Advertisement

Research in Higher Education

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 247–256 | Cite as

Predicting faculty attitude toward collective bargaining

  • James R. Gress
Article

Abstract

This exploratory study isolated factors useful for predicting faculty attitude toward collective bargaining (CB) in higher education.

Research sought, first, to measure the strength of bivariate relationships between a CB attitude measure and other attitudinal and demographic variables and to investigate the nature of multivariate relationships between the former criterion and the latter predictors. Second, the underlying structure of the most useful predictor was examined.

Results showed that measures of faculty perceptions of potential bargaining issues — including monetary issues, working conditions, participation in institutional decision-making and promotion and tenure policies — as well as individual faculty compensation were the most useful predictors of CB attitudes. Conclusions related these findings to alternatives for higher education faculty and administrators as well as for potential faculty organizers and bargaining agents.

Key words

collective bargaining 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gress, J. R., and Wohlers, A. E. (1974). An explanation of faculty attitude toward collective bargaining in selected Ohio higher education institutions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Halinski, R. S., and Feldt, L. S. (1970). The selection of variables in multiple regression analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7:151–157.Google Scholar
  3. Hook, S. (1973). The academic mission and collective bargaining. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education, Washington, D.C., April.Google Scholar
  4. Kennelly, J. R. (1972). Collective bargaining in higher education in the United States: Conceptual models and a survey of incidence among faculty and supportive professional personnel. Seattle: Washington University.Google Scholar
  5. Kerr, C. (1972). “The Uses of the University.” New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  6. National Education Association (1974). Report to the executive committee from the NEA task force on higher education. Washington, D.C.: NEA, February.Google Scholar
  7. Semas, P. (1974a). Teacher unions girding. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 9(1):3.Google Scholar
  8. Semas, P. (1974b). Three vie for presidency of AAUP; first real contest in 59 years. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 8(23):1.Google Scholar
  9. Sievert, W. A. (1974). Bargaining vote set this week at U. of Hawaii. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 8(23):1.Google Scholar
  10. Weldon, W. (1972). Report of attitude survey. Unpublished manuscript, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio Education Association.Google Scholar
  11. Where college faculties have chosen or rejected collective bargaining agents (1974). The Chronicle of Higher Education, 8(35):24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© APS Publications, Inc. 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • James R. Gress
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ohio State UniversityColumbus

Personalised recommendations