• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Factors that contribute to overall job satisfaction among faculty at a large public land-grant university in the Midwest

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2011
Dissertation
Author: Trina Jo Ramirez
Abstract:
Previous research studies have indicated that academic workplaces that do not acknowledge the multidimensional lives of faculty constitute an unsupportive and unwelcoming environment especially for women faculty who undertake both an academic career and motherhood. In recent years, institutions of higher education have adopted and made available to their faculty dependent care policies that extend beyond the federally mandated Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. These policies include, among others, options that allow faculty members with dependents to elect to stop the tenure clock or to modify their workload (e.g., work part time and reduce course loads and service commitments) for a specified period of time in order to focus on caregiving responsibilities. Although faculty job satisfaction has been a widely researched topic (e.g., August & Waltman, 2004; Hagedorn, 1996; Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002; Near & Sorcinelli, 1986; Rosser, 2004; Schuster & Finklestein, 2006), few if any studies have measured the impact of dependent care policies on faculty members' global job satisfaction. This study tested an empirical model to determine the factors, dependent care policies among others, that contribute to overall job satisfaction among tenured and tenure-track faculty at a large public land-grant university in the Midwest and investigated differences between men and women. This study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the model. Data were collected from Iowa State University (ISU) faculty in 2008 using the Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) Faculty Satisfaction Survey. Participants for this study included 644 tenured or tenure-track faculty members who held the position of assistant, associate, or full professor at ISU. Results were analyzed for all faculty, middle-aged faculty, senior faculty, and men and women. The results indicated that dependent care policies had a negligible direct effect on faculty job satisfaction; a strong and positive effect on academic resources; and a positive and moderate effect on relational support, which proved to be a statistically significant pathway across all samples tested. The findings of this study provide valuable insight for educators and policy makers who are interested in factors that contribute to overall job satisfaction for female and male faculty members at a large research institution in the Midwest.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................... vi

ABSTRACT .... ................................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1

Problem ...........................................................................................................................2

Purpose............................................................................................................................4

Research Questions .........................................................................................................4

Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................6

Significance of the Study .................................................................................................6

Definitions of Key Terms and Acronyms .........................................................................7

Summary .........................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................9

Review of Relevant Literature .........................................................................................9

Faculty Job Satisfaction .............................................................................................9

Faculty Members as Caregivers ............................................................................... 12

Tenure ..................................................................................................................... 13

Dependent Care Policies in Academe ....................................................................... 14

Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................. 17

Institutions of Higher Education as Gendered Organizations .................................... 17

Establishing Institutional Characteristics of Colleges and Universities ..................... 21

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 25

Theoretical Model and Hypothesized Relationships ....................................................... 26

Discussion of Model Components ................................................................................. 28

Methods ........................................................................................................................ 33

Site .......................................................................................................................... 33

Survey Instrument .................................................................................................... 33

Participants and Sample ........................................................................................... 34

Data Collection Procedures ...................................................................................... 34

Variables ................................................................................................................. 35

Data Analysis Procedures ........................................................................................ 41

Delimitations ................................................................................................................. 45

Reliability and Validity .................................................................................................. 46

Limitations Related to Design Issues ............................................................................. 47

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 49

Descriptive Analyses ..................................................................................................... 49

iii Institutional Characteristics ...................................................................................... 51

Structural Equation Modeling of Latent Variables ......................................................... 53

Analysis of Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 60

Hypothesis 1 ............................................................................................................ 61

Hypothesis 2 ............................................................................................................ 64

Hypothesis 3 ............................................................................................................ 64

Hypothesis 4 ............................................................................................................ 65

Hypothesis 5 ............................................................................................................ 65

Hypothesis 6 ............................................................................................................ 66

Hypothesis 7 ............................................................................................................ 66

Hypothesis 8 ............................................................................................................ 67

Hypotheses 1 through 8............................................................................................ 67

Hypotheses 9 through 16 .......................................................................................... 70

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 77

Summary of the Study ................................................................................................... 77

Review of the Study ...................................................................................................... 77

Discussion of the Results ............................................................................................... 79

Exogenous Constructs .............................................................................................. 79

Endogenous Variables ............................................................................................. 85

Implications for Theory and Research ............................................................................ 87

Future Research ............................................................................................................. 90

Implications for Policy and Practice ............................................................................... 92

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 95

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 97

APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ........................................................................ 105

APPENDIX B. CODEBOOK ............................................................................................ 119

APPENDIX C. DEPENDENT CARE POLICIES AT IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY ....... 124

APPENDIX D. RELIABILITY COMPARISON BETWEEN AAUDE AND COACHE SURVEYS ............................................................................... 129

iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. J. Acker’s (1990) theory on how organizations become gendered. .................... 19 Figure 3.1. Hypothesized model of how faculty construct job satisfaction........................... 28 Figure 3.2. Proposed hypothesized measurement model of how faculty construct job satisfaction ....................................................................................................... 29 Figure 3.3. Model denoting hypotheses 1 to 8 ..................................................................... 30 Figure 3.4. Structural model (denoting hypotheses 9 to16) analyzed by gender ................... 32 Figure 3.5. Latent variable construct, dean/chair leadership ................................................ 36 Figure 3.6. Latent variable construct, dependent care policies ............................................. 38 Figure 3.7. Latent variable construct, academic resources ................................................... 39 Figure 3.8. Latent variable construct, relational support ...................................................... 40 Figure 3.9. Submodels in a structural equation measurement model.................................... 43 Figure 4.1. Revised hypothesized causal model measuring faculty job satisfaction ............. 56

v LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. Correlations Among Endogenous Variables....................................................... 37 Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics for the Variables in the Tested Model .............................. 50 Table 4.2. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample ....................................................... 51 Table 4.3. Respondent Representation of the Tenured/Tenure-Eligible Population………..52 Table 4.4. Faculty Rank of the Sample ............................................................................... 53 Table 4.5. Normality Results for All Variables in the Model .............................................. 54 Table 4.6. Results of the Principle Component Analysis for the Proposed Latent Construct: Dependent Care Policies ................................................................... 55 Table 4.7. Comparison of Goodness-of-Fit Indices Across Models .................................... 58 Table 4.8. Coefficients of Determination for Endogenous Variables—Respecified Model ................................................................................................................ 59 Table 4.9. Standardized Effects on Job Satisfaction—Respecified Model, Hypotheses 1–8 ................................................................................................. 62 Table 4.10. Unstandardized Effects on Job Satisfaction—Respecified Model, Hypotheses 1–8 ................................................................................................. 63 Table 4.11. Standardized Effects on Job Satisfaction—Respecified Model, Hypotheses 9–16 ............................................................................................... 70 Table 4.12. Unstandardized Effects on Job Satisfaction—Respecified Model, Hypotheses 9–16 ............................................................................................... 71 Table 4.13. Descriptive Statistics Related to Faculty with Families ...................................... 75 Table 5.1. Comparison of Findings between Bilimoria et al (2006) and Ramirez Studies ... 89

vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To arrive at this place, I have stood on the shoulders of many. I pause for a moment to thank the following individuals for their unwavering support. Sean, you have been my haven. Without your love, your gentle nature, and your humor, I would not have remained as focused and steadfast in my studies. Thank you for holding my hand and for making my life richer, more vibrant, and more peaceful. Fiona, despite our short time together, you have brought more clarity into my world than anyone else I’ve encountered. Your gummy smiles, your shrieks of delight, and your inquisitive nature have helped me keep life in perspective. You are quite simply, magnificent and nothing makes me happier than being your mommy. Dad, you and mom are my heroes. You provided me with a foundation grounded in faith and love. Your work ethic is unparalleled and the sacrifices you and mom made in order to provide me with such a privileged life leave me speechless. I am at a loss for words at how to appropriately express my gratitude and humility. Michael, Lou Ann, Marty, Lisa, Mark, Laurie, and Toni, for as long as I can remember, you have been propping me up with your words of encouragement. Thank you for clearing the path for me. From you I have learned the word “family” and it has become the most powerful word in my vocabulary. And to the entire Tony & Frances Ramirez Clan, I thank you for the countless laughs and hugs. If I could bottle up La Bamba, mom’s deep fried tacos, the hayrack rides in Horton, and nights where 25 Ramirez’s are sprawled out on the floor for a massive slumber party, I would. I’m looking forward to more memories. Dr. Ebbers, thank you for taking me in at the eleventh hour. Regardless of the situation, I always felt at ease after your counsel. I am eternally grateful for the direction and

vii expertise you provided as I wrote my dissertation. You are a force and I am thrilled to have had the opportunity to learn from you. Dr. Bird, Dr. Hagedorn, and Dr. Robinson, I am a better scholar because of your guidance and your support. Thank you for your commitment to my studies and for treating me like your colleague. Dr. Gahn and Dr. Hamrick, the two of you have had the most profound impact on my doctoral journey. As an Ojibwe Indian and a Mexican-American, self-promotion and the pursuit of individual endeavors were not values with which I was raised. Yet to be successful in academe, one must embrace these two values with fervor. You have always demonstrated a deep respect for my cultural identity and you have helped me to find a sense of place in an environment that often times is in direct conflict with my ethnic values. Even though there are few people in academe who look like me, through your mentorship, I have come to believe that I belong in the scholar community. Dr. Schuh, you believed in me more often than I believed in myself. Thank you for your consummate professionalism. To the good folks in the ISU ADVANCE Program, I thank you for providing me with funding and for allowing me to collaborate with you on the very important work of advancing women faculty in STEM. This work is partially supported by an ADVANCE Institutional Transformation award from the National Science Foundation (HRD-06003999). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

viii And finally, to Andy, Carrie, Craig, Clint, Jason, Jessica, Jose, Kim, Lisa, Molly, and Natasha, I offer you my sincerest gratitude. Since meeting you, I have become a better person. I have found inspiration from each of you and I will forever carry you in my heart.

ix ABSTRACT Previous research studies have indicated that academic workplaces that do not acknowledge the multidimensional lives of faculty constitute an unsupportive and unwelcoming environment especially for women faculty who undertake both an academic career and motherhood. In recent years, institutions of higher education have adopted and made available to their faculty dependent care policies that extend beyond the federally mandated Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. These policies include, among others, options that allow faculty members with dependents to elect to stop the tenure clock or to modify their workload (e.g., work part time and reduce course loads and service commitments) for a specified period of time in order to focus on caregiving responsibilities. Although faculty job satisfaction has been a widely researched topic (e.g., August & Waltman, 2004; Hagedorn, 1996; Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002; Near & Sorcinelli, 1986; Rosser, 2004; Schuster & Finklestein, 2006), few if any studies have measured the impact of dependent care policies on faculty members’ global job satisfaction. This study tested an empirical model to determine the factors, dependent care policies among others, that contribute to overall job satisfaction among tenured and tenure-track faculty at a large public land-grant university in the Midwest and investigated differences between men and women. This study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the model. Data were collected from Iowa State University (ISU) faculty in 2008 using the Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) Faculty Satisfaction Survey. Participants for this study included 644 tenured or tenure-track faculty members who held the position of assistant, associate, or full professor at ISU.

x Results were analyzed for all faculty, middle-aged faculty, senior faculty, and men and women. The results indicated that dependent care policies had a negligible direct effect on faculty job satisfaction; a strong and positive effect on academic resources; and a positive and moderate effect on relational support, which proved to be a statistically significant pathway across all samples tested. The findings of this study provide valuable insight for educators and policy makers who are interested in factors that contribute to overall job satisfaction for female and male faculty members at a large research institution in the Midwest.

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Even though more women than men are enrolling in the nation’s institutions of higher education, 55% and 45% respectively, the gender representation among faculty does not reflect the student population that the faculty are charged to educate (Dey & Hurtado, 2005). Women represent 36% of the total faculty in academe (Altbach, 2005). Mason and Goulden (2004) described the employment structure of the academy as one configured for the typical male career of the 19th century, “in which the man in the household is the single breadwinner and the woman is responsible for raising the children” (p. 88). This employment structure is outdated and no longer reflects workplace demographics. According to Jacobs and Gerson (2004), the integration of work and the rest of life “has emerged as a major social concern” (p. 43) because the typical midcentury family defined by the male breadwinner has now been largely supplanted by dual-earner couples. Although increasingly more women have taken on one or more additional work roles, the traditional roles within families have not shifted to compensate for women’s additional responsibilities. Previous research studies have indicated that academic workplaces that do not acknowledge the multidimensional lives of faculty constitute an unsupportive and unwelcoming environment especially for women faculty who undertake both an academic career and motherhood. For example, studies have indicated that women faculty forgo or delay childbirth to avoid negative career consequences (e.g., Mason & Goulden, 2004). Also, women with children under the age of 6 and married women are less likely than are women without children and single women to hold tenure-track positions (Perna, 2005a).

2 Although some of these findings may point to coping deficiencies or women’s decisions to opt out of tenure-track positions, the findings also suggest that underlying structures in academe are limiting career opportunities and advancement for women faculty. Institutions of higher education are in a position to address practices and processes within academe that result in gender inequities and marginalization of women’s careers (Clark & Corcoran, 1986). Inequities and marginality manifest in a variety of ways. For example, within academe, “women as a group, carry heavier teaching loads, bear greater responsibility for undergraduate education, and have more service commitments. Women also have less access to graduate teaching assistants, travel funds, research monies, laboratory equipment, and release time for research” (Park, 1996, p. 55). These findings suggest the faculty experience, from workload to access to resources that support academic research, differs for men and women. Problem Universities, as gendered organizations, maintain structures and practices that favor and reward traditional male behaviors and work/life structures (J. Acker, 1990; Williams, 2000). Women who have dependents and are in faculty positions are not promoted and tenured at the same rates as are their male counterparts (Perna, 2005b). Armenti (2004), when referring to the academic work environment, posited that women faculty members are marginalized when they are expected to devote the vast majority of their time to work regardless of family commitments. Mason and Goulden (2004) posited that, in order to promote gender equity in academia, programs and policies must be designed that take family circumstances into account because in the majority of U.S. families working mothers have less time to devote to their careers than do men due to mothers’ greater shares of domestic

3 and caregiving responsibilities. Hochschild (2003) characterized this phenomenon as a working woman’s “second shift,” whereupon completing an 8-hour day at work, she returns home to play with and bathe the children, feed her family, launder their clothes, and clean the house. This additional job as caregiver continues to be a responsibility undertaken disproportionately by women. In recent years, institutions of higher education have adopted and made available to their faculty dependent care policies that extend beyond the federally mandated Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993. These policies include, among others, options that allow faculty members with dependents to elect to stop the tenure clock or to modify their workload (e.g., work part time and reduce course loads and service commitments) for a specified period of time in order to focus on caregiving responsibilities. Schuster and Finklestein (2006) posited that, in an ideal world, institutions of higher education “would be able to address faculty attitudes and perceptions of their work systematically . . . from a conceptual perspective,” (p. 126) that includes an investigation of faculty attitudes of the changing nature of their work environment, of which dependent care policies are one example. Although faculty job satisfaction has been a widely researched topic (e.g., August & Waltman, 2004; Hagedorn, 1996; Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002; Near & Sorcinelli, 1986; Rosser, 2004; Schuster & Finklestein, 2006), few if any studies have measured the impact of dependent care policies on faculty members’ global job satisfaction. As more institutions of higher education adopt dependent care policies for faculty members, the potential impacts of these policies on job satisfaction should be explored.

4 Purpose This study tested a model of potential pathways leading from institutional characteristics as perceived by faculty to job satisfaction and investigated differences in these paths for women and men in tenured and tenure-track faculty positions. Research Questions Are there measurable differences in the extent to which men and women faculty members at Iowa State University are satisfied with their job in light of their perceptions of institutional characteristics, defined by the combination of latent constructs dean/chair leadership and dependent care policies and internal support, defined by the combination of latent constructs academic resources and relational support? The directional hypotheses driving this study are as follows. Hypotheses H 1 to H 8

were tested using combined faculty data (i.e., both genders) and results were based on the standardized coefficients. H 1 : The perception of academic resources available at the institution to faculty will be positively related to ratings of job satisfaction. H 2 : The perception of relational support available at the institution to faculty will be positively related to ratings of job satisfaction. H 3 : The perception of dean/chair leadership by faculty will be positively related to ratings of job satisfaction. H 4 : The perception of dean/chair leadership by faculty will be positively related to academic resources. H 5 : The perception of dean/chair leadership by faculty will be positively related to relational support.

5 H 6 : The perception of institutional dependent care policies for faculty will be positively related to ratings of job satisfaction. H 7 : The perception of institutional dependent care policies for faculty will be positively related to the availability of academic resources. H 8 : The perception of institutional dependent care policies available at the institution to faculty will be positively related to relational supports. Using the same measurement model specified for hypotheses H 1 to H 8 , hypotheses H 9

to H 16 were tested by comparing data from women faculty to data from men faculty. Results were based on the standardized coefficients. The following set of hypotheses was tested to determine whether there are differences between how men and women faculty members construct job satisfaction. H 9 : The path coefficients between the perception of dean/chair leadership and job satisfaction will be smaller for female faculty than for male faculty. H 10 : The path coefficients between the perception of institutional dependent care policies for faculty and job satisfaction will be larger for female faculty than for male faculty. H 11 : The path coefficients between the perception of academic resources available at the institution to faculty and job satisfaction will be smaller for female faculty than for male faculty. H 12 : The path coefficients between the perception of relational support available at the institution to faculty and job satisfaction will be larger for female faculty than for male faculty. H 13 : The path coefficients between perceptions of dean/chair leadership and the availability of academic resources will be smaller for female faculty than for male faculty.

6 H 14 : The path coefficients between perceptions of institutional dependent care policies and relational support will be larger for female faculty than for male faculty. H 15 : The path coefficients between perceptions of dean/chair leadership and the availability of relational support will be larger for female faculty than for male faculty. H 16 : The path coefficients between perceptions of institutional dependent care policies and the availability of academic resources will be larger for female faculty than for male faculty. Theoretical Framework In chapter 2 literature relevant to the theoretical framework that informs this study’s model development and data analysis is introduced. In this study, the critical lens that was adopted wove together concepts of (a) gendered organizational practices and standards that are biased in favor of male-normative behavior, (b) the influence of gender on social structures, and (c) faculty perceptions of institutional environment and satisfaction. Significance of the Study Although faculty work is often characterized by flexible work schedules and environment, increased workloads and expectations of productivity disproportionately impact faculty members—more often women—who are also the primary caregivers within their family units. This study sought to investigate the ways in which faculty members construct job satisfaction and whether there are differences between men and women. Many of the empirical studies highlighted in chapter 2 present how gendered work environments can hamper the recruitment of and contribute to the marginalization of women scholars. The intent of this study was to test an empirical model to determine the factors that contribute to overall job satisfaction among faculty at a large public land-grant university in the Midwest.

7 Definitions of Key Terms and Acronyms This section provides definitions for key terms and acronyms used in this study. Some terms are used interchangeably throughout the dissertation, and these are also noted here. Dependent care policies: referred to in this study are institutional-level policies that are available to faculty beyond the federally mandated Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993. FMLA: Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, a federally mandated law that requires covered employers to provide eligible employees with time off from work in specific situations. Gender: an institutionalized system of social practices for constituting people as two significantly different categories, men and women (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004) SEM: structural equation modeling, the method used in this study to analyze the hypothesized model. Social–relational context: comprises any situation in which individuals define themselves in relation to others (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004) Summary Findings from this study will inform educators and policy makers who are interested in factors that contribute to overall job satisfaction for female and male faculty members at a large research institution in the Midwest. This study is unique in that it analyzes job satisfaction using a lens that highlights organizations of higher education as gendered workplaces that favor male-normative behavior.

8 Chapter 2 provides an overview of the relevant research literature that serves as the foundation of the hypothesized model tested in this study. Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the methodological approach used in this study, philosophical assumptions related to epistemology, the theoretical model and hypothesized relationships, participants, sample, data collection procedure, variables and instrumentation, data analysis procedure, design issues, delimitations, and limitations. Chapter 4 presents the results of the model for each tested hypothesis. The results are presented based on the sample tested: all faculty, middle-aged faculty, senior faculty, men, and women. Chapter 5 provides a summary of the study and an in-depth discussion of the results. Ideas for future research and implications for practice are presented.

9 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter presents a review literature relevant to this study. The theoretical framework that provides the foundation for the design of the causal model that was tested in this study is outlined. Each latent construct that was incorporated into the proposed model is defined and supported by previous research. This chapter is divided into two sections. The first is a review of relevant literature that contains four topical subsections: faculty job satisfaction, faculty members as caregivers, tenure, and dependent care policies in academe. The second section outlines the literature supporting the theoretical framework informing model development and interpretation of results. It contains two subsections: institutions of higher education as gendered organizations, and establishing institutional characteristics of colleges and universities. Review of Relevant Literature Faculty Job Satisfaction Analyzing job satisfaction among full-time faculty, Schuster and Finklestein (2006) noted a steady decline over a 30-year span of time, 1969–1998, in faculty who were “very satisfied” with their job and a steady increase in faculty who were “somewhat/very dissatisfied” with their job. The researchers attributed this trend to increased workloads for faculty members and decreased academic support provided by the faculty member’s institution. The decline in overall job satisfaction among faculty was consistent regardless of institutional type, field, gender, race, or tenure status. Schuster and Finklestein challenged higher education scholars to gain a better understanding of factors that may be contributing to

10 the decline in faculty job satisfaction. The present study sought to meet this challenge by measuring a model that includes dependent care policies (e.g., one example of institutional support for faculty members that is becoming increasingly common) as one predictor of global job satisfaction. The hypothesized causal model that was tested included a latent construct, academic resources, that measured faculty satisfaction with workload. Hagedorn (1996) created a causal model to examine the impact of salary differences between men and women faculty on overall job satisfaction. Although Hagedorn’s model included several latent constructs, those relevant to this study include academic perceptions of students; perceptions of administration; and perceptions of collegiality. Hagedorn, using SEM as her method, found that perceptions of administration and perceptions of collegiality were significant indicators of overall job satisfaction. She also concluded that administrators were critical in creating a work environment that enabled faculty success. August and Waltman (2004) conducted a study to investigate if differences in job satisfaction existed between tenured and nontenured faculty women. Using Hagedorn’s (1996) conceptual model of faculty job satisfaction, they designed multiple regression models to estimate these differences. Numerous independent variables were included in their regression models such as quality student relations (i.e., the ability to attract students to work with and the level of intellectual stimulation from student interactions), good relations with department chairperson (i.e., quality of feedback from chairperson, sense of support from chairperson, and quality of feedback from reviews), departmental climate (feeling scrutinized by colleagues and perceiving unwritten rules concerning interaction with peers), gender, and collegial relationships (measure of cordial, supportive peers). August and Waltman (2004) found that environmental factors, including those highlighted above, explained a significant

11 amount of variance in their overall regression model and were thus significant predictors of overall job satisfaction among female faculty. Near and Sorcinelli (1986) analyzed faculty satisfaction using a combination of predictor variables related to work (e.g., interaction with colleagues and students, opportunity to pursue personal research agendas, and financial rewards) and nonwork (e.g., career opportunities for spouse, family life and childcare options, and family size) conditions. Their study is unique in that it was one of the first job satisfaction studies that focused principally on women faculty. They found that both work and nonwork conditions impacted faculty job satisfaction. Furthermore, the researchers indicated that, because they found a strong correlation between satisfaction with nonwork conditions and satisfaction with work conditions, institutions of higher education should be encouraged to make improvements in the quality of faculty life, improvements that would positively impact the work and nonwork realms of its faculty. The present study extended Near and Sorcinelli’s work by incorporating dependent care policies (i.e., policies intended to improve the quality of faculty members’ lives) into the causal model to measure job satisfaction. Using multilevel SEM as their method, Johnsrud and Rosser (2002) conducted an empirical study that measured the quality of faculty work/life. The measurement model included latent constructs for professional priorities and rewards, administrative relations and support, and benefits and services associated with the faculty member’s appointment. Although the Johnsrud and Rosser study investigated the connection between faculty work/life and morale, it is important to the present study in that it serves as an example of using SEM to test a model of faculty job satisfaction.

12 Faculty Members as Caregivers As institutional demands for faculty work output has steadily risen (Currie, Harris, & Thiele, 2000), faculty members, regardless of their family commitments, are expected to devote more time to the work of the institution. This fosters a portrayal of faculty members who maintain active family engagements—mostly women—as less committed to the institution or less dedicated to their academic work (Armenti, 2004). As organizations created around faculties historically comprised men, universities became and have largely remained gendered organizations that maintain structures and practices that favor and reward “ideal workers” (J. Acker, 1990; Hochschild, 2003) who are unencumbered by domestic responsibilities and thus consistently available to pursue the institution’s work (J. Acker, 1990; Armenti, 2004; Currie et al., 2000; Hochschild, 2003; Williams, 2005). Faculty work is characterized by a high degree of work flexibility, but faculty members who are also primary family caregivers—more often women—tend to work a “second shift” (Hochschild, 2003) of bathing, feeding, cleaning, planning, managing, and caring. Their time spent on domestic labor is significantly more than time spent by spouses or partners, even when partners are also faculty members (Hewlett, 2007; Mason & Goulden, 2004; Suitor, Mecom, & Feld, 2001). This additional work often results in less time to attend, for example, conferences, social gatherings, or networking events that could help advance their careers. In comparison, collegial and institutional perceptions of engaged faculty fathers conflict. Some researchers refer to a “daddy privilege” in which fathers are praised as good parents when family commitments encroach on work demands (Perna, 2005a; Williams, 2000), whereas others describe the strong resistance that fathers face when requesting family

13 accommodations (Rhode & Kellerman, 2008). Although some researchers predict that future generations of fathers will take on greater dependent care responsibilities and expect institutions to accommodate their family engagement (S. Acker & Armenti, 2004; Williams, 2000), women faculty members tend to be disproportionately affected “by conflicts between the ideal academic career trajectory and family needs” (Hollenshead, Sullivan, Smith, August, & Hamilton, 2005, p. 42). Lester and Sallee (2009) suggested institutions of higher education would be well advised to transform from an organizational setting that is characterized by a separate spheres model, in which women kept “their family responsibilities separate from their professional responsibilities,” (p. 160) to work/life systems frameworks, in which “workers now become central to the operation of the system. Rather than expecting employees to conform to predefined norms, the organization is expected to work with employees to create mutually beneficial practices” (p. 160). By broadening policies that address the needs of faculty through all stages of their personal and professional development, institutions of higher education can position themselves as active partners with their faculty and can change policies and processes within academe that result in inequitable expectations and the marginalization of certain faculty subgroups, (i.e., women caregivers). Tenure Women faculty members’ formations of family and care of dependents correlate strongly, albeit negatively, with academic career success. Married women and women with young children are underrepresented among tenured and tenure-track faculty members (Perna, 2005b), and fewer women than men achieve tenure and promotion to associate professor (Harper, Baldwin, Gansneder, & Chronister, 2001). Because women frequently

Full document contains 140 pages
Abstract: Previous research studies have indicated that academic workplaces that do not acknowledge the multidimensional lives of faculty constitute an unsupportive and unwelcoming environment especially for women faculty who undertake both an academic career and motherhood. In recent years, institutions of higher education have adopted and made available to their faculty dependent care policies that extend beyond the federally mandated Family Medical Leave Act of 1993. These policies include, among others, options that allow faculty members with dependents to elect to stop the tenure clock or to modify their workload (e.g., work part time and reduce course loads and service commitments) for a specified period of time in order to focus on caregiving responsibilities. Although faculty job satisfaction has been a widely researched topic (e.g., August & Waltman, 2004; Hagedorn, 1996; Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002; Near & Sorcinelli, 1986; Rosser, 2004; Schuster & Finklestein, 2006), few if any studies have measured the impact of dependent care policies on faculty members' global job satisfaction. This study tested an empirical model to determine the factors, dependent care policies among others, that contribute to overall job satisfaction among tenured and tenure-track faculty at a large public land-grant university in the Midwest and investigated differences between men and women. This study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the model. Data were collected from Iowa State University (ISU) faculty in 2008 using the Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) Faculty Satisfaction Survey. Participants for this study included 644 tenured or tenure-track faculty members who held the position of assistant, associate, or full professor at ISU. Results were analyzed for all faculty, middle-aged faculty, senior faculty, and men and women. The results indicated that dependent care policies had a negligible direct effect on faculty job satisfaction; a strong and positive effect on academic resources; and a positive and moderate effect on relational support, which proved to be a statistically significant pathway across all samples tested. The findings of this study provide valuable insight for educators and policy makers who are interested in factors that contribute to overall job satisfaction for female and male faculty members at a large research institution in the Midwest.