FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W108887979> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W108887979 abstract "This paper assesses public and private, four-year college or university faculty satisfaction in the context of the complexity of satisfaction and the importance of the interaction between faculty professional values or expectations and institutional values. Satisfaction is defined as the extent to which faculty perceive that the institution provides a climate ensuring professional autonomy and activity commensurate with specialized expertise. Data were obtained from the 19-item Likert-type scale used on the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty, 1988; a parallel analysis was also performed to provide additional confirmation of results. Mission was classified by four of the Carnegie categories for baccalaureate-granting institutions: research, doctoral, comprehensive, and liberal arts. The most noteworthy results center around the complexity of satisfaction and the need for congruence of institutional mission and individual goals. A principal components analysis was conducted for items reflecting satisfaction that yielded three distinct factors associated with satisfaction: collegiality, workload, and autonomy. Analysis of variance procedures determined that there is a significant effect of mission on satisfaction with collegiality and workload but not with autonomy. Findings confirm the complexity of faculty satisfaction based on a very strong need for collegiality between faculty and between faculty and administration. Implications for research include the challenge to expand the exploration of faculty satisfaction by includ,ng the influence of personal professional variables, such as tenure status and academic discipline. (Contains 19 references.) (Author,. _V) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** ts, Faculty Satisfaction with Institutional Support as a Complex Concept: Collegiality, Workload, Autonomy Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The American Educational Research Association April 10, 1996 New York, NY Elizabeth B. Pollicino, Ed.D. St. John's University, New York U 5 DEPARTMENT or EDUCATION Reearr EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER !ERIC, Th:s document has been reproduced as recoNed from /Ile perc on or oNginaling 11 Moor changes have heen made In arpnwe reproduct.on clualdy Pool, of yloy Or Op..110,1, stated In Itoc dutumenI rIo noI necessdi,;, aifit mai OEHI )n pnImny PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Elizabeth B. Pollicino TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION (.1 Ni H +PIC BEST COPY AVAILABLE Faculty Satisfaction with Institutional Support as a Complex Concept: Collegiality, Workload, Autonomy Elizabeth B. Pollicino, Ed.D. St. John's University, New York ABSTRACT The last decade of the Twentieth Century has witnessed unprecedented challenges to the structure and culture of higher education. The shrinking availability of grant support coupled with public demand for accountability has resulted in criticism from within and outside the academy, escalating competition among faculty to atuact external funding and internal resources, and increasing the tension between research and teaching. The purpose of this study was to consider faculty satisfaction in the context of two premises: first, the complexity of satisfaction, and second, the importance of the interaction between faculty professional values (expectations) and the institutional values (norms, culture) manifest in the mission. Data was obtained from the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty 1988 (NSOPF-88). College/university mission was represented by institutional type categorized by Carnegie classification: Research, Doctoral, Comprehensive, and Liberal Arts (Carnegie Council, 1987). Principal Components Analysis was conducted for items reflecting satisfaction, which was determined to consist of three factors: Collegiality, Workload, and Autonomy. Next, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedures determined that there was a significant effect of mission on satisfaction with collegiality and workload but not autonomy.The last decade of the Twentieth Century has witnessed unprecedented challenges to the structure and culture of higher education. The shrinking availability of grant support coupled with public demand for accountability has resulted in criticism from within and outside the academy, escalating competition among faculty to atuact external funding and internal resources, and increasing the tension between research and teaching. The purpose of this study was to consider faculty satisfaction in the context of two premises: first, the complexity of satisfaction, and second, the importance of the interaction between faculty professional values (expectations) and the institutional values (norms, culture) manifest in the mission. Data was obtained from the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty 1988 (NSOPF-88). College/university mission was represented by institutional type categorized by Carnegie classification: Research, Doctoral, Comprehensive, and Liberal Arts (Carnegie Council, 1987). Principal Components Analysis was conducted for items reflecting satisfaction, which was determined to consist of three factors: Collegiality, Workload, and Autonomy. Next, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedures determined that there was a significant effect of mission on satisfaction with collegiality and workload but not autonomy." @default.
• W108887979 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W108887979 creator A5059667399 @default.
• W108887979 date "1996-04-10" @default.
• W108887979 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W108887979 title "Faculty Satisfaction with Institutional Support as a Complex Concept: Collegiality, Workload, Autonomy." @default.
• W108887979 cites W1558097898 @default.
• W108887979 cites W1978684417 @default.
• W108887979 cites W1985237176 @default.
• W108887979 cites W1997750882 @default.
• W108887979 cites W2022925980 @default.
• W108887979 cites W2047671856 @default.
• W108887979 cites W205818908 @default.
• W108887979 cites W2064346581 @default.
• W108887979 cites W2088477804 @default.
• W108887979 cites W580615780 @default.
• W108887979 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W108887979 type Work @default.
• W108887979 sameAs 108887979 @default.
• W108887979 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W108887979 countsByYear W1088879792012 @default.
• W108887979 countsByYear W1088879792013 @default.
• W108887979 countsByYear W1088879792019 @default.
• W108887979 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W108887979 hasAuthorship W108887979A5059667399 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C105776082 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C2718322 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C2776893095 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C2778058428 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C2778476105 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C51067260 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C65414064 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W108887979 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C105776082 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C120912362 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C138496976 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C15744967 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C162324750 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C17744445 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C187736073 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C19417346 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C199539241 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C2718322 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C2776893095 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C2778058428 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C2778476105 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C39549134 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C509550671 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C51067260 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C65414064 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C71924100 @default.
• W108887979 hasConceptScore W108887979C77805123 @default.
• W108887979 hasLocation W1088879791 @default.
• W108887979 hasOpenAccess W108887979 @default.
• W108887979 hasPrimaryLocation W1088879791 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W1515485404 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W1576963648 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W1583807634 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W2019955015 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W2042288144 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W2070659998 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W2071570210 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W2138758011 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W2274778749 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W2325460455 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W2383269403 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W2743922494 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W278811414 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W2965897578 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W3009423829 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W3097241198 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W3201030577 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W57212408 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W3024828034 @default.
• W108887979 hasRelatedWork W3108792212 @default.
• W108887979 isParatext "false" @default.
• W108887979 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W108887979 magId "108887979" @default.
• W108887979 workType "article" @default.