AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION or THE INTEIIIIEIATIIINSIIIPS AIIIINS THE PRIMARY ELEMENTS INITIIIII TIIE REWARDS SYSTEM PGSITION REQUIREMENTS AND POSITION SATISFACTIONS FOR IACIIITT IN SIX COLLEGES ’ ’ OF EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN ’ Thesis for the Degree 0f Ph. D ’ NIISIIIIIAN STATE UNIVERSITY PAIN CLAYTON SIIANK 3: ‘ I; g ....... NINA/IN (Hr—3“ This is to certify that the thesis entitled . AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE INTER-RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE PRIMARY ELEMENTS WITHIN THE REWARDS SYSTEM, POSITION REQUIREMENTS AND POSITION SATISFACTIONS FOR FACULTY IN SIX' COLLEGES OF EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN presented by Paul Clayton Shank has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Higher Education Ph .D 0 degree in Admini S L: at ion Date fl 0-169 ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE PRIMARY ELEMENTS WITHIN THE REWARDS SYSTEM, POSITION REQUIREMENTS AND POSITION SATISFACTIONS FOR FACULTY IN SIX COLLEGES OF EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN by Paul Clayton Shank The study was intended as an exploratory investi- gation of the interrelationships of faculty personal and professional characteristics, rewards system, position requirements, and position satisfactions. The general purposes of the study can be categorized into two groups: first, to identify and illuminate relationships among as- pects of faculty life critical to the improvement of ad- ministration of higher education, and second, to suggest in detail how the study, its model, methodology, and find- ings might be useful in future research of college problems in such related problem areas as faculty turnover, faculty morale, faculty attraction and retention, and faculty pro- ductivity. Specific purposes of the study were to examine four aspects of faculty life. These were: one, the relative importance attached by faculty members to specific re- wards system elements; two, the position requirements of these faculty members, their assignments, and the extent Paul Clayton Shank to which the faculty members liked or disliked their re— spective assignments; three, the levels of satisfaction derived by these faculty members from their position re- quirements; and four, the extent to which interrelation- ships may be demonstrated to exist among specific elements inherent in the_position satisfactions, the rewards system, the position requirements, and faculty personal and pro— fessional characteristics. Methodology of the Study The sample included all faculty members appointed to the staff of the colleges of education in six selected State supported universities in Michigan for the 1966-1967, academic year. Usable questionnaires were received from 70.5 per cent of the study population. The questionnaire consisted of four parts: (A) a summary of personal and professional characteristics, (B) a list of work-load assignments on which each respondent indicated the per- centage of time devoted to each, and the degree to which he liked or disliked each of the assignments, (C) a list of elements of importance to faculty members as a part of the university rewards system with the level of impor- tance indicated by the respondents, and (D) a list of elements satisfying to faculty members with the level of satisfaction derived from each element indicated by the respondents. Application of a test of reliability Paul Clayton Shank to a random sample of 30 completed questionnaires pro- duced an internal consistency reliability score of .85 on part C, rewards system, and .82 on part D, position satisfactions. Intercorrelation matrices were examined and an elementary factor analysis technique employed to identify clusters, or factors, of elements within and among the four categories contained in the questionnaire. Descriptive data for comparison by major portion of work— load, academic rank, length of tenure, sex, age, and institutions from which the respondents obtained their degrees was presented in tabular form and analyzed. Findings of the Study Faculty members in this study tended to stereotype their responses in groups as administrators, teachers, and researchers. Each of these types persists through these several analyses: respondents grouped according to academic rank held, length of tenure in a particular institution, major portion of work—load, "home" versus "other" university, or by institution served. The types of faculty members were identified by the relationships of personal and professional characteristics, the level of importance attached to rewards system items, and/or the degree of satisfaction derived from position satisfactions. These types tend to be grouped according to the respondents' position requirements. Paul Clayton Shank The number of respondents who indicated research as the greatest portion of their work-load indicated re— searchers to be a distinct type. Teachers and adminis- trators also were identifiable groups of respondents. Each of the three types tends to have a distinct pattern of likes and dislikes regarding their minor position re— quirements. Each type has a distinct pattern of important rewards and sources of satisfaction. In addition to these three clearly identifiable types of faculty members,a significant marginal group is evident. These are faculty members who either have multiple work-load assignments or whose interrelationships of satis- factions, rewards, or personal and professional character- istics are inconsistent with any type otherwise identified. In addition to the identification of three types of faculty members,another interesting finding of this study is: the degree of "like" or "dislike" expressed by re- spondents concerning the advisement of students. A generally low regard for this position requirement is consistent for all groups of respondents. It is generally low regardless of these variables: major portion of work- load, selected personal and professional characteristics, and institution served. AN EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE PRIMARY ELEMENTS WITHIN THE REWARDS SYSTEM, POSITION REQUIREMENTS AND POSITION SATISFACTIONS FOR FACULTY IN SIX COLLEGES OF EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN By Paul Clayton Shank A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express appreciation to: Dr. Karl T. Hereford, major professor, for his guidance and positive criticisms, and for his continued consideration during the 18 months following his de— parture from the University. Dr. Max Raines, Dr. George Myers, and Dr. Orden Smucker for their interest and helpful advice as members of the doctoral committee. My wife, Yvonne, for her encouragement, criticisms, diligent tabulation of the data, and typing of the original draft of the manuscript. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY . . . . The Specific Purposes. . . . A Rationale for the Study . Statement of the Problem. . . . . The Model. . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . Limitations of the Study. . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . II. THE CENTRAL FINDINGS: SIGNIFICANCE FOR ADMINISTRATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION . Central Findings . Significance for Administration in Higher Education . . . . . III. PROCEDURES USED IN THE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . Description of the Study Population The Questionnaire . . . . . . Collection of Data. . . . . . Procedure for Data Analysis. Summary . . . . . .1 . . . .. IV. DESCRIPTIVE DATA AND COMPARISONS Major Work-load Responsibilities: Degree of "Like” or "Dislike" . . iv Page iii vi [.4 OCIDO\O\-I='LA)I\) ll 13 l7 17 18 22 23 29 30 31> Chapter Page Major Work-load Responsibility for Levels of Academic Rank, Salary Range and Years Experience in the Present University . . . . . 32 Selected Rewards System Items. . . . 35 A Comparison of Faculty Members in Their "Home" Universities with Faculty Members in Other Uni- versities: Three Selected Rewards System Items . . . M0 Internal Position Satisfactions: Four Levels of Academic Rank and Four Position Requirement Categories . . “1 External Position Satisfactions for All Levels of Academic Rank and Major Portion of Work-load. . . . UH Summary . . . . . . . . . . . “7 V. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . ._ . . . . 49 All Respondents Matrix: Seven Factors. 53 Administrators Matrix: Eight Factors . 58 Supervisors of Student Teachers Matrix: Seven Factors . . . . . . . . 61 Teachers Matrix: Eight Factors . . . 65 "Home" Faculty Members Matrix: Eight Factors . . . . . 69 "Other" Faculty Members Matrix: Eight Factors . . . . . . . . . . 74 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 78 VI. A SUMMARY: THE DATA, PRINCIPLES, AND QUESTIONS . . . . . . . . . . 80 Summary of Data Chapters . . . . . 81 The Questions . . . . . . . . . 91 The Five Principals . . . . . . . 96 VII. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . lOl Persistence. . . . . . . . . 101 The Marginal PeOple . . . . . . . 101 Change Behavior . . . . . . . . 102 Student Advisement . . . . . . . 102 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 103 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 APPENDIX 109 Table 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 LIST OF TABLES Characteristics of the Study Population --Major Work-Load: Degree of "Like" or "Dislike" . . . . . . . . Characteristics of the Study Population --Major Work-Load Responsibility for Levels of Academic Rank, Salary Range, and Years Experience in the Present University.~ . . . . . . . . Characteristics of the Study Population --A Comparison of Selected Rewards System Items by Academic Rank, Sex, and Age: for Six Universities . A Comparison of Selected Rewards System Items by Academic Rank, Sex, and Age: for University "One" . . . . . . A Comparison of Selected Rewards System Items by Academic Rank, Sex, and Age: for University "Two" . . . . A Comparison of Selected Rewards System Items by Academic Rank, Sex, and Age: for University "Three" . . . . A Comparison of Selected Rewards System Items by Academic Rank, Sex, and Age: for University "Four" . . . . . A Comparison of Selected Rewards System Items by Academic Rank, Sex, and Age: for University "Five" . . . . . A Comparison of Selected Rewards System Items by Academic Rank, Sex, and Age: for University "Six" . . . . vi Page 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 12u 125 Table Page 3.“ Characteristics of the Study Population ——A Comparison of Faculty Members in Their "Home” University with Faculty Members in Other Universities: Three Selected Rewards System Items . . . 126 3.5 Characteristics of the Study Population ——Interna1 Position Satisfactions: Four Levels of Academic Rank, and Four Position Requirement Categories. 127 3.6 Characteristics of the Study Population --Externa1 Position Satisfactions for All Levels of Academic Rank and Major Portion of Work—Load: Six Universities. . . . . . 129 3.6.1 External Position Satisfactions for All Levels of Academic Rank and Major Portion of Work-Load: University "One" . . . . . . . . . . . 130 3.6.2 External Position Satisfactions for All Levels of Academic Rank and Major Portion of Work-Load: University "Two" . . . . . . . . . . . 131 3.6.3 External Position Satisfactions for All Levels of Academic Rank and Major Portion of Work—Load: University "Three" . . . . . . . . . . 132 3.6.“ External Position Satisfactions for All Levels of Academic Rank and Major Portion of Work—Load: University "Four". . . . . . . . . . . 133 3.6.5 External Position Satisfactions for All Levels of Academic Rank and Major Portion of Work-Load: University "Five”. . . . . . . . . . . 134 3.6.6 External Position Satisfactions for All Levels of Academic Rank and Major Portion of Work-Load: University "Six" . . . . . . . . . . . 135 vii CHAPTER I NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY Recent research that treats college and university faculty problems of attraction and retention, faculty work—loads, quality of teaching, faculty productivity, faculty morale, and mobility of college faculty thus far has been limited to the broader aspects of the problems studied. This limitation has pointed to the need for an investigation of the interrelationships of important con— siderations such as: faculty position requirements, faculty rewards systems, and faculty position satisfactions. There— fore, an investigation of interrelationships of these cate- gories is considered to be both appropriate and timely. Research concerning college faculties largely has focused on the above problems. Each problem has been examined in isolation of the other, thereby providing limited information. In this study, four aspects of faculty life were examined. These were: personal and professional characteristics, rewards system, position requirements, and position satisfactions. Moreover, the four conditions of faculty life were examined one in re- lation to the other. By so doing, the investigator hoped to identify and illuminate some possible means for im- proving administration of higher education. The Specific Purposes A study was designed to examine elements of faculty personal and professional characteristics, rewards system, position requirements, and position satisfactions in se- lected Michigan colleges. Further, the study was designed to examine four aspects of the problem. These were: 1. The relative importance attached by faculty members to specific rewards system elements. 2. The position requirements of these faculty members, their assignments, and the extent to which the faculty members liked or disliked their respective assignments. 3. The levels of satisfaction derived by these faculty members from their position require- ments. A. The extent to which interrelationships may be demonstrated to exist among specific elements inherent in the position satisfactions, the rewards system, the position requirements, and faculty personal and professional character- istics. 0n the basis of the investigation, it was further intended to suggest in detail how the study, its model, methodology, and findings might be useful in future research of college faculty problems in such related problem areas as faculty turnover, faculty morale, faculty attraction and retention, faculty productivity, and ad- ministration in higher education. A Rationale for the Study Solutions to faculty problems increasingly have be- come urgent in recent years. The need to find solutions has been made urgent by rapidly rising enrollments, a highly competitive market for academic personnel, the expansion of useful knowledge, and an ever-increasing concern by faculty with the administration of colleges and universities. Recruiting and retaining qualified faculty is a persistent and compelling problem in higher education. Earlier research in higher education administration illumi- nates certain aspects of the problem. Research results, however, are as yet unclear. In a study of attraction and retention at the Uni- versity of Minnesota, for example, Stecklein and Lathropl reported that prospective faculty varied in their re- ceptivity to University rewards. Also, they reported that position satisfactions—-apart from the rewards system 1John E. Stecklein and Robert L. Lathrop, Faculty Attraction and Retention, Factors Affecting Faculty Mobilitygat the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis: Bureau of Institutional Research, University of Minne- sota, 1960). ——was an observable even critical factor in retention of faculty once recruited. Unfortunately, this study--and related studies by Marshall2 and Cammack3--fail to differentiate among factors that may be critical to faculty decisions to accept and/or retain employment with a university. More- over, they do not differentiate completely among faculty members by type, as for example: administrators, re— searchers, and teachers. Statement of the Problem To differentiate among factors affecting faculty decisions to accept and/or retain employment in a uni- versity, two basic problems were examined. These were: 1. To what extent, if any, are factors of rewards, position satisfactions, position requirements, and personal and professional characteristics critical to the choice of faculty members? 2. How do faculty members whose present university assignments differ-—as do those of administrators, teachers, and researchers--react to these factors? 2H D. Marshall, The Mobility of College Faculties (New York: Pageant Press, Inc., 196E). 3E. F. Cammack, "A Study of Factors Related to Mobility and Faculty Productivity and Achievement at Michigan State University--A Follow—Up Study (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Dept. of Education, Michigan State University, 196“). To examine the problem, a study was designed.that would illuminate the reactions of selected faculty mem- bers--grouped by principal work assignment as adminis- trators, researchers, and teachers--on each major factor and among the major factors. The study was conducted in six State supported colleges of education in Michigan during the academic year 1966-1967. Five principles were examined in the study. These were: 1. Elements within the position requirement or work—load assignment are related within them- selves and to similar elements in the rewards system and position satisfactions. Elements within the rewards system are related within themselves and are also related to similar elements in the position satisfactions and the work-load assignment. Elements within the position satisfactions category are related within themselves and are also related to similar elements in the work-load assignment and rewards system. The relationships described above are con- sistent among differing faculty position re- quirements within a particular college of education. The relationships described above are not consistent in sub-pOpulations of C\ a college faculty that are delineated by age, academic rank, years of service in a college or university position, and other selected personal and professional characteristics. The Model Position Requirements Position e/<;.Satisfactions Rewards System The model served as a construct about which each of the stated principles was investigated. The extent of the interrelationships between position requirements or work-load assignment and position satisfactions and rewards system was sought. Definition of Terms In subsequent sections of this thesis certain terms are used that require specific definition. These are: 1. Faculty will mean those academic members who were appointed to the university staff for the 1966-1967 academic year and whose center of operation was on or from the main campus of their respective university. Further limitations are: only faculty from the colleges of education who served on full-time appointment, and who held rank at the level or instructor or above are included. 2. Position requirements and work-load assignment will be used interchangeably throughout the study. Position requirements will refer to those duties and services agreed upon by the faculty member for which the university pays him a salary and other considerations. Included in this category may be teaching, student advisement, research, community service, administration, and others. 3. Rewards system is defined to be those concrete considerations which are usually included in a professional services contract, or are understood by "gentleman's agree- ment." These may include: salary, monetary fringe bene- fits, research facilities, academic rank, physical facili- ties, the specification of duties and responsibilities or lack thereof, staff and clerical services, and others. A. Position satisfactions are defined as any benefit pleasing to the faculty member, either tangible or intangible, which is a consequence, official or un- official, of the position incumbency. These may include both "internal" and "external" benefits of a pleasing nature. They may include: reputation of the university; reputation of the department; congeniality of associates; living conditions; cultural and recreational facilities; personal contacts with the administrative personnel; the caliber of students; title or academic rank; monetary fringe benefits; geographic location, and others. Internal position satisfactions are those benefits that are pleasing and accrue to the faculty member pri- marily while in the performance of duties or service. External position satisfactions are those benefits that are pleasing, but accure to the faculty member pri- marily outside of working hours and not in the service of the university. Limitations of the Study The limitations of questionnaire studies are well understood by the writer and these limitations in this study are acknowledged. However, it was deemed advisable at the outset to subject the study to these limitations as a more expedient choice than the use of the interview technique. Faculty members, who traditionally espouse the principle of intellectual integrity, could be expected to exercise judgment and acceptable standards of objectiv- ity in their responses to the items included on the questionnaire. Although the questionnaire was responded to anonymously, the personal and professional information such as academic rank, age, length of tenure and assign- ment were sufficient to determine that the 70 per cent who did respond were an adequate cross-section of the total professional population. The study may also reflect cer- tain characteristics of the faculty which were true at the time this study was made, but may have changed con- siderably since. Characteristics of the academic market place and the social milieu of academe may also change in the intervening years and this would be reflected in any subsequent population studied. Hence, the possibility of bias must be considered whenever inferences are made. A further limitation of the study is the recognized confusion of "rewards" and "satisfactions" by some re— spondents. To minimize this possibility, a pre-test using the interview technique was carried out before the final draft of the questionnaire was printed. A concise defini- tion of the relevant terms was included on each appropriate page of the questionnaire. The specific procedures used in the administration of the questionnaire will be elabo— rated in another chapter. Although studies of attraction and retention, mobility, morale, and productivity of faculty in higher education are referred to, and in fact, are the basis for this study, no attempt to study these faculty problems 10 was made. This study deals with such problems only as they relate to the problem of investigating the re- lationships of similar elements in the faculty position requirements, rewards system and position satisfactions. Overview The purposes of this first chapter have been to develop a rationale for the study, to present the problem and the principles to be investigated, and to appraise the reader of the significance, definitions, study popu- lation, and limitations of the study. Chapter II is a presentation of the central findings of this research and conclusions based on these findings. Chapter III is a description of the study population; a presentation, with the rationale, of the questionnaire developed for this study; and a statement of the type of statistical analyses used in the study. Chapter IV is a discussion of the descriptive data with comparisons presented in- tabular form. References are made to the central findings and conclusions. Chapter V is a further presentation and analyses of collected data and their relevance to the central findings and conclusions. Chapter VI is a summary of the data chapters, the questions, and the five princi- ples. Chapter VII includes suggestions for future re- search and commentary regarding the implications of this study. CHAPTER II THE CENTRAL FINDINGS: SIGNIFICANCE FOR ADMINISTRATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION The central findings and their significance for administration in higher education are presented in this chapter. This is not the usual order of chapters found in most doctoral theses. It was felt, however, to be the most appropriate presentation of this research. The reasons are: (1) this study is by design a hy- pothesis generating type of research, (2) the method- ology and data chapters are lengthy, and (3) the findings are clear and concise. The reader is invited, even encouraged, to read beyond the concise presentation of the findings in this chapter. A study of the tables, their analysis in Chapter IV, and the statistical data in Chapter V, is considered essential for an in-depth understanding of the central findings as presented here. Central Findings Faculty members in this study tended to stereotype their responses in groups as administrators, teachers, and researchers. Each of these types persists through 11 12 these several analyses: respondents grouped according to academic rank held, length of tenure in a particular institution, major portion of work-load, "home versus "other" university, or by institution served. The types of faculty members were identified by the.relationships of personal and professional charac- teristics, the level of importance attached to rewards system items, and/or the degree of satisfaction derived from position satisfactions. These types tend to be grouped according to the respondents' position require- ments. The number of respondents who indicated research as the greatest portion of their work-load was relatively small. However, analysis, the same as employed for re- spondents with a different work-load assignment, indi- cated researchers to be a distinct type. Teachers and administrators also were identifiable groups of respondents. Each of the three types tend to have a distinct pattern ofv likes and dislikes regarding their minor position require- ments. Each type has a distinct pattern of important re- wards, and sources of satisfaction.1 In addition to these three clearly identifiable types of faculty members a significant marginal.group is evident. These are faculty members who either have 1Supervisors of student teachers are a significant group of respondents for whom a separate analysis was made. Their responses corresponded to those of teachers. 13 multiple work-load assignments, or whose interrelation— ships of satisfactions, rewards, or personal and pro- fessional characteristics are inconsistent with any type otherwise identified. In addition to the identification of three types of faculty members another interesting finding of this study is: the degree of "like" or "dislike" expressed by respondents concerning the advisement of students. A generally low regard for this position requirement is consistent for all groups of respondents. It is generally low regardless of these variables: major portion of work— load, selected personal and professional characteristics, and institution served. Significance for Administration in Higher Education Selection,fAssignment and Promotion Those concerned with the selection, assignment and promotion of faculty in any university comparable to the universities included in this study may well consider the above findings to be important. It would be to the ad— vantage of the institution and the individual faculty member, if selection were to take into account the follow- ing: the faculty member's patterns of "like-dislike" toward position requirements, and attitudes concerning rewards offered and sources of satisfaction. 1A The multiple item factors identified in this re- search depict a difference in relationships among and between the above mentioned categories based upon easily discernable personal and professional characteristics. These relationships tend to identify faculty members by type. Certainly, in promotion of faculty, and usually in assignment, and often in selection, the individual under consideration has personal and professional character- istics known to the institution. Moreover, his likes and dislikes regarding work-load are known. If_a faculty member is one of the three types identifiable, based on the findings of this study, then perhaps a more meaningful decision can be reached when selection, assignment or pro- motion are considered. Personnel Policies Any uniformity in personnel policies will probably discriminate against at least one significant minority group within the institution. The more definitive and rigid the policies, the more likely they will discrimi- nate against one segment of the faculty. The axiomatic plea for broad policies which allow for flexibility of administrative procedures might more logically be a plea for different policies, and a broadening of these different policies; one set of policies for each of the identifiable faculty types. 15 Faculty Development The nature of the position held and the types of individuals enticed to the position, tend to reinforce one another. It may well be that there is a built-in resistance to change. This will require: innovative administrative practices; new concepts of personnel policies; and more apprOpriate procedures for selection, assignment, and promotion of faculty members. Develop- ment of faculty, individually or as a department, will necessitate these suggested changes within colleges of education. Student Advisement None of the respondents included in this study indicated a major portion of their work-load devoted to student advisement. In most instances it was indicated as a relatively small portion. No distinction was made between advisement of graduate students and advisement of undergraduate students. It is probable that student advisement was, at the time of this study, an addendum to the faculty work-load, rather than a small, but central, portion thereof. However, students are the first business of the institution. It would seem appropriate therefore, to manipulate the rewards system in such manner as to emphasize the advisement of students; make it a more positive portion of a faculty member's work-load. 16 The Research Instrument Not the least of the important results of this research was the development and use of an original instrument for the investigation of faculty position requirements, rewards systems, position satisfactions, and personal and professional characteristics. The rationale for the instrument, its administration, and reliability are presented in detail in subsequent chapters of this study. It can be reported that the instrument was adequate for this study, and can be used in further research. Suggestions for further use of this instrument, and continued investigation of faculty problems in higher education are found in Chapter VII. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES USED IN THE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The purposes of this chapter are to outline the procedures used in the collection and treatment of data. A description of the study population and of the instru- ments used, the methods of data collection, and the procedures for data analysis will be discussed in order. Description of the Study ngulation The population included all full-time faculty members in the college of education at Michigan State University and at five other selected universities in the State of Michigan. Questionnaires were sent to faculty members who were appointed to the university staff in the college of education for the 1966-1967 academic year. Their center of operation was on or from the main campus of their respective universities. Only faculty members with academic rank of instructor or above were asked to respond. Of the 5“? members to whom questionnaires were sent, 386 returned usable responses: 70.5 per cent of the total. Information regarding the number at each academic l7 18 rank level, average age, average length of tenure, and number in each type of assignment was obtained from each institution that contributed to the study population. Similar information was reported in the personal and professional characteristics section of the question- naire. Based on these characteristics, a comparison, by proportions, was made of the respondents and the total study population. The respondents were determined to be a representative sample of the total pOpulation to whom the questionnaires were sent. All responses were made anonymously. The Questionnaire The questionnaire used in this study was designed to illuminate the extent to which five principles characterize elements within and among three major categories: position requirements, rewards systems, and position satisfactions. These principles as previously stated in Chapter I, are as follows: 1. Elements within the position requirements of work—load assignment are related within them- selves and to similar elements in the rewards system and position satisfactions. 2. Elements within the rewards system are related within themselves and are also related to similar elements in the position satisfactions and the work-load assignment. 19 Elements within the position satisfactions category are related within themselves and are also related to similar elements in the work-load assignment and rewards system. The relationships described above are not consistent among differing faculty position requirements within a particular college of education. The relationships described above are not con- sistent in sub-populations of a college faculty that are delineated by age, academic rank, years of service in a college or uni— versity position, and other selected personal and professional characteristics. It was necessary that data related to each of the three major categories under investigation be secured. Moreover, the reactions of the faculty to the elements within each category were essential. Hence, the question— naire consisted of four parts: A. A summary of personal and professional character- istics related to the professional positions of the population for the academic year covered in the study. A list of work-load assignments for each faculty member. This was designed to obtain the per— centage of time devoted to each of the pro- fessional duties or services performed. The 20 degree to which the faculty members "like" or "dislike" each of the duties or services indicated as part of their work—load was sought by requesting them to check each on a six-point scale. C. A list of elements assumed to be of varying importance to faculty members as a part of the university rewards system. The level of importance attached to each of the elements listed was sought by requesting that each ele- ment be appropriately checked on a six—point scale. D. A checklist of elements assumed to be satisfy- ing to faculty members at varying levels. The level of satisfaction derived from each of the elements by faculty members was sought by re- questing that each element be checked on a six-point scale. A blank marked "other" was provided on each of the last three sections of the questionnaire to induce re- sponses not covered by the items listed. Less than 5 per cent of the respondents listed elements as "other." In most cases elements listed as "other" were restatements of elements already included. There were no new elements listed by more than two respondents. 21 A first draft of the questionnaire was prepared and discussed with members of the doctoral advisory committee. Refinements were made and copies of the questionnaire distributed to selected department chairmen within the college of education at Michigan State University. Further refinements were made as the result of their suggestions. Sample copies were handed to selected department chairmen and deans of the colleges of edu- cation at five other universities in the study population. This was accomplished during interviews with each of these persons. Final revisions and refinements were made after considering suggestions offered during these inter- views. Parts three and four of the questionnaire were examined through the application of a reliability test developed by Hoyt.l The test serves "to determine the reliability of the average ratings or the total score on the test, that is, maximum likelihood estimate of relia- bility." The formula used was leril Hoyt, "Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Variance," Psychometrika, VI (June, 1941), 2 2 r, =SR‘SE tt S2 R where 82R = variance of subjects scores 82E = variance due to error. Application of the test to a random sample of 30 com- pleted questionnaires produced an internal consistency ‘reliability score of .85 on Part C, rewards system; and .82 on Part D, position satisfactions. These scores clearly suggest that there exists a commonality in the ratings in each of the instruments. Since the purposes of this study require only that it is possible to estab- lish interrelationships among the elements from one category to another, the value of r is considered to be tt adequate. Collection of Data The primary source of data for the study was the questionnaire as described above. Questionnaires were mailed to SA? faculty members comprising the study popu- lation. Of the total group, 386, or 70.5 per cent, re- turned usable responses. A brief cover letter mailed with each questionnaire explained the general nature of the study. The instructions stated that all responses 23 were to be anonymous. Follow—up letters were sent to all persons to whom the original letter and questionnaire had been mailed, encouraging them to return the questionnaire. Letters also were sent to the deans and department chairmen outlining the objectives of the study and solicit- ing their support in encouraging faculty members to participate in the study. Current faculty rosters were obtained from the deans of the colleges of education in each of the six uni- versities. This was accomplished during an interview in which the purposes of the study, a third draft of the instrument, and the personal and professional character- istics of their particular faculties were discussed. Procedure for Data Analysis The construct Position Requirements Position Satisfactions Rewards System suggests that the analysis of the data be such as to permit an investigation of the relationships among 2“ faculty position requirements, position satisfactions and rewards system. The construct implies the use of com- parison of several groups of elements within and among the categories. Further, the use of statistical techniques to demonstrate the extent of relation of these elements. The analysis lends itself conveniently to division into two separate sections: first, the descriptive data and comparison, second, an analysis of data through the use of appropriate statistical techniques. The following questions are answered descriptively through the use of tables: 1. Do faculty members who spend the major portion of their time in the performance of one particular duty or service "like" this part of their work- load more or less than the other duties which they perform? 2. What are the major work-load responsibilities (60 per cent or more of the faculty member's time) for level of academic rank, salary, and years experience in the present university? 3. How do the ratings for selected elements in the rewards system compare by age, academic rank, and sex? A. How important are the rewards of academic rank, salary, and appropriateness of duties assigned to faculty members serving in an institution 25 that granted one or more of their degrees? How important are these same rewards to other faculty members serving in the same university? How do the responses of these two sub-popu- lations compare? 5. Which of the selected "internal" position satisfactions are most satisfying to each of the following sub-populations: instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, full professors? Which of the satisfactions are most satisfying to sub-populations comprised of faculty members with differing major position requirements? 6. Which of the selected "external" position satisfactions are most satisfying to each of the following sub-populations: instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, full professors? Which of the satisfactions are most satisfying to sub—populations comprised of faculty members with differing major position requirements? The intercorrelation matrix was examined and an elementary factor analysis technique devised by McQuitty2 was employed. The major matrix examined is as follows: 2Louis L. McQuitty, "Elementary Factor Analysis," Psychological Reports, IX (1961), pp. 71-78. 26 where A = personal and professional characteristics of the respondents C = rewards system items D = position satisfactions items. Elementary factor analysis can be performed on a relatively large matrix of intercorrelations to classify people or tests (including items) into clusters and to assess the extent to which each person or test is representative of its cluster.3 Intercorrelations of each of the A6 items comprising A, C, and D, form the large matrix of intercorrelations from which clusters were identified. Three sub—matrices were formed by sorting on work- load items as: Baw m \/ :I> o a 31bid., p. 18. where Ba = Administrators BS = Supervisors of Student Teachers Bt = Professors A = Personal and professional characteristics of the respondents C = Rewards system items D = Position satisfaction items. Six sub-matrices were formed by sorting by university as: U2\ p A W o A U \\\/ where Ul = University U2 = University U3 = University U4 = University U = University U6 = University A = Personal and professional.characteristics of 28 one two three four five six the.respondents C = Rewards system items D = Position satisfactions items. Two sub-matrices were formed by sorting by "home" university and other university. cludes all respondents serving in a university from which they received one or more degrees. fers to all other respondents not in the above stated "Home" university in- Other university re— category. The matrices were formed.as: fl l—IZI—E 29 where H = "Home" university 0 = Other university A = Personal and professional characteristics of the respondents C = Rewards system items D = Position satisfactions items. Summary This chapter has considered the study population, the instruments used, method of data collection and the methods for analysis of the data. In the following chapter are presented the descriptive data and comparisons of items within the three categories; position require- ments, position satisfactions and rewards system, plus selected personal and professional characteristics. CHAPTER IV DESCRIPTIVE DATA AND COMPARISONS Descriptive data concerning the study population are summarized in this chapter. Also included are comparisons of various sub-groups of the study population with respect to work-load, age, academic rank, sex and institutions from which the respondents obtained their degrees. Ree spondents were asked to supply pertinent data relative to their personal and professional characteristics in Part A of the questionnaire. Several comparisons have been made between items contained in Parts A and B of the question- naire. In these sections of the questionnaire, the cate- gorical or nominal data are contained. Other comparisons are of ratings for selected rewards system items and position satisfactions items within one or more of the categories described above. Simple averages and percentages were thought to be sufficient to show comparisons of items selected from Parts A and B of the questionnaire. The data in these two sections do not meet the assumptions of more reveal- ing statistical tests. The comparisons of ratings from the rewards system and position satisfactions categories 30 31 are presented in order to answer the questions set forth in Chapter III. Correlations revealing a relationship, or lack thereof, among items from Parts C and D of the questionnaire are presented in Chapter V. Major Work-load Responsibilities: Degree of "Like" or "Dislike" Data concerning major work-load are summarized in Table 3.1._ Inspection reveals that faculty members who devote 70 per cent or more of their time to one specific duty or service "like" this portion of their work—load more than the other duties and services which they per- form. Of the 1&5 respondents whose major position require- ments demand at least 70 per cent of their time be spent in the performance of one specific duty or service, three important modes are discernable: l. Twenty—four faculty members expressed a greater "like" for the minor portion of their work- load. 2. Forty-seven faculty members expressed equal "like" of both major and minor portions of their work-load. 3. Seventy-four faculty members expressed a greater degree of "dislike" for the minor portion of their work-load than for the major portion of work-load. 32 Of the 145 respondents reported in Table 3.1, only 15 rated their major portion of work-load below 5, on the six-point "like"-"dislike" scale. The same 15 re- spondents rated the minor portion of their work-load at 5, or above. One hundred twenty-one of the 145 respon— dents expressed as great or greater degree of "like" for their major portion of work-load as for their minor portion of work-load. Major Work-load Responsibility for Levels of Academic Rank, Salagy Range and Years Experience in the Present University In Table 3.2 are the major portion of work-load.for 198 faculty members included in this study. Major portion of work—load in Table 3.2 includes any particular duty or service as indicated in Part B of the questionnaire re- quiring at least 60 per cent of a faculty member's time. In the table faculty members' responses are grouped in each work-load category by academic rank, salary range, and number of years experience in their present uni- versity. Also included in the table are data descriptive of faculty members' work-load, whether or not they have an overload. An analysis of the data in Table 3.2 describes the faculty members included as follows: 1., Most faculty members whose primary responsi- bility is teaching hold academic rank of 33 assistant professor. Nearly as many hold academic rank of professor. More than half of the faculty members for whom 60 per cent of their position require— ment is teaching are in the middle salary range--$10,000 to $15,999. The largest number of faculty members who are primarily teachers have been in their present university less than five years. But, nearly as many have been in their present university more than thirteen years. Of the 117 faculty members indicating teaching as their major portion of work—load, 48_indi- cated they were on an overload basis. Of those faculty members who listed their major portion of work-load as research, in- structors were most numerous.. Of those faculty members indicating research as their major work-load responsibility, over one-half earned less than $10,000 per year. Over one-half of the faculty members in research indicated they had been in their present uni- versity less than five years. Of the 11 faculty members in research, only three indicated they were on an overload basis. 10. 11. l2. l3. 14. 15. 16. 34 Approximately one-half of the faculty members reporting in Table 3.2, for whom administration is their primary work-load responsibility, hold academic rank as professor. Nearly as many are associate professors. Nearly two-thirds of the administrators shown in Table 3.2 indicated their salary as in ex— cess of $16,000 per year. More than one-half of the administrators indi- cated they had been in their present university 13 years or more. Seventeen of the 37 faculty members whose major portion of work-load is administration indicated they were on an overload basis. Included in the table are 32 faculty members whose primary position requirement is super- vision of student teachers, 14 served as in- structors and 13 as assistant professors. Two—thirds of the supervisors of student teach- ers indicated their salary as less than $10,000 per year. Nearly two-thirds of the supervisors of student teachers have been at their present university less than five years. Of the 32 faculty members whose major portion of work-load is supervision of student teachers, nine indicated they were on an overload basis. 35 One associate professor who indicated his major portion of work-load as community assignment is included in the table. It-is of interest to note that 78 of the 198 faculty members included in Table 3.2, indicated they 1 were on an overload basis. Selected Rewards System l£§ms A distribution of levels of importance for rewards system items of academic rank, salary, monetary fringe benefits, and reputation of the university are shown in Table 3.3 and in Tables 3.3-1 through 3.3-6, inclusively. Included in these tables are comparisons of faculty by academic rank, sex, and age. The same information for each of the universities included in the study pOpu- lation is included in Tables 3.3-l through 3.3-6. Based on information included in Table 3.3, academic rank is considered to be more important as a reward the higher the academic rank held by the faculty member. Full lNo definition of overload was given in Part B of the questionnaire. Respondents indicated the per cent of total work-load devoted to each duty or service performed. Those with a total of 115 per cent or more were arbi— trarily assumed to have an overload. This may not be a valid assumption. There is often disagreement among faculty from department to department within a college of education as to what constitutes a full.load. The same may be true from institution to institution. In cases where an overload does, in fact, exist, it may result from an enticement, at additional salary, of faculty to serve off-campus. 36 professors generally regard academic rank as a more im- portant reward than do associate or assistant professors. The mode for all faculty members included in the table is 5. The median level of importance attached to academic rank is 5, except for instructors for whom it is 4. Salary is regarded by the total study population as a more important reward than is academic rank. Those faculty members with academic rank of associate pro- fessor attach the most importance to salary as a reward. Instructors attach least importance to salary as a re- ward. The mode for each level of academic rank is 5, except for assistant professors the mode is 6. The median level of importance attached to salary as a reward is 5 at each level of academic rank. Faculty members attach less importance to monetary fringe benefits than to salary as a reward. Monetary fringe benefits are considered at about the same level of importance as academic rank in the rewards system. The medians and modes are the same for both of these re— wards system items. The reputation of the university is as important as salary in the rewards system as shown in Table 3.3. The median for faculty members at all academic rank levels is 5. Faculty members with academic rank of full professor indicated they attach greater importance to 37 the reputation of the university than faculty members at the lower academic rank levels. Moreover, full pro— fessors attach greater importance to the reputation of the university as a reward than to any of the other three rewards system items shown in Table 3.3. A comparison of the importance attached by men and women to the rewards system items included in Table 3.3 has been made. Little difference in the importance attached to these items can be attributed to the differ- ences in sex. It is worthy of note, however, that of the 16 faculty members who expressed "little or no impor- tance" with regard to the reputation of the university as a reward, none are women. The rewards of academic rank, salary and monetary fringe benefits are about as impor— tant to women as to men faculty members. Analysis of Table 3.3 with regard to age reveals several patterns in the degree of importance attached to the rewards system items of academic rank, salary, monetary fringe benefits and the reputation of the university by each age group. Faculty members in the lower three age groups, including ages 21-35, tend to attach less impor- tance to academic rank as a reward than do faculty members in the middle age groups, including ages 36-55. Faculty members in the higher age groups, including ages 50-over 70, tend to attach more importance to the reward of academic rank than do the middle aged group. 38 Faculty members below age 40 attach slightly less importance to salary as a reward than older faculty mem- bers. However, the degree of importance attached to salary as a reward is consistently high among all age levels of faculty members. Monetary fringe benefits are shown to be about as important as academic rank. The age group 36-55 tends to attach slightly more importance to monetary fringe benefits than do either younger or older groups. The degree of importance attached to the reputation of the university as a rewards system item is highest among the older faculty members. The degree of impor— tance attached to the reputation of the university was found.to be consistently high throughout the entire faculty, however. Table 3.3 included only four of the 12 rewards system items contained in Part C of the questionnaire. It was felt that a comparison based on the three presonal and professional characteristics, academic rank, sex and age, would be sufficiently revealing. Tables 3.3.1 through 3.3.6 include a distribution of degrees of importance attached to selected rewards system items for each individual university included in the study population. They contain, by university, the same information as Table 3.3, which is a summary of all the universities included in the study. 39 Universities 1, 2, and 3 are relatively large institutions and have large colleges of education. Uni- versities 4, 5, and 6 are smaller in total size and have smaller colleges of education. The following three aspects, through comparison, are most notable in reflecting the differences and similarities in size and academic stature of the uni- versities included in this study with regard to the four rewards system items depicted in the tables: 1. Salary as a reward is regarded with nearly the same degree of importance by faculty members in all six colleges of education. At university 3 the distribution of ratings of the degree of importance attached to salary as a reward was bi-modal. Academic rank is regarded as a less important reward by faculty members at universities 4, and 5, than by the total study population. The degree of importance attached to reputation of the university as a reward by faculty members in universities l and 2, was greater than for faculty members in any of the other four uni— versities included in this study. The mode at both universities 1 and 2 was 6, as com- pared with 5 for the total of all respondents included in Table 3.3. 40 A perusal of Tables 3.3.1 through 3.3.6 also re- veals the differences in number of respondents, their age ranges, sex, and the number of faculty in each uni- versity at each level of academic rank. A Comparison of Faculty Members in Their "Home" Universities with Faculty Members in Other Universities: Three Selected Rewards System Items Included in Table 3.4 are responses by faculty mem- bers who are presently serving in a university from which they earned one or more of their degrees. For comparison, faculty members who are presently serving in a university other than one from which they have taken a degree are also depicted. The bases for comparison used in Table 3.4 are the levels of importance attached to three selected rewards system items generally assumed to be of primary importance to faculty members. Of the 386 respondents in the study population, 141 were serving in a university from which they had earned one or more degrees. The percentage of respondents at "other" universities who indicated the highest level of importance attached to academic rank as a reward is larger than the percentage of faculty members at "home" universities who indicated this level of importance for this item. Conversely, the per- centage of respondents who indicated they attach no importance to academic rank as a reward is greater for 41 "home" university faculty members than for other uni- versity faculty members. There is less difference in the percentages of respondents of "home" and other uni— versities who indicated one of the middle four levels of importance attached to academic rank as a reward. Respondents from other universities indicated salary as of great importance as a reward 8 per cent more often than respondents in "home" universities. There was very little difference in the percentages of "home" and other university faculty members indicating salary as a reward at the lower five levels of importance. Relatively little difference exist centages of faculty members serving in "home" and other universities for any of the six levels of importance at- tached to appropriateness of duties assigned as shown in Table 3.4. Internal Position Satisfactions: Four Levels of Academic Rank and Four Position Requirement Categories Included in Table 3.5 are the levels of satisfaction derived from seven "internal" position satisfaction items. The responses of professors, associate pro- fessors, assistant professors, and instructors are analyzed according to the major position requirement responsibilities of each respondent. For the data in- cluded in Table 3.5, at least 50 per cent of the faculty 42 member's time is devoted to a particular duty or service as indicated in Part B of the questionnaire. Research emphasis as a position satisfaction is the least satisfying of the position satisfaction items shown in Table 3.5. This is true at all academic rank levels. Except for those whose major position requirement is re- search, it is also true for all major position require- ment categories shown. The position satisfaction most satisfying at all levels of academic rank and for all work-load categories is congeniality of associates. This pattern is least pronounced for those primarily engaged in research. The administration of the department tends to be a source of satisfaction to most faculty members depicted in Table 3.5. Some exceptions are found in the groups of assistant professors and full professors who are primarily engaged in teaching. Opportunity for professional growth and advancement is a strong source of position satisfaction for all posi- tion requirement categories and all professorial levels shown in the table. This position satisfaction is nearly as strong a source of satisfaction as is congeniality of associates. Of the 195 respondents included in Table 3.5, only 26 indicated less than average amount of satisfaction derived from Opportunity for professional growth and ad- vancement. 43 The caliber of students is indicated as a source of satisfaction at either of the top two levels, 5 or 6, by approximately one-half of the 195 faculty members in- cluded in Table 3.5. It is indicated at either of the lower two levels by only four faculty members. Of those whose primary work—load responsibility is teaching, only 12 indicated below average satisfaction with the caliber of students. Whereas, 105 teachers indicated above average levels of satisfaction derived from the caliber of stu- dents at their respective universities. The reputation of the department as a source of satisfaction ranges from "no satisfaction" to "great satisfaction" at all levels of academic rank. This is also true for most position requirement categories shown. The exception to this pattern was found.to be in the adminis- trators category. No administrator indicated the lowest possible level of satisfaction derived from the reputation of the department. The reputation of the department was more often a source of above average level of satisfaction. However, it_is not of the strength of congeniality of associates or opportunity for professional growth and ad- vancement as a source of satisfaction. It should be noted in Table 3.5, that of the faculty members primarily engaged in supervision of student teach- ers none held academic rank of associate professor. All other major position requirement cagegories include faculty members at each of the levels of academic rank. 44 External Position Satisfactions for All Levels of Academic Rank and Major Portion of Work-load The levels of satisfaction derived from three "ex- ternal" position satisfaction items are depicted in Table 3.6. Professors, associate professors, assistant pro- fessors, and instructors are separated according to their major portion of work-load. Unlike responses in Table 3.5, the major portion of work-load in Table 3.6 includes all respondents included in the study. The major portion of work-load is determined to be whichever duty or service requires the largest amount of the faculty member's time as indicated in Part B of the questionnaire. It is to be noted that several position requirements do not, in some cases, require the largest per cent of any faculty member's time. This does not mean these duties or services are less or more important than other duties and services performed by faculty. It is simply an indication of the spread of such services as student advising or con- sulting for the university. Few faculty members spend the major portion of their time in such services. Analysis of the data contained in Table 3.6 shows that living conditions are a greater source of satisfaction for professors than for instructors. Associate and assistant professors indicate similar levels of satis- faction derived from living conditions. Full professors derive somewhat more satisfaction from cultural and 45 recreational advantages than do faculty members at lower academic ranks.. Administrators are shown to derive a greater level of satisfaction from each of the external position satis- factions, shown in Table 3.6, than faculty members in any of the other work-load categories. Only one of 56 adminis- trators indicated "no satisfaction" derived from the three items shown. Those whose major portion of work-load is research indicated generally lower levels of satisfaction derived from each of the position satisfactions items shown in Table 3.6. Geographic location is the least relevant of the three position satisfactions shown. The mode is at level 4, for all academic ranks and for most major portion of work-load categories. It can be determined from studying Table 3.6 that, except for the highest academic rank and the position re- quirement of administrator, little difference is indi- cated in the levels of satisfaction derived from the external position satisfactions described in the Table. Table 3.6 includes responses from faculty members from all of the six universities in the study population. Tables 3.6.1 through 3.6.6 include the same in- formation, by university, as is included in Table 3.6. A perusal of these additional six tables reveals the 46 following notable observations concerning the levels of satisfaction derived from three position satisfaction items at 1. each of six different universities: Faculty members at university 4 tend to be more satisfied with the external sources of position satisfaction than are faculty members at the other five universities. Of 168 indications of satisfaction level, only 13 were less than above average. Faculty members at university 5 whose primary responsibility is teaching indicated less satisfaction derived from these three position satisfactions than did teachers in the other five universities. The same is true when com- pared with faculty members at university 5, with different work—load responsibilities. Except at university 4, full professors indi- cated a greater level of satisfaction derived from each of the items in Tables 3.6.1 through 3.6.6 than did faculty members at lower levels of academic rank. Faculty members at university 6 indicated a greater level of satisfaction derived from geographic location than did faculty members at the other five universities. 47 Nuances were discerned in the satisfaction levels derived from each of the external position satisfactions included in Tables 3.6 and 3.6.1 through 3.6.6. It is of interest, however, that two of the external position satisfactions are generally as satisfying at one uni- versity as another. Summary Data analyzed in this chapter have shown that faculty members who devote 70 per cent or more of their time to one specific duty or service "like" this major portion of their work-load more than the other duties and services which they perform. Administrators were found to be at the higher levels of academic rank, to be more highly paid and to have remained in their present university more than 13 years. Faculty members serving in universities from which they have received one or more of their degrees were found to differ only slightly from other faculty members in the degree of importance attached to salary, academic rank, and appropriateness of duties assigned. Forty per cent of those faculty members who spend at least one-half of their time in the performance of one specific duty or service indicated they were on an overload basis. More importance is attached to salary than to any other item in the rewards system. The higher the academic rank held by a faculty member, the more 48 importance attached to salary as a reward. The most satisfying position satisfaction item was found to be congeniality of associates. Research emphasis in the particular university served was indicated as least important of the internal position satisfactions. Full professors tend to be the most satisfied members of the faculty with regard to the external position satisfactions item, living conditions. Administrators were shown to derive a greater level of satisfaction from each of the external position satisfactions, living conditions, cul- tural and recreational advantages and geographic location, than faculty members in any other work—load category. Bias of the respondents must be considered when generalizations are made from these findings. The tendency to higher salaries, greater numbers of faculty members on an overload basis, and more rapid advancement in academic rank may be partially due to the fact that the more energetic faculty members were more willing to respond to the questionnaire. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF DATA The statistical analysis of data is presented in, this chapter. It was the purpose of this study to generate, rather than test, hypotheses based on five principles stated in Chapter I, and six questions asked in Chapter II. An elaboration beyond the results of the analyses was presented in The Central Findings in Chapter II, and Im- plications and Remarks, Chapter VI. The intercorrelation matrices were designed to seek information. Also to seek support for, or refutation of, the principles stated in Chapter I, and the questions posed in Chapter II. The presentations of factors in this chapter are relevant to those principles and questions. The CDC 3600 computer was used to compute the correlation coefficients. Factors were computed from the intercorrelation matrices by application of:a factor analysis technique by McQuitty.l' Factor loadings were computed for each of the factors shown. The strongest component in each factor is indicated with an asterisk. Underlined components indi- cate the correlation coefficient is significant at the lMcQuitty, Psychological Reports, pp. 71-78. 49 50 .005 level. An arrow indicates the direction of highest correlation of one component with another. Significance levels of correlation coefficients were obtained from Table VI, Experimental Design in Peychological Research.2 Factors are presented in order of relative strength. Factor #1 is strongest, #2 is next and so on through the last or weakest factor in the matrix. For clarity of presentation all factor components have been identified as follows: A O I: Rewards system items. Position satisfaction items. Personal and professional characteristics. The descriptions of items included within each of the categories are indicated numerically as follows: Rewards System Items: [X 2 = Importance attached to academic rank. 3 = Importance attached to salary. 4 = Importance attached to monetary fringe benefits. 5 = Importance attached to the adequacy of office and research facilities. 6 = Importance attached to adequacy of classroom facilities. 2Allen E. Edwards, Experimental Design in Psycho— logical Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960). 10 ll l2 Position l3 1“ l5 l6 17 18 19 51 Importance attached to of duties assigned. Importance attached to services. Importance attached to to carry on research. Importance attached to writing. Importance attached to department. Importance attached to university. Satisfactions Items: 0 appropriateness clerical and staff the opportunity time allowed for reputation of the reputation of Satisfaction derived from research emphasis at the university. Satisfaction derived from the physical facilities. Satisfaction derived Satisfaction derived associates. Satisfaction derived with the Head of the Satisfaction derived from teaching. from congeniality of from personal contacts Department. from opportunities for growth and advancement. Satisfaction derived of the department. from the reputation 2O 21. 22 23 2H 25 26 27 28 Personal 30 31 32 33 3h 35 H2 “5 52 Satisfaction derived from the reputation of the university. Satisfaction derived from academic rank held. Satisfaction derived from the caliber of students. Satisfaction derived from the adminis- tration of the department. Satisfaction derived from current salary. Satisfaction derived from monetary fringe benefits. Satisfaction derived from living conditions. Satisfaction derived from cultural and recreational advantages in the.area. Satisfaction derived from the geographic. location. and Professional Characteristics: E] Academic rank held. Experience in higher education. Length of tenure at present university. Administrative experience. Experience in elementary and secondary education. Experience in school administration. Age of faculty member. Salary of faculty member. 53 All Respondents Matrix: Seven Factors Ratings on 46 items by the 386 respondents in the study population make up the first matrix. The items are included in Parts A, C, and D of the questionnaire. They are items in the rewards system, position satisfactions, and personal and professional characteristics categories. #1 Personal and Professional Characteristics E The strongest factor found in the matrix of all items for all respondents is comprised of only two per- sonal and professional characteristics; academic rank and salary. It is clear that, in the institutions in- cluded in the study population, faculty salaries are dependent primarily on level of academic rank. 511 #2 Personal and Professional Characteristics T E lit—A2 T '55 Age is the most heavily loaded component of this age-experience—tenure factor. All components within the factor were measured in years. #3 Rewards System Category D The third strongest factor in this matrix reveals that faculty members tend to attach the same degree of importance to the reputation of their departments as they attach to the reputation of the university in which they serve. 55 #u Position Satisfactions C<—-@ Factor #4 is made up of internal position satis- factions items. A relationship exists between the satis- faction experienced from the department and university reputations, teaching, the caliber of students, and the Opportunities for professional growth and advancement. This factor, although fourth, is a strong factor in which all correlation coefficients are significant at the .005 level. #5 Position Satisfactions Factor five is a relationship of three additional internal position satisfactions items. The strength of this factor is somewhat less than the larger factor com- prised of internal position satisfactions above. 56 #6 Rewards System Items and One Position Satisfaction Item @x—Q 1 Factor six is the only factor in this matrix that includes components from more than one category. One item from the position satisfactions category is brought in with two rewards system items. Faculty tend to attach similar degrees of importance to research and writing opportunities, and to gain satisfaction from the overall emphasis on research at their particular universities. #7 Two Rewards System Items A A Factor seven in this matrix, the least powerful, is comprised of Just two rewards system items. Salary and monetary fringe benefits are both a part of the tangible system of payments for services rendered. 57_ Summary Factors depicted above do not necessarily indicate which items are of greatest concern to faculty members. They simply reveal which items, or components have the highest degree of relationship. Factors two and four re- veal a cluster of five items each; one within the position satisfactions category and one within the personal and professional characteristics category. It is of interest to note that only in factor six are items from more than one category combined in a factor. An investigation of the interrelationships of the elements inherent within the rewards system, position satisfactions, position requirements, and selected personal and professional characteristics was made for three groups of the respondents. Factors were computed for each group to facilitate comparison. Thirty administrators, 21 super— visors of student teachers and 92 teachers comprise the three groups. Included are faculty members who indicated 70 per cent or more of their time devoted to one of these three position requirements. The matrices and factors for administrators, super- visors of student teachers and teachers are presented in order. 58 Administrators Matrix: Eight Factors Ratings on 46 items by 30 faculty members whose pri- mary work—load responsibility is administration make up this matrix. #1 Rewards System and Position Satisfactions Categories Air o—e 20 The strongest factor in the matrix is made up of non—monetary rewards and internal position satisfactions. One component in this factor was found to have a corre- lation coefficient not significant at the .005 level; 22 correlated with 19 at the .01 level. #2 Items from all Categories Are Included 59 Factor 2, is comprised of items from each of the categories; rewards system, position satisfactions and personal and professional characteristics. Component 5, adequacy of office and research facilities is the most heavily loaded in the factor. All components have cor— relation coefficients significant at the .005 level, except 34, at the .025 level and 7, at the .010 level. #3 Position Satisfactions External ' .1 4@ V 7 Factor three in the administrators matrix is com- prised of two position satisfactions. There is a relation- ship between the importance administrators attach to their living conditions and the cultural and recreational ad- vantages available to them. #u Personal and Professional Characteristics . '4 X 1.3.5. Es ‘ [a 60 All components of factor four are personal and pro- fessional characteristics related to the administrators. This factor pictures the experience—age—salary relation- ship of administrators. The correlation of 31 with #2, is significant at the .025 level. Salary received the greatest factor loading. #5 Position Satisfactions All components in_this factor are position satis- factions. It is interesting to note the high relation— ship between external and internal position satisfactions; l7 and 28, for administrators. #6 Position Satisfactions L 44 @ Factor six is significant at the .005 level. A relationship exists between the satisfaction derived by administrator from these two internal position satis- factions items. 6l #7 Position Satisfactions a e Factor seven indicates a significant relationship exists between research emphasis and teaching as position satisfactions for administrators. Most administrators included in this matrix are not involved significantly in teaching. #8 Rewards System Position Satisfactions A o Administrators tend to regard academic rank with corresponding degrees of importance and levels of satis- faction. These two components of factor #8 have a corre— lation coefficient significant at the .01 level. Supervisors of Student Teachers Matrix: Seven Factors Ratings on U6 items by 21 respondents who spend at least 70 per cent of their time in the supervision of student teachers comprise this matrix. #1 Personal and Professional Characteristics Position Satisfactions .___./@ LA) LA) NHI-J 62 Factor one in the supervisors of student teachers matrix is comprised of experience items and external position satisfactions items. All correlation coeffi- cients are significant at the .005 level. #2 Rewards System Position Satisfactions A 69/ Component 20, reputation of the university, is the most heavily loaded in this factor. #3 Rewards System Position Satisfactions Personal and Professional Characteristics it“ A Factor three includes components from each category. The relationship as pictured above for 21 supervisors of student teachers are all significant at the .005 level, 63 except component 35, with component ll, is significant at the .025 level. #M Personal and Professional Characteristics Rewards System /- IE +——>|“s’ \ 5 Factor four depicts age-salary-academic rank characteristics, and one non-monetary rewards system item. All component correlation coefficients comprising factor four are significant at the .005 level. #5 Rewards System Position Satisfactions o 6—6933 Factor five contains both internal and external position satisfactions and one non-monetary rewards system factor. Components 7 and 26 have correlation coefficients significant at the .01 level. 6A #6 Rewards System Li 1 $6 Q Factor six includes three non—monetary rewards for supervisors of student teachers. A relationship is depicted between the importance attached to office and research facilities, classroom facilities, and designated portion of the work-load assigned to writing. #7 Internal Position Satisfactions o \oe—o e Factor seven is a strong cluster of non-monetary, internal position satisfactions. The correlation co- efficient for components 13 with 1H, is significant at the .01 level. 65 Summary The factors depicted in the supervisors of student teachers matrix are all comprised of three or more com- ponents. Five of the seven factors contain items from more than one of the categories: rewards system, position satisfactions, and personal and professional character- istics. Teachers Matrix: Eight Factors Ratings on 46 items by 92 teachers are included in this matrix. Each of the respondents included devote at least 70 per cent of their time to teaching. Eight factors were computed from the correlation matrix. #1 Personal and Professional Characteristics Is , g. The strongest factor in the teachers matrix is comprised of age-experience components. For the 92 teachers included, the relationship of age, total experi- ence in higher education, and tenure in the present uni- versity have a stronger relationship than any other cluster of items. 66 #2 Personal and Professional Satisfactions Ell .Q< .32 Factor two, like factor one, is comprised of three personal and professional characteristics. In this academic rank-experience-salary factor, the present salary is the most heavily loaded component. #3 #4 Position Satisfactions Rewards System # Factors three and four, the next strongest two, are both made up of high correlations of the reputation of the department and the university. They are interest- ing for two reasons. First, the correlation between the reputation of the department and the reputation of the university as a source of satisfaction to teachers is higher than the same two elements' correlation is as a 67 reward for services. Second, the strongest rewards system factor, number four, in the teachers matrix is non-monetary. #5 Rewards System Personal and Professional Characteristics 4% @. 1i Factor five consists of three rewards system com— ponents and one personal and professional characteristic. Component 34 was brought into the factor by a high nega— tive correlation with component 9. The more experience at the elementary and secondary levels the faculty have had, the less importance they attach to opportunities to do research. #6 Position Satisfactions e: {.9 O\ (I) Factor six is a small cluster of non-monetary internal position satisfactions. The level of satis- faction derived from the administration of the depart- ment is the most heavily loaded component in the factor. #7 Rewards System A ii Factor seven is a combination cf two monetary re— wards. Salary and academic rank are more often combined as a monetary rewards factor. For this group of 92 teachers, however, the salary-fringe benefits correlation is highest. #8 Rewards System Position Satisfactions i @e—@ Factor eight reveals a strong relationship between academic rank as an important reward and academic rank as a source of satisfaction. Also, brought into the factor are position satisfactions; research emphasis and 69 the caliber of students. The most heavily loaded com- ponent in the factor is academic rank as a source of satisfaction. Summary Three of the eight factors in the teachers' matrix include only two items. The strongest factor is comprised of personal and professional characteristics. Only two factors included items from more than one category. In each of the factors within this matrix all of the com— ponents have correlation coefficients significant at the .005 level. A separate matrix for faculty members serving in a university from which they earned one or more of their degrees was formed. ‘This matrix is referred to as the "home" matrix. All other respondents from the matrix herein referred to as "other." By comparing factors from the "home" matrix.and "other" matrix answers can be sought for the questions regarding "home" faculty members. The next two matrices presented will be "home" and "other" in order. The factors from each are presented. "Home" Faculty Members Matrix: Eight Factors Ratings on “6 items by the 141 respondents serving in a university from which they received one or more of their degrees make up the "home" matrix. 70 #1 Personal and Professional Characteristics A's 3; ER 1 a @ Factor one is an experience-age cluster of personal and professional characteristics. All components in the factor are, as indicated, significant at the .005 level. The number of years served in the present university is the most heavily loaded item in the factor. #2: Personal and Professional Characteristics Factor two is the academic rank—salary combination. It is to be expected that a high correlation would occur between these two items. Most universities tie their salary schedule to levels of academic rank. It_is interesting to note that no other items were brought into this factor. 71 #3 Rewards System Position Satisfactions Q9 A @i 6) Factor three is comprised of two items each in- cluded in the rewards system and position satisfactions categories. The reputation of the university as a re- ward and as a source of satisfaction are most highly correlated in the factor. The reputation of the depart- ment as a reward and as a source of satisfaction are brought into the factor by the corresponding items in the categories regarding the university's reputation. #u Position Satisfactions 72 Factor four consists of three external position satisfactions and one internal position satisfaction. Faculty members in the "home" university tend to derive the same level of satisfaction from their living condi- tions and the cultural and recreational advantages in the area. #5 Rewards System ée—A A Factor five is an academic rank-monetary rewards cluster. The loading in this factor is on salary. #6 Position Satisfactions Factor six is comprised of four internal position satisfactions; two of them monetary. Salary as a source 73 of satisfaction is the most heavily loaded item in the factor. #7 Position Satisfactions I: a: /\ 6) Factor seven is a cluster of three internal position satisfactions. All items are non-monetary in nature and iregard relationships of faculty members with one another 51nd the administrative faculty members. #8 Rewards System Position Satisfactions Personal and Professional Characteristics £15 A .<— i Factor eight is comprised of items from all three Ciategories. The most heavily loaded item in the factor 1J3 the level of satisfaction derived from the emphasis 74 upon research at the university. It is to be noted that the correlation of elementary and secondary teaching ex- perience with satisfaction derived from the emphasis on research is a negative correlation; significant at the .005 level. Summary All except one of the factors depicted in the "home" faculty members matrix included more than two items. Five of the eight factors shown included four items. Only two factors included items from more than one category of the questionnaire. Only factor eight, the weakest shown, in- cluded items from the rewards system, position satis- factions, and personal and professional characteristics categories. "Other" Faculty Members Matrix: Eight Factors Two hundred forty-five faculty members serving in universities other than one from which they earned their degrees make up the "other" matrix. #1 Personal and Professional Characteristics 75 Factor one is an expected high correlation of academic.rank and salary. It is not, however, neces- sarily expected that these two items would have the highest correlation in the entire matrix. #2- Personal and Professional Characteristics ilk 3.2. Factor two also consists solely of personal and professional characteristics. It is an age—experience factor in which experience in higher education is the heavily loaded component. #3 Position Satisfactions Factor three is a cluster of internal position satisfactions. For those respondents in the "other" 76 matrix, a strong relationship exists between the satis- factions derived from the reputation of the university and the reputation of the department, the physical facilities and the caliber of students. #4 Rewards System #5 Position Satisfactions ’P '2 1 Factor #5, is comprised of seven items, all within Grg the position satisfactions category. The factor loading is on 23, level of satisfaction derived from the adminis- tration of the department. #6 Rewards System Position Satisfactions 6.3) W 77 Factor #6, shows two rewards system items with a similar position satisfactions item drawn into the cluster. The respondents in this matrix tend to regard research opportunity and the opportunity to write with the same degree of importance. #7 #8 Rewards System Position Rewards System Satisfactions A Q Factors 7 and 8 each have two items. In factor 7 we find a strong relationship between academic rank as a reward and academic rank as a source of satisfaction. Factor 8, the weakest in this matrix, shows a high correlation between two monetary rewards. Summary The "other" matrix produced eight factors, four of which contain only two items. Only two factors were com— prised of more than three items: factor three, with four items, and factor five, with seven items. Both factors three and five depict meaningful clusters of position satisfactions items. 78 The highest two correlations and strongest factors in the matrix are comprised of personal and professional characteristics. Summary Each of the six matrices presented in this chapter was examined by application of factor analysis. The factors, clusters of items within and among the rewards system, position satisfactions, and personal and pro- fessional characteristics, reveal the following significant relationships: 0f the 47 factors identified, 16 include only two items, 13 include three items, 11 include four items, and seven include more than four items. Four of the six strongest factors in the matrices (i.e., the first factors in the matrix), are comprised of personal and professional characteristics and position satisfactions items, and the other, position satisfactions and personal and professional characteristics. The administration matrix included more items within the eight factors than was the case for any of the other five matrices. This matrix also produced the largest number of items in a single factor--l2. Rewards system items were included in 20 of the factors identified. Position satisfactions items were included in 27 of the factors. Personal and professional characteristics items were included in 16 of the factors. 79 Both the supervision of student teachers matrix and the "home" matrix produced seven out of eight factors that included more than two items. Only three of the 47 factors included items from each of the rewards system, position satisfactions, and personal and professional characteristics categories. These three factors were produced by the supervision of student teachers, administration, and "home" matrices. It must be reiterated: factors reveal relation- ships among items. These relationships are not neces- sarily indicators of the value of any item contained therein. Two items, either of which may be regarded by faculty members as having little importance as rewards, may have a significant correlation coefficient and be included in a strong factor. An elaboration on the findings in Chapters IV and V was included in Chapter II, Central Findings and Con- clusions. CHAPTER VI A SUMMARY: THE DATA, PRINCIPLES, AND QUESTIONS Solutions to faculty problems have become increas- ingly urgent in the recent period of rapidly rising en- rollments in colleges and universities and a highly competitive market for academic personnel. This study has been an attempt to clarify and point the direction to some of the unanswered questions which have resulted from other faculty studies. The purposes of this study were to investigate the relationships between faculty re- wards systems, position satisfactions and position re- quirements. The population under study included Michigan State University's College of Education and selected other state universities in Michigan. Five principles were advanced which were thought to provide a suitable basis for the investigation of relation— ships within and among the elements of faculty rewards systems, position satisfactions, position requirements, and numerous faculty personal and professional charac- teristics. It was also intended that these principles, 80 81 along with answers to six questions formulated, would serve as a basis from which one or more hypotheses might be generated. In this chapter, three relevant comments are made. These are: 1.. A summary of the data chapters. 2. Answers to the six questions formulated. 3. Support, refutation, or restatement of the five principles advanced. Summary of Data Chapters Faculty members who devote 70 per cent or more of their time to one specific duty or service like this portion of their work-load more than the other duties and services they perform. Most faculty members whose primary responsibility is teaching hold academic rank of assistant professor or full professor. Of the 117 respondents primarily en— gaged in teaching, most were found to earn between $10,000 and $15,000 per year. Most of the teachers have either been in their present university less than five years or more than 13 years. Few have been in their present uni- versity between five and 13 years. The average age of teachers was found to be 44. The internal position satisfactions most pleasing to teachers were found to be: congeniality of associates, an Opportunity for professional growth and advancement, 82 the reputation Of the university, and the caliber Of stu- dents. External position satisfactions most pleasing to teachers were found to be living conditions, and cultural and recreational advantages. An interrelationship of elements within and among the rewards system, position satisfactions, and the per- sonal and professional characteristics of teachers was demonstrated through factor analysis. Clusters of per- sonal and professional characteristics were strongest. These consisted Of an experience-age factor, and an ad- ministrative experience—salary-academic rank factor. Clusters depicting a relationship Of rewards system and position satisfaction items were also revealed. The degree of importance attached to salary and monetary fringe bene- fits as rewards were shown tO be similar for teachers. A similar relationship Of the reputation of the university and the reputation of the department was also shown. Ree lated elements within the position satisfactions for teachers were found to be the satisfaction derived from the administration Of the department, Opportunity for professional growth and advancement, and the teaching function. An interrelationship of the importance at- tached to academic rank as a reward, position satisfaction derived from academic rank, satisfaction derived from the emphasis on research at the university, and the satis- faction with the caliber Of students was also shown to exist for teachers. 83 Thirty respondents reported that they devote the major portion Of their time to administrative duties. The majority Of these administrators hold academic rank as full professor or associate professor. Nearly two- thirds of the administrators indicated their salary in excess Of $16,000 per year. More than one-half Of the administrators have served in their present university more than 13 years. They average 48 years Of age. The internal position satisfactions most pleasing to administrators are: congeniality of associates, reputa— tion Of the department, and Opportunity for growth and advancement. Each Of the above position satisfactions was indicated as "very satisfying" by a larger prOportion of administrators than any other group Of respondents sorted according to position requirement. Administrators were also found to be the group deriving the most satis— faction from external position satisfactions. In order of greatest satisfaction derived, administrators indicated living conditions, cultural and recreational advantages, and geographic location as sources Of satisfaction. Factor analysis Of a 46 item matrix for adminis- trators revealed several clusters Of relationships among the elements within the rewards system, position satis- factions, and certain personal and professional charac- teristics. The strongest factor for administrators in- cluded the rewards Of the reputations Of the department 84 and university, and the reputations of the department and university as sources Of position satisfaction. Also included in this factor was the satisfaction derived from the caliber of students. The second factor depicted for administrators is the strongest in the six matrices sub- jected to factor analysis. A cluster of 12 items comprised of eight from the rewards system, three from the position satisfactions, and one of the.persona1 and professional characteristics was revealed. The importance attached to the adequacy of Office and research facilities was found to be the key item in this factor. A total Of 34 items were included in the eight factors produced from the administrators matrix. Most faculty members who devote the major portion Of their time to the supervision of student teachers were found to hold academic rank Of instructor or assistant professor. Two—thirds of the supervisors Of student teachers earn less than $10,000 per year, and have. served in their present university less than five years. Supervisors of student teachers tend to be less satisfied with the external position satisfactions than faculty members who devote most Of their time to teach- ing. Eight factors were computed from the matrix Of supervisors for student teachers. The most powerful factor was composed Of two personal and professional 85 characteristics and two position satisfactions. Experi- ence in higher education correlated highly with years served in the present university. Satisfaction derived from the cultural and recreational advantages and the geographic location were included in the cluster. The second and fifth factors are comprised Of rewards system and position satisfaction items. Factor three included items from each of the three categories. The rewards of. the reputations of the department and the university, the position satisfaction Of Opportunity for professional growth and advancement, and the professional charac- teristic of experience at the elementary and secondary levels made up this cluster from the supervisors Of stu— dent teachers matrix. Of interest is factor four. It) includes the age-salary-academic rank characteristics with the non—monetary reward item of clerical and staff ser- vice. The supervisors Of student teachers matrix produced factors of different combinations and different strengths from the administrators or teachers matrices. Of 198 respondents with 60 per cent or more Of their time committed to a single position requirement, two- fifths indicated they were on an overload basis. The criteria for determining faculty load is not consistent among the six universities included in this study. Moreover, in some instances a slight overload is 86 expected without monetary compensation. With reference to the respondents discussed above, an overload Of at least 15 per cent was considered worthy of note. Faculty mem- bers primarily engaged in administration indicated they were on an overload basis Oftener than did faculty mem- bers having other major work-load responsibilities. A comparison Of four rewards system items revealed some similarities and differences in the importance at— tached thereto. The greatest degree of importance is attached to academic rank as a reward by faculty members who have the highest level of academic rank. Salary is a more important reward to associate professors than to instructors. Faculty members attach less importance to monetary fringe benefits than to salary as a reward. Faculty members consider the reputation of the university to be a more important reward than salary. This is especially true for those with academic rank Of full professor. The only difference with regard to the above four rewards system items, for male or female faculty members, is in the importance attached to the reputation Of the university. Consistently, women tend to regard this re- ward higher than do men. In all other considerations Of these four rewards system items, sex matters little. Salary is an important reward for all age groups. Monetary fringe benefits, however, tend to be given more 87 importance by faculty in the 36—55 age groups.A Academic rank is a more important reward to Older faculty members. Since this difference in importance.for different age groups is not evidenced for salary, it is logical to assume that academic rank is a reward to faculty mem- bers apart from its tie to the salary schedule. The most pronounced difference in the importance Of one of these four rewards system items for particular age groups is the degree of importance attached to the reputation Of the university. The Older the faculty member, the more importance attached to the reputation of the university. The importance attached to academic rank and salary as rewards was found to be less for faculty members serving in universities from which they received one or more Of their degrees, than for other faculty members. Appropri— ateness of duties assigned was about as important a reward to the "home" faculty members as for other faculty members. As reported in Chapter IV, factors were computed from intercorrelation matrices to discover which items cluster. All respondents serving in a university from which they received one or more Of their degrees were in- cluded in one, and all other respondents were included in the other matrix. The results of this comparison are summarized as follows. 88 The reader must be cognizant at the outset Of the limitations of comparing factors from one matrix with factors from another matrix. Factors are comprised of significant correlation coefficients between items. They do not imply value of the items, merely a relationship. From this point Of reference a comparison Of factors from separate matrices becomes meaningful. The purpose Of the comparison is to visualize the differing patterns Of item relationships of the respondents when they are grouped according to major position requirement, "home" or other university, or in aggregate. The data described in Chapter IV reveal only one factor from the "home" matrix to be identical with a factor from the "other” matrix. Faculty members serving in a university from which they received one or more de— grees revealed a very high relationship between their present salary and the academic rank they hold. The same was true for the group of all other respondents. This was also found to be true for these two groups com— bined into one large matrix. This relationship was the strongest in the matrix for the combined groups and for the group of "other" faculty members. It was the second strongest relationship in the "home" matrix. All other factors were different. The particular items included in the factors, the number Of items in the factors, the extent of their relationships, and the interrelationships 89 among the three categories Of items are different for each of these groups of respondents. A summary Of the resultant factors computed for all respondents and for three position requirement sub- groups is analogous to the above comparison of factors from the "home" and "other" groups Of respondents. These four matrices produced factors composed of items within each Of the categories of items. Some factors reveal a relationship among items from two or all three Of the categories; rewards system, position satisfac- tions, and personal and professional characteristics. Few of the factors among the four matrices are identical. Indications of satisfaction derived from seven internal position satisfactions were tabulated from re— sponses by 195 faculty members. These 195 faculty mem- bers had differing major position requirement responsi- bilities. They also held differing levels Of academic rank. The criteria for determining major position re- quirement was that 50 per cent or more of the faculty members' time be devoted to one specific duty or service. From Table 3.5, it was determined that congeniality Of associates is the source Of greatest internal position satisfaction at all levels of academic rank and for all position requirement categories. The Opportunity for professional growth and advancement is also an important source Of great position satisfaction for all levels of 90 academic rank and all position requirement categories. It is nearly as satisfying as congeniality Of associates. The administration of the department is a positive source of position satisfaction, but with some exceptions. Those whose position requirement is primarily teaching indicated less satisfaction derived from the adminis- tration Of the department than did the other position requirement groups. These exceptions were most Often full professors or assistant professors. Satisfaction derived from the caliber of students was found to be especially great for teachers. For other position requirement groups and for the four levels Of academic rank, it is a positive source of satisfaction, but not of great satisfaction. The reputation Of the department is a source of greater satisfaction for administrators than for other position requirement groups. It is more often than not, a source of above average position satisfaction for all levels of academic rank, and position requirement cate- gories. Emphasis on research at the university is the least satisfying Of the items examined in Table 3.5. The exceptions are those faculty members primarily engaged in research. A summary of the findings in regards to external position satisfactions depicted in Table 3.6, includes three important modes. 91- One, geographic location is less satisfying than living conditions or cultural and recreational advantages. Living conditions are a greater source Of satisfaction for professors than for faculty members at lower levels of academic rank. Administrators derive more satis— faction from living conditions and cultural and recre- ational advantages than any other position requirement group. Those whose primary position requirement is re- search indicated generally low levels of satisfaction derived from each of these three external position satisfaction items. The Questions Based on the findings Of this study, the questions posed in Chapter III are herein answered within the limitations of the data collected and the method of analysis employed. The questions in order: 1. DO faculty members who spend the major portion of their time in the performance of one particular duty or service "like" this part of their work-load more or less than the other duties which they perform? It can be concluded that faculty members who devote 70 per cent or more of their time to one particular duty or service like this portion Of their position require- ments more than the other duties and services which they 92 perform. In cases where the Opposite is true, one could expect the faculty member to seek a change in position requirement. The data reveals there are other rewards to which faculty members attach greater importance than appropriateness of duties assigned. Thus, while most faculty members have favorable position assignments and like their major portion Of work-load best, it is not unusual to find exceptions. 2. What are the major work-load responsibilities (60 per cent or more Of the faculty member's time) for level of academic rank, salary, and years experience in the present university? Most faculty members primarily engaged in teaching hold academic rank of assistant professor or full prO- fessor. Most administrators hold academic rank of associate or full professor.. Those engaged in research are somewhat younger and hold academic rank Of assistant professor or associate professor. Supervisors Of student teachers constituted the only other sizable group. The majority of them hold academic rank of instructor and assistant professor. Teachers and administrators were of varying ages. Young administrators are less frequent, however. Super- visors Of student teachers tend to be younger. Ages for those primarily engaged in research include the younger two—thirds Of the age ranges. 93‘ Salary level and major position requirement fall into more distinct patterns than the above mentioned age range and level of academic rank. Administrators as a group are receiving a larger salary than teachers. Teachers are paid slightly more than researchers; as a group, supervisors Of student teachers are the poorest paid. Professional preparation and experience of the faculty members are as important as academic rank, salary and age. The position requirements Of faculty can be assumed to depend to a great extent upon these two important considerations. Salary and academic rank are then dependent upon the combination Of these and position requirements. 3.» How do the ratings for selected factors in the rewards system compare by age, academic rank, and sex? From the summary Of findings it may be noted that salary is consistently important as a reward for most faculty members. This is also true Of academic rank since these two items are tied together in most uni- versity salary schedules. The reputation Of the uni- versity was indicated as the most important reward for faculty members; especially the Older members. It, would seem that many faculty members are willing to "sacrifice" academic rank, salary, and appropriateness 94 Of duties assigned to serve in an institution they hold in high esteem. For purposes of attraction and reten— tion Of qualified faculty, the reward Of the reputation Of the university is the most difficult to alter. The other rewards can be manipulated more easily. 4. Are the rewards Of academic rank, salary, and appropriateness Of duties assigned more or less importanct to faculty members.$erving in an institution that granted one or more of their degrees than to other faculty mem- bers serving in the same institution? Academic rank and salary are somewhat less important to faculty serving in the "home" university than to other faculty members. There did not seem to be much difference between the groups as far as the appropriateness Of duties assigned was concerned. It appears that another reward has been discovered: serving in the "home" university. Although none Of the respondents listed this reward in the.space provided on the questionnaire for additional items, they may have attached the importance to the repu- tation Of the university. It is the tendency for most scholars to regard the institutions where they Obtained their degrees as one Of the best. A further consideration is location. Most people attend a college or university reasonably near their home or at least in the home state. When a faculty member returns to serve in his home 95 university he is Often returning to more than just the home university. 5. Which Of selected "internal" position satis— factions factors are most satisfying by academic rank and major portion of work-load? The source Of greatest internal position satis- faction was found tO be congeniality of associates. Also important as sources of internal position satis- faction are the Opportunity for professional growth and advancement, the administration of the department, and the caliber of students in the university. Although these latter three sources Of satisfaction vary accord— ing to academic rank and age or major portion Of position requirement, one may assume that the interaction of human beings can Offer great satisfaction and pleasure in a university setting. Faculty members derive more satisfaction from these internal position satisfactions, especially the con- geniality of associates, than from those Of a monetary nature. 6. Which of the "external" position satisfactions factors are most satisfying by academic rank and major portion Of work-load? The respondents in this study indicated living conditions as the most satisfying Of the external position satisfactions. Cultural and recreational 96 advantages was next and geographic location last. Where and how faculty members and their families live is im- portant. One may assume that the greater level of satisfaction derived from these conditions and locations, the easier it is for them to sacrifice the inevitable shortcomings Of certain internal.position satisfactions. This may explain in part why institutions without estab- lished reputations or perhaps high salaries still can. attract faculty. The institution has to have "something" to Offer. If it is fortunate to be located in a favor- able area with abundant cultural and recreational ad- vantages and plenty of excellent dwellings available, certain advantages accrue to the institution in recruit- ing faculty. The Five Principles Conclusions warranting support, rejection, or re- vision Of the five principles stated in Chapter I are as follows: 1. Items within the position requirements or work-load assignment are related within them- selves and to similar items in the rewards system and position satisfactions. The above discussion Of major portion Of position requirements with regardto the extent of "like" or "dislike" and the data in Table 3.1 support the 97 principle Of relationship between the separate duties (items) and services performed by faculty members. The summary of data contained in the matrices of three major portions Of work-load, supervision of student teachers, administrators, and teachers supports the principle Of relationship between position requirements and rewards system items and position satisfactions items.' Further, it was demonstrated that a relationship exists between position requirements and certain personal and prO- fessional characteristics. The factors identified in the analysis of these three matrices were not identical in item relationship or strength Of item relationship. The diversity Of factors and relationships of items within factors is therefore attributed to the difference in position requirements. Thus, principle number one is supported. 2. Items within the rewards system are related within themselves and are also related to similar items in the position satisfactions and the work-load assignment. Each Of the six matrices examined produced factors comprised of items within the rewards system. The different matrices produced different factors. In all six matrices, factors were computed which depict a relationship Of rewards system items within themselves, with position satisfaction items, and with personal 98 and professional characteristics. These findings sup- port the principle stated above. 3. Items within the position satisfactions category are related within themselves and are also related to similar items in the work-load assignment and rewards system. The discussion Of principles one and two above apply to principle three. In addition to these findings, it may be further concluded that the relationships Of position satisfactions within themselves and among the rewards system items is more extensive than the re- lationships relevant to principles one or two. Thus, principle three is supported conclusively. 4. The relationships described above are not consistent among differing faculty position requirements within a particular college Of education. The examination Of the major portion Of work-load matrices, supervisors Of student teachers and adminis- trators and teachers, provided examples Of greatly differing factors. The production of differing re- lationships among and within the items included in the categories Of rewards system, position satisfactions, and personal and professional characteristics supports the negative principle stated above. One may conclude that relationships described in the first three 99 principles are not consistent among differing position requirements within a particular college of education. Tables 3.3.1 through 3.3.6 and Tables 3.6.1 through 3.6.6 depict the importance attached to selected rewards system items, and the levels Of satisfaction derived from selected position satisfactions items for the respondents from each of the six universities included in the study population. The range of importance at- tached to rewards and levels Of satisfaction derived from position satisfactions within each Of the uni- versities lends further support to principle four. 5. The relationships described above are not con- sistent by age range, academic rank, years of service in a college or university position, and other selected personal and professional characteristics. It has already been established through the analysis Of the descriptive data that supervisors Of student teachers have different personal and professional charac- teristics than administrators. The most notable differ- ences are: age, salary, academic rank, length Of tenure in the present university, and experience in higher education. Adding further support to the principle are: the relationships Of items within factors, the composi- tion of the factors, and the diversity Of factors from 100 one matrix to the other. The analysis supports the conclusion that relationships Of items within and among the rewards system, position satisfactions and position requirements will be different for various age groups, levels Of academic rank, or years Of experience for faculty members. In this chapter the findings Of the data chapters have been summarized. The six questions formulated in Chapter III have been answered in light Of this summary. The five principles advanced in Chapter I were supported with reference to this summary. Chapter VI, therefore, serves as a detailed summary Of the research, and the basis for the Central Findings presented in Chapter II of this thesis. CHAPTER VII IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH This chapter includes other lines of investigation suggested by this study. The answers sought through this research, by design, form the basis for continued investigation Of problems related to faculty in higher education. The Summary, five principles, and six ques- tions in Chapter VI, and the Central Findings in Chapter II, serve to generate the following suggested avenues Of inquiry. Persistence A longitudinal study based on the methodology used in this study should be conducted. The purpose Of the research would be to establish whether or not the three types identified in this study persist over a period Of time. If they do, the significance for administration in higher education will be the more urgent. The~Marginal.PeOple The respondents in this study who could not be identified as belonging to one Of the three types Of faculty members, need further study. DO widely lOl 102 diversified position requirements indicate these faculty members are ambivalent in their professional goals? Or, are these faculty members merely experiencing a "stage" in their professional development? Are these marginal peOple more flexible and thus more receptive to new ideas, practices, and a broad base Of responsibilities? Are they less, or more, efficient in their tasks than faculty members who fit a particular type? Change Behavior Which Of the three types identified act as change. agents within their colleges? Which Of the types is most resistant to change? Are the "marginal" people more, or less, important as change agents than those faculty mem- bers who can be identified with one Of the types? If administrators are regarded as implementors Of change, who might they most wisely rely on to effect de- sired changes? Student Advisement Why do a disproportionate number Of faculty members tend to regard the advisement Of students negatively? The Central Findings Of this research reinforce the need for an investigation Of the following hypothesis: The reasons why faculty members regard student advisement negatively are external Of the actual process Of advising students. 103 Support for, or refutation of, this hypothesis will suggest which variables within the college structure could be manipulated for maximum positive change. Summary Most meaningful research is based upon extensive past research. It seeks answers to a delimited number Of relevant questions. It Opens the path to further research. The most valuable contribution of this re- search would be its use for further investigation into one or more Of the above faculty problems in higher education. BIBLIOGRAPHY 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Lucille. ”Faculty Expectations, Satisfactions, and Morale,” Studies of College Faculty. Boulder: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Edu- cation, 1961. Barnard, Chester I. The Functions Of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936. Cammack, E. F. "A Study of Factors Related to Mobility and faculty Productivity and Achievement at Michigan State University--A Follow—up Study." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Department of Education, Michigan State University, 1964. Caplow, Theodore, and McGee, Reese J. The Academic Marketplace. New York: Science Editions, Inc., 1961. Corman, H. J. "Campus Issues and Problems," The Annals, Higher Education Under Stress, (September, 1955), 53. Crawford, Stanton C. "A University-wide Program Of Faculty Development," The Educational Record, XXXXII (January, 1961), 49-53. Daly, D. B. Report Of the Departmental Task Force on Social Work Education and Manpower: Closing the Gap in Social Work Manpower. Washington: U. S. Department Of Health, Education and Welfare, 1965. Duxbury, David A. Faculty Opinion Toward Salary, Fringe Benefits, and Working Conditions. Sacramento: California State Coordinating Council for Higher Education, 1963. Eckert, Ruth E. ”Faculty Views on the Recruitment Of College Teachers," The Journal of Higher Education, XXXI (May, 1960), 244—251. Eckert, Ruth E., and Stecklein, John E. Job Motivations and Satisfactions of College Teachers. Washington: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1961. 105 106 Eckert, Ruth E., Stecklein, John E., and Sagen, H. Bradley. "College Faculty Members View Their Jobs," American Association of University Pro— fessors Bulletin, XXXXV (December, 1959), 513-528. Educational Policies Commission. Higher Education in a Decade of Decision. Washington: National Edu— Cation Association, 1957. Edwards, Allen E. Experimental Design in Psychological Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis Of Complex Organizations. New York: The Free Press, 1961. Grundstein, Nathan D. Approaches to Development: Faculty Deve1Opment. University of Pittsburg, 1960. (Mimeographed.) Gustad, John W. The Career Decisions Of College Teachers. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board, 1960. Harmon, Harry H. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Harris, Seymour E. Higher Education: Resources and Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. Howes, Raymond F. (ed.) Vision and Purpose in Higher Education. Washington: American Council of Edu- cation, 1962. Hoyt, Cyril. "Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Variance,” Psychometrika, VI (June, 1941), 153—160. Humphreys, Richard F. ”Interdependence of Administration and Faculty," School and Society, XIIC (February 8, 1964), 48—49. Kazmerski, K. J. ”An In-service Training Project for Implementing Services in the Adult Assistance Categories in the Ingham County Department of Social Welfare,” (An unpublished paper.) Lansing: Michigan Department of Social Services, 1966. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Thielens, Wagner Jr. The Academic Mind. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1958. lO7 Lieberman, Myron. Education as a Profession. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1956. Marshall, Howard D. The Mobility of College Faculties. New York: Pageant Press, Inc., 1964. McCall, Harlan R. et al. Problems Of NeW'Faculty Members in Colleges and Universities. East Lansing: Michigan State University Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1961. McCall, Harlan R. ”Problems Of New Faculty Members in Colleges and Universities," The North Central Association Quarterly, XXXVI (Fall, 1961), 222—234. McGrath, Earl J. "Characteristics of Outstanding College Teachers," The Journal Of Higher Education, XXXIII (March, 1962), 148-152. McQuitty, Louis L. "Elementary Factor Analysis," Psychological Reports, IX (1961), 71-78. Michigan Department Of Social Services. Handbook for the New Employee. (A pamphlet.) Lansing, 1966. National Association of Social Work. Social Work Per— sonnel Practices. (A pamphlet.) New York, 1957. Ness, Frederic W. "The Role Of the College in the Re— cruitment of Teachers," The Journal of Higher Education, XXXIII (March, 1962), 148-152. The President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School. Second Report to the President. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1957. Russell, John Dale. "Faculty Satisfactions and Dis— satisfactions,” The Journal Of Experimental Edu— cation, XXXI (December, 1962), 135—139. Shryock, Richard H. The University of Pennsylvania Faculty; A Study in American Higher Education. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959. Stecklein, John E. "Research on Faculty Recruitment and Motivation," Studies of College Faculty. Boulder: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1961. 108 Stecklein, John E., and Lathrop, Robert L. Faculty Attraction and Retention; Factors Affecting Mobility at the University of Minnesota. Minneapolis: Bureau Of Institutional Research, University Of Minnesota, 1960. Suehr, John H. "A Study Of Morale in Education Utilizing Incomplete Sentences," The Journal of Educational Research, 1962. Thompson, Ronald B. Enrollment Projections for Higher Education, 1961—1978. American Association Of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Washington, D. C., 1961. Thorndyke, E. L. The Psychology of Wants, Interests and Attitudes. New York: Appleton—Century, Inc., 1935. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Studies Of College Faculty. Boulder: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1961. Wilson, Logan. The Academic Man. New York: Oxford University Press, 1942. Wolfle, Dael. Ameria's Resources Of Specialized Talent. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. Woodburne, Lloyd S. Faculty Personnel Policies in Higher Education. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. APPENDIX 109 110 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan 48823 College of Education Erickson Hall April 7, 1967 I am well aware that faculty members are asked to assist in innumerable doctoral studies and that this request could easily be ignored. However, your assistance is respectfully requested for this study which is the culmination Of two years Of research aimed at a better understanding of faculty needs. The study deals with faculty rewards systems, position re- quirements and position satisfactions. The study population includes faculty members of the schools of education Of six universities in Michigan. The questionnaire is brief and can be completed quickly and easily. In order to keep all returns anonymous, please do not indicate your name or university. Copies of the abstract will be available to respondents through the dean or department chairman Of your school of education. I will be most appreciative Of your help in completing this study and, as I will have no other way Of thanking you personally for your assistance, please accept my sincere gratitude at this time. Sincerely, Paul C. Shank Research Assistant 401-A, Erickson Hall , A STU DY OF WORK-LOAD ASSIGNMENTS, REWARDS SYSTEM # AND ROSITION SATISFACTIONS ‘ OF FACULTY IN HIGHER EDUCATION # IN MICHIGAN TOTAL WORK-LOAD ASSIGNMENT* A Please indicate the proportion of your total university assignment to Make your estimate to the nearest 10 percent. If you are on an over-load basis, your total will add to more than 100%. each of the following. B Then, indicate the degree to which you like or dislike each of your assigned duties by placing an "x" in the apprOpriate box to the right. -A- -B- I Dislike I Like this part this part Duties and Of my work- Of my work- Services Percent load very load very Performed of Time much much (0) (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) Teaching Student Advisement —-——- Research Administration Community Assignments Community Services Supervision Of Student teachers, interns or others Consulting Services for the University Zonsulting Services on a private, fee basis )ther (speciIN) D E! CT DC] DUDE] DDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDEJDD DDEJDDCJDCJDEJ DDDDDDDDDD DDDDICJDDEJD D this duty may not be considered by the university as an Official part Of Tour work-load. If applicable in your case, assign it a percent of time 1nd rate it as you have your other duties, even though it may be entirely nutside your expected work-load assignment. *WOrk-load Assignment—~A Definition: Those duties and services agreed to by the faculty member for which the university pays him a salary and other considerations. lilililili! ll I'll II} I .] ll'Il Jill I. III" II ‘1 l' l I. 'I I‘ll.» Ilalllll REWARDS SYSTEM* How important are the conditions of employment surrounding the posi- tion you now hold? Listed below are several possible sources of profes- sional rewards that might make your position attractive. For each of the items indicated, please check in the appropriate box to the right the level of importance you assign to the item. LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE No Little Below Above Quite Great Rewards Import Import Average Average Important Importance A If A Academic Rank Salary Monetary Fringe Benefits Adequacy of Office and Research Facilities Adequacy Of Class- room Facilities Appropriateness Of Duties Assigned 31erica1 and Staff Service Dpportunity to do the Research I Want to do Assigned Time for Writing Reputation Of the Department leputation of the University DDDDDDDDEJDQ DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDDDDD DDDIDDDDDDDET DDDDDDDDEJDDD )ther (specify) *Rewards System-—A Definition: The concrete considerations which are con— tracted for, or "understood" by the faculty member and the employing institution. I i .I III I i III III" It'll .lll .I'r I! i III. {III I I l I' [II «(it POSITION SATISFACTIONS* Please check each of the following possible sources of position satis- faction according to the degree of satisfaction you derive. These factors may include any source of satisfaction that you derive as a consequence of your position. Source of Satisfaction There are both tangible and intangible factors listed. Please feel free to add other factors. DEGREE OF SATISFACTION None Little Below Average Above Average Considerable Great Research Emphasis Physical Facilities Teaching Congeniality of Associates Personal Contacts with Head of Department Opportunity for Profes- sional Growth and Advancement Reputation of the Department Reputation of the University Academic Rank Caliber of Students Administration of Department Salary Monetary Fringe Benefits Living Conditions Cultural and Recrea- tional Advantages Seographic Location )ther (specify) )ther (specify) *Position Satisfactions: Any benefit satisfying to the faculty member, either tangible or intangible, which is a con— sequence, encumberance. official or unofficial, of the position ill‘l'lll‘llli GENERAL INFORMATION Please respond to each of the simple questions given below. It is not necessary for you to identify yourself or your university in any way as you answer the questions. Most questions can be completed by placing a check mark in the appropriate space to the right. \ 1. What is the name of the department (or area of emphasis) in the school of education in which you work? (Examples: elementary education, secondary education, administration, special education, counseling and guidance, or other.) 2. What is your academic rank? instructor ; assistant professor ; associate professor ; professor ; other (specify). 3. How many years have you been employed full time at any college or university? Less than one ___; l ___; 2 ___; 3 ___; 4 ___; 5 ___; 6-7 ___; 8-9 ___; 10-12___; 13-15 ___; 16-18 ___; 19 or more _____ 4. How many years have you been employed at this university? Less than one ___; l___; 2 ___; 3___; 4 ___; S ___; 6-7 ___; 8-9 ___; 10-12 ___; 13-15 ___; 16-18 ___; 19 or more 5. Is your appointment in your present position full-time or part-time? Full-time ___; part-time 6. How many years, if any, have you taught at the elementary and/or secondary level? (Check the combined total) None ___; l ___; 2 ___; 3 ___; 4 ___; 5 ___; 6-7 ___; 8-9 ___; 10-12 ___; 13-15 ___; 16-18 ___; 19 or more ____ 7. What is your total number of years, if any, of administrative experience in a public or private school system? None ___; l___; 2 ___; 3 ___; 4 ___; 5 ___; 6-7 ___; 8-9 ___; 10-12 ___; 13-15 ___; 16-18 ___; 19 or more ____ 8. What is the highest degree that you have earned? A B or B S ___; M A or M S ___; Ed. S. or 6-Year Diploma ___; Ed.D. ___; Ph.D.___; Other (specify) 9. What institution granted your highest degree? 10. What institution granted your first degree? 11. In what part of the country did you spend your childhood? East ___; Midwest ___; Far West ___; North ___; South ___; Foreign ___; Other (specify) 12. In what size community did you spend most of your childhood? Rural ___; Village ___; Small town ___; City of moderate size ___; Large city ___; Suburban community of city of moderate size ___; Suburban community of a large city 13. What is your present marital status? Single ___; Married ___; Other 14. What is your age? Under 21 _; 21-25 _; 26-30 _; 31-35 %; 36-40 _; 41-45 ___; 46-50 ___; 51—55 ___; 56-60 ___; 61-65 ___; 66-70 ___; Over 70 ____ 15. What is your sex? Female ___; Male ___ 16. How many children have you? None ___; 1 ___; 2 ___; 3 ___; 4 ___; S or more . 17. What is your salary range? Less than $5,000 ___; $5,000-S,999 ___; $6,000-6,999 ___; $7,000-7,999 ___; $8,000-8,999 ___; $9,000-9,999 ___; $10,000-10,999 ___; $11,000—ll,999 ___; $12,000-12,999 ___; 313,000-13,999 ___; $14,000-15,999 ___; $16,000-17,999 _; $18,000-19,999 _; $20,000 and over 18. The above salary is for: Academic year ; Calendar year 116 The Follow-up Letter: Sent to all faculty included in the study population. April 28, 1967 Dear Faculty Member, The attached green cover sheet will remind you of the questionnaire sent to you three weeks ago. The anonymity of respondents makes a "blanket" follow-up letter neces— sary. If you have completed and returned the question— naire, please accept my appreciation and disregard this letter. If you have not yet completed and returned the question— naire, I would appreciate the 8-10 minutes of your time it takes to do so. I hope to have a rather high per- centage of return from your university. As of this date 62% have been returned. Once more, let me thank you for your help with this study. Sincerely, Paul C. Shank Research Assistant AOl-A, Erickson Hall Michigan State University I] I'll! fill! ll {KI aim mm.m mweflmm :32 z» m: :m mad Hmuoe o mm.m o m m m m oo.m 0 0H NH 3 OH wm.: m Ha mm m 7 H mm mm.m m: o :3 m nozoq oemm on» nonwfim copmm 2mm: venom copmm nonesz mmcflpwm no as no E: no E: p z n z p z =mxHHmHQ= no :oxflq: umoanxpoz mo coapgom Lona: Am0H>pmm no muss oco 2H who: no Ronv pmoanxgoz mo coappom Amez mo monwom mo ommmop :.mxHHmHU: ho zmxHH: “vacalxnoz,QOnwEI|COHpmH5Qom acupm on» no moaumflnopomnm£oll.a.m mqm¢9 118 ma m H NH m a: omoHooso mm mm m mH m H: ooooHoooxm .>Hc: no owmaaoo mpmow once no ma mm om a H MH m Hm ooeoHooaxm .>Hoo no mwoaaoo .mnw main am we om m a m: ooooHoooxm .>Hop no mwmaaoo .mpz : on a: om o: m mm H om oooz no oo.ooo.mHa am mm m H mH : mm oo.mmm.mHa op 00.000.0Hm Hm mm mm H 0 mm oo.mmm.ma oo on mp mma mm H mm Ha NHH myopesz Hmpoe m :m :H m a ma nonosppmcH pm Hm ma m m m: mommmmoam unnumfimm< ma m: H ma m wm hommomopm opmAOOmwg mm Hm m ma m mm mommmmopm mpocomma oocofipooxm omoa pcoUSpm .cwfimm< coapmpp zpfimho>flcb\owofiaoo Imo>o Hmpoe mo .EEoo Imficfleoq commommm mafizomoe mwcmm mhmamm coamfi>hmasm xcmm anmpdog .mpampm>ficz powwopa map CH mocofinmaxm made» new .owcmu manmm «xcmp anoomom mo mao>oa non zpaafinfimcoammp cmoalxnoz LOnmEulcoaumasaoa zpsum on» mo mofipmanopomhmnotl.m.m mqm¢e JLIQ H H mNuHN H H H ON uo>o : N H H N a H H a H ONIOO NmH mm ON HH O ON mmH NO as mN m OOH mm. HN m N mm NOH mm MM ON OH meuoa O N H o H O O H M H o m N N H o N O N o N o mouHO MH M O. H O m :H a M H O OH M N O O m MH M M O H Owumm OH m N O N OH OH mH M M N OM N N H O OH NN O M O N mmuHm ON a N H N NH :N HN a N O NN HH N H O m ON mH m N O omnma ON NH 2 H O HH OM MH :H M N NM 3 a N H HH H: HH w M H mzqu HM NH m N H mH :N MN m a H ON mH N O O OH NM OH O a N OHIOM NH O N M O HH MH a O H M OH M m. H H N HN N H M a mMIHM O N a N O M M O O N H HH N N O O M HH m M N .O, OMaON NmH mm ON HH O ON MMH. NO 2: mN m OOH Mm HN m N mm NOH mm MM ON OH mHmuoe om OH m o O ON MH HH O m Hm HH m H o N NM mH O O H oHosom NNH OH mH O OO OOH HO OM OH H OMH mm NH N N Om mHH Mm NN NN m oHaz NmH mm ON O ON MMH Nm 2: mN m OOH Mm HN m N mm NOH mm MM ON OH nHaooB NN OH M O O m MH OH OH m : NN N a H N w HN NH O O m mNOposnpmcH OH OH O N H NN. OM NN MH N N OM OH O H O mH om MN O O N .muopm .u.mm< NM mH O H N MN NM HN m N H OM HH 3 H O OH O: mH m m O .muonm .oomm< Mm :H M N M MN om MM MH HH N Ow NH m m O OM NO OH OH O M mmomnouonm H . m a M O m a M m 2 M N H O m a H .mocmphoqu NuHmuo>Hca on» muHuocom a xcmm no nonwoa uo coHpmusawm pmHmm OHEmomo< owchm .mmeHmpo>Hcs me you "own new .xom .xcmu oHEoanm an mEouH Eoumzm mvpmzop couoonm no comHanEoo NIICOHpmHsaoa henna as» ho mOHpmeopomumnOIlam.M mqm<9 1220 Ln OGDr—imb-anHI—i \0 0-1 r-1 mm om om mH MN F m HmomzzrViHm NM F. m ooouo: OH N NHLn-fi-a'Nt-i NHHr—i N OH N mem 0" NNNH N .3 H N N N Hmooxomonr-i m H.H -: HHHr-‘l HOQ‘MZTN MH mH H mount» N O\ tn m MH Nmmflmkomr-ir—lr-i NHm-fi‘N mM MH ox:- MM LI m m H LRSMr—i \Dr-i r—iif HNNGCD r-‘l N m: Ln Ln H NrNe~Hb~orNrun H OH u: mm OH OH NN om r-i MHNHMMH om NH C\L{\Lf\r-i NH NH mH NMNNMMNN mH mH Comm 0 \D NWO: ova—1:1- MH Hv—l OO HH O: OO mH ON r-i «QCDKONNH N LnH-S‘NN am oH mm MH moomtn :1‘ {\JNM \O HHH mHmpoB ow h0>0 ONnOO mOuHO owlom mm-Hm omuoz mzqu OHuom mthM Omumm mmlHN Mmm mHmuoe onEmm on: mmm mHmuoB pogospumcH .oooa .o.oo< .uopm .oomm< pommomonm xzam UHZmado¢ m a M N H . o m a M m O M NuHmLo>HcD on» no :oHpmpsqmm mpHuocom owchm NpmHmm xcmm OHEoOwo< :.mco: NuHmLo>Hcs Lou "mwm ocm .xmw .xcmp OHEoOmom an mEouH Empmzm mphm3oa UmpomHmm No comHthEoo <11.H.M.M mqm<8 1231 om H3 ONQU‘M OM mN mos: am mmmmm mmm mm ON mN 0H HHHm Hm HH H RNNNLRH HNHCDm-QHN N mH mN HH moomm Ln MH N MHMNNN HM N H MH N HH szN m QHHH N QmUWNMr-i MNmoomxoMH NH NHN H M ON MM m N OH NH common: \0 NMNN 0‘ H OH NHNNNH 0H mNm NM NNNMWMMH NM mN NM 2H 0H OH H (hr-4 H Lnr-INN O 30] MNHW nHauos ON ho>o 0Nuoo mouHo oouom mm-Hm omuoa malHH .oauom mm-Hm omuom m~-H~ mo< mHauoe onEom OHQZ Kmm nHmuoa nouoauuucH .ooom .o.oo< .uopm .oomm< hommou0pm xzHco on» No COHHMuaqom muHuocom owcHLm mpmHmm xcmm oHEoOmo< =.o:u= NpHmuo>ch you "own cam .xmm .xcmp OHEoomow Na mEouH Emumzm mvgmzou uopoonw mo camthano Hca on» No COHuwusaom pruocom owcHum thHmm xcam OHEocmo< =.oopnu= NuHmho>Hcs you ”owm 6cm .xmm .xcmh OHEonmom mp mEopH Empmmm muhmzmh omuomHom no comthnEoo Hca on» No coprusaom : M mpHuocom .wwchm N NpmHmm Hm xoom OHEouwo< :.usou= NpHmho>Hcs you "own van .xom .xcmh OHEmomom Np mEmpH Eopmzm mopmzmp umuoonm Mo cememQEoo Hca on» mpHuocom xcmm uo COHuwusamm uwchm NANHmm OHEocmo< :.o>Hu= auHmuo>ch you ammo new .xmm .xcwh oHEmomom ma mEmpH Eopmzm mcumzmu vaomHmm ho :omHhaano Hca 0:» mo coHpmusawm muHuvcom 0wcHum aanam xcmm oHEmvao< :.me: zanno>Hcs how "own c:m..xom .xcwu OHEmcwow an mEmuH Emummm mvpmzwh couomem no coanmnfioo Hcs pmnpo CH mhmnEmE szzomm 39H: mpHmpm>Hcs =mEon=.nHm£p CH mpmpfime sz50Nm mo somHngEOo NIICOHHNHSQOQ mumpm ms» mo moHpmempomhm£OII.z.m mHmHB 1227 "1 Cd ucmsppmnwc 0:» ho COHu umprHcHEc< mucwosum go pmnHHmo acme lupmama map no coHpmusnwm cpxopo chon Immgopm pom szcszoaqo mmumHu0mm< mo muHHchmwcoo mmeHHHomm HNOHOOLN mHmmcaem :omemwm thmwmom OH OH OH HH OH L“ L.’\ OJ (‘J LIN (“J (‘J C\ LI\ 3 (“J (J N [\ \O :H MH OH :H MH MH NH OH HH .2 unmEppmamO m2» 90 coHu cmmeHcHEc< muCQUSUm Oo pmnHHmO ucme IuLQOO m2» no coHumpzamm Luzopo Hmcon Imwuogm Lou szCSpLoqqo mmumHoomm< no mpHHchwwcoo mmHuHHHomm HNOHmch mHmmcaEm cogmmmmm wchommg O m a m N H O m z m m s m N : LouospumcH LSOO new .xcmp OHEmOmom no mHm>mH Lsou Lommmmopm ucmumHmm< acmmmaoaa mumHOOmm¢ .anLowmpmo acmEmszme :oHuHmOQ "mcoHpomOmemm COHpHmoa HmcpmchIICOHumHzaoq mnzum mnp No moHumHLmuompchI|.m.m mqm<9 pommmuopm 128 OH pcprpwamo m2» no 20H» lampchHEc< muCMUSpw go nonHHmo acme uppwqma vs» ho coHumuzamm nuzouu Hmcon Imouopm you muHcsppoaaO mmpmHoomm< mo mpHHchmwcoo mmeHHHomm Hachhnm mHmwcasm nohmmmmm mpocomme pawnsum ho COHmH>Lmasm N N NH pcprumaoQ vs» no :oHp smhuchHEU< mucmuspm ho nmnHHmo acme Ingmamo wan mo coprusamm nuzonc Hmcon Immuopm pom .apHcsupoaaO mmpmH00mm< no mpHHchmwcoo H moHuHHHomm Hmonznm : mHmchEm conmmmmm COHpmupchHEOH F .m.m.g LON “Hancoo L H H NuHmLo>HcO you szmcou MN O a O N H N O O m = H s N a N H H .coamp .aum No .asm O noH>me .5500 O .cmHmm< .EEoo m N H N H H H H coHpmppchHeUa O N m H N H H m N m H copmommm O HcmfiomH>n< acmvsum ON m N a O m H N O NH m m N N n a N wcHnommN LoHuzpumcH 129 MOH O .n.m.m Lou uHSOCOO N N H H H H manum>HCO Lou uHsmcou :N O m a N H O OH O n H O o O 2 H .2ommh .sum No .asm O ooH>me .EEOO O .cmem< .EEOO a H H H H N H H N N coHmeuuHchuq m H m H H m m N u H H 2 m N conmmmmm o pc05omH>n< uconspm HO HH OH NO N H OH HN ON O H OH an 2N N N H wcHnummN Lexwuyopg pcmuLHnn 4m mil .O.N.N LOO qumcoo H H H H NanLo>ch Lou uHsmcou : H m H N H a H H .zoavp .zum Nu .asm O muH>uew .EEOO H H H _ H .:mHmm< .EEQO NH H N N O H H H m H n m m c O n H _ :oHumuanuHqu O N N H H H H N H N H H m H copmwmwm z N H A H H N H N H HcoEomH>u< acmvsHm HO N OH OH NH O N n :N OH O O OH ON ON O N H mcHruawN LammououN NHNHQOOO< NmH H H H H . .m.m.N Ooh “Hancoo O NanLm>HcO Lou HHjmcoo N H N m H a N N H H a : .commh .zuw No .azw o 00H>pmm .EEoo O .Cmemw .EEOO Nm O OH OH O H m mH O m H O cm O H coHumLuchHEr< O H O H H H H m n H N H a N sopmwmmm N H H m N pcosmmH>O< “seesaw HO OH OH :N OH N m H: mm HN O z N :N ON 3N : m H wcqumoe LommoOOLO acouLuO O U a m N H O m a m N H O m z m N H Hmucb vmoa 3L0: ccHumooq .vwmucm>r< ucownHHcou :oHupoN Lena: oHnamLmomO HacaHuvaowm Ham ngsquo wuH>Hu .anHHch>H:: me uvmoanpc: he :NOuLou Lowua vca xcau chuvaua No nHm>oH HHa L“; n: ,HumNnH u counwuou Hugnowanacn Orqsuoa uvsum ex» go nuHuantuoanasouu.O.m mqmHco you qumcoo .comwb .apm .azm moH>uom .EEoo .cmen< .EEoO coHqupnucHEv< nouwomom ucoEomH>v< ucmunum z N H H N m H wcHnuaoh CDOQMOOO N NH HH M N Wm H H LouonpumuH :3 N .m.m.a now uHamcoo huHmuw>HcO pom szncoo .cnmmh .spm .an NNH>me .8800 .um mm< .EEoo H N H N H non“ LuchHEU< ‘ .vummnmm ucwflmmH>nx ucmnzum m N O wcHnowob H m H H (‘1 r. r. P) N (‘4 r4 r 1 rm .L. “\O‘OMOOOOO r! m 3 LA on u\ m f— 130 ) ) Lo.¢ouogm numumHmmq n : .:: (n .m.m.a now uHsmcoo :uHmam>Huw you szmcoo . ouch .npn uo .sz moH>me .EEOO .cmeN¢ .5600 H COHumppchHqu magnummm pcoEva>U< ucmozum wcHzoaob O‘NMOOOOOO H «1 MN m Hf“) H3 Hc—O (\HHm (NIH (VI-4M H H O) K‘ Lammouopm mumH00mm< 0 Ln H Lou qumcoo mmh .sum No .sz moHruow .EEoO .cmwwm< .Ean H :OHpmSchHeE copmwwox “coEvnH>O< “covnuw O m a ._ HH N m mcHnnmmB .m.m.m Lou uHsmcoo oomool mar-r: (Kl r-ch uvmoHoxaoz O0 CNHHLoQ Nona: van xcmh 0Hfimvaac Oo mHJva HHm you “coupomaurumn caHuHuoa wmupmuumnl.H.o.m mamq4 131 .m.m.m no» panncou mudmuo>dca you uHsmcoo .nomoh .zpm .st oou>uom .ano .cwann< .EEoo ceauappmacHEc< nonwomvm ucoeona>u< ucuozum weanowoh LopofihunCH OH .m.m.m you pasncoo muampo>aca you uasmcoo .cowmk .sum .azm moa>pom .EEoo .cwanm< .Esoo ceaumuuchHEn< conmomom ucosmma>u< ucmuzuw ncfizomoa powwomoam “gapmfimm< HH 0" Nfifl HN HH HH .m.m.m Lou uazmcoo apfimuv>aca Lou pasmcoo .238. Sun .3 wasm ooa>Lom .EEou .cwamm< .Esoo :oHquuchHEo< coumomwm pcosoma>n< ucmuzpw wcdcoaoa pomnmucum wum«00mm< HH .m.m.m you uazmcoo muampw>ac2 Lou panmcou .nomoa .apm uo .nnm voa>p~m .EEoo .cwanm< .EEoo noduununfiCa6u< condomom acoEomH>c< ucoczum maunoaoa powwououm aconnom Hauoa a m m m a m m a o m a m codewooa oagnwpwooo mowaucm>v< Hacoauuopovx vca magnunzo macauaocoo mea>aq caoanxnoz acupuom Loud: :.ozu: auanuo>acs "vacanxuo3 uo ceauuoq hands can xcuu oquuaoa mo mao>va dad you accuuoauwauan coapamoa Hachuuxmul.~.o.m mqmHcs Lou szmcoo m m m H H m m a m m H H m m m H .moaoe .zum ho .Qam ooH>nom .EEou .cmem< .Ecoo coHumpuchHEc< nopmwmom ucoEonH>v< ucoozum H H m m H H H u H H m m H mchomme LoHosuun:H .m.m.m Lou qumcou hanLo>ch Loo qumcou .comoe .spm go .sz moH>umw .EEoo .cmem< .EEoo :oHumuuanHEc< sopmwmwm ucoEme>n< ucmczum a H H H H H H H H H H H H mchomoe 132 .m.m.m Lou uHSncoo zuHmLo>Hc3 Hog uHsmcoo .zomoe .sum go Noam moH>Lom .EEoo .cmem< .EEoo coHuvaMHcHEu< nonm0mmm H H H H u:oEomH>u< acousum mH H a a m H H m n m u H m m m wcquaua LowmmoOLm mumHoomu< .m.m.m you oHsncoo muHmLm>Hca Loo uHsncoo H H H H .coaoh .sum ho .asm muH>nom .EEoo .cmem< .Esou m H H H m H m :oHpMmeHCHfiod coLmOmom H H H H ocoeomH>v< ucoospm mH m m m N m z u w H m : m 2 m m H wchoaoB acmmomopH o m a m m H m m x m u H o m H m m H mcomuom nmoquxnoz prop coHomuoH wowmocm>H< mcoHuHocoo coHunom Leno: oHnaaumooc HacoHuaoLomm uum Hmponzo wcH>HH :.ownnp= huHuLo>H::. choHleoz no coHuLoa Lemme flaw xcmn oHuoowom on nHm>mH HHM Lou mcoHuoaunHuan coHuHmoq HmCHmemuu.m.o.m mqmucn you uHsucoo .nouoa .:um uo .osm ooH>yom .aaoo .cmHuu< .aaoo coHuuyuanHau< soy-ouom ucoaona>o< acovsum nauseous youosyuncH OH M 0'! HH H HH (‘10-. HH 3 b m a m N m U\ H .m.m.m you uHaucoo auHuyo>Hcs you uHaucoo .soaoa .sum uo .nsm ooH>yom .ano .canu< .afioo :oHuayuanHEo< coyuonom pcoaonH>o< vcoospm ucHnoaoa youmouoym ucwannm< QHHN “‘04 M N LOH H N NH .m.y.m you.»Hsucoo muauyo>ac= you uHsncoo .nuuoy .apm yo .osm ooH>yom ”3800 .canm< .asoo coHuayuanHev< :oydonom nonsena>c< acousuw mcHnoaoe yonmouoym ouMHoOmn< H: .m.m.m you uHsncoo sznyo>Hcs you uHsucou .cuaoe .sum uo .osm ooH>yum .aaoo .cmHnu< .sEoo coHuoyuuHcHeo< noyaonom unusonH>o< acovsuw meanouoa yonnouoyy anonyom m m a m N H m m a m m H u m a m Hauoa couuaooq nommuco>v< oHnnaymooo HacaHuuoyoom can HaysuHso ncoHaHucoo wcH>HH oaoqsxyo: coHuyom yondz ;.yaouu yanyo>ch. "oIOHIxyo: uo cOHuyon yOnaa can xcay oHEocaoa uo mHo>oH Had you acouuuahnHuan conanoo Hdcyouxmnu.a.m.m mqmHco you uHancoo H H .noaoy .sum uo .asm ooH>yom .3800 .nanu< .ano :oHucyu-HcHeo< H H soyaooom ucosouw>u< acousum H H ucHzoaua «HO» OflhquH 3H H HH NH m H w H .m.m.m you uHancoo yuHuyoyaco you uHsacoo H H H w H H .so-oa .aum uo .nsm ooH>yom .Iaoo .cwHun< .Baoo coHuoyuoHcHao< noyuooom pcoaonH>c< acousam H m a N N N m H H N ucHzoaoy youmouoym ucauann< .m.m.m you uHsncoo manyo>HcD you uHsucoo H H .noaoe .aum.uo .asm ooH>yum .aaoo .cmHoo< .8800 H H . coHuayuuchso< :uyaoaox . ‘ ucoEouH>v< ucoosum m N H N N m H H H ncHnoaoy yonnouoyu ouaHoonn< .m.m.y you uHancou Hanyo>Hcs you uHSncoo H H .coaoy .aum uo .asw ouH>ycm .Esoo .cwHon4 .5500 m N H :oHuayouHcHEo< noyaouom ucosonH>u< ucovsum N H N H N N N wcHnouoy aconyom o m a m Huuoa coHuauOH 0H:Qdymooo youmouoym o m a m N H m m H m N H nowduca>u< ncoHuHocoo HacoHuooyoox uca HaysoHso wcH>HH caoquxyoz. coHuyou yon»: -.o>Hu: auHoyo>Hcs HoaoHuxyoz uo coHuyon yanus and xcay oHaouaoa uo NHo>oH HHa you unoHuouunHuun coHvHaon Hacyouxmul.m.m.m uqm<9 135 .m.u.u you uHsucoo hanyo>Hcs you pHsncoo .nonua .zum uo .Qsm 00H>yom .eeoo .cmHmm< .Esoo coHuayuchHao< zoyauaom acoEouH>v< acousum wchoaoa youosyuncH HH .m.m.m you uHsncoo aanyo>ch you aHzncou .nouoe .suw uo .oam 00H>yom .EEoo .cmHnn< .EEoo coHuayuchHeo< soywomom ucoaonH>o< acousum uchoaoe yonmouoym ocauann< .m.m.u you quucoo auHoyu>Hca you pHsncoo .20109 .spm uo .aam 00H>yom .6800 .cmHan< .EEoo :oHuayuuHcHeo< coyaonom pcoEmnH>v< pcoonuw mcHnoaoa yonmouoym oumHoomm< HH .m.m.u you uHsncoo zanyo>Hcs you uHsncoo .nowob .aum uo .ozm ooH>yom .8500 .cann< .EEoo coHumyHNHcHEo< noywonom ucoEomH>o< acousum mcHgomoa yommouoyu mCOmyom Haven 0 m a m N H o m a m N H a m ‘0 m coHumooH mowmucw>u< mcoHqucoo oHnomymooo HmcoHpmoyoom new HNySHHsu wcH>HH unequxyoz coHuyou yenoz :uHmymans unmnuuxyoa u( QOHuynu yonnu now many QHEovwnm uo mHo>mH HHm you we HuumumHumm coHuHmoa HocyopoII.m.o.m mqmqa