The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership ________________________________________________________________________ Equitable Workload and the Perceptions of Academic Staff in Universities VENKATA SAI SRINIVASA RAO MURAMALLA AND KHALID ABDULLAH ALOTAIBI THELEARNER.COM Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 VOLUME 26 ISSUE 2 Bill Cope, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA José Luis Ortega, University of Granada, Spain ACTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLISHING Jeremy Boehme, Common Ground Research Networks, USA MANAGING EDITOR Crystal Lasky Robinson, Common Ground Research Networks, USA ADVISORY BOARD The Learner Research Network recognizes the contribution of many in the evolution of the Research Network. The principal role of the Advisory Board has been, and is, to drive the overall intellectual direction of the Research Network. A full list of members can be found at https://thelearner.com/about/advisory-board. PEER REVIEW Articles published in The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership are peer reviewed using a two-way anonymous peer review model. Reviewers are active participants of The Learner Research Network or a thematically related Research Network. The publisher, editors, reviewers, and authors all agree upon the following standards of expected ethical behavior, which are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices. More information can be found at: https://thelearner.com/journals/model. ARTICLE SUBMISSION THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP https://thelearner.com ISSN: 2329-1656 (Print) ISSN: 2329-1591 (Online) https://doi.org/10.18848/2329-1656/CGP (Journal) First published by Common Ground Research Networks in 2019 University of Illinois Research Park 2001 South First Street, Suite 202 Champaign, IL 61820 USA Ph: +1-217-328-0405 https://cgnetworks.org The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal. COPYRIGHT © 2019 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2019 (selection and editorial matter), Common Ground Research Networks All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact cgscholar.com/cg_support. The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership publishes biannually (June, December). To find out more about the submission process, please visit https://thelearner.com/journals/callfor-papers. ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING For a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed, please visit https://thelearner.com/journals/collection. RESEARCH NETWORK MEMBERSHIP Authors in The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership are members of The Learner Research Network or a thematically related Research Network. Members receive access to journal content. To find out more, visit https://thelearner.com/about/become-a-member. SUBSCRIPTIONS The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership is available in electronic and print formats. Subscribe to gain access to content from the current year and the entire backlist. Contact us at cgscholar.com/cg_support. ORDERING Single articles and issues are available from the journal bookstore at https://cgscholar.com/bookstore. HYBRID OPEN ACCESS The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership is Hybrid Open Access, meaning authors can choose to make their articles open access. This allows their work to reach an even wider audience, broadening the dissemination of their research. To find out more, please visit https://thelearner.com/journals/hybrid-open-access. DISCLAIMER Common Ground Research Networks, a member of Crossref The authors, editors, and publisher will not accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have been made in this publication. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein. Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 EDITORS Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla, 1 Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia Khalid Abdullah Alotaibi, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia Abstract: Workload is the overall assignments to be completed by individuals in a given time. In academia, the number of instructional hours, credit hours, contact hours, class sizes, non-instructional schedules, student-teacher ratio, scholarly activities, and administrative and community services will determine the workload of faculty members in a semester. Any discrimination, favoritism, partiality, or managerial biases in the distribution of the workloads would lead to misconceptions among the academic staff that will affect the work culture of educational institutions. In this context, this paper examines the perceptions of 256 academic staff chosen by stratified random sampling from ten universities in Saudi Arabia by using a questionnaire on the general practices of universities for the allocation of the equitable workload in three variables such as teaching, research, and academic administration. Study results revealed that the academic staff positively responded to all the practices in the three variables. This paper answered the questions of what are the significant differences and significant correlations in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload distribution in the three variables. Firstly, it was found that the academic staff as groups by gender, nationality, type of university, and tenure has a significant perceptional difference in the three variables. In Saudi Arabia, foreigners work on contract basis, therefore, this study revealed that foreign staff members place more emphasis on teaching instead of research and administration. This result was found in college faculty members in science, arts, and other college faculty members. The study further found a relationship among three types of faculty departments/disciplines as far as teaching and administrative work is concerned, but there is no relation between research and administrative work. In conclusion, the authors have recommended, some practical suggestions for equitable workload among academic staff. Keywords: Academia, Academic Workload, Academics, Equitable Workload, Workload Distribution Introduction W orkload comprises of overall assignments to be completed by the individuals in a given time (Apaydin 2012). In academia, the workload of academic staff depends on the number of courses offered, total credit and contact hours, instructional and noninstructional hours, student-teacher ratios, scholarly activities, and administrative and community services (Parks et al. 1998; Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges 2014). However, allocation of equitable workload among the academic staff in universities is a challenging task (Cohen, Hickey, and Upchurch 2009). This is because the workload of faculty members changes over time due to factors such as diversities in the students’ enrollments, commercialization of specialized programs, more research orientated performance appraisals, more dependency on part-time instructors, and additional expectations on faculty members to obtain external research grants (Robbins 2013; Papadopoulos 2017). It is apparent that the workload of academics covers all the responsibilities that include the preparation for class teaching as well as student assessments, publication of research works, execution of research projects, and involvement in the administrative services (Ocvirk and Širca 2012). Therefore, to complete the assigned workload, the academic staff have to perform their roles in teaching, research, and administration (Colbeck 2002). However, any favoritism, discrimination, partialities, or managerial biases in the allocation of the workloads will lead to dissatisfaction among academic staff that would affect the work culture of institutions (Hesseldenz 1976; Mustapha and Yu Ghee 2013). Moreover, exercising power and politics by 1 Corresponding Author: Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla, PO Box 13, College of Business Administration, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Hotat Bani Tamim, Al Kharj, Riyadh Province, 11149, Saudi Arabia. email: [email protected] The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership Volume 26, Issue 2, 2019, https://thelearner.com © Common Ground Research Networks, Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla, Khalid Abdullah Alotaibi, All Rights Reserved. Permissions: cgscholar.com/cg_support ISSN: 2329-1656 (Print), ISSN: 2329-1591 (Online) https://doi.org/10.18848/2329-1656/CGP/v26i02/1-19 (Article) Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 Equitable Workload and the Perceptions of Academic Staff in Universities faculty supervisors during the allocation of workloads will disturb the performance of academic staff (McCarthy, Song, and Jayasuriya 2017; Kenny 2018). Therefore, fairness, consistency, and transparency in equitable workload distribution practices will improve the performance of academic staff (Bitzer 2007; Kenny and Fluck 2014). However, understanding the perceptions of academic staff on such practices is crucial for bringing consensus. In this context, this study examined the perceptions of academic staff in Saudi Arabia concerning the general practices of universities for the allocation of equitable workloads in teaching, research, and academic administration. Literature Review Researchers discussed the implications of workload allocations among the academic staff at higher education institutions and some of their research findings are briefly discussed as follows. Agrawala and Mohr (1975) argue that workload distribution is always a controversial and troubling question to university managers because the faculty members have strengths and interests that they want to utilize during the implementation of flexible formulas for equitable workload allocations. How are university managers, then, to decide how much time should be allotted for each activity? Authors like Chipman-Johnson (2008) supports flexible approaches in workload allocations that would help universities to promote the interests and strengths of faculty members. Houston, Meyer, and Paewai (2006) recognize that the allocation of academic workload in universities is a difficult job because faculty member roles are not only in the primary domains of teaching and research, but also in the administration and academic services (Bernasconi 2003). These role ambiguities in academics are due to their far-reaching accountability and increasing responsiveness to the changing educational needs in the society and the intensification of evaluations by the universities on their research performance (Tien and Blackburn 1996). Kyvik (2012) identifies that academic staff work more extended hours in universities by spending more time than required as per the norms of the university. Shaw (2005) mentions that faculty members mostly prefer the role of a researcher in the universities instead of their roles in teaching and academic services. This kind of attitude would upset the fair allocation of normal workloads to faculty members. Selfa et al. (1997) conclude that universities have a discrepancy in the allocation of academic workload between full-time and part-time staff. They reveal that, while comparing the teaching load of professors and teaching assistants, it is found that professors spend more time on research whereas teaching assistants spend more time on teaching work. This is a significant cause for an imbalance of academic workloads in the universities. They found that the ranked professors are interested in teaching for upper graduate level classes and hence more workload remained to distribute among the teaching assistants. Chantrapornhchai (2012) specifies that the allocation of workload among the academic staff depends on the policies of faculties and departments at universities. Teater and Mendoza (2018) identifies that the allocation of academic workload in universities should balance the expected academic workload across various faculty positions and the time spent by academic staff in various academic departments. However, this affects their output in terms of result and research publications, as well as academic rank of the faculty member. Hull (2006) indicates that bureaucracy in academic institutions is also one of the factors for allocation of the academic workload. He mentions that universities have difficulties in identifying choices for reasonable workload distribution among academic staff because of reasons such as increasing academic workloads every year, assignment of new tasks to existing faculty members, rising quality standards, and the demands to perform in specialized tasks. O’Meara et al. (2017) find that women faculty members are spending more time in teaching as well as in student advising sessions and campus services whereas male staff are spending more 2 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP time in research. They found that female staff members are receiving more teaching work assignments in universities than male staff members. Dobele et al. (2010) discovered that universities that are headed by females have equity in workloads between male and female teaching staff members. The author has found this result because of transparency in the workload distribution systems of universities. This research suggests that the heads of universities have to work in collaboration with the academic staff for the implementation of systems with more flexibility to allocate equitable workload among male and female academic staff members. However, it claims that the transparent workload distribution schemes of universities would benefit academic teams in countering the problems of favoritism and discrimination. Barrett and Barrett (2007) discovered that academic staff prefer transparency in the allocation of academic workloads either on the basis of their knowledge or by information on work allocation schemes of universities that are published in the university handbooks. Wilborn et al. (2013) confirm that the heads of educational institutions have a role in the reasonable distribution of workload among faculty members due to challenges such as mismatches of subject specializations of faculty members during the allocation of teaching workloads, faculty members from different work cultures and experiences, and rigid guidelines regarding acceptance of allocated workloads. This research revealed that the managerial skills are required for the principals of educational institutions to overcome the challenges of balanced workload distribution among academic staff and to manage the intricacy in their jobs (Nnadozie 2015). Gopaul et al. (2016) realized that faculty members in universities perceive more autonomy in research related work assignments, and they concentrate less on procedures followed by heads of institutions in the allotment of teaching and other academic workloads. However, Kandiuk and Sonne de Torrens (2018) recognized that adding scholarly research to the normal workload of academic staff is a challenging practice in universities. Thus, to settle these issues in the allocation of justifiable workloads, Burgess (1996) recommends that universities follow procedural principles such as equity, feasibility, comprehensiveness, and transparency to avoid high workloads in universities. However, universities have their procedures to distribute equitable workloads among the academic staff by using several algorithms to manage the expected workload among various faculty members (Soliman and Soliman 1997; Graham 2015). Watanabe (2011) suggests that the formula-based workload schedules in universities improve the satisfaction of faculty members. It is evident that the academic staff perceived the fairness in workload distribution schemes because of the systematic approaches of universities in the preparation of teaching schedules. Dennison (2012) reveals that the planning of workload distribution schemes would vary from one institution to another because the workload distribution is mainly intended to stabilize the academic activities of institutions based on the planned instructional hours, research works, creative endeavors, scholarships, and community services. The Academic Workload in Saudi Universities According to the statistics of Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia, thirty-five universities (twenty-six public and nine private) with the network of 770 affiliated institutions are offering various academic programs in twenty-six disciplines (Smith and Abouammoh 2013). The composition of academic staff in the universities are professors (5.0%), associate professors (8.5%), assistant professors (28.5%), lecturers (23.5%), teaching assistants (25.5%), tutors (8.5%), and other supporting teaching staff (0.5%). In addition to teaching, some of them are also engaged with the academic administration work of universities. The majority of faculty members are recruited in the colleges of business and management (20%), followed by humanities (13%), Islamic studies (11%), teacher education (8%), and the remaining are working in departments such as educational sciences, life sciences, informatics, health, engineering, and social and behavioral sciences. As the majority of academic staff (78%) is in the ranks of assistant 3 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 MURAMALLA AND ALOTAIBI: EQUITABLE WORKLOAD AND PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC STAFF professors, lecturers, and teaching assistants, it is evident that the bulk of the teaching workload would be allocated among these faculty members working in various colleges. Most of the staff members are appointed for undergraduate courses (76%), followed by diploma courses (15%), higher diplomas (7%), masters (1.9%), and research degree courses (0.1%). Universities also recruited adjunct faculty members to manage the overall workload. The maximum teaching workload of faculty members in the universities is between ten teaching units to eighteen teaching units per week during a semester, which would vary between faculties and between public and private universities. The maximum teaching workload, as prescribed by the Higher Education Council of Saudi Arabia, is as follows: ten teaching units per week for professors, twelve teaching units for associate professors, fourteen teaching units for assistant professors, and sixteen-to-eighteen teaching units per week for other teaching assistants and support-teaching staff such as instructors (HEC 1998). The scheduled teaching workload includes lectures and class seminars whereas the non-scheduled teaching workload includes class work preparation, time for practical work in laboratories, labor for student assessments, research for the development of course materials, student counseling sessions, and the duties of examination supervision (Amey 1999). The workload of faculty members is linked to their research work, as they spend time to author the books, publish research papers, guide students in graduation projects, and implement granted research projects (Kenny and Fluck 2017). However, academic staff have differences in the time and effort needed for the preparation of lecture notes and services for community development (Botha and Swanepoel 2015). Demographics of Academic Staff in Saudi Universities The profile of academic staff in universities is as follows: male staff is 59 percent and female staff is 41 percent, Saudi nationals 60 percent with 45 percent female, non-Saudi staff 40 percent with 35 percent female. Nearly 70 percent of female staff are in the ranks of lecturer or lower positions. Academic staff awarded doctorates in different subjects account for 43 percent, and 30 percent of them are female. Others completed masters (26%), higher diplomas (1%), bachelor degrees (29%), diplomas (0.5%), and other degrees (1%). Among the staff members in administrative positions, 91 percent are Saudi nationals with 41 percent female; non-Saudis are 9 percent with 47 percent female. The academic administrative staff employed in various managerial positions of universities are deans of faculties, directors of academic programs and chairs, members of academic councils or college/department level committees, supervisors of departments, and course coordinators. Some of these staff members are in permanent management positions on academic boards, quality assurance committees, journal editorial boards, and organizing committees of conferences and seminars. The academic administration staff are mainly responsible for the smooth functioning of academic programs as well as the elaboration of course plans and class work schedules, and the development or renovation of the curricula and syllabi. However, university authorities are balancing the overall workload of this staff who serves in executive positions (Dowling-Hetherington 2014). The Need For This Study Universities have guidelines for the allocation of workload to faculty members (Paewai, Meyer and Houston 2007). However, there is dissatisfaction amongst the academic staff on fair workload distributions with the prevalence of discrimination, favoritism, partiality, and managerial biases as experienced in some universities (Hornibrook 2012). The ramifications of this apprehension together with the problems of unfairness and less transparency in the employment contracts of universities leads to the rise of work-related stress and burnout among academics, especially women who are more susceptible to these working conditions in universities (Boyd 2014; Melin, Astvik, and Bernhard-Oettel 2014; Peter et al. 2014; Mountz 4 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP 2016). Acton et al. (2015) advise that university authorities have to intervene in the implementation of balanced workload distribution schemes to reduce the stress of academic staff. Although academic staff are the professional elite, they are the backbone of universities, as are as teaching and research is concerned. As they have to concentrate more on teaching and research, administrative tasks are linked to the academic workload of the faculty members (Fox 1992; Crespo, Bertrand, and Canada 2013). Moreover, because of transformations in global education policies, universities are retaining academic staff with more research accomplishments than quality in teaching and academic services (Comm and Mathaisel 2003; Basaruddin et al. 2016; Alotaibi and Lone 2016). As a result, a conflict of roles arise in academic professionals (Md Yusoff et al. 2014). Subsequently, universities are prompted to manage the workloads of academics to continue their regular teaching, research, and administrative services without any difficulty in finding their contribution to each segment. (Blodgett, Blodgett and Kardong-Edgren 2018). Problem Statement As a general practice in universities, chairs of departments handle the allocation of workload to their faculty members (Cho et al. 2000). The overall academic workload of faculty members in universities is observed to be as such: 90 percent is in teaching, 53 percent is in administrative services, and 47 percent is in research activities (Seaberg 1998). However, these proportionate workloads may vary by public and private universities in Saudi Arabia, and they also vary by university policies and the stream of the student enrollment in academic programs. If there is any mismanagement in the distribution of academic workload, the academic staff feel more stress in teaching than in research and administrative works. This occupational stress affects the overall performance of academic staff (McLaughlin et al. 1981; Parveen 2013; Adrian et al. 2014). However, the general perseverance levels of occupational stress among the academics fluctuate between tenure-track professors and adjunct faculty members (Lawrence and Galle 2011). Academics who try to prove their credentials in research and publications do usually have more extended work hours in universities, and this causes them to fail in relishing weekends with their family members and to face nuances of work-life balance (Cannizzo and Osbaldiston 2016). Sometimes, workload allocations at higher levels lead to trajectories of exhaustion among teaching staff (Bentzen, Lemyre and Kenttä 2016). Psychological rewards, remunerations or financial benefits, and workload schemes of institutions have their impact on job satisfaction of academic staff (Jalal and Zaheer 2017). This research study was motivated by the desire to examine the perceptions of academic staff in Saudi Arabia concerning the general practices of universities for the allocation of equitable workloads in teaching, research, and administrative services. Study Questions Following questions are answered in this study. Question 1: What are the significant differences in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration? Question 2: What are the significant correlations in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration? 5 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 MURAMALLA AND ALOTAIBI: EQUITABLE WORKLOAD AND PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC STAFF THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP Following hypotheses adopted for this study: H1: There is a significant difference in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration. H2: There is a significant correlation in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration. Methodology This study discusses how the academic staff in Saudi Arabia perceive the general practices of universities for the distribution of equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration. It is different from past studies, which focused on managerial bias in the implementation of workload policies and occupational stress because of variable workloads as an outcome of inefficient systems of universities in fair workload allocation (Malcolm and Zukas 2009). This research mainly discusses the perceptions of academic staff as the unit for analysis based on the general practices of universities for equitable workload distribution rather than prejudices or apprehensions related to workload allocation policies and their implications on equitable workload distribution in the universities. It does mean that this study did not cover the technical issues in the allocation of academic workloads, such as the skill of academic staff, their knowledge, their talents and motivations, financial benefits, and their expertise in teaching, research, and administration. A sample of 256 academic staff members participated in this study chosen by stratified random sampling from the ten universities in Saudi Arabia. The academic staff consisted of professors, associate professors, assistant professors, lecturers, teaching assistants, tutors, and other supporting teaching staff. Some of them are serving in academic administration positions of deanships and some are below that rank in the universities. Respondents were 65 percent male, 35 percent female, 20 percent Saudi nationals, 80 percent non-Saudis, 69 percent in public universities, 31 percent in private universities, 78 percent full-time staff, 22 percent part-time staff, 60 percent working in science colleges, and 20 percent each in arts and other colleges. Of the participants, 73 percent has less than ten years of tenure, 27 percent had tenure of ten or more years. Participants were not asked to mention their age as well as their university name because this study aimed to preserve the anonymity of academic staff who participated in this study in order to get their exact responses in an honest way. By reviewing the literature, a comprehensive questionnaire was prepared on the general practices of universities for the distribution of balanced workloads to academic staff concerning three variables—teaching, research, and academic administration. In each variable (teaching, research, and academic administration), ten items were listed in the questionnaire as the summary of practices in ten selected universities for the equitable workload distribution. These study items are shown in Appendix 1. All the items are outlined in such a way that the participants would recall their own experiences of how their universities are allocating workloads to the academic staff in teaching, research, and academic administration. Responses were taken on a five-point Likert scale from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). After the pilot study of fifty academics in various educational institutions, the final questionnaire was distributed to 400 faculty members in the ten selected universities by using the convenience random sampling method and 256 fully completed questionnaires were received. The response rate was 64 percent. Cronbach’s alpha values for the items in three variables are between 0.76 and 0.84, and for all items, the alpha value is 0.79. Study results deliberated the perceptions of academic staff by using descriptive analysis and the Pearson correlation coefficient. 6 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 Study Hypotheses MURAMALLA AND ALOTAIBI: EQUITABLE WORKLOAD AND PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC STAFF The descriptive statistics in Table 1 reveal that significant differences ensued in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload distribution practices in the three variables of teaching, research, and academic administration. These significant differences are mainly correlated to gender, nationality, university, and tenure, but not by the nature of job contract and college. That is, in teaching, significant perceptional differences are augmented among academic staff by gender, nationality, university, contract, and tenure, but not by the college. In research as well as in academic administration, significant differences are established by gender, nationality, university, and tenure, but not by contract, and college. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of the Study (N = 256) Sample Type n Gender Male Female Saudi Non-Saudi Public Private Full Time Part Time Science Arts Others <10 Yrs. >= [≥?] 10 Yrs. 167 89 52 204 176 80 199 57 152 52 52 186 70 Nationality University Contract College Tenure Teaching Mean 30.56 25.88 32.00 28.17 30.36 25.79 29.43 27.19 29.43 28.54 27.87 30.15 25.70 SD 3.68 4.62 6.29 3.72 3.81 4.65 4.52 4.52 4.64 4.88 4.03 3.82 4.96 T p 8.85** 0.00 5.63** 0.00 8.29** 0.00 3.30** 0.00 2.52 0.08 7.63** 0.00 Research Mean 29.35 30.82 28.67 30.16 30.57 28.29 30.08 29.09 29.88 30.50 29.17 30.38 28.47 SD 4.89 4.61 5.42 4.65 4.55 5.11 4.79 4.99 4.99 4.59 4.61 4.50 5.44 T p 2.34* 0.02 1.98* 0.05 3.58** 0.00 1.37 0.17 0.98 0.38 2.85** 0.00 Academic administration Mean SD t 34.91 4.45 5.81** 31.07 5.99 38.73 6.46 8.75** 32.29 4.16 35.51 4.31 10.13** 29.33 4.97 33.78 5.31 1.17 32.84 5.48 34.03 5.52 32.50 5.39 1.65 33.33 4.70 35.26 4.31 9.59** 29.09 5.27 p 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.19 0.00 *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, Mean values have a minimum of 10 and a maximum 50 Source: Muramalla and Alotaibi There is a significant difference between male and female staff regarding perception of workloads in teaching when comparing research and academic administration. The t value in teaching is 8.85 with a ‘p’ value of 0.00, which is more than the ‘t’ and ‘p’ value of research and academic administration. Also male staff members have positive views toward academic administration (mean µ = 34.91, standard deviation σ = 4.45) than in teaching (µ = 30.56, σ = 3.68) and research (µ = 29.35, σ = 4.89), whereas female staff has more positive perceptions in academic administration (µ = 31.07, σ = 5.99) than in research (µ = 30.82, σ = 4.61) and teaching (µ = 25.88, σ = 4.62). Among the Saudis and non-Saudis, a more significant difference in perception was found in academic administration (t = 8.75, p = 0.00) than in teaching (t = 5.63, p = 0.00) and research (t = 1.98, p = 0.05). These two groups of the sample are proportionately toward agree scale in academic administration (µ ≥ 32.29, max = 50). Overall, by nationalities, this result indicated that Saudis are more positive regarding all three variables than non-Saudis are. The staff of public and private universities differed extremely in regards to academic administration (t = 10.13, p = 0.00) and teaching (t = 8.29, p = 0.00) compared to research (t = 3.58, p = 0.00). These two groups of the sample were more in accordance regarding academic administration (µ ≥ 29.33, max = 50). However, public university staff are more positive regarding all three variables than the private university staff. This finding would imply that the work culture of public and private universities influence perceptions of faculty members concerning equitable workloads in academic institutions. Academic staff with tenure of less than ten years and academic staff with tenure equal or more than ten years have a significant difference in academic administration (t = 9.59, p = 0.00) and teaching (t = 7.63, p = 0.00) than in research (t = 2.85, p = 0.00). These two groups of the sample are toward agree sale in academic administration (µ ≥ 29.09, max = 50). However, the staff with tenure of equal or more than ten years are more positive regarding all three variables. 7 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 Results Among the academic staff of different colleges, there is no significant difference in the perceptions concerning the three variables: teaching (t = 2.52, p = 0.08), research (t = 0.98, p = 0.38), and academic administration (t = 1.65, p = 0.19). Moreover, all college staff perceive academic administration work as more equitable than other categories (µ ≥ 32.50, max = 50) followed by research (µ ≥ 29.17, max = 50), and teaching (µ ≥ 27.87, max = 50). Between fulltime and part-time college staff, there is no significant difference in the perception concerning equitable workload in research (t = 1.37, p = 0.17) and academic administration (t = 1.17, p = 0.24), but significant perceptional difference concerning equitable workload in teaching (t = 3.30, p = 0.00). These two groups (male and female) perceive academic administration work as more equitable than teaching and research (µ ≥ 32.84, max = 50). However, the full-time faculty members are more positive regarding all three variables than the part-time staff. The correlation matrix of the three variables in Table 2 shows that there is a significant positive correlation between the three variables at p < 0.01. They are between teaching and academic administration (r = 0.75), teaching and research (r = 0.51), and between research and academic administration (r = 0.38). However, the perceptions of academic staff are more positively inclined toward the workload in academic administration (µ = 33.57 [67.14%], σ = 5.35) compared to research (µ = 29.86 [59.72%], σ = 4.84) and teaching (µ = 28.93 [57.86], σ = 4.60). Table 2: Correlation Matrix of Variables (N = 256) Variables Min Max Mean Std. Dev Research Correlation Teaching Research Academic Administration 10 10 50 50 28.93 29.86 4.60 4.84 0.51** 10 50 33.57 5.35 Academic Administration Correlation 0.75** 0.38** **p<0.01 Source: Muramalla and Alotaibi Table 3 shows the correlation of items in teaching (items in the three variables appended to this paper). There is a significant positive correlation between the items T3 and T4 (r = 0.14, p < 0.05) and T7 (r = 0.12, p < 0.05) i.e. between the items such as considering the seniority of teachers in the allocation of workload, considering the nature of job contracts, and providing input course materials to the allocated courses. Similarly, a significant correlation result between T7 and T9 (r = 0.16, p < 0.05), i.e., providing input materials to the allocated courses, and considering the medical or personal reasons in the allocation of teaching workloads. However, more positive views were found toward T1: allocation of equitable teaching hours (µ = 3.54, σ = 1.28), T8: adjustment of class work for those who applied for leave (µ = 3.01, σ = 1.56), and T10: proportionate allocation of office hours to teaching hours (µ = 3.03, σ = 1.56). 8 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP Items T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 Mean 3.54 2.07 2.89 2.98 2.96 2.65 2.84 3.01 2.96 3.03 Table 3: Correlation Matrix of Teaching (N = 256) Std. Dev. T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 1.28 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.06 1.31 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.00 1.49 0.14* 0.11 0.07 0.12* 1.48 0.03 0.06 0.07 1.43 0.04 0.04 1.41 0.03 1.49 1.56 1.55 1.56 T8 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.04 T9 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.16* 0.00 T10 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.04 *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, T1 through T10 are questionnaire items regarding teaching workload Source: Muramalla and Alotaibi Table 4 shows the correlations between the items in this research. Five combinations of items have significant positive relationship at p < 0.05: R1 and R2 (r = 0.17), R2 and R5 (r = 0.14), R3 and R4 (r = 0.13), R6 and R7 (r = 0.12), and R7 and R8 (r = 0.15). R1 and R2 are between who published research papers and who presented papers at conferences. R2 and R5 are between who presented papers at conferences and who received external research grants. R3 and R4 are between who received internal research grants and who were involved in collaborative research. R6 and R7 are between sanction of leave to complete research and who received more research funds. R7 and R8 are between who received more research funds and who conducted surveys and laboratory experiments. However, the academic staff were more positive toward R4: balance of workload to those who are involved in collaborative research (µ = 3.03, σ = 1.56), and R7 through R10 (µ > 3.00, σ between 1.47 and 1.59). Items Mean R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 2.96 2.86 2.93 3.02 2.98 2.70 3.02 3.05 3.14 3.20 Std. Dev. 1.54 1.57 1.59 1.57 1.56 1.52 1.59 1.54 1.58 1.47 Table 4: Correlation Matrix of Research (N = 256) R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 0.17* 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.13* 0.03 0.14* 0.10 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.12* 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.15* R9 R10 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.05 *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, R1 through R10 are questionnaire items regarding research workload Source: Muramalla and Alotaibi Table 5 shows the correlation between the questionnaire items regarding academic administration. Four combinations have a significant positive relationship at p < 0.05: A2 and A6 (r = 0.12), A2 and A8 (r = 0.12), A4 and A10 (r = 0.12), and A7 and A9 (r = 0.12). A2 and A6 are between those who work in academic committees and those who are involved in community development programs. A2 and A8 are between those who work in academic committees and those who guide the students’ research projects. A4 and A10 are between those who participate in student tours and those who are involved in administrative assistance work. A7 and A9 are 9 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 MURAMALLA AND ALOTAIBI: EQUITABLE WORKLOAD AND PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC STAFF between those who are involved in examination supervision and those who give training and motivation to students. Two combinations of items are highly significant at p < 0.01: A5 and A10, A6 and A9. A5 and A10 are between those who organize students’ cultural events and those who help in administrative assistance. A6 and A9 are between those who are involved in community development activities and those who train and motivate students. However, all the items of academic administration resulted in positive perceptions (µ > 3.00, σ between 1.43 and 1.58). Items A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 Table 5: Correlation Matrix of Academic Administration (N = 256) Std. A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 Mean Dev. 3.48 1.45 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.13 0.09 3.57 1.43 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.12* 0.01 0.12* 0.04 3.23 1.52 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.10 3.27 1.50 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.06 3.30 1.56 0.02 0.10 0.07 0.01 3.43 1.51 0.11 0.03 0.22** 3.38 1.56 0.07 0.12* 3.04 1.54 0.06 3.34 1.58 3.54 1.53 A10 0.12 0.09 0.01 0.12* 0.18** 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.09 *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, A1 through A10 are questionnaire items regarding academic administration workload Source: Muramalla and Alotaibi Table 6 shows the hypotheses results. H1 and H2 are accepted. Therefore, this study exposed significant differences as well as significant correlations in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload distribution in teaching, research, and academic administration. Table 6: Hypotheses Results. Hypotheses H1: There is a significant difference in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration. H2: There is a significant correlation in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration. Results Accepted Accepted Source: Muramalla and Alotaibi Findings This study makes known that academic staff positively perceive equitable workload distribution practices of universities in teaching, research, and academic administration. They slightly agreed that the workload in teaching is equitable as well as in research and administrative work. As far as male and female staff is concerned, male staff members are more favorable to the equitable workload in teaching as well as in academic administration. Saudi Arabian faculty members perceived workloads in teaching and academic administration as equitable, whereas non-Saudis are more optimistic about the workload balance in research activities. Public university staff, as well as the full-time staff in the universities, have a more favorable perception regarding the balanced workload distribution in all three variables than their counterparts. Faculties of all colleges are more optimistic regarding fair workload in academic administration, but they are moderately confident about balanced workload in teaching and research. Academic staff with 10 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP MURAMALLA AND ALOTAIBI: EQUITABLE WORKLOAD AND PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC STAFF Question 1: What are the significant differences in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration? The study results illustrate that academic staff in universities significantly differs in their perceptions concerning equitable workloads in the three variables: teaching, research, and academic administration. As groups by sample type, in all the three variables, significant difference was found between the male and female staff, Saudis and non-Saudis, public and private university staff, and tenured for more than ten years and equal or more than ten years. Though full-time and part-time staff have a significant difference in their views regarding equitable workload of teaching, they did not significantly differ in research and academic administration. College-wise there is no significant difference resulting from all the three variables. Specifically, in teaching, the academic staff’s perceptions differed immensely by gender followed by the type of university, tenure, nationality, and type of contract. The research indicated that male and female staff have different perceptions. After ten years of service, they perceptions of equitability change from teaching as most equitable to research. Overall, by gender, academic staff perceptions differ as far as teaching, research, and administrative work is concerned. By nationality, the perception/opinion differs as far as teaching, research, and administrative work is concerned. By the type of university, they profoundly deviated in academic administration and teaching compared to research. This is due to the type of job contracts foreigners have. By tenure, they diverged in regards to academic administration and teaching compared to research. As a final point, hypothesis H1 is accepted because of significant differences in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration. Question 2: What are the significant correlations in the perceptions of academic staff concerning equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration? The results of this study indicate that the academic staff of universities have a significant positive correlation in their perceptions concerning equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration. Teaching, research, and academic administration are considerably connected perceptional correlations. The remarkable relationship in their perceptions is found between teaching and academic administration as well as between teaching and research, and research and academic administration. It would imply that the academic staff have similar views in teaching, research, and academic administration. Regarding equitable workload in teaching, the perceptions of academic staff are significantly related because of the consideration of seniority of teachers; the same workload was compared with full-time and part-time staff. In this research, the opinions of academic staff are significantly co-related because of balancing the workload of such faculty members who publish research papers, present papers in conferences, receive external research grants, receive internal research funds, are involved in collaborative research, etc. In addition to this, faculty members who are involved in academic administration, their views of academic staff are significantly associated to each other. In administration, consideration is given to student discussion hours, administrative assistance work, academic committees’ work, community development work, students’ research advising, student study tours, examination supervision work, and student motivation training hours in overall workload. Finally, hypothesis H2 is accepted because of highly significant perceptional correlations resulting between teaching, research, and academic administration. 11 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 more than ten years of tenure perceive workloads in all three variables as equitable. However, this study mainly answered two questions. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP Perceptions of academic staff are discussed in this paper concerning equitable workload in teaching, research, and academic administration. Previous studies on this topic are of a different opinion in the sense that there is not unity as far as perception is concerned. It has found that there is discrimination either wholly or partiality in the distribution of work among faculty members in higher education institutions cause negative implications such as favoritism, occupational stress, low motivation, and less involvement in academic work. Even though universities have clear guidelines for the distribution of academic workloads among faculty members, still some misconceptions arise among academic staff and that is why this is an important aspect of research (Langford 2010). Hence, this study examined the perceptions of the academic staff in Saudi Arabia concerning the general practices of universities for the equitable distribution of workload in teaching, research, and academic administration. Since this study was held in Saudi Arabia, the agency that oversees the qualification frameworks of university degrees in Saudi Arabia is vital in this study for understanding the nature of workloads of academic staff in the higher education institutions. The study results indicated that there are fewer concerns of academic staff in Saudi universities about the equitable distribution of academic workloads because the sample of 256 staff members from ten universities positively responded to all the practices for equitable workload distribution. Their views are significantly correlated to equitable workload distribution. Nevertheless, their perceptions significantly differed as far as gender, nationality, university, and tenure is concerned, but they are united in their outlook irrespective of their job contracts and the colleges (like arts, science, and others) where they are working. Previous researchers discussed the various methods, formulas, schemes, and practices for equitable distribution of workloads among academic staff, but this study highlighted some general practices of universities that would benefit the top management of education institutions in the allocation of equitable workloads in teaching, research, and academic administration. It is felt that when there is a need for equitable distribution of workloads among the academic staff of different ranks, tenures, administrative positions, subject specializations, and research exposure, this study’s results will play a pivotal role in understanding the views of academic staff for balancing workloads in teaching, research, and academic administration. Future researchers could consider other practices that also support the management of equitable academic workload distribution in higher education institutions. 12 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 Conclusion MURAMALLA AND ALOTAIBI: EQUITABLE WORKLOAD AND PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC STAFF Acton, Robert D., Jeffrey G. Chipman, Michelle Lunden, and Connie C. Schmitz. 2015. “Unanticipated Teaching Demands Rise with Simulation Training: Strategies for Managing Faculty Workload.” Journal of Surgical Education72 (3): 522–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.10.013. Adrian, C. Mitchell, Susie S. Cox, Lonnie D. Phelps, Barbara A. Schuldt, and Jeff W. Totten. 2014. “Issues Causing Stress among Business Faculty Members.” Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education 10 (1): 41–46. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1140903.pdf. Agrawala, A.K., and J.M. Mohr. 1975. “A Model for Workload Characterization.” In ANSS ‘75 Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Simulation of Computer Systems, edited by Harold Joseph Highland, 9–12. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press. https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/model-workload-characterization/. Alotaibi, K. A., and Lone F.A. 2016. “Islamic Banking and Finance Education: A Comparative Study of Saudi Arabia and the UK.” International Journal of Economic Research 13 (7): 2651–62. Amey, Marilyn J. 1999. “Faculty Culture and College Life: Reshaping Incentives toward Student Outcomes.” New Directions for Higher Education 1999 (105): 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.10505. Apaydin, Cigdem. 2012. “The Workload of Faculty Members: The Example of Educational Faculties in Turkey.” College Student Journal 46 (1): 203–13. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. 2014. Overseeing Educational Quality: A How-To Guide for Boards of Universities and Colleges. Washington, DC: ABG Consulting. https://www.agb.org/sites/default/files/legacy/ OverseeingEducationalQuality.pdf. Barrett, Lucinda, and Peter Barrett. 2007. “Current Practice in the Allocation of Academic Workloads.” Higher Education Quarterly 61 (4): 461–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2007.00367.x. Basarudin, Noor Ashikin, Asmah Laili Yeon, Nurli Yaacob, and Rohana Abd Rahman. 2016. “Transformation of Higher Education Status : Issues on Faculty Workload.” The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, edited by Bahtiar Mohamad, 226–35. n.p.: Future Academy. https://www.futureacademy.org.uk/files/images/upload/ ISSC%202016%2032.pdf. Bentzen, Marte, Pierre-Nicolas Lemyre, and Göran Kenttä. 2016. “Development of Exhaustion for High-Performance Coaches In Association with Workload and Motivation: A Person-Centered Approach.” Psychology of Sport and Exercise 22 (January): 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.06.004. Bernasconi, Andres. 2003. “Organizational Diversity in Chilean Higher Education: Faculty Regimes in Private and Public Universities.” PhD diss., Boston University. Bitzer, EM. 2007. “Attempting a Fair and Equitable Academic Workload Distribution in a Faculty of Education.” South African Journal of Higher Education 21 (1): 23–37. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajhe/article/view/25599. Blodgett, Nicole Petsas, Thomas Blodgett, and Suzan E. Kardong-Edgren. 2018. “A Proposed Model for Simulation Faculty Workload Determination.” Clinical Simulation in Nursing 18 (May): 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.01.003. Botha, P. A., and Swanepoel, S. 2015. “Allocation of Academic Workloads in the Faculty of Human and Social Sciences at a South African University.” Africa Education Review 12 (3): 398–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2015.1110902. Boyd, Leanne. 2014. “Exploring the Utility of Workload Models in Academe: A Pilot Study.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 36 (3): 315–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.899050. 13 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 REFERENCES Burgess, T. F. 1996. “Planning the Academic’s Workload: Different Approaches to Allocating Work to University Academics.” Higher Education 32 (1): 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139218. Cannizzo, Fabian, and Nick Osbaldiston. 2016. “Academic Work/Life Balance: A Brief Quantitative Analysis of the Australian Experience.” Journal of Sociology 52 (4): 890– 906. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783315600803. Chantrapornhchai, Chantana. 2012. “Development of a Faculty Work Load System.” International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector 4 (3): 71–86. https://doi.org/10.4018/jisss.2012070106. Chipman-Johnson, Rhonda. 2008. “Faculty Workload: Towards a More Equitable Assignment and Evaluation.” The International Journal of Bahamian Studies 7: 48–62. https://doi.org/10.15362/ijbs.v7i0.18. Cho, Mildred K., Ryo Shohara, Anna Schissel, and Drummond Rennie. 2000. “Policies on Faculty Conflicts of Interest at US Universities.” Journal of the American Medical Association 284 (17): 2203–08. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.17.2203. Cohen, Marlene Z., Joanne V. Hickey, and Sandra L. Upchurch. 2009. “Faculty Workload Calculation.” Nursing Outlook 57 (1): 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2008.07.004. Colbeck, Carol L. 2002. “Integration: Evaluating Faculty Work as a Whole.” New Directions for Institutional Research 2002 (114): 43–52. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/ 10.1002/ir.45. Comm, Clare L., and Dennis F.X. Mathaisel. 2003. “A Case Study of the Implications of Faculty Workload and Compensation for Improving Academic Quality.” International Journal of Educational Management 17 (5): 200–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540310484922. Crespo, Manuel, and Denis Bertrand. 2013. Faculty Workload in a Research Intensive University : A Case Study. Montreal: CIRANO. https://www.cirano.qc.ca/files/ publications/2013RP-11.pdf. Dennison, George M. 2012. “Faculty Workload: An Analytical Approach.” Innovative Higher Education 37 (4): 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9211-y. Dobele, Angela, Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, Foula Kopanidis, and Marion Steel. 2010. “All Things Being Equal: Observing Australian Individual Academic Workloads.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32 (3): 225–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600801003743323. Dowling-Hetherington, Linda. 2014. “The Changing Demands of Academic Life in Ireland.” International Journal of Educational Management 28 (2): 141–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2013-0021. Fairweather, James S., and Robert A. Rhoads. 1995. “Teaching and the Faculty Role: Enhancing the Commitment to Instruction in American Colleges and Universities.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17 (2): 179–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164560. Fox, Mary Frank. 1992. “Research, Teaching, and Publication Productivity: Mutuality versus Competition in Academia.” Sociology of Education 65 (4): 293–305. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ461837. Gopaul, Bryan, Glen A Jones, Julian Weinrib, Amy Metcalfe, Donald Fisher, Yves Gingras, and Kjell Rubenson. 2016. “The Academic Profession in Canada: Perceptions of Canadian University Faculty about Research and Teaching.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 46 (2): 55–77. http://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/download/ 185269/pdf/. 14 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP Graham, Andrew T. 2015. “Academic Staff Performance and Workload in Higher Education in the UK: The Conceptual Dichotomy.” Journal of Further and Higher Education 39 (5): 665–79. http://ubir.bolton.ac.uk/692/1/Andrew%20Graham%20%20Academic%20staff %20performance%20and%20workload.pdf. ———. 2016. “Role of Academic Managers in Workload and Performance Management of Academic Staff.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44 (6): 1042– 63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215587312. Henderson, Richard L, and Absael Antelo. 2010. “Ethics and Values in the Context of Teaching Excellence in the Changing World of Education.” Journal of College Teaching & Learning 7 (3): 5–11. Hesseldenz, Jon S. 1976. “Personality-based Faculty Workload Analysis.” Research in Higher Education 5 (4): 321–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993431. Higher Education Council (HEC). 1998. “Draft Copy of the University Regulations for Saudi Personnel Including Staff Members and the Like.” Majmaah University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. https://www.mu.edu.sa/sites/default/files/content/2016/01/Regulations %20for%20Saudi%20Universities%20Personnel.pdf. Hornibrook, Sue. 2012. “Policy Implementation and Academic Workload Planning in the Managerial University: Understanding Unintended Consequences.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 34 (1): 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.642329. Houston, Don, Luanna H. Meyer, and Shelley Paewai. 2006. “Academic Staff Workloads and Job Satisfaction: Expectations and Values in Academe.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 28 (1): 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800500283734. Hull, Richard. 2006. “Workload Allocation Models and ‘Collegiality’ in Academic Departments.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 19 (1): 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810610643677. Jalal, Raja Nabeel-Ud-Din, and Muhammad Asif Zaheer. 2017. “Does Job Satisfaction Mediate the Relationship of Workload, Remuneration and Psychological Reward with Job Performance?” International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 7 (9): 64–79. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v7-i9/3309. Kandiuk, Mary, and Harriet M. Sonne de Torrens. 2018. “Academic Freedom and Librarians’ Research and Scholarship in Canadian Universities.” College & Research Libraries 79 (7): 931–47. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.7.931. Kenny, John. 2018. “Re-empowering Academics in a Corporate Culture: An Exploration of Workload and Performativity in a University.” Higher Education 75 (2): 365–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0143-z. Kenny, John D.J., and Andrew Edward Fluck. 2014. “The Effectiveness of Academic Workload Models in an Institution: A Staff Perspective.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 36 (6): 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2014.957889. ———. 2017. “Towards a Methodology to Determine Standard Time Allocations for Academic Work.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 39 (5): 503–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1354773. Kordzadze, Maka1. 2013. “Solving Problems of Inequity in Academic Staff Workload Distribution.” GESJ: Education Sciences & Psychology 24 (2): 39–48. http://gesj.internet-academy.org.ge/download.php?id=2147.pdf. Kyvik, Svein. 2012. “Academic Workload and Working Time: Retrospective Perceptions versus Time-Series Data.” Higher Education Quarterly 67 (1): 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12001. Langford, Peter H. 2010. “Benchmarking Work Practices and Outcomes in Australian Universities Using an Employee Survey.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32 (1): 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800903440543. 15 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 MURAMALLA AND ALOTAIBI: EQUITABLE WORKLOAD AND PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC STAFF Lawrence, Holly, and William P. Galle. 2011. “Tenure, Status, and Workload: Fundamental Issues among Business Communication Faculty.” International Journal of Business Communication 48 (3): 319–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943611406276. Malcolm, Janice, and Miriam Zukas. 2009. “Making a Mess of Academic Work: Experience, Purpose, and Identity.” Teaching in Higher Education 14 (5): 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510903186659. McCarthy, Greg, Xianlin Song, and Kanishka Jayasuriya. 2017. “The Proletarianisation of Academic Labour in Australia.” Higher Education Research and Development 36 (5): 1017–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1263936. McLaughlin, Gerald W., James R. Montgomery, Archer R. Gravely, and Beatrice T. Mahan. 1981. “Factors in Teacher Assignments: Measuring Workload by Effort.” Research in Higher Education 14 (1): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00995366. Md Yusoff, Rosman Bin, Anwar Khan, Mazen F. Rasheed, and Alamzeb Aamir. 2014. “Effects of Social Support on Faculty Workload and Performance.” Review of European Studies 6 (2): 95–103. https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v6n2p95. Melin, Marika, Wanja Astvik, and Claudia Bernhard-Oettel. 2014. “New Work Demands in Higher Education. A Study of the Relationship between Excessive Workload, Coping Strategies, and Subsequent Health among Academic Staff.” Quality in Higher Education 20 (3): 290–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2014.979547. Mountz, Alison. 2016. “Women on the Edge: Workplace Stress at Universities in North America.” The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 60 (2): 205–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12277. Mustapha, Noraani, and Wee Yu Ghee. 2013. “Examining Faculty Workload as a Single Antecedent of Job Satisfaction among Higher Public Education Staff in Kelantan, Malaysia.” Business and Management Horizons 1 (1): 10–16. https://doi.org/10.5296/bmh.v1i1.3205. Nnadozie, Remigius C. 2015. “A Model for Management of Workload of Academic Staff at a Developing University.” Corporate Ownership and Control 12 (4 Continued 4): 462– 66. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv12i4c4p4. O’Meara, KerryAnn, Alexandra Kuvaeva, Gudrun Nyunt, Chelsea Waugaman, and Rose Jackson. 2017. “Asked More Often: Gender Differences in Faculty Workload in Research Universities and the Work Interactions that Shape Them.” American Educational Research Journal 54 (6): 1154–86. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217716767. Ocvirk, Aleksandra, and Nada Trunk Širca. 2012. “Academic Workload Management towards Learning, Components of Academic Work: A Case Study.” International Journal of Innovation and Learning 11 (3): 268–87. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2012.046066. Paewai, Shelley R., Luanna H. Meyer, and Don J. Houston. 2007. “Problem Solving Academic Workloads Management: A University Response.” Higher Education Quarterly 61 (3): 375–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2007.00360.x. Papadopoulos, Angelika. 2017. “The Mismeasure of Academic Labour.” Higher Education Research and Development 36 (3): 511–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1289156. Parks, Donald J., Marvin C. Gabert, Stephen B. Affleck, and Hahns J. Kuhr. 1998. “Quantifying Academic Faculty Workloads.” Paper presented at 1998 Annual Conference, Seattle, Washington, June 28–July 1, 1998. https://peer.asee.org/7379. Parveen, Musrrat. 2013. “Faculty Stress in a Saudi Government University.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 3 (18): 180–92. http://www.ijhssnet.com/ journals/Vol_3_No_18_October_2013/19.pdf. 16 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP Peter, Philip Wambua, Samuel Otor, Gorretti Ofafa, and L. Ngonzo Cush. 2014. “Teaching Workload Analysis for Performance Contracting and Service Delivery in the Academic Setting of Kenya.” International Journal of Innovative Research & Development 3 (5): 680–93. http://www.internationaljournalcorner.com/index.php/ijird_ojs/article/view/135035. Robbins, Susan P. 2013. “From the Editor—Balancing the Personal and Professional in an Era of Transformed Faculty Roles.” Journal of Social Work Education 49 (2): 191–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2013.774929. Seaberg, James R. 1998. “Faculty Reports of Workload: Results of a National Survey.” Journal of Social Work Education 34 (1): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.1998.10778901. Selfa, Lance A., Natalie Suter, Sharon Myers, Shaun Koch, Robert A. Johnson, Daniel A. Zahs, Brian D. Kuhr, and Sameer Y, Abraham. 1997. 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF: 93), Data File User’s Manual. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97466.pdf. Shaw, Graham. 2005. “The Changing Role of Faculty.” In Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, edited by Caroline Howard, Judith V. Boettcher, Lorraine Justice, Karen D. Schenk, Patricia L. Rogers, and Gary A. Berg, 224–30. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-555-9.ch032. Smith, Larry, and Abdulrahman Abouammoh. 2013. “Higher Education in Saudi Arabia: Reforms, Challenges and Priorities.” In Higher Education in Saudi Arabia edited by Larry Smith and Abdulrahman Abouammoh, 1–12. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6321-0_1. Soliman, Izabel, and Hani Soliman. 1997. “Academic Workload and Quality.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 22 (2): 135–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293970220204. Teater, Barbra, and Natasha Mendoza. 2018. “Workload of Social Work Academics and Factors that Contribute to Time Spent on Research.” Journal of Social Work Education 54 (2): 250–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2017.1404520. Tien, Flora F., and Robert T. Blackburn. 1996. “Faculty Rank System, Motivation, and Faculty Research Productivity: Measure Refinement and Theory Testing.” The Journal of Higher Education 67 (1): 2–22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2943901?seq= 1#page_ scan_tab_contents. Watanabe, Satoshi P. 2011. “Impacts of University Education Reform on Faculty Perceptions of Workload.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 31 (4): 407–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2011.621602. Wilborn, Teresa W., Erin M. Timpe, Susanna Wu-Pong, Michael L. Manolakis, James A. Karboski, David R. Clark, and Ralph J. Altiere. 2013. “Factors Influencing Faculty Perceptions of Teaching Workload.” Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 5 (1): 9–13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1877129712000950?via%3Dihub. 17 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 MURAMALLA AND ALOTAIBI: EQUITABLE WORKLOAD AND PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC STAFF THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP Items in Three Variables Item 1 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 2 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 3 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 18 General Practices of Universities for the Equitable Distribution of Workload Teaching Teaching hours are equitably allotted among course instructors. Practical, laboratory, or exercise hours are considered in the allocation of workload. Seniority of teachers is considered during the allocation of workload. Class work is equitably allocated for full-time and part-time staff. Teaching assignments are allotted by teachers’ subject specializations. Courses are allocated based on earlier courses taught in similar sessions. Course-related materials are provided as inputs to the allotted courses. Class work is adjusted to the teachers who apply for leave. Medical or personal reasons are considered during the allocation of workload. Office hours are proportionately allotted to teaching hours. Research Workload is balanced for those who are publishing research papers. Workload is balanced for those who are presenting papers in conferences or seminars. Workload is balanced for those who are granted internal research funds. Workload is balanced for those who are involved in collaborative research. Workload is balanced for those who are receiving research grants from external agencies. Workload is balanced for those who are applying for leave to complete research. Workload is balanced for those who are receiving a good weight and a large number of research funds. Workload is balanced for those those who participate in field surveys or laboratory experiments. Workload is balanced for those who need special assistance and free time to complete the research work. Workload is balanced for those who are motivating peer groups and promoting research. Academic Administration Work hours of academic committees are equitably allocated. Work hours of academic committees are considered during the allocation of the overall workload. Work hours of students’ advising and counseling are equitably allocated. Work hours of students’ advising and counseling sessions are considered in the allocation of overall workload. Work hours for organizing students’ study tours or excursions are considered in the allocation of overall workload. Work hours for conducting the students’ discussions or organizing students’ cultural events are considered in the allocation of overall workload. Work hours for community development activities are considered in the allocation of overall workload. Work hours of examination supervision duties are equitably allocated. Work hours of guidance for students’ graduation projects are equitably allocated. Work hours for students’ motivation training are considered in the allocation of overall workload. Work hours of any administrative assistance services are considered in the allocation of overall workload. Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 APPENDIX 1 MURAMALLA AND ALOTAIBI: EQUITABLE WORKLOAD AND PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC STAFF Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla: Assistant Professor, College of Business Administration, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Hotat Bani Tamim, Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia Khalid Abdullah Alotaibi: Associate Professor, College of Education, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj, Riyadh Province, Saudi Arabia 19 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 ABOUT THE AUTHORS The journal inquires into the nature and processes of effective educational administration and leadership. As well as articles of a traditional scholarly type, this journal invites presentations of practice—including documentation of organizational and leadership practices, and exegeses of the effects of those practices. The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal. ISSN: 2329-1656 Downloaded by Venkata Sai Srinivasa Rao Muramalla on Thu Oct 03 2019 at 02:09:21 AM +03 The International Journal of Educational Organization and Leadership is one of ten thematically focused journals in the collection of journals that support The Learner Research Network—its journals, book series, conference, and online community.