Stasis and Change:
Faculty Satisfaction, Stress and University Priorities
An Analysis of the 1998-99 and 2004-05 HERI Faculty Surveys
by ChrisTina Leimer
Director, Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning
California State University, Fresno
Executive Summary
Full-Time undergraduate faculty responses on the Fall 1998 and Spring 2005 HERI Faculty Surveys were
analyzed to compare changes in satisfaction, stress and perceived importance of University priorities by
academic rank, gender and race/ethnicity. Each survey was analyzed separately then responses were
combined and analyzed in order to assess change.
Questions asked:
• Has faculty satisfaction with work increased, decreased or remained stable over time and on what
dimensions?
• What does the faculty find most stressful and have changes occurred?
• What does the faculty believe are the University’s highest priorities and have priorities changed
between 1998 and 2005?
• Do differences exist between men’s and women’s satisfaction, stress and perception of University
priorities?
• Do differences in satisfaction, stress or perception of priorities exist between white faculty and
faculty of color?
• Have changes in satisfaction, stress or University priorities occurred for men, women, white
faculty or faculty of color?
Findings:
• Differences between the academic ranks are widening. In 1998, the differences were those that
might be expected, i.e., the review/promotion process, research/publishing demands, committee
work, faculty meetings, and personal finances. In 2005, these distinctions remained but teaching
load, opportunity for scholarly pursuits, salary and benefits, and institutional “red tape” were
some of the additional satisfaction and stress differences.
• Associate and Assistant Professors are the least satisfied and the most stressed by these changes.
• Life has changed considerably for Full Professors and primarily in a positive direction.
• Full-Time Lecturers are more satisfied and, in some aspects, less stressed.
• Most faculty groups are more satisfied with the quality of students in 2005 than in 1998.
• For faculty of color, life has improved on many dimensions.
• Women and faculty of color are more satisfied with their relationship with administration now
than in 1998.
• Men are more satisfied than women with their opportunity for scholarly pursuits and they are
more likely than women to still want to be a professor if they could start again.
• Women are more likely than men to find subtle discrimination stressful in both survey years.
• Assistant and Associate Professors of color are more likely to find subtle discrimination stressful
than their white counterparts in 2005.
• All academic ranks rate promoting intellectual development as the University’s highest priority.
• Diversity/multicultural issues are viewed as a relatively high priority at this University.
• Enhancing the University’s national image and prestige are seen as University priorities.
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 1
Introduction
This study focuses on change in faculty satisfaction, stress, and perceived importance of
University priorities between Fall 1998 and Spring 2005. It is based on HERI Faculty Surveys
administered in those two years. Each survey was analyzed separately then responses to each
survey were combined and analyzed in order to assess change during this approximately six-year
period.
Questions asked:
• Has faculty satisfaction with work increased, decreased or remained stable over time and
on what dimensions?
• What does the faculty find most stressful and have changes occurred?
• What does the faculty believe are the University’s highest priorities and have priorities
changed between 1998 and 2005?
• Do differences exist between men’s and women’s satisfaction, stress and perception of
University priorities?
• Do differences in satisfaction, stress or perception of priorities exist between white
faculty and faculty of color?
• Have changes in satisfaction, stress or University priorities occurred for men, women,
white faculty or faculty of color?
Methodology
The following analysis is based on data collected in the 1998 and 2005 administrations of the
HERI faculty survey. The 1998 response rate was 35% (N=309) and the 2005 response rate was
29% (N=304). Both samples have an overall 5.7% margin of error for the entire sample and a
6.7% margin of error for the Full-time undergraduate faculty subpopulation. The full-time
undergraduate faculty (N=212 in 1998, N=213 in 2005) population is the subject of this study.
Based on academic rank, gender and race/ethnicity, neither survey matched its population (Table
1A, 1B and 1C). The 1998 sample of full-time undergraduate faculty over-represented full-time
Lecturers. The 2005 full-time undergraduate faculty sample overrepresented full-time Lecturers
and women and under-represented Professors. Both samples were weighted to match their
respective populations. Therefore, each survey stands on its own as generalizable to its
population.
To determine change over time, however, the two samples should be similar in their distribution
and they are not. The 2005 sample includes a smaller proportion of Professors (66% to 39%) and
a larger proportion of Assistant Professors and Lecturers (11% and 23% for both ranks). To
control for these differential distributions, separate unweighted analyses (T-Tests) were
conducted for each academic rank to determine if changes occurred in satisfaction, stress or
perception of University priorities during that time period. To determine if differences “between”
academic ranks persisted, disappeared or surfaced between 1998 and 2005, each year’s survey
was analyzed separately using weighted cases and One-Way ANOVA. Inferences about stability
and change were made based on statistically significant differences existing in both years, or in
one year but not the other, respectively. Tukey’s HSD was the post hoc comparison test used to
distinguish which groups differ from each other.
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 2
T-Tests with weighted data were used to analyze differences between genders and racial/ethnic
groups within each survey year. Because the number of respondents in specific racial/ethnic
categories of non-white faculty was too small for analysis, the race/ethnicity variable was
recoded into “white” and “of color.” As with inferences for academic ranks, statistically
significant differences that exist in both time periods or in one but not the other were used to
signify continuing differences or change. To determine if satisfaction, stressors, or University
priorities perceptions have changed for men, women, white faculty, and faculty of color, T-tests
were used to compare each groups’ unweighted responses in 1998 and 2005.
Where bivariate tests indicated significant differences by gender or race, multifactorial ANOVAs
were used to examine whether the effect is mitigated by academic rank. Only those effects that
remain gender or race specific, or where interactions between gender and academic rank or race
and academic rank exist, are reported as findings.
In this report, numbers in parentheses in the text are mean scores. Where they could be inserted
without intrusiveness, they are included for easy reference. Tables at the end of the document
provide more statistical detail.
Scale values for each set of survey items are:
• Satisfaction: Not Satisfied to Very Satisfied, 1-4
• Stressors: Not At All to Extensive, 1-3
• University Priorities: Lowest to Highest, 1-4
Findings
Differences Between Academic Ranks
In reviewing differences between academic ranks in the two surveys, some characteristics shift
between the ranks but remain constant distinguishers (Tables 2A and 2B).
• The review/promotion process was more stressful for Associate Professors than for
Professors or Lecturers in 1998. This remains true in 2005, but Assistant Professors too
now find this process more stressful than Full Professors and Lecturers.
• Research and publishing demands are more stressful for Associate and Assistant
Professors than for Full Professors and Full-time Lecturers.
• Committee work was more stressful for Full and Associate Professors in 1998 than for
Lecturers. In 2005, Associates and Assistants were more stressed by committee work
than either Full Professors or Lecturers. Full Professors were more stressed than
Lecturers.
• In 1998, faculty meetings were more stressful for Full and Associate Professors than for
Lecturers. In addition, Associates found these meetings more stressful than Assistant
Professors did. There was no difference in stress levels between Assistants and Lecturers.
In 2005, Lecturers were less stressed by these meetings than all other ranks.
• Personal finances were more stressful for Assistant Professors and Lecturers than for
Professors in 1998. In 2005, Associates and Assistants were more stressed by their
personal finances than were Professors.
Differences Between the Ranks in 1998 That No Longer Exist
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 3
In 1998, Professors were more likely than Assistant Professors to believe that recruiting more
minority students was a University priority (2.61 to 1.89). In 2005, there is no difference
between the ranks on this issue (2.60, 2.51, 2.47 and 2.25).
New Differences Between the Ranks in 2005
Some differences between the ranks that were not evident in 1998, are now (Table 3A and 3B).
They include:
• Assistant Professors are less satisfied with their salary and benefits than are Professors
(1.98 to 2.64).
• Assistant Professors are less satisfied with their opportunities for scholarly pursuits than
are Professors (1.95 to 2.55).
• In terms of overall job satisfaction, Assistant Professors are less satisfied than Professors
(2.63 to 3.04).
• Assistant Professors are more stressed than Professors by their teaching load (2.33 to
1.96).
• Associate Professors are less satisfied with their teaching load than Full-Time Lecturers
(1.81 to 2.38).
• Associate Professors are more stressed by institutional procedures and “red tape” than
Full-Time Lecturers (2.29 to 1.83).
• Household responsibilities are more stressful for Associate and Assistant Professors than
for Professors (2.15 and 2.10 to 1.72, respectively).
• Child care is more stressful for Assistants than Professors (1.75 to 1.25).
• Keeping up with information technology is more stressful for Professors and Lecturers
than for Assistant Professors (1.76 and 1.84 to 1.43, respectively).
• Associate Professors believe the University puts a higher priority on enhancing the
institution’s national image than Lecturers do (3.03 to 2.45).
Changes By Academic Rank
For Full Professors, life has changed on several dimensions, but less change has occurred for
other full-time faculty ranks (Table 4).
Professors are more satisfied with their salary and benefits than other faculty and their
satisfaction increased between 1998 and 2005 (2.33 to 2.68). Professors are more satisfied with
their teaching load now than in 1998 (1.68 to 2.03). In addition, they are more satisfied with:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Quality of students
Professional relations with other faculty
Social relations with other faculty
Competency of colleagues
Relationship with administration
Overall job satisfaction
Opportunity to develop new ideas
(1.68 to 2.03)
(2.70 to 3.10)
(2.43 to 2.87)
(2.51 to 2.95)
(2.21 to 2.52)
(2.75 to 3.03)
(2.76 to 3.08)
Professors are less stressed than they were in 1998 by their physical health (1.68 to 1.46), the
review/promotion process (1.50 to 1.25) and keeping up with information technology (1.95 to
1.75).
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 4
There was no change on the priorities that Professors see as important at this University. Like all
other faculty ranks, Professors believe the University’s highest priority is promoting intellectual
development (mean=3.23 in 2005). Other priorities whose means were 2.5 or higher are
recruiting more minority students, creating a multicultural environment, increasing/maintaining
institutional prestige, and enhancing the University’s national image.
Like Full Professors, Associate Professors are more satisfied with the quality of students (1.67 to
2.07). However, they are less satisfied with their teaching load (2.29 to 1.78). The only other
change for these faculty members is the belief that developing community among faculty and
students is a higher University priority now (2.0 to 2.5). University priorities Associate
Professors rated 2.5 or higher in both years are increasing/maintaining institutional prestige and
enhancing the institution’s national image, in addition to promoting intellectual development.
Assistant Professors are less satisfied with their opportunity for scholarly pursuits (2.58 to 1.94)
and find the review/promotion process (1.89 to 2.29) and committee work more stressful (1.58 to
2.04). They believe the University places a higher priority on hiring “faculty stars” (1.42 to
2.06), recruiting more minority students (1.89 to 2.51) and creating a multicultural environment
(2.37 to 2.92) now than in 1998. Increasing/maintaining institutional prestige, enhancing the
institution’s national image and intellectual development are priorities Assistant Professors rated
2.5 or higher in both years.
Full-Time Lecturers are more satisfied with their salary and benefits (1.93 to 2.28) than they
were six years ago. They are “more” stressed by their physical health (1.41 to 1.70) but “less”
stressed by the review/promotion process (1.80 to 1.33), subtle discrimination (1.49 to 1.18) and
personal finances (2.02 to 1.75). This group sees hiring “faculty stars” (2.02 to 1.67) and
increasing/maintaining institutional prestige (2.77 to 2.34) as lower priorities now than they were
in 1998. Creating a multicultural environment and intellectual development are University
priorities that Lecturers consistently rated 2.5 or above.
Differences By Gender
A few differences between the sexes are consistent from year to year (Table 5). In both 1998 and
2005, men are more satisfied with their opportunities for scholarly pursuits than are women.
Women are more likely than men to find subtle discrimination stressful and are more stressed
than men by a lack of personal time.
Differences Between the Sexes in 1998 That No Longer Exist
In 1998, some gender differences existed that no longer do. Men were more satisfied than
women with their relationship with administration (2.40 to 2.08), but in 2005 there is no
difference (2.53 to 2.47). Women were more stressed than men about their physical health and
committee work. Those distinctions no longer exist.
New Differences Between the Sexes in 2005
Conversely, there are some differences between male and female faculty in 2005 that did not
exist in 1998. Women are more satisfied than men with their social relationships with other
faculty (2.92 to 2.65). They are more stressed than men by the review/promotion process (1.78 to
1.53) and research and publishing demands (1.94 to 1.61). Men are more likely than women to
still want to be a professor (4.42 to 4.10).
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 5
Has Life Changed for Male Faculty?
Men are more satisfied with the competency of their colleagues and are more likely to still want
to be a professor in 2005 than in 1998 (Table 6). They are less stressed by keeping up with
information technology (1.82 to 1.60). As for University priorities, men believe the University
places a higher priority on developing leadership ability in students and developing community
among faculty and students now than in 1998.
Has Life Changed for Female Faculty?
Women are more satisfied with their relationship with administration than they were in 1998
(2.17 to 2.47) and are less stressed by faculty meetings (1.83 to 1.61).
Differences By Race/Ethnicity
There are no continuing differences in satisfaction, stress or University priorities between white
faculty and faculty of color (Table 7).
Differences in 1998 That No Longer Exist
In 1998, white faculty members were more satisfied with their opportunities to develop new
ideas (2.88 to 2.35) and overall job satisfaction (2.82 to 2.50) than were faculty of color.
New Differences in 2005
In 2005, keeping up with information technology is more stressful for faculty of color than for
white faculty (1.90 to 1.62). Faculty of color believe hiring “faculty stars” is a higher University
priority than white faculty believe it is (2.19 to 1.76). Subtle discrimination is more stressful for
Associate and Assistant Professors of color (2.0 and 1.82, respectively) than for their white
counterparts (1.22 and 1.3, respectively).
Has Life Changed for Faculty of Color?
Between 1998 and 2005, there has been substantially more change for faculty of color than for
white faculty (Table 6). Faculty of color are more satisfied with the competency of their
colleagues, visibility for jobs at other institutions, their relationship with administration, and their
opportunities to develop new ideas than they were in 1998. Overall, they are more satisfied with
their job (2.41 to 2.88). In 2005, faculty of color believe the University gives a higher priority to
hiring minorities in faculty and administration and to enhancing the institution’s national image
than it did in 1998.
Has Life Changed for White faculty?
White faculty, too, are more satisfied with the competency of their colleagues in 2005 than they
were in 1998 (2.73 to 2.97). They are more satisfied with their social relationships with other
faculty and they are less stressed by keeping up with information technology (Table 6).
Quality of students
This change does not fit neatly into any of the categories in this report because it occurred for
nearly all groups. Male and female faculty as well as white faculty and faculty of color are all
more satisfied with the quality of students in 2005 than in 1998 (Table 6) as are Full and
Associate Professors (Table 3).
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 6
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 7
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 8
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 9
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 10
Table 3B
Multiple Comparison Test Results
Differences Between Academic Ranks
Only in 2005
Dependent
Variable
Salary and Benefits
Rank 1
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Opportunity for
Scholarly Pursuits
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Teaching Load
Satisfaction
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Overall Job
Satisfaction
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Rank 2
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Lecturer
Mean
Diff.
0.343
.662(*)
0.367
-0.343
0.319
0.024
-.662(*)
-0.319
-0.295
-0.367
-0.024
0.295
0.395
.606(*)
0.314
-0.395
0.211
-0.081
-.606(*)
-0.211
-0.292
-0.314
0.081
0.292
0.508
0.398
-0.066
-0.508
-0.111
-.575(*)
-0.398
0.111
-0.464
0.066
.575(*)
0.464
0.097
.405(*)
0.088
-0.097
0.308
-0.009
-.405(*)
-0.308
-0.317
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
Sig.
0.229
0.0
0.105
0.229
0.372
0.999
0.0
0.372
0.36
0.105
0.999
0.36
0.193
0.003
0.336
0.193
0.763
0.984
0.003
0.763
0.49
0.336
0.984
0.49
0.054
0.101
0.982
0.054
0.956
0.047
0.101
0.956
0.089
0.982
0.047
0.089
0.925
0.019
0.922
0.925
0.277
1.0
0.019
0.277
0.179
4/10/06 Page 11
Lecturer
Household
Responsibilities
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Child Care
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Inst Procedures
and "Red Tape"
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Teaching Load
Stress
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Assistant
-0.088
0.009
0.317
-.423(*)
-.378(*)
-0.172
.423(*)
0.046
0.252
.378(*)
-0.046
0.206
0.172
-0.252
-0.206
-0.291
-.345(*)
-0.107
0.291
-0.054
0.183
.345(*)
0.054
0.238
0.107
-0.183
-0.238
-0.202
-0.094
0.262
0.202
0.108
.463(*)
0.094
-0.108
0.356
-0.262
-.463(*)
-0.356
-0.335
-.372(*)
-0.007
0.335
-0.037
0.328
.372(*)
0.037
0.365
0.007
-0.328
-0.365
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
0.922
1.0
0.179
0.019
0.018
0.549
0.019
0.992
0.395
0.018
0.992
0.489
0.549
0.395
0.489
0.165
0.028
0.825
0.165
0.985
0.64
0.028
0.985
0.328
0.825
0.64
0.328
0.535
0.894
0.213
0.535
0.914
0.029
0.894
0.914
0.088
0.213
0.029
0.088
0.128
0.033
1.0
0.128
0.996
0.215
0.033
0.996
0.085
1.0
0.215
0.085
4/10/06 Page 12
Keeping Up with
Info Technology
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Enhance Institution's
National Image
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Assistant
Associate
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Assistant
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Lecturer
Professor
Associate
Assistant
0.041
.326(*)
-0.07
-0.041
0.285
-0.111
-.326(*)
-0.285
-.396(*)
0.07
0.111
.396(*)
-0.182
0.188
0.393
0.182
0.37
.575(*)
-0.188
-0.37
0.205
-0.393
-.575(*)
-0.205
0.986
0.013
0.916
0.986
0.135
0.84
0.013
0.135
0.007
0.916
0.84
0.007
0.783
0.683
0.107
0.783
0.301
0.039
0.683
0.301
0.712
0.107
0.039
0.712
* indicates a difference between Rank1 and Rank2
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 13
Table 4
Change in Satisfaction, Stress and University Priorities 1998 to 2005
By Academic Rank
Associate
Professors
Full Professors
Survey
Year
N
Mean
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
126
62
125
61
127
62
127
62
125
62
127
*2.33
2.68
2.29
2.51
*1.98
2.31
**1.68
2.03
2.95
3.10
**2.70
04
62
98
Std.
Dev.
N
Mean
0.839
0.919
0.850
1.027
0.831
0.968
0.763
0.905
0.739
0.863
0.829
21
41
21
41
21
40
21
41
21
41
21
2.05
2.29
2.52
2.12
*2.29
1.78
*1.67
2.07
3.19
2.95
3.10
3.10
0.863
41
124
***2.43
0.789
04
61
2.87
98
04
98
125
62
71
04
98
04
98
04
98
44
127
62
126
62
125
Std.
Dev.
Assistant
Professors
Std.
Dev.
Lecturers
N
Mean
N
Mean
Std.
Dev.
0.865
0.844
0.873
0.842
0.845
0.832
0.658
0.721
0.814
0.835
0.831
19
49
19
49
19
49
19
49
19
49
19
2.16
1.98
*2.58
1.94
1.84
1.92
1.79
1.90
3.26
2.90
3.16
1.068
0.854
0.769
0.966
0.898
0.997
0.713
0.797
0.733
0.872
0.765
42
58
40
49
42
57
42
58
41
58
42
*1.93
2.28
2.30
2.24
2.36
2.39
2.07
2.24
3.15
3.10
2.93
0.838
0.812
0.939
0.902
0.821
0.921
0.867
0.779
0.691
0.831
0.778
2.85
0.853
49
2.82
0.858
57
3.00
0.824
19
2.58
1.216
17
2.76
0.970
40
2.65
0.802
0.846
41
2.59
0.974
49
2.67
0.875
54
2.85
0.878
***2.51
2.95
2.14
0.867
0.818
0.780
20
41
13
2.85
2.90
2.15
0.745
0.735
0.801
18
48
14
3.00
2.77
2.07
0.840
0.831
0.829
41
57
36
2.88
3.07
1.97
0.748
0.799
0.878
2.43
*2.21
2.52
*2.75
3.03
*2.76
0.789
0.879
0.954
0.745
0.724
0.902
32
20
41
21
41
21
2.09
2.45
2.56
2.86
2.93
2.86
0.734
1.099
0.896
0.964
0.685
0.854
34
19
48
19
49
19
2.29
2.47
2.52
2.68
2.63
3.00
0.871
1.020
0.945
0.749
0.834
0.745
32
39
55
42
58
41
2.41
2.44
2.47
2.71
2.95
2.71
0.979
1.046
0.940
0.918
0.759
0.844
Satisfaction
Salary and Benefits
Opportunity for Scholarly Pursuits
Teaching Load
Quality of Students
Autonomy and Independence
Professional Relationships with Other
Faculty
Social relationships with Other Faculty
Competency of Colleagues
Visibility for jobs at other
institutions/organizations
Relationship with administration
Overall job satisfaction
Opportunity to develop new ideas
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 14
Still Want to Be Professor?
04
98
04
61
126
61
3.08
4.06
4.34
0.822
1.053
0.998
41
21
40
2.85
4.19
4.13
0.823
0.750
1.090
49
18
49
2.73
3.89
4.18
0.908
1.079
1.014
55
44
59
2.76
4.14
4.39
0.902
1.069
0.831
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
126
61
124
61
127
62
127
61
127
61
127
61
127
61
127
61
127
61
126
61
126
61
126
60
125
61
125
61
127
62
1.80
1.75
1.26
1.26
1.46
1.44
*1.68
1.46
*1.50
1.25
1.41
1.34
1.59
1.56
1.92
1.74
1.83
1.74
1.53
1.64
2.17
2.08
2.06
1.97
1.36
1.36
1.28
1.28
2.07
2.03
0.693
0.722
0.539
0.545
0.664
0.643
0.653
0.621
0.744
0.567
0.634
0.655
0.647
0.592
0.697
0.681
0.652
0.705
0.589
0.684
0.716
0.781
0.708
0.758
0.559
0.606
0.533
0.488
0.768
0.724
21
41
21
39
21
41
21
41
21
41
20
41
21
41
21
41
21
41
21
41
21
41
21
41
21
38
21
39
21
41
1.76
2.15
1.43
1.54
1.38
1.44
1.48
1.68
2.43
2.12
1.45
1.39
1.81
1.93
2.05
2.12
2.00
1.83
2.19
2.10
2.29
2.29
2.10
2.32
1.29
1.45
1.43
1.49
2.10
2.37
0.768
0.727
0.676
0.720
0.590
0.673
0.512
0.687
0.746
0.781
0.686
0.628
0.814
0.685
0.669
0.678
0.548
0.704
0.680
0.664
0.463
0.716
0.768
0.650
0.561
0.602
0.746
0.683
0.700
0.767
18
48
17
47
18
48
19
48
19
48
19
48
19
48
19
48
19
48
19
48
19
48
19
48
17
48
18
48
19
48
1.78
2.10
1.29
1.60
1.50
1.42
1.53
1.69
*1.89
2.29
1.26
1.42
2.26
2.08
**1.58
2.04
1.53
1.71
2.05
2.15
2.11
2.19
2.26
2.33
1.29
1.29
1.39
1.27
2.32
2.13
0.647
0.660
0.588
0.825
0.857
0.710
0.697
0.624
0.737
0.617
0.562
0.710
0.653
0.613
0.607
0.544
0.612
0.651
0.405
0.684
0.567
0.734
0.653
0.724
0.686
0.544
0.698
0.574
0.749
0.703
41
56
41
56
41
56
41
56
40
55
41
56
41
56
41
56
41
56
41
56
41
57
41
56
41
56
42
56
41
57
1.98
1.89
1.49
1.36
1.27
1.34
*1.41
1.70
***1.80
1.33
*1.49
1.18
*2.02
1.75
1.34
1.36
1.44
1.30
1.56
1.36
1.95
1.82
1.85
1.96
1.37
1.27
1.33
1.29
2.10
2.07
0.651
0.652
0.637
0.672
0.549
0.640
0.591
0.711
0.823
0.546
0.746
0.471
0.724
0.611
0.530
0.586
0.550
0.570
0.776
0.645
0.740
0.658
0.760
0.713
0.581
0.447
0.612
0.563
0.800
0.678
Stressors
Household Responsibilities
Child Care
Care of Elderly Parent
My Physical Health
Review/Promotion Process
Subtle Discrimination
Personal Finances
Committee Work
Faculty Meetings
Research/Publishing Demands
Inst Procedures and "Red Tape"
Teaching Load
Children's Problems
Marital Friction
Lack of Personal Time
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 15
Keeping Up with Info Technology
98
04
127
61
*1.95
1.75
0.615
0.567
21
41
1.81
1.73
0.512
0.593
19
48
1.68
1.44
0.671
0.542
41
56
1.68
1.84
0.610
0.626
Promote Intellectual Development
98
04
127
61
3.09
3.23
0.979
0.844
21
40
2.81
3.20
1.167
0.823
19
49
3.26
3.16
0.872
1.007
40
58
3.30
3.14
0.939
0.847
Increase Minorities in Faculty/Admin
98
04
98
127
60
126
2.44
2.53
2.23
0.923
0.812
0.956
20
40
21
2.15
2.33
*2.00
0.875
0.917
0.894
18
48
19
2.06
2.48
2.26
0.725
0.850
0.933
39
56
40
2.03
2.48
2.38
0.932
0.894
1.055
04
61
2.43
0.805
40
2.50
0.816
49
2.51
0.938
57
2.39
0.881
98
04
98
04
98
04
126
61
127
60
126
61
2.21
2.48
2.31
2.53
1.95
2.13
0.949
0.906
0.940
0.833
0.893
0.939
21
40
19
40
21
40
2.14
2.50
1.89
2.28
1.95
2.20
1.014
0.784
0.994
0.847
0.921
0.883
19
49
19
48
19
49
2.37
2.37
2.05
2.44
1.84
2.24
0.895
0.809
0.780
0.897
0.898
1.011
39
56
39
56
40
57
2.46
2.52
2.21
2.39
2.35
2.16
0.969
0.853
1.031
0.867
1.099
0.882
98
127
2.65
0.920
21
2.76
0.700
19
2.89
0.994
39
*2.77
0.959
04
61
2.75
0.943
40
2.63
0.952
49
2.71
0.935
58
2.34
0.849
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
126
61
126
60
127
61
126
59
1.75
1.92
2.61
2.60
2.56
2.84
2.62
2.66
0.826
0.802
0.912
0.764
0.940
0.934
0.866
0.843
21
40
20
40
21
40
20
40
1.76
1.83
2.55
2.25
2.57
3.03
2.40
2.78
0.700
0.958
1.050
0.870
0.811
0.891
0.995
0.768
19
49
19
49
19
49
19
49
**1.42
2.06
*1.89
2.51
2.74
2.65
*2.37
2.92
0.507
0.922
0.737
0.982
1.098
1.032
0.831
1.017
41
57
40
58
40
57
40
58
*2.02
1.67
2.40
2.47
2.70
2.46
2.63
2.59
0.987
0.715
0.955
0.941
0.992
0.847
0.925
0.899
University Priorities
Dev Community among Students/Faculty
Dev Leadership Ability in Students
Increase Women in Faculty/Admin
Teach Students How to Change Society
Increase/Maintain Institutional Prestige
Hire Faculty "Stars"
Recruit More Minority Students
Enhance Institution's National Image
Create Multicultural Environment
*p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001
Scales
Satisfaction: Not Satisfied to Very Satisfied, 1-4
Stressors: Not At All to Extensive, 1-3
University Priorities: Lowest to Highest, 1-4
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 16
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 17
Table 6
Change in Satisfaction, Stress and University Priorities 1998 to 2005
By Gender and Race/Ethnicity
Men
Satisfaction
Salary and Benefits
Opportunity for Scholarly
Pursuits
Teaching Load
Quality of Students
Autonomy and
Independence
Professional Relationships
with Other Faculty
Social relationships with
Other Faculty
Competency of Colleagues
Visibility for jobs at other
institutions/organizations
Relationship with
administration
Overall job satisfaction
Opportunity to develop new
ideas
Survey
year
N
98
04
98
139
113
137
04
98
04
98
04
98
Mean
Women
Std.
Dev.
N
Mean
2.20
2.35
2.47
0.870
0.896
0.796
77
106
73
109
140
112
140
113
139
2.42
2.14
2.21
**1.71
2.00
3.07
0.926
0.836
0.969
0.789
0.835
0.758
04
98
113
140
3.10
2.74
04
98
112
133
04
98
04
98
White
N
2.18
2.27
2.11
0.899
0.900
0.951
168
164
162
2.27
2.33
2.38
0.894
0.873
0.857
41
56
41
1.95
2.27
2.20
0.773
0.963
0.928
98
77
105
77
106
74
2.05
1.99
2.12
**1.90
2.21
3.01
0.957
0.866
0.958
0.771
0.789
0.731
157
169
162
169
164
167
2.28
2.13
2.20
**1.85
2.12
3.13
0.933
0.842
0.951
0.799
0.805
0.738
51
41
56
41
56
39
2.16
2.00
2.07
**1.54
2.04
2.85
1.027
0.866
0.988
0.674
0.852
0.630
0.876
0.834
106
77
2.97
3.00
0.810
0.778
164
169
3.07
2.88
0.807
0.822
56
41
2.95
2.71
0.942
0.782
2.88
2.44
0.931
0.856
106
73
3.07
2.68
0.759
0.831
163
159
2.99
*2.56
0.809
0.876
56
41
2.91
2.49
0.978
0.711
111
136
112
88
2.61
**2.56
2.87
2.14
0.926
0.876
0.788
0.819
103
76
105
51
2.91
2.84
3.03
1.98
0.818
0.731
0.802
0.787
162
165
163
106
2.76
**2.73
2.97
2.13
0.855
0.858
0.765
0.840
53
41
55
30
2.75
*2.44
2.87
*1.97
0.979
0.709
0.883
0.669
04
98
80
137
2.31
2.38
0.773
0.925
69
75
2.23
*2.17
0.957
0.991
114
166
2.24
2.38
0.865
0.938
36
40
2.39
*2.07
0.838
0.917
04
98
04
98
110
139
113
137
2.56
2.79
2.96
2.82
0.914
0.821
0.795
0.839
104
77
106
77
2.47
2.68
2.85
2.71
0.934
0.768
0.728
0.901
161
168
164
167
2.53
2.85
2.91
2.90
0.902
0.779
0.779
0.862
54
41
56
40
2.48
**2.41
2.88
**2.30
0.986
0.706
0.715
0.648
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 18
Mean
Of Color
Std.
Dev.
Std.
Dev.
N
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Still Want to Be Professor?
Stressors
Household Responsibilities
Child Care
Care of Elderly Parent
My Physical Health
Review/Promotion Process
Subtle Discrimination
Personal Finances
Committee Work
Faculty Meetings
Research/Publishing
Demands
Inst Procedures and "Red
Tape"
Teaching Load
Children's Problems
Marital Friction
Lack of Personal Time
04
98
04
112
140
114
2.95
*4.11
4.41
0.889
0.972
0.900
102
77
104
2.78
4.01
4.15
0.828
1.118
1.012
160
169
164
2.89
4.11
4.31
0.861
1.008
0.924
55
41
55
2.82
4.05
4.24
0.863
0.999
1.071
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
140
109
140
109
140
110
140
109
140
109
139
109
140
109
140
109
140
109
139
1.72
1.83
1.31
1.37
1.31
1.34
1.51
1.58
1.61
1.59
1.27
1.20
1.73
1.73
1.68
1.72
1.66
1.60
1.60
0.669
0.701
0.564
0.633
0.589
0.595
0.606
0.628
0.784
0.735
0.533
0.523
0.718
0.618
0.660
0.682
0.630
0.682
0.645
74
106
71
103
75
106
76
106
75
105
76
106
76
106
76
106
76
106
76
2.04
2.05
1.34
1.44
1.65
1.49
1.72
1.67
1.79
1.81
1.67
1.46
1.86
1.90
1.96
1.78
*1.83
1.61
1.72
0.691
0.681
0.608
0.737
0.762
0.720
0.665
0.700
0.827
0.810
0.773
0.692
0.725
0.675
0.738
0.704
0.661
0.684
0.685
168
162
166
159
168
163
169
162
169
162
169
162
169
162
169
162
169
162
168
1.82
1.97
1.30
1.40
1.43
1.42
1.57
1.62
1.60
1.70
1.35
1.25
1.75
1.81
1.78
1.73
1.71
1.60
1.59
0.686
0.691
0.556
0.675
0.662
0.646
0.624
0.678
0.758
0.787
0.609
0.572
0.730
0.661
0.696
0.678
0.640
0.681
0.650
39
54
38
54
40
54
40
54
39
53
40
54
40
54
40
54
40
54
40
1.90
1.83
1.45
1.41
1.43
1.39
1.58
1.61
1.85
1.66
1.63
1.56
1.85
1.80
1.73
1.80
1.80
1.59
1.88
0.680
0.720
0.686
0.714
0.675
0.712
0.636
0.627
0.904
0.758
0.740
0.718
0.662
0.626
0.716
0.737
0.648
0.687
0.648
04
98
109
140
1.61
2.08
0.681
0.690
106
75
1.91
2.21
0.763
0.703
162
168
1.73
2.10
0.729
0.698
54
40
1.80
2.20
0.762
0.723
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
98
04
110
140
108
140
108
140
109
140
111
2.02
1.95
2.04
1.37
1.32
1.33
1.39
1.95
2.01
0.729
0.723
0.784
0.567
0.526
0.593
0.593
0.762
0.732
106
75
106
72
104
74
104
76
106
2.11
2.13
2.19
1.32
1.34
1.27
1.24
2.38
2.27
0.760
0.741
0.692
0.601
0.568
0.556
0.549
0.692
0.684
163
168
161
167
160
168
160
169
164
2.09
2.02
2.12
1.37
1.32
1.27
1.31
2.09
2.17
0.735
0.705
0.736
0.595
0.542
0.533
0.583
0.762
0.715
54
40
54
38
53
39
54
40
54
1.96
1.95
2.09
1.34
1.36
1.51
1.35
2.23
2.02
0.776
0.815
0.759
0.534
0.558
0.756
0.555
0.733
0.739
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 19
Keeping Up with Info
Technology
University Priorities
Promote Intellectual
Development
Increase Minorities in
Faculty/Admin
Dev Community among
Students/Faculty
Dev Leadership Ability in
Students
Increase Women in
Faculty/Admin
Teach Students How to
Change Society
Increase/Maintain
Institutional Prestige
Hire Faculty "Stars"
Recruit More Minority
Students
Enhance Institution's
National Image
Create Multicultural
Environment
98
140
**1.82
0.603
76
1.92
0.648
169
**1.85
0.614
40
1.88
0.648
04
109
1.60
0.579
106
1.82
0.598
162
1.65
0.604
54
1.85
0.563
98
139
3.16
0.957
75
3.09
1.029
166
3.16
0.993
41
3.07
0.959
04
98
113
137
3.19
2.32
0.851
0.907
104
72
3.17
2.28
0.886
0.967
163
163
3.20
2.34
0.874
0.897
55
40
3.15
*2.17
0.848
0.984
04
98
111
138
2.42
*2.19
0.826
0.884
102
75
2.54
2.37
0.897
1.112
160
165
2.43
2.22
0.858
0.965
54
41
2.65
2.37
0.850
0.994
04
98
112
138
2.45
*2.20
0.879
0.897
104
74
2.46
2.43
0.847
1.074
162
164
2.40
2.28
0.845
0.982
55
41
2.60
2.29
0.894
0.929
04
98
112
136
2.42
2.29
0.824
0.894
103
74
2.55
2.14
0.849
1.051
162
164
2.44
2.20
0.834
0.913
54
40
2.61
2.33
0.834
1.023
04
98
111
138
2.44
1.95
0.817
0.899
102
75
2.41
2.19
0.916
1.074
160
165
2.36
1.98
0.879
0.953
54
41
2.63
2.17
0.784
0.972
04
98
113
138
2.06
2.69
0.848
0.894
103
74
2.33
2.77
1.004
0.959
162
164
2.10
2.72
0.921
0.930
55
41
2.45
2.71
0.919
0.929
04
98
04
98
113
139
113
137
2.65
1.75
1.89
2.55
0.906
0.826
0.880
0.915
104
74
103
74
2.59
1.85
1.87
2.43
0.931
0.886
0.836
0.994
163
165
162
164
2.56
1.76
1.76
2.49
0.917
0.842
0.818
0.943
55
41
55
41
2.78
1.93
2.25
2.54
0.896
0.905
0.865
0.925
04
98
112
139
2.43
2.57
0.908
0.933
104
74
2.53
2.72
0.870
1.000
163
165
2.44
2.68
0.903
0.943
54
41
2.61
*2.37
0.834
1.019
04
98
113
137
2.79
2.59
0.940
0.920
103
74
2.70
2.59
0.927
0.875
163
164
2.70
2.58
0.917
0.886
54
41
2.87
2.66
0.972
0.911
04
111
2.73
0.863
104
2.74
0.924
162
2.69
0.902
54
2.89
0.839
*p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001
Scales
Satisfaction: Not Satisfied to Very Satisfied, 1-4 Stressors: Not At All to Extensive, 1-3 University Priorities: Lowest to Highest, 1-4
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 20
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 21
(98 and 04 satisfaction.doc) Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning ChrisTina Leimer
4/10/06 Page 22