Research in Higher Education

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 457–469 | Cite as

EFFECTS OF JOB-RELATED STRESS ON FACULTY INTENTION TO LEAVE ACADEMIA

  • Laura L. B. Barnes
  • Menna O. Agago
  • William T. Coombs

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between job-related stress and faculty intent to leave academia. The stress variables studied were reward satisfaction, institutional/departmental reputation, time commitment, departmental/institutional influence, and student interaction. We hypothesized that the relationship between these variables and faculty intent to leave academia would be moderated by interest in one's discipline and sense of community — an institutional fit variable. We also investigated the effects of academic discipline, tenure status, and gender on these relationships. Based on data from a national faculty survey of 3,070 full-time tenure-track faculty, results indicated that of the variables studied, the two major correlates of intent to leave academia were time commitment and sense of community; however, time commitment did not moderate the stressor-intent relationship. Though showing significant zero-order correlations with intent, when gender and tenure status were added to the hierarchical regression analyses containing the stressors and moderators, neither variable contributed meaningfully to the prediction of intent. Academic discipline classification (Biglan, 1973) contributed only 2% to explained variance. A prediction model that contained all stressors, both moderators, and the background variables of gender and academic discipline accounted for 25% of the variance in intent to leave academia.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Barnes, M. W. (1983). Scholarly recognition in the study of higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.Google Scholar
  2. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology57: 195-203.Google Scholar
  3. Blackburn, R. T., and Bentley, R. J. (1993). Faculty research productivity: Some moderators of associated stressors. Research in Higher Education34: 725-745.Google Scholar
  4. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1989, April). 1989 Survey Among Colleges and University Faculty (Archive No. USMISCHED89-CARN-FAC). New Jersey: The Wirthlin Group.Google Scholar
  5. Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research1: 245-276.Google Scholar
  6. Cattell, R.B., and Jaspers, J. (1967). A general plasmode (No. 30-10-50-2) for factor analytic exercises and research. Multivariate Behavioral Research Monographs, No. 67–3.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, B. R. (1987). The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, M. J. (1973). Organizational stress and professional performance among faculty members at a small college. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J., and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression for Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, J W., and Roskens, R. W. (1981, April). Biglan model test based on institutional diversity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  11. Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika16: 297-334.Google Scholar
  12. Gill, J. I., Norrell, S., and Kiplinger, V. (1992, January). Faculty supply and demand: Data sources and data needs. Research Dialogues, 32: 4-8. NY: Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association. Eric Document Reproduction Number ED 370–457.Google Scholar
  13. Gmelch W. H., Lovrich, N. P., and Wilke, P. K. (1983). A national study of stress among university faculty members. Phi Delta Kappan65: 367.Google Scholar
  14. Gmelch, W. H., Wilke, P. K., and Lovrich, N. P. (1986). Dimensions of stress among university faculty: Factor-analytic results from a national study. Research in Higher Education24: 266-286.Google Scholar
  15. Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., and Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika23: 187-200.Google Scholar
  17. Moracco, J. C., D'arienzo, R. V., and Danford, D. (1983). Comparison of perceived occupational stress between teachers who are contented and discontented in their career choices. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly, pp. 45-51.Google Scholar
  18. Seiler, R. E., and Pearson, D. A. (1985). Dysfunctional stress among university faculty. Educational Research Quarterly9: 16-26.Google Scholar
  19. Smart, J. C. (1990). A causal model of faculty turnover intentions. Research in Higher Education31(5): 405-424.Google Scholar
  20. Thompson, B. (1996). AERA editorial policies regarding statistical significance testing: Three suggested reforms. Educational Researcher25(2): 26-30.Google Scholar
  21. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (1992, March). Bringing into focus the factors affecting faculty supply and demand: A primer for higher education and state policymakers. Boulder: WICHE. Eric Document Reproduction Number ED 370–471.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura L. B. Barnes
  • Menna O. Agago
  • William T. Coombs

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations