipline Group Workload 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 Natural Sciences 48.74 27.07 Other 46.44 28.93 Health Sciences 41.54 27.96 Research Natural Sciences 36.36 25.98 Engineering 34.59 21.47 Other 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 Other 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 Natural Sciences 4.29 8.55 144 Time spent on research was significantly different according to discipline. Professors with careers in the following disciplines: Natural 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, Health 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 Other disciplines allocated significantly more time to service 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. 145 Discipline and Productivity. The number of publications published during 1991 through 1993 by faculty according to discipline was statistically significantly. Equally important, the amount of funding brought to the university through contracts and grants by discipline was statistically significant. Engineering faculty published a mild to moderately higher number of publications than faculty in Business, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Fine Arts. Health Sciences faculty revealed small differences in the number of publications produced than faculty in Business, Social Science and Natural Sciences. Faculty in Education published a significantly higher number of publications than faculty in Business. Faculty in the fields of Engineering, Health Sciences, and Natural Sciences garnered significantly higher amounts of research dollars than faculty in Fine Arts. 146 Table 5.14 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Productivity (number of publications and amount of funding generated) Measures for Discipline Group Productivity Discipline Means SD Publication Engineering 15.11 17.41 Health Sciences 13.72 16.53 Education 13.07 16.52 Fine Arts 11.75 20.07 Other 11.59 13.91 Natural Sciences 11.03 14.14 Social Sciences 10.44 12.24 Business 9.00 10.34 a Funding Engineering 281 1211 Health Sciences 245 1155 Natural Sciences 208 992 Education 184 1142 Other 150 966 Social Sciences 127 960 Business 79 909 Fine Arts 44 518 a Dollar amount for funding is represented in thousands. 147 Conclusions The association between ethnicity and tenure status The differences in tenure status provoke questions around who is getting tenured and at what rates are they being tenured. Equally important is the ratio of tenured to tenure-track professors among Caucasian faculty; especially when this ratio is compared to that of minority faculty. The data prompts one to assess the following observations: (1) There are twice as many tenured faculty than tenure-track faculty among White professors. Minority faculty are mainstreaming more to predominately white institutions and or tenure granting universities, thereby producing a higher proportion of tenure-track faculty, compared to their white tenured colleagues. Results from this study follow the trend of slow growth in tenured minority faculty as those portrayed between 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 why the percentage of Caucasians that remain in tenure-track positions is much lower than any single minority group; one conclusion for this differential is that White 148 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 between 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 minority faculty choose to teach and do research. One very significant inference brings us to the natural order of organizational fit by discipline within the academy. It is common statistical knowledge that due to cultural and socio-economic factors, Asian students fare academically better in grades one through twelve in Math and Science, while African-American and Hispanic students do not. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that specific minority student populations have been socialized early by cultural and socio-economic factors in their educational process toward 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 minorities in a few select disciplines exacerbates the underrepresentation of minority faculty across other disciplines. 149 The relationships among the various indices of attitude, workload, and productivity Attitude is as much a part of work as the actual work itself. Professors that have strong feelings about teaching as a promotion criterion will naturally demonstrate behavior that supports teaching and its related activities. Consequently, they will probably spend more time on teaching related activities than on research or service functions. To the contrary, professors who possess strong feelings for teaching as a promotion criterion have a high probability of exhibiting a negative attitude toward research as a promotion criteria, and subsequently will spend less time on research activities. Conversely, faculty who show a strong disposition for research as a promotion criterion, will not be as interested in using as much of their time for teaching activities as they would for research. Moreover, faculty who expend large amounts of time on research will put less effort into teaching. The reverse is true for faculty who allot more time to teaching; a reduced amount of time is allocated to research. Furthermore, faculty who spend more time teaching will set fewer hours toward service activities. The following section of Chapter Five is directed towards an understanding of how a faculty member's ethnicity, tenure status and discipline choice, can effect his or her attitude, workload, and productivity. 150 The relationship between ethnicity and attitude, workload and productivity If we were to look at the criteria for tenure, one might presume that faculty of color do not receive tenure because they are not as productive as their White 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 was revealed from Research Question Two regarding the association between 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 toward math and science early in their education. Therefore, findings regarding how strongly the faculty groups (particularly Asian faculty) felt about whether teaching and research should be considered as criterion for promotion and tenure were not surprising. Overall, attitudes toward teaching as a promotion criterion were similar among 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 more about research being weighted as a promotion criterion than all other racial ethnic groups. Consistent with Asian faculty members' attitude toward research is where 151 Asian professors focused their workload effort; they committed more time to research than any of their colleagues in this study. The rudimentary progression that is experienced by the Asian student begins as early as elementary school and culminates with his or her career in postsecondary education. Caucasian faculty's belief of the fair treatment of minority faculty members is mild to moderately higher than all ethnic groups: Blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. African-American faculty felt stronger than Hispanic and Asian faculty toward the fair treatment 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 of tenure status to attitude, workload, and productivity The research findings tell us that junior faculty tend to work harder than senior faculty. Tenure-track professors expend more hours on teaching and service activities than their tenured colleagues. In other words, since no two groups differed significantly in the amount of time devoted to their research, it can be assumed that senior faculty are actually working "smarter" by focusing their workload toward research activities that would yield greater rewards (Barnett, 1992; Massy, Wilger & Colbeck, 1994; Cargile & Bublitz, 1986; 152 Schultz, Meade, & Khurana, 1989; Milne and Vent, 1987; Campbell and Morgan, 1987; Hagerman and Hagerman, 1989; Omundson 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 most 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 amount of their time in service activities. This anomaly with Health Science professors can be attributed to the nature of the profession--giving patient care to the subjects of their research. The affiliation of discipline as a predictor of attitude, workload, or productivity. Professors with careers in "soft sciences" (Education, Business, Fine Arts, Social Sciences, and Other), identified more with the concept of teaching as a promotion criterion. Accordingly, they allocated more of their time to teaching. Professors with careers in "hard sciences" (Natural Sciences, Engineering, Health Sciences) identified more with the concept of research as a promotion criterion and subsequently devoted more time to it. Hence, publication rate and external funding were higher for faculty in scientific disciplines. 153 Implications and Recommendations Ethnicity and tenure status The inequities in the numbers of faculty of color are quite telling according to their tenure status. The differences found in the amount of minority faculty in the academy compared to Caucasian faculty is one point of discord. A second point of contention lies within the percentages of tenured versus tenure-track faculty of color compared to White faculty. One possible implication is that of institutional racism. These numbers lend statistical evidence to the presumption of institutional racism in the academy. Whether viewed as "overt racism" or "covert racism," the findings support Brown's (1989) assertion that disproportionately small numbers of minorities reflected on the faculty translate to some form of racism within that institution. As stated earlier, and evidenced by the results of this research, this type of attitude manifests and festers in the academy--it acts as a barrier to tenure. While this study does not analyze whether White faculty achieve tenure at a faster rate than minority faculty--within the standard seven year tenure process--the assumption is that because White faculty are more frequently tenured than non-White faculty, it is likely that they are also taking fewer years than their non-White colleagues to achieve tenure. Nor do these findings support the assumption that minority professors seek positions at institutions where tenure is not a requirement, after having 154 failed to gain tenure at institutions where they were previously employed. Therefore, the following recommendations are submitted: 1). It is recommended that further research be performed to substantiate the supposition that minority 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 postsecondary education. The findings do however, support Faculty Socialization Theory (Tierney and Rhoads, 1993). Therefore, it would behoove senior faculty and administrators, (particularly department 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). Modeling a faculty socialization process conducive to and culminating in tenure and promotion supports the success of its employees, as well as ensures the success of the organization (Baldwin, 1979; Kuh and Whitt, 1988; Tierney and Rhoads, 1993; VanMaanen, 1976). 2). A second recommendation designed to provide an environment of collegiality through faculty socialization (Tierney and Rhoads, 1993), would require pairing new faculty members with 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 tenure portfolio. Collegial organizations emphasize shared aspirations and commitments, power, consultation, and collective responsibilities. Thus, reflecting communities that de-emphasize status difference and individuals interact as equals (Massy, W.F., Wilger, A. K., & Colbeck, C., 1994). Collaboration and mentorship through linking a junior faculty member with a senior faculty person, provides a mentor for the neophyte; and, at the same time, a culture of collaboration is being cultivated for the senior faculty, undermining the strength of the Outsider Theory (Merton, 1973). Ethnicity and discipline Organizational theory would conclude that effective organizational change receives commitment from the top of the organization, and is transmitted downward throughout all levels of the organization. In higher education, organizational change should emanate from the president of the university to the academic departments. On the matter of diversity, measures for "inclusion" have been at best an annual discussion in the academy. Despite the claims that the supplemental 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 minority faculty, are being evaluated for tenure and promotion. 156 Institutional interest is seemingly the primary factor for deciding who gets tenured. Parenthetically speaking "Interest of the institution" is a catch all statement, which is often used in the admission offices to explain admission 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 dissemination of minority faculty across disciplines poses a third threat to equality for faculty of color. The problem being addressed is two pronged. One is that of parity; the second is that of inclusion. Inclusion looks specifically to the problem of a limited number of minority faculty in the academic pipeline (Blackwell, 1988). While the number of Whites in this nation compared to people of color has decreased, the number of White students attending college has increased; the number of students of color admitted to college has decreased. This "bumping down effect," coupled with rising tuition costs and more exclusionary admission standards, continues to diminish the potential number of minority doctoral candidates and thus, future faculty of color. Even though this study does not address the problem of low numbers of minority Ph.D.s (see Table 2.1), it does bring attention to the need for increasing the pool of qualified faculty applicants. The recommendation is to impact the tenure process through induction of minority faculty using mentoring programs. Study the induction process to determine whether White and non-White faculty 157 undergo a similar induction. This recommendation would allow the opportunity to test Faculty Socialization Theory (Tierney and Rhoads, 1993), and its impact on minority faculty (attitude, workload, and productivity) when paired with a White colleague, as well as when paired with another faculty of color. A second recommendation would necessitate increasing the pool of minority faculty in the academy, by grooming minority students at all levels of their education: elementary, secondary, and postsecondary for careers in higher education. The rudimentary progression that is experienced by most Asian American students starts at elementary school and culminates with their careers in postsecondary education--systematically geared for success. The various indices of attitude, workload, and productivity Higher education has a lasting trend for intense research behavior which in turn has set the standard for measuring productivity among 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 toward criteria for tenure is bleak. Likewise, such attitudes will probably continue to manifest in workload decisions that emphasize research over teaching and service. Further productivity studies are recommended to focus on the outcomes of faculty work. Tangible evidence of student learning, research, 158 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 work activities on which they are eventually evaluated. An affirmative tenure and promotion process must 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 reward structures benefit those who have strong credentials in peer-reviewed research--research that is often associated with prestige and external funding to the university. Jordan (1994) also recognized from other workload models 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 moving in the direction of a new trend toward a more inclusive definition of teaching. As we understand the tenure standards today, research, service, and teaching are pooled together as one standard of measure. Yet, the emphasis and what is 159 most clearly defined is the publication count. Without clear standards and markers of success, chances are tenure and promotion evaluation will remain subjective, open to interpretation and even abysmal to some. Recommendation one outlines a model for restructuring faculty roles and rewards 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 would correspond to numeric value and should total 100 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 mathematical expression that defines the maximum 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 transforming the inputs to outputs. Production function models can become quite complicated as the number of inputs increase or the combination of inputs vary. For illustration purposes, a nonlinear 160 relationship between inputs and outputs is assumed, where tenure (T) is viewed as a single output variable with no constraints. If Tis the output, X1, 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.). Recommendation two calls for minority faculty to play a stronger role in controlling the success of their professorial careers. Rebne (1990), using Kanter's theory of group interaction/tokenism, found that uethnic minorities may be socially isolated and therefore possibly less productive than Caucasians" (p. 43). In spite of these findings, it is incumbent 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 toward research publication, and (2) California Proposition 209 will likely rewrite history and change the face of minority participation in higher education. The association of tenure status to attitude. workload. and productivity If the production of publications and external funding is the basis for which junior faculty are granted tenure, as discussed in Chapter Two, the process is not a pure model. Conversely, the promotion and tenure process varies from one institution to another. At some institutions, the model includes several levels of administration, while at other schools the faculty member is reviewed by several committees of colleagues. As the members 161 change, the "chance" for subjectivity increases. The subjective nature of the process may contribute to the imbalance in the racial ethnic makeup of faculty in higher education. The value judgment 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 awkward position. The underlying assumption is that evaluators (senior faculty and administrators) assume 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 dominate senior administration and tenure committees 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. What constitutes worth to one, may 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 without criticism from colleagues claiming that such studies are too limiting, cannot be generalized, and therefore have little value (Luz Reyes and Hakon, 1988)? The recommendation calls for further research in this area to determine if White faculty are researching matters that bear significance and 162 importance for people of color. These data become relevant when correlated to tenure rate of that sample. An interesting research question is to what extent do Caucasian faculty members perform research on issues pertaining to people of color--and to what degree are these same faculty members (who have research interest in minority issues) tenured? Results from this type of investigation might prove helpful in establishing a definition of 11 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 remain 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 recommended to improve both faculty and departmental productivity. It is conceivable that collaboration is outgrowth of departmental goals. A forced collaborative environment should serve as a type of faculty development. Although departmental 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 departmental efforts could enhance the 163 productive efforts of not only minority professors, but for other junior faculty as well. Summary In conclusion, the outcome of this research yields a prototype of a productive faculty member. This person is typically found in a scientific discipline; spends less time on teaching and service than on research; is tenured or in a system with 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 presumed 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 overwhelmingly indicated by the sheer number 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 164 findings of this study, apparently disciplines differ in their value of the tenure components--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 time these disciplines will yield higher amounts 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 toward 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 workload and productivity. Restructuring promotion and reward systems to provide a fair and equitable distribution of work and rewards could have a positive impact on the number of minority faculty in the academy, their distribution throughout the academy, and just as importantly faculty socialization. Faculty socialization is important to the acclimation and success of new faculty entering higher education-at-large, and to the academy in particular. Consequently, if implemented, the recommendations of this study could prove essential to the future careers of faculty of color, and perhaps critical to 165 the academy's survival--as the minority population in this country continues to increase. 166 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 Wisconsin Press. Anderson, T. (1988). Black encounter of racism in white academe: A critique of the system. Journal of Black Studies. 18 (3), 259-272. Aisenberg, N. & Harrington, M. (1988). Women of Academe: Outsiders in the Sacred Grove. Massachusetts: The University of Massachusetts. American Council Association. (1981). Reshaping Faculty Careers (1st ed.). Washington, DC: Todd W. Furniss. 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. Promotion, and Reappointment: Legal and Administrative Implications. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC.: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Baldwin, R. G. (1987). The academic profession in search of Itself. The Review of Higher Education. 11 (10), 103-112. Baldwin, R. G. (1979). Adult and career development: What are the implications for faculty? In R. Edgerton (Ed.). Current Issues in Higher Education, Washington D. C.: American Association of Higher Education. Baldwin, R. G., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). The academic career as a developmental process. Journal of Higher 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). Impediments and imperatives in restructuring higher education. Education Administration Quarterly. 32, 705-719. 167 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. The Review of Higher Education. 11 (4), 417-434. Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member: Supporting and Fostering Professional Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bowen, H. R., & Schuster, J. H. (1986). American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled. New York: Oxford University Press. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement 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.), Measuring 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 promoted 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 Higher Education. (1973). Governance of Higher Education: Six Priority Problems. New York: McGraw-Hill. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1987) . ..A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 168 Centra, J. A. (1979). Determining faculty Effectiveness: Assessing. teaching. and Service for Personnel decision and Improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chait, R. P. (1981). Setting Tenure and Personnel Policies. Handbook of College and University Trusteeship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chait, R. P., & Ford, A. T. (1982). Beyond Traditional Tenure: A Guide to Sound Policies and Practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clark, B. R. (1987). The Academic Life. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement 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 women faculty. Journal of Higher Education. 57(1), 21-43. Clark, S.M., & Lewis, D. R. (Eds.). (1985). Faculty Vitality and Institutional Productivity: Critical Perspectives for Higher Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Cohn, E., & Geske, T. G. (1990). Economics of Education. (3rd ed.). Pergamon Press, Oxford, England. Collins, R. F. (1992). Academic freedom: American and European contexts. In G. S. Worgul Jr. (Ed.), Issues in Academic Freedom, Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. Creswell, J. W. (1985). Faculty Research Performance: Lessons from the Sciences and the Social Sciences. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.4. Washington, DC.: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Conrad, C. F. & Blackburn, R. T. (1986). Program quality in higher education: A review and critique of literature and research. In J. C. Smart (Ed), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: Agathon Press. D'Souza, D. (1995). The End of Racism. New York: The Free Press. 169 Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites And Rituals Of Corprate Life. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley. Dube, E. (1985). The relationship between racism and education in South Africa. Harvard Educational Review. 55.86-100. Dunbar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1997, March). Determinants of Research Productivity in Higher 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. Journal of Education for Business. 69 (5), 257-262. Epps, E. G. (1989). Academic culture and the minority professor. Academe. 75 (5), 23-26. Fairweather, J. S. (1997). The Highly Productive Faculty Member: Confronting the Mythologies of Faculty Work. Unpublished Manuscript. Fairweather, J. S. (1993). Faculty reward structures: Toward institutional and professional homogenization. The Review of Higher Education. 34 (5), 603-623. Fairweather, J. S. (1993). Academic values and faculty rewards. The Review of Higher Education. 17 (1), 43-68. Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American Academic Profession. Columbus: Ohio State University. Geiger, R., & Feller, I. (1995, May). The dispersion of academic research in the 1980s. Journal of Higher Education. 66 (3), 336-360. Greenberg, M. (1994, Feb.). Should college faculty account for their time? Education Digest. 59 (6), 52-55. 170 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 programs. Issues In Accounting Education, pp. 265-279. Hercules, D. M. (1995). Research activity and productivity in chemistry departments 1985-1988. Journal of Chemical Education, 72 (9), 782-792. Hofstadter, R., & Metzger, W. P. (1955). The development of academic 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 DesJarlais, C. D. (1994}. Barriers to tenure for women and minorities. The Review of Higher Education, 17 (4}, 335-352. Jones, J. (1972). Prejudice and Racism. MA: Addison-Wesley. Jordan, S. M. (1994}. What we have learned about faculty workload: The best evidence. In J. F. Wergin (Eds.}, New Directions For Institutional Research. (no. 83}. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Katz, D. A. (1973). Faculty salary, promotion, and productivity at a large university. American Educational Review, 63,469-477. Kirk, R. (1955). Academic Freedom: An Essay in Definition. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. Konrad, A.M., & Pfeffer, J. (1991). Understanding the hiring patterns of women and minorities in educational institutions. Sociology of Education, 64 (July), 141-157. Kritek, P. B. (1984). Women's work and academic sexism. Educational Record, 65 (3}, 56-57. Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in American Colleges and Universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D. C.: The George Washington University. 1 71 Kykvik, S. (1995). Are big university departments better than small ones? Higher Education. 30. 295-304. Lawer, E. E. (1973). Motivation in Work Organizations. 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, April14). Wrestling 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.). Washington, D. C.: The George Washington University. Lombardi, J. (October 1974). Faculty Workload. UCLA, ERIC clearinghouse for junior colleges, (Topical Paper No. 46). Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles. Luz Reyes, M., & Hakon, J. J. (1988). Racism in academia: The old wolf revisited. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 299-314. Massy, W. F., & Wilger, A. K. (1995). Improving productivity: What 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 Postsecondary 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." Journal of Higher Education. 65 (1), 1-22. McPherson, M. S., & Winston, G. C. (1983). The Economics of Academic Tenure. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 4, 163-184. 172 Menges, R. J., & Exum, W. H. (1983). Barriers to the progress of women and minority faculty. Journal of Higher Education. 54, 123-144. Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: The University Press. Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Illinois: The Free Press. Metzger, W. (1955). Academic Freedom in the Age of the University. New York: Columbia University Press. Miller, M.A. (1994). Pressures to measure faculty work. In J. F. Wergin (Ed.). Analyzing Faculty Workload, New Directions for Institutional Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Milne, R. A., & Vent, G. A. (1987, Spring). Publication productivity: A comparison of accounting faculty members promoted in 1981 and 1984. Issues In Accounting Education. pp. 94-102. Mingle, J. R. (1992). Faculty Work and the Cost of Quality/Access Collision. A presentation to the members of the board visitors of Virginia Institutions, Richmond, VA. Monk, D. H. (1990). Educational Finance: An Economic Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. Moore, M. N. (1989). Tenure and the university reward structure. Nursing Research. 38 (2), 111-116. Moore, K. M., & Johnson, M. P. (1989). The status of women in the professoriate: The role of affirmative activity and equity. In G. G. Loans and M. J. Dooms (Eds.), Managing Faculty Resources: New Directions for Faculty Research. (no. 63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Center For Education Statistics. (1994). Faculty and Instructional Staff: Who Are they and What Do They Do? (NCES 94-346). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center For Education Statistics. (1991). Profiles of Faculty in Higher Education Institutions-1988. (NCES 91-389). Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. 173 National Center For Education Statistics. (1985-86). Digest of Educational Statistics. (CS 86-400). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Government Printing Office. National Center For Education Statistics. (1995). Digest of Educational Statistics. (NCES 95-029). Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Government Printing Office. National Research Council (1989-1993). U.S. Doctorate Survey. Washington, D. C.: Office of Engineering and Scientific Personnel. Omundson, J. S., & Mann, G. J. (1994). Publication productivity and promotion of accounting faculty women: A comparative study. Journal of Education for Business, 70 (1), 17-24. O'Toole, J. (1994). Tenure: A conscientious objection. Change, 26 (3), pp. 78-89. Owen, H. (1987). Transformation and Development in Organizations. Maryland: Abbott Books. Paulsen, M. B. & Feldman, K. A. (1995). Toward a reconceptualization of scholarship: A human action system with functional imperatives. Journal of Higher Education. 66( 6), pp. 615-640. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Management. Design and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pettigrew, T., Fredrickson, G., Knobel, D., Glazer, N., & Ueda, R. (1982). Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pp. 4-5. Poch, R. K. (1993). Academic Freedom in American Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education (Report No.4.). Washington, D. C.: The George Washington University. Rawls, J. (1973). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press. Rebne, D. (1990). Determinants of Individual Productivity: A Study of Academic Researches. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Monograph and Research Series: 53. Los Angeles: The University of California at Los Angeles. 174 Reynolds, A. (1992). Charting the changes in junior faculty: Relationships among socialization, acculturation, and gender, Journal 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 employment in higher education. A consultation sponsored by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, 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. 0. (1994). The concept of productivity to US Higher Education. In M. 0. Schapiro and G. Winston (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 Management Review. 9 (2), 1-16. Schultz, J. J., Meade, J. A., & Khurana, L (1989). The changing role of teaching, research, and service in the promotion 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. Journal of Negro Education. 50 (3), 224-236. Shaw, B. N. (1971). Academic Tenure in American Education. Chicago: Adams Press. Smith, D. G. (1996). Achieving Faculty Diversity. Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington, D. C. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 175 Sykes, C. J. (1988). ProfScam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education. New York: St. Martin's Press. Tang, T. L., & Chamberlain, M. (1997). Attitudes toward research and teaching: Differences between administrators and faculty members. Journal of Higher Education. 68 (2), 213-227. Tien, F. F., & Blackburn, R. T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity. Journal of Higher Education. 67 (1), 2-22. Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Rethinking Promotion and Tenure: Community and Socialization in Academe. New York: SUNY Press. Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1993). Enhancing Promotion. Tenure and Beyond: Faculty Socialization as a Cultural Process. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education (Report No. 93-6). Washington, D. C.: The George Washington University. Van Alstyne, W. (1994). Tenure: A conscientious objection. Change, 26 (3), 88. VanMaanen, J. (1983). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization. In R. Allen & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Organizational Influence Processes. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company. VanMaanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of Work, Organization and Society. Chicago: Rand McNally. VanMaanen, L & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior 1, 209-264. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van Waes, R. (1994). The debate on tenure. Change. 26 (3), 86. Volkwein, J. F., & Carbone, D. A. (1994). The impact of departmental research and teaching climates on undergraduate growth and satisfaction, Journal of Higher Education. 65, 147-16. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 176 Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S., & Gregorio, D. I. (1981). Research productivity in academia: A comparative study of Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities. Sociology of Education. 54,235-253. Wanous, J.P. (1992). Organizational Entry: Recruitment. Selection, Orientation and Socialization of Newcomers (2nd ed.). Mass.: Addison Wesley. Wanous, J.P. (1972b). Occupational preferences perceptions of valence and instrumentality and objective data. Journal of Applied Psychology. 56. 152-155. Wellman, D. T. (1977). Portraits of White Racism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wergin, J. F. (1994). Analyzing faculty workload. In J. F. Wergin (Eds.), New Directions For Institutional Research, (no. 83). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Woolf, H. B. (Ed). (1973). Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: G & C. Merriam. Yuker, H. E. (1984). Faculty Workload: Research. Theory. and Interpretation. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 10. Washington, D. C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education. 177 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' 1993NATIONAL 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 178 ATTITUDE: INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT #59. Pleas.e 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 of 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 3 4 e. Female Faculty members are treated fairly at this institution. 1 2 3 4 f. Faculty who are members or racial ethnic minorities are treated fairly at this institution. 1 2 3 4 g. If I had it to do over again, I would still choose an academic career. 179 ATTITUDE: PROFESSION #60. Please indicate your opinion regarding whether each of the following has worsened. (CIRCLE ONE FOR EACH ITEM) Stayed 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 entering 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 g. The quality of undergraduate education at this institution 1 2 3 DK h. The atmosphere for free expression of ideas 1 2 3 DK i. The quality of research at this institution 180 WORKLOAD #37. In column A, we ask you to allocate your tQ.liU 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 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 PERCENT AGE ON EACH LINE, IF NOT SURE, GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE; IF NON, WRITE IN "0") A. %of Work Time Spent ------ % 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 I 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. 1 81 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 .Q!1J.y 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 ------- 182 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 awards. Do not include consulting services. (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 1. Yes 2. No (SKIP TO QUESTION 34) #33. Fill in the total funds for 1992-93 Academic year. If not sure, give your best estimate. $. ______________ _ 183 APPENDIX II U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement National Center for Education Statistics OMB No. 1850-0608 Expiration Date. 12/93 1993 NATIONAL STUDY OF POSTSECONDARY FACULTY FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE All information 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 Contractor: National Endowment for the Humanities National Opinion Research Center (NORC) University of Chicago Mailing Address: 1525 East 55th Street Chicago, Illinois 60615 Toll-Free Number: 1-SOo-733-NORC (Reprinted with permission, for purposes of this document.) 184 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)? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 1. Yes (ANSWER lA) 2. No (SKIP TO QUESTION 2) lA. During the 1992 Fall Term, were ... (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 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, 2! 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. (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 1. Teaching 2. Research 3. Technical activities (e.g., programmer, technician, chemist engineer, etc.) 4. Clinical service 5. Community /public service 6. Administration (WRITE IN TITLE OR POSITION) 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? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 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? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 1. Part-time (ANSWER 4A) 2. Full-time (SKIP TO QUESTION 5) 185 4A. Did you hold a part-time position at the institution during the 1992 Fall Term because ... (CIRCLE "I" OR "2" FOR EACH REASON) Yes 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 No a. b. c. d. e. 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? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 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. (WRITE IN YEAR) 19 7. What was your tenure status at this institution during the 1992 Fall Term? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 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? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 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 9. Which of the following best describes your academic rank, title, or position at this institution during the 1992 Fall Term? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER. OR "NA") NA. Not applicable: no ranks designated at this institution (SKIP TO QUESTION 11) 1. Professor 2. J\ssociate Professor 3. J\ssistant Professor 4. Instructor 5. Lecturer 6. Other (VVRITE IN) _____________________________________________ _ 10. In what year did you first achieve this rank? (VVRITE IN YEAR) 19 11. During the 1992 Fall Term, which of the following kinds of appointments did you hold at this institution? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 1. J\cting 2. J\ffiliate or adjunct 3. Visiting 4. J\ssigned by religious order 5. Clinical (VVRITE IN TITLE OR POSITION) ___________________________________ _ 6. Research (VVRITE IN TITLE OR POSITION) ___________________________________ _ 7. None of the above 12. What is your principal field or discipline of teaching? (REFER TO THE LIST OF MAJOR FIELDS OF STUDY ON PAGES -5 AND 6 AND ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE NUMBER AND NAME BELOVV. IF YOU HAVE NO FIELD OF TEACHING, CIRCLE "NA ") NA. Not J\pplicable CODE FOR FIELD OR DISCIPLINE: NJ\ME OF PRINCIPJ\L FIELD/DISCIPLINE 187 13. What is your principal area of research? If equal areas, select one. (IF YOU HAVE NO RESEARCH AREA, CIRCLE "NA") 101 102 103 110 121 122 123 124 130 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 170 181 182 183 184 190 NA. Not Applicable CODE FOR FIELD OR DISCIPLINE: NAME OF PRINCIPAL FIELD/DISCIPLINE CODES FOR MAJOR FIELDS OF STUDY AND ACADEMIC DISOPLINES AGRICULTURE COMPUTER SCIENCE Agribusiness & Agricultural Production 201 Computer & Information Sciences Agricultural, Animal, Food, & Plant Sciences 202 Computer Programming Renewable Natural Resources, including Conservation, 203 Data Processing Fishing, and Forestry 204 Systems Analysis Other Agriculture 210 Other Computer Science ARCHITECTURE & ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN EDUCATION Architecture & Environmental Design 221 Education, General City, Community, & Regional Planning 222 Basic Skills Interior Design 223 Bilingual/ Cross-cultural Ed uca lion Land Use Management & Reclamation 224 Curriculum & Instruction Other Arch. & Environmental Design 225 Education Administration 226 Education Evaluation & Research ART 227 Educational Psychology Art History & Appreciation 228 Special Education Crafts 229 Student Counseling & Personnel Svcs. Dance 230 Other Education Design (other than Arch. or Interior) Dramatic Arts TEACHER EDUCATION Film Arts 241 Pre-Elementary Fine Arts 242 Elementary Music 243 Secondary Music History & Appreciation 244 Adult & Continuing Other Visual & Performing Arts 245 Other General Teacher Ed. Programs 250 Teacher Education in Specific Subjects BUSINESS Accounting ENGINEERING Banking & Finance 261 Engineering, General Business Administration & Management 262 Civil Engineering Business Administrative Support (e.g., Bookkeeping, 263 Electrical, Electronics, & Office Management, Secretarial) Communication Engineering 264 Mechanical Engineering Human Resources Development 265 Chemical Engineering Organizational Behavior 270 Other Engineering Marketing & Distribution 280 Engineering-Related Technologies Other Business ENGLISH AND liTERATURE COMMUNICATIONS 291 English, General Advertising 292 Composition & Creative Writing Broadcasting & Journalism 293 American Literature Communications Research 294 English Literature Communication Technologies 295 Unguis tics Other communications 296 Speech, Debate, & Forensics 297 English as a Second Language 300 English, Other 188 FOREIGN LANGUAGES 510 PSYCHOLOGY 311 Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese, or Other Chinese) 312 French 520 PUBLIC AFFAIRS (e.g., Community 313 German Services, Public Administration, Public 314 Italian Works, Social Work) 315 Latin 316 Japanese 530 SCIENCE TECHNOLOGIES 317 Other Asian 318 Russian or Other Slavic SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HISTORY 319 Spanish 541 Social Sciences, General 320 Other Foreign Languages 542 Anthropology 543 Archeology HEATH SCIENCES 544 Area & Ethnic Studies 331 Allied Health Technologies & Services 545 Demography 332 Dentistry 546 Economics 333 Health Services Administration 547 Geography 334 Medicine, including Psychiatry 548 History 335 Nursing 549 International Relations 336 Pharmacy 550 Political Science & Government 337 Public Health 551 Sociology 338 Veterinary Medicine 560 Other Social Sciences 340 Other Health Sciences VOCATIONAL TRAINING 350 HOME ECONOMICS CONSTRUCTION TRADES 360 INDUSTRIAL ARTS 601 Carpentry 602 Electrician 370 LAW 603 Plumbing 610 Other Construction Trades 380 LIBRARY & ARCHIVAL SCIENCES CONSUMER, PERSONAL, & MISC. SERVICES NATURAL SOENCES: BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 621 Personal Services (e.g., Barbering, Cosmetology) 391 Biochemistry 630 Other consumer Services 392 Biology 393 Botany MECHANICS AND REPAIRERS 394 Genetics 641 Electrical & Electronics Equipment Repair 395 Immunology 642 Heating, Air Conditioning, & Refrigeration 396 Microbiology Mechanics & Repairers 397 Physiology 643 Vehicle & Mobile Equipment Mechanics & 398 Zoology Repairers 400 Biological Sciences, Other 644 Other Mechanics & Repairers NATURAL SCIENCES: PHYSICAL SCIENCES PRECISION PRODUCTION 411 Astronomy 661 Drafting 412 Chemistry 662 Graphic & Print Communications 413 Physics 663 Leatherworking & Upholstering 414 Earth, Atmosphere, and Oceanographic 664 Precision Metal Work (Geological Scienoes) 665 Woodworking 420 Physical Sciences, Other 670 Other Precision Production Work 430 MATHEMATICS TRANSPORTATION AND MATERIAL MOVING 681 Air Transportation (e.g., Piloting, Traffic Control 440 STATISTICS Flight Attendance, Aviation Management) 682 Land Vehicle & Equipment Operation 450 MILITARY STUDIES 683 Water Transportation (e.g., Boat & Fishing Operations, Deep Water Diving, Marina 460 MULTI/INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES Operations, Sailors, & Deckhands) 690 Other Transportation & Material Moving 470 PARKS & RECREATION 900 OTHER (IF YOU USE THIS CODE, BE SURE TO 480 PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION WRITE IN A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION AT QUESTIONS 12-13, AND 16) 490 THEOLOGY 500 PROTECTIVE SERVICES (e.g., Criminal Justice, Fire Protection) 189 SECTION B. ACADEMIC/PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND 14. Which of the following 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 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) A. 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, diploma, or degree for completion of undergraduate program of at least 1 year but less than 2 years in length B. c. D. E. Degree Code (see above) Year Received Field Code (from pp. 5-6) Name of Field (from pp. 5-6) Name of Institution (a) and City and State/Country of Institution (b) (1) Highest __ 19 __ a. ________ _ b. ________ _ (2) Next Highest __ 19 __ a. ________ _ b. _______ _ (3) Next Highest __ 19 __ a. ________ _ b. ________ _ (4) Next Highest __ 19 __ a. ________ _ b. _______ _ 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 17 A. How many different jobs, other than your employment at this institution, did you have during the 1992 Fall Term? Include all outside consulting, self-owned business, and private practice. (WRITE in NUMBER) Number of Jobs 18. Not counting any employment at this institution, what was the employment sector of the main other job you held during Fall1992? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 1. 4-year college or university, graduate or professional school 2. 2-year or other postsecondary institution 3. Elementary or secondary school 4. Consulting, freelance work, self-owned business, or private practice 5. Hospital or other health care or clinical setting 6. Foundation or other nonprofit organization other than health care organization 7. For-profit business or industry in the private sector 8. Federal government, including military, or state or local government 9. Other (WRITE IN) __________________________________________ _ 18A. What year did you begin that job? (WRITE IN YEAR) 19 ---- 18B. What was your primary responsibility in that job? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 1. Teaching 2. Research 3. Technical activities (e.g., programmer, technician, chemist, engineer, etc.) 4. Clinical service 5. Community /public service 6. Administration 7. Other 18C. Was that job full-time or part-time? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 1. Full-time 2. Part-time 192 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 employment as different jobs • .. .. Do not include temporary positions (i.e., summer positions) or work as a graduate student List each job (other than promotion in rank) separately . If not applicable, circle 'NA' NA A. (1) YEARS JOB HELD MOST RECENT MAIN JOB (PRIOR TOFALL1992) FROM: 19 __ TO: 19 __ (2) EMPLOYMENT SECTOR (CIRCLE ONE) 4-year college or university, graduate or professional school 2-year or other postsecondary institution Elementary or seoondary school Consulting, freelance work, self-owned business. or private practice Hospital or other health care or clinical >etling Foundation or other nonprofit organization other than health care organization For-profit business or industry in the private sector Federal government, including military, or state or local government Other (3) PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY Teaching Resean:h Technical activities (e.g., programmer, technicians chemist, engineer, etc.) Clinia1l seiVice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (CIRCLE ONE) 1 2 3 4 NA NA B. c NEXT NEXT MOST RECENT MOST RECENT MAIN JOB MAIN JOB 19 __ 19 __ 19 __ 19 __ (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE) 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE) 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 193 Community /public servicE 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 (4) FULL-TIMFJPART-TIME (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE) 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) NA. No presentations/publications/etc. (GO TO QUESTION 21) (WRITE IN A NUMBER ON EACH LINE; IF NONE, WRITE IN "0") Type of Presentation/Publication/ etc. (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 A Total during career (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 B. Number in past2 years 194 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 YOU DID NOT SERVE ON ANY COMMITTEES) NA. Did not serve on any undergraduate or graduate committees (GO TO QUESTION 22) (WRITE IN A NUMBER ON EACH LINE: IF NONE, WRITE IN "0") (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Type of Committee Undergraduate thesis or dissertation committees Undergraduate comprehensive exams or orals committees (other than part of thesis/dissertation committees) Undergraduate examination/ certification committees Graduate thesis or dissertation committees Graduate comprehensive exams or orals committees (other than as part of thesis/dissertation committees) (6) Graduate examination/ certification committees A. Number served on B. Of that number, how many did you chair? 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 multiple sections of the same course as a separate class, but not the lab section of a course. (WRITE IN A NUMBEK 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 A.B. FIRST FOR-CREDIT SECOND FOR-CREDIT (2) DURING 1992 FALL TERM CODE FOR ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE OF CLASS (from pp. 5-6) Number of weeks the class met? a. Number of credit hours? b. Number of hours the class met per week? c. Number of teaching assistants, readers? d. Number of students enrolled? e. Was this class team taught? f. 1. Yes 2. No Average# hours per week you taught the class? g. a. b. c. d. e. f. 1. Yes 2.No g. (3) PRIMARY LEVEL OF STUDENTS !CIRCLE ONE! (CIRCLE ONE) Lower division students (first or second year postsecondary !X I 1 Upper division students (third or fourth year postsecondary) m: 2 2 Graduate or any other post-baccalaureate students, Q[ 3 3 All other students? 4 4 (4) PRIMARY INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD USED (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE} Lecture Seminar Discussion group or class presentations Lab, clinic or problem session Apprenticeship, internship, field work, or field trips 1 2 3 4 5 Role playing, simulation, or other performance (e.g., art, music, drama) 6 c. nnRD FOR-CREDIT CLASS a. b. c. d. e. f. 1. Yes 2.No g. D. FOURTH FOR-CREDIT CLASS a. b. c. d. e. f. 1. Yes 2.No g. TV or radio 7 Group projects 8 Cooperative learning groups 9 E. FIFTH FOR-CREDIT CLASS a. a. Number of weeks the class met b. b. Number of credit hours c. c. Number of hours the class met per week d. d. Number of teaching assistants, readers e. e. Number of students enrolled f. 1. Yes 2. No f. Was this class team taught? g. g. Average# hours per week you taught 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 196 (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE) Lower division students 2 2 2 Upper division students 3 3 3 Graduate, post- baccalaureate students 4 4 4 AU other students (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE) (CIRCLE ONE) Lecture 2 2 2 Seminar 3 3 3 Discussion group or class presentations 4 4 4 Lab, clinic or problem session 5 5 5 Apprenticeship, internship, etc. 6 6 6 Role playing, simulation, performance, etc. 7 7 7 TV or radio 8 8 8 Group projects 9 9 9 Cooperative learning groups 24. Did you teach any undergraduate courses for credit during the 1992 Fall Term at this institution? 1. Yes (ANSWER24A) 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 I 2 3 a. Computational tools or software? I 2 3 b. Co~uter-aided or machine- aid instruction? 1 2 3 c. Student presentations? 1 2 3 d Student evaluations of each other's work? 1 2 3 e. Multiple-choice midterm and/or final exam? I 2 3 f. Essay midterm and/or final exams? 2 3 g Short-answer midterm and/ or final exams? 1 2 3 h. Term/research papers? 1 2 3 i. Multiple drafts of written work? 1 2 3 k Grading on a curve? 1 2 3 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 Type of students receiving Formal Individualized Instruction Number of students (1)Lower division students (fire or second year postsecondary) (2)Upper division students (third or fourth year postsecondary) (3}Graduate or any other post-baccalaureate students (4}Ail other students B. Total contact hours per week 197 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") ___ .Number 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., .2! regularly scheduled office hours. (WRITE IN A NUMBER; IF NONE, WRITE IN "0") __ _.Number 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 2. Applied research 3. Policy-oriented research or analysis 4. Literary or expressive 5. Program/Curriculum design and development 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) l.Yes 2. No (SKIPTOQUESTION 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") Number 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. Funding source (CIRCLE '1' OR '2' FOR EAGI SOURCE) (l)Thls institution? 1. Yes (2)Foundation other 1. Yes nonprofit organization? Number of Grants/Contracts 2.No 2.No c. Work done as ... (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 1. PI 2. Co-PI 1. PI 2. Co-PI 3. Staff D. Total funds for 1992-93 academic year $ 3. Staff $ E. How funds were used (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 1. Research 2. Program/ curriculum development 3. Other 1. Research 2. Program/ curriculum development 3. Other 198 (3)For profit business 1. Yes 1. or industry in the 2. private sector? 2.No 3. ( 4 )State or local l.Yes 1. government? 2. 2.No 3. (S)Federal 1. Yes 1. Government? 2. 2.No 3. (6)0ther source? 1. Yes 1. (WRITE IN) 2. 2.No 3. PI Co-PI $. __ _ Staff PI Co· PI $ __ _ Staff PI Co· PI $. __ _ Staff PI Co· PI $ __ _ Staff 1. Research 2. Program/curriculum development 3. Other 1. Research 2. Program/Curriculum development 3. Other 1. Research 2. Program/Curriculum development 3. Other 1. Research 2. Program/Curriculum development 3. Other 34. How would you rate each of the following facilities or resources at this institution were available for your own use during the 1992 Fall Term? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER, "NA," ON EACH LINE) Not Available/Very Very Not Applicable Poor Poor Good Good NA 1 2 3 4 a. Basic research equipment I instruments 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 (main frame) computer facilities NA 1 2 3 4 f. Computer networks with other institutions NA 1 2 3 4 g. Audio-visual equipment NA 1 2 3 4 h. Classroom space NA 1 2 3 4 i. Office space NA 1 2 3 4 j. Studio/performance space NA 1 2 3 4 k. Secretarial support NA 1 2 3 4 l. Library holdings that OR 35. Listed below are some ways that institutions and departments may use internal funds for the professional development of faculty. A. B. c Was institutional or department funding available Did you use any of those Were those funds adequate for your use during the past two years for ... funds at this institution? for your purposes? (1 )tuition remission at this 2! l.Yes l.Yes l.Yes other institutions? 2.No 2.No 2. No DK. Don't know (2)professional association 1. Yes l.Yes 1. Yes memberships and/ or 2.No 2.No 2.No registration fees? DK. Don't know (3)professional travel? 1. Yes 1. Yes l.Yes 2.No 2.No 2.No DK. Don't know (4)training to improve research 1. Yes !.Yes 1. Yes teaching skillS? 2. No 2.No 2.No DK. Don't know (S)retraining for fields in higher 1. Yes 1. Yes 1. Yes demand? 2.No 2.No 2.No DK. Don't know 199 (6) sabbatical leave? 1. Yes 2.No DK Il:ln't know 1. Yes 2. No 1. Yes 2.No 36. On the average, how many hours per week did you spend at each of the following kinds of activities during the 1992 Fall Term? (IF NOT SURE, GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATES) Average number hours per week during the 1992 Fall Term a. AU paid activities at this institution (teaching, research, administration, etc.) b. All unpaid activities at this institution c. Any other paid activities outside this institution (e.g., consulting, working on other jobs) 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 pl"efer to spend in each of the listed categories. A. %of Work Time Spent % __ % __ % __ % __ % __ % B. (WRITE IN A PERCENTAGE ON EACH LINE. IF NOT SURE GIVE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE; IF NONE, WRITE IN "0") o/o of Work Time Preferred a. Teaching (including teaching, grading papers, preparing courses; developing new curricula; advising or supervL~ing students; working with student organizations or intramural athletics) % b. Research/Scholarship (including research; reviewing or preparing ____ % articles or books; attending or preparing for professionaT meetin&s or conferences; reviewing proposals; seeking outside funding; givmg performances or exhibitions in the fine or applied arts, or giving speeches) c. Professional Growth (including taking courses, pursuing an advanced degree; other professional development activities , such as practice or activities to remain current in your field) d. Administration e. Outside Consulting or Freelance Work f. Service/Other Non-Teaching Activities (including providing legal or medical services or psychological counseling to clients or patients; paid or unpaid commuruty or public service, service to professmnal 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 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 Somewhat Somewhat Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied 1 2 3 4 a. The authority I have to make decisions about content and methods in the courses I teach 1 2 3 4 h. The authority I have to make decisions about other (non-instructional) aspects of my jobs 1 2 3 4 c. The authority I have to make decisions about what courses I teach 1 2 3 4 d Time available for working with students as an advisor, mentor, etc. 1 2 3 4 e. Quality of undergraduate students whom I have taught here 1 2 3 4 f. Quality of graduate students whom I have taught here 40. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following aspects of your job at this institutional? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER FOR EACH ITEM) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Satisfied 1 2 3 4 a. My work load 1 2 3 4 b. My job security 1 2 3 4 c. O{'portunity 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 salafr. 1 2 3 4 ~ My bene its, generally 1 2 3 4 Spouse or partner employment rxportunities in this geographic area 2 3 4 i. y 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) NotA! Somewhat Very All Likely Likely Likely 2 3 a. accept a part-time job at a different postsecondary institution? 2 3 b. accept a ~job at a ~postsecondary institution? 2 3 c. accept a part-time job llQ1..a1...a. postsecondary institution? 2 3 d. accept a ~job..n.l21..iila postsecondary institution? 2 3 e. retire from the labor force? 42. At what age do you think you are most likely to stop working at a postsecondary institution? (WRITE IN AGE, OR CIRCLE "DK") Years of age. DK. Don't know 201 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 Somewhat Very Important Important Important 2 3 a. Salary level 2 3 b. Tenure-track/tenured position 2 3 c. Job security 2 3 d. Opportunities for advancement 2 3 e. Benefits 2 3 f. No pressure to publish 2 3 g. Good research facilities and equipment 2 3 h. Good instructional facilities and equipment 2 3 i. Good job or job opportunities for my spouse or partner 2 3 j. Good geographic location 2 3 k. Good envirorunent/schools for my children 2 3 I. Greater opportunity to teach 2 3 m. Greater opportunity to do research 2 3 n. Greater opportunity for administrative 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 OK. 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 OK. Don't know 202 SECTION E. COMPENSATION Note: Your responses to these items as with all other items in this questionnaire are voluntary and strictly confidential. They will be used only in statistical summaries, and will not be disclosed to your institution or to any individual or group. Furthermore, all information that would permit identification of individuals or institutions will 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 a. Basic ~ b. Type of appointment (e.g., 9 months) __ #of months c. Other teaching at this institution not included in basic salary (e.g., for summer session) d. Supplements riot included in basic salary (for administration, research, coaching sports, etc.) e. Non-monetary compensation, such as food, housing, car (Do not include employee benefits such as medical, dental, or life insurance) f. Any other income from this institution Compensation from other sources: g. Employment at another academic institution h. Legal or medical services or psychological counseling i. Outside consulting, consulting business or freelance work j. Self-owned business (other than consulting) k. Professional performances or exhibitions I. Speaking fees, honoraria m. Royalties or commissions n. Any other employment o. Non-monetary compensation, such as food, housing, car p. q. (Do not include employee benefits such as medical, dental, or life insurance) Other sources of earned income (WRITE IN BELOW): 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 of his or her support from you.) _____ .Number of dependents 203 SECTION F. SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 51. Are you ... 1. male, or 2. female? 52. In what month and year were you born? (WRITE IN MONTH AND YEAR) MONTH 19 __ _ YEAR 53. What is your race? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 1. American Indian or Alaskan Native 2. Asian or Pacific Islander (ANSWER 53A) 3. African American/Black 4. White 5. Other (WRITE IN BELOW) 54. Are you of Hispanic descent? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 1. Yes (ANSWER 54A) 2. No (SKIP TO QUESTION 55) 53A. What is your Asian or Pacific Islander origin? If more than one, circle the one you consider the most important part of your background. (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER) 1. Chinese 2. Filipino 3. Japanese 4. Korean 5. Southeast Asian (Vietnamese" Laotian, Cambodian/Kampuchean, etc.) 6. Pacific Islander 54A. What is your Spanish/Hispanic origin? If more than one, circle the one you 7. Other (WRITE IN BELOW) consider the most important part of your background. 1. Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano 2. Cuban, Cubano 3. Puerto Rican, Puertorriqueno, or Bouricuan 4. Other (WRITE IN) (SKIP TO QUESTION 55) 204 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 born? (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 CITIZENSIDP 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. Mother 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 205 7 7 g. Doctorate or professional degree (e.g., Ph.D., M.D., D.V.M., J.D./L.L.B.) 8 8 h. Other DK DK 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 Strongly Disagree Agree A~ee Somewhat Somewhat trongly 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/f!ublications should be the primary cnterion for promotion of 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 federallr, mandated assessment requirements will improve the quality of unaergraduate education. 1 2 3 4 e. Female faculty members are treated fairly at this institution. 1 2 3 4 f. Faculty who are members of racial or ethnic minorities are treated fairly at this institution. 1 2 3 4 g If I had it to do over again, I would still choose an academic career. 60. Please indicate your opinion regarding whether each of the following has worsened, stayed the same, or improved in recent years at this institution. (CIRCLE ONE FOR EACH ITEM) Stayed 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 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 entering 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 2 3 DK g The quality of undergraduate education at this institution 1 1 2 3 DK h. The atmosphere for free expression of ideas 1 2 3 DK I. The quality of research at this institution 206 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 207

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Taxpayer perceptions of complexity and the effect of complexity on reporting positions

PDF

The relationship between changes in the type and frequency of contact in open and closed adoptions and behavioral outcomes of adopted children

PDF

Neighborhood watch and participant perceptions

PDF

The effects of race, gender, and family background on children's educational attainment: contemporary patterns and historical change

PDF

Seeing ghosts: readings on the effectivity of phantasms

PDF

Religiosity and its relationship to self-concept, locus of control, and dogmatism

PDF

Toyohiko Kagawa, and some social, economic, and religious tendencies in modern Japan

PDF

The development and validation of the group supervision scale

PDF

The district office as an institution of development

PDF

The influence of child day care on cognitive and phychosocial functioning in adolescence

PDF

The effect of physical exercise on cognitive and psychological functioning in community aged

PDF

The structural geology and ages of deformation of a portion of the southwest Columbia Plateau, Washington and Oregon

PDF

Adsorption of nitrogen on molecular solids

PDF

The writing laboratory in colleges and universities

PDF

The development of organization and disorganization in the social life of a rapidly growing working-class suburb within a metropolitan district

PDF

Managing cross-cultural interchange: interpreting behavior for mutual understanding, the case of China and the United States

PDF

The biology of a population of Diopatra ornata at Santa Catalina Island, California

PDF

The theory of individual human potential and its realization

PDF

The Ilias Latina: a study of the Latin Iliad, including translation, commentary, and concordance

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 Interlibrary Loan Department (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education - Policy and Organization

Defense Date 12/01/1997

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-491314

Unique identifier UC11299001

Identifier etd-Akins-584090.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-491314 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Akins-584090.pdf

Dmrecord 491314

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

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