A. 7"” \ Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllll l 1.33333 91* l 311293 . Michizm fiat! , 113339 33° 3t}! L13: .:: t \ ¢ V This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS 0F PROFESSORS AS PROFESSIONALS AT A UNIONIZED AND NONUNIONlZED STATE UNIVERSITY presented by Carol Nuernberger Hopper has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Administration and Curriculum /Zz- «A Major professor degree in Dr. Louis Stamatakos Date April 5, I98“ 0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ”7‘" AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSORS AS PROFESSIONALS AT A UNIONIZED AND NONUNIONIZED STATE UNIVERSITY By Carol Nuernberger Hopper A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michtgan State Untvers1ty 1n parttal fulfillment of the requtrements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Admtntstratton and Curriculum 1984 tc fc pl Na de' PM 1nc Cor inf a t Unh Sl0n ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY STUDY or THE PERCEPTIONS or PROFESSORS AS PROFESSIONALS AT A UNIONIZED AND NONUNIONIZED STATE UNIVERSITY By Carol Nuernberger Hopper The incidence of unionization of academics appears.pL1ma.£agie to be incongruous with the ideology of the profession. The study focuses on analyzing the perceptions of faculty members in three disci- plines within two graduate research-oriented universities. unionized Wayne State University and nonunionized Michigan State University. to determine if differences exist in their views of the academician as a professional. Information was obtained by interviewing 66 faculty represent- ing the academic ranks of assistant. associate. and full professor. Content analysis was the methodological approach'for classifying the information for statistical interpretation. A review of the literature served two purposes: (I) to develop a typology of professional attributes appropriate to academicians and (2) to present a historical overview of the American Association of University Professors. Questions central to the purpose of the study focused on profes- sional attributes and on issues of individual Judgment in teaching and Carol Nuernberger Hopper research. educational policy decision making. collegial evaluation opportunities. collegial evaluation criteria. threats to professional status. faculty unionism perceptions. and professional identification. mains l. The presence of faculty unionism does not appear to impinge on the individual professor's academic freedom with regard to the role responsibilities of teaching and research. 2. The concept of the academic community of professionals is manifested through a stronger sense of collegiality in the nonunionized environment. 3. While the traditional hierarchical structures for internal professional control are assumed functional at both institutions. the use of the structures by the nonunionized professors appears to be stronger and consequently provides greater professional insulation from lay community control. 4. ‘The unionized professors demonstrated a narrower focus of the professor's valued role responsibilities and of the traditionally recognized academic ideological values and norms. 5. The three departments. each representative of different disciplines. maintain their own identity in both a unionized and a nonunionized environment. 6. The movement of the American Association of University Professors from a professional association to an academic collective bargaining agent has contributed to a substantial loss of membership. TABLE OF CONTENTS L IST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. II. III. I NTRODUCT ION O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Background . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . Focus of the Problem . . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . Research Design . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the Study . . . . . . SURVEY OF LITERATURE . . . . Introduction . . . . . Specialized Knowledge Internal Authority . . Community Sanction . . Ideology . . . . . . . Professional Associations . . . American Association of University Summary............. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Population of the Study . . . . . Interview Methodology . . . . . . Interview Guide Questionnaire . Data Coding . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . Sumary............. ll Professors Page iv Il IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . Introduction . . . . . . Interview Data Analysis Study Question Study Question Study Question Study Question Study Question Study Question Study Question Summary 0 \lO‘U‘l-hWN—I V. SUMMARY. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Findings . . . . . . . Additional Findings Conclusions Implications . . . . . . . Recommendations for Further Research IMPLICATIONS. APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O A. INTERVIEW GUIDE QUESTIONNAIRE 8. CODE BOOK BIBL ImRAH‘Y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Page 68 68 72 72 74 76 85 104 116 122 124 124 127 134 136 143 146 149 150 153 160 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES Number of Institutions of Higher Education With Faculty Unions From l966 to 1978 . . . . . . . . . . Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age Distribution by Department . . . . . . . . . . . . Age Distribution by University . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic Rank Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Exercising Individual Judgment in Teaching. Research. and Publication . . . Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Participation in Educational Policy Decision Making . . . . . . . . . Opportunity for Chairperson Evaluation Participation . Opportunity for College Dean Evaluation Participation . Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Institution by Department on the Opportunity to Evaluate Colleagues Two-Way Analysis of Variance for Institution by Age on the Opportunity to Evaluate Colleagues . . . . . . . Collegial Evaluation as Low Significance . . . . . . . Collegial Evaluation as High Significance . . . . . . . Criteria for Tenure and Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tenure Criteria Responses by Institution and Department Academic Rank Criteria Responses by Institution and Deparmnt O O O O I C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Perceived Threats to Professional Status by Institu- tion and Department . . . . . . . . . . . s . . . . . Page 54 55 S6 57 73 75 77 78 79 80 82 83 85 87 89 94 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Page Faculty Unionism Is Inappropriate . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Categories of Responses Supporting the Inappropriateness of Faculty Unionism by Institution and Department . . . 106 Faculty Unionism Is Appropriate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Categories of Responses Supporting the Appropriateness of Faculty Unionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Differences in Present and Past Membership in the AAUP by University and Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Differences in Past and Present Membership in the AAUP by University and Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION flackgmnd The American higher education system has achieved prominence in the past century by virtue of its size. in numbers of institutions. faculties and students. and by virtue of its diversity in mission. educational quality. financial sources. and governance structures. Yet. with the attainment of its present scale and multiple differences. the system continues to support the traditional precepts of higher education: preserving. discovering. disseminating. and applying knowl- edge. Although the thrusts of these four precepts vary in appropriate- ness given an institution's mission. the activities within each are perpetuated and performed by faculty. a community of academic profes- sionals. Structural changes have evolved with the growth of higher education. Institutions have developed hierarchical structures with bureaucratic characteristics to manage the boundaries between the core mission performed by the faculty and external environmental factors. The faculty. while continuing to maintain the historical and profes- sional roles of teaching and research. has assiduously protected col- legiality. the internal structural premise of the academic professional community. Over the past 20 years. a phenomenon has occurred in higher education bringing a challenge to the academic governance structures and perhaps bringing into question the viability of the relationship between unionized academicians and the ideology of professionalism. The phenomenon in higher education is faculty collective bargaining. The first institution of higher education to unionize was a two-year institution. Milwaukee Technical Institute. in 1963 (Garbarino. 1975). Subsequent to the signing of the Executive Order 10988 by President Kennedy in 1962. establishing as a general policy the right of federal employees to organize and collectively bargain. the American Federation of Teachers organized the first four-year institution in 1966 (Garbarino. 1975). Faculty unionism thus began quietly and without much public attention until 1968. when the faculty of the City University of New York system won collective bargaining rights. Since that time higher education has witnessed a phenomenal growth rate in faculty unionism. 'Table 1 demonstrates this growth. Geographically. the concentration of unionized faculties in higher education matches the concentration of the unionized population generally. Unions now represent faculty in virtually every public institution of higher education in the states of Hawaii. Massachusetts. New York. Rhode Island. Connecticut. New Jersey. and Delaware (Garbarino & Lawler. 1978). Most public institutions in Michigan. Pennsylvania. and Minnesota are unionized with the exceptions of the research institutions. Table 1.--Number of institutions of higher education with faculty unions from 1966 to 1978. Number of Percentage Change Year Institutions Over Previous Year 1966 23 1967 37 60 1968 70 89 1969 138 97 1970 177 28 1971 245 38 1972 285 16 1973 310 8 1974 337 9 1975 394 17 1976 450 14 1977 480 6 1978 506 5 Source: J. Garbarino. "Faculty Union Activity in Higher Education 1974. 1975. 1976. 1977. 1978.".Industn1aLBe1at1Qns 14.3 (1975):15.1(l976);l6.1(1977);17.1(1978);18.2(1979L Study's tabulation discontinued in 1979. The accelerating commitment to collective bargaining in higher education has not been uniform across all types of institutions. How- ever. the majority of unionized faculty members are in community col- leges and four-year colleges and universities. which emphasize undergraduate teaching rather than research. In the survey sponsored by the Stanford Project on Academic Governance. college and university presidents and the faculty chairpersons of 1oca1 college unions were asked to comment on specific factors influencing faculty collective bargaining in the United States (Kemerer & Baldridge. 1975). The survey reveal ed that faculty in community colleges and liberal arts colleges have a feeling of being disadvantaged in the academic hier- archy. They do not feel a strong sense of professional status and look to unions to help establish it. It is important to note that although the movement toward faculty collective bargaining has been substantial during the past two decades. there has not been total concurrence by the professoriate as to its benefits. Concern has been expressed as to whether the tradi- tional role and the professional status of the professor might be undermined by collective bargaining. In 1975. Metzger. describing the state of higher education. found the growth of faculty collective bargaining a "slide toward ordinariness" and a process which would require faculty to "relinquish certain professional characteristics" (p. 33). Kadish (1973) assessed the "influence of collective bargaining in terms of the system of governance infused by shared authority and a commitment to profession- alism" “L 14). and concluded that the consequences of unionism would bring about a loss of both to the profession. A faculty study by Herman and Skinner (1975). conducted at the University of Cincinnati in 1974. found that 50 percent of the persons surveyed expressed the view that collective bargaining was inconsistent with professionalism. The respondents expressed concern over issues such as ”tyranny by the majority. restriction of academic freedom. decline in the value of merit. and the impact of unionization on individuals" (p. 272). The 1976 Ladd and Lipset survey found that professors in research-oriented institutions face conflicting pressures with regard to faculty unionism (Lipset. 1976). Their data indicated that the more liberal the socio—political views of such professors the more they favor collective bargaining in general. Yet within research- and graduate-oriented universities. lighter teaching loads and higher salaries were found to exist. These two factors were shown to inhibit a union's appeal and to overshadow the professors' socio—political views in faculty unionizing decisions. Thus. in research and graduate institutions where the above factors were present. Ladd and Lipset found the least support for faculty collective bargaining. While many of the professoriate espoused receptiveness to collective bargaining through their liberal socio-political views. the general structure of their professional academic values allowed little room for unionism of the profession. The surveyed professors tended to oppose changes which would reduce the emphasis on research. meritocracy. and decision-making ability to determine who would have tenure in the institutions (Ladd & Lipset. 1973). .Ih§_E£tham Despite the fact that the literature is replete with specula- tion as to the negative consequences of faculty unionism. the number of faculties deciding to unionize has risen markedly since 1966. the year in which the faculty of a four-year higher education institution first voted to unionize. Central to the decision-making process concerning unionization and the management of its consequences is the professor. a professional in an academic community of professionals. The incidence of unionization of academicians appears prim; .Iacie to be incongruous with the ideology of professionalism. Such an inconsistency brings into question the perceptions of professors as professionals. Thus. the problem of this exploratory study centers on the examination of the professor as a professional in both a unionized and nonunionized academic environment. W The study focuses on analyzing the perceptions of faculty members in the departments of chemistry. history. and psychology at Wayne State University. a unionized graduate institution of higher education. and Michigan State University. a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education. to determine if differences exist in their views of the academician as a professional. The criteria against which the perceptions are measured are garnered from a sociological literature survey of the critical attributes of professionalism. Questions central to the study are as follows: 1. Are there differences in the opportunities of exercising individual judgment in teaching and research between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? 2. Are there differences in the opportunities to participate in decision making with regard to educational policies between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? 3. Are there differences in opportunities to exercise col- legial responsibilities with regard to evaluation of colleagues and administrators between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? 4. Are there differences in faculty perceptions of the profes- sional criteria for evaluation of colleagues between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher educa- tion? 5. Are there differences in faculty perceptions of possible threats to the professional status of the academician between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? 6. Are there differences in perceptions concerning the value of faculty collective bargaining between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? 7. Are there differences in professional identification between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? The above questions will also be applied to the three selected departments to ascertain differences between unionized and nonunionized professors in three separate disciplines. magnum While studies have been conducted on the causes of unioniza- tion. the bargaining processes in higher education. the effect of bargaining on academic salaries. governance structures. and faculty 3. Are there differences in opportunities to exercise col- legial responsibilities with regard to evaluation of colleagues and administrators between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? 4. Are there differences in faculty perceptions of the profes- sional criteria for evaluation of colleagues between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher educa- tion? 5. Are there differences in faculty perceptions of possible threats to the professional status of the academician between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? 6. Are there differences in perceptions concerning the value of faculty collective bargaining between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? 7. Are there differences in professional identification between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? The above questions will also be applied to the three selected departments to ascertain differences between unionized and nonunionized professors in three separate disciplines. WW While studies have been conducted on the causes of unioniza- tion. the bargaining processes in higher education. the effect of bargaining on academic salaries. governance structures. and faculty collective bargaining contracts (Boyd. 1971; Kemerer & Baldridge. 1975; McHugh. 1971; Birnbaum. 1974; Carnegie Commission. 1973; Andes. 1974). the impact of faculty unionization on the professional attributes of the professor has not been the subject of research. On this issue the literature provides speculation as to the consequences of unionization. but there is little in the literature regarding the impact of unioniza- tion of the professor as a professional. The Stanford Project on Academic Governance. begun in 1971 and completed in 1975 by Kemerer and Baldridge (1975). studied the impact of faculty collective bargaining on governance and decision making in higher education. This study surveyed 511 higher education institu- tions. both unionized and nonunionized. The conflicting findings help support the need for this study. First. Kemerer and Baldridge found that while unionization as a system of governance may legally insure faculty rights. at the same time. "unionization undoubtedly undermines some of the central ideals of academic professionalism" (p. 3). They concluded: Shared governance may become more adversarial and polarized; individual negotiations will be subsumed under group bargaining; the subjective procedures or peer evaluation may be replaced by a more mechanical process: and seniority may be substituted for merit as the prime criterion for promotion and tenure. (p. 4) Second. the increasing scarcity of public funding for higher education through legislative appropriations and legislative infringe- ment into university affairs has prompted Kemerer and Baldridge to state. "The faculty will turn to unions as defenses against encroach- ment on their professional life" (p. 5). Finally. Kemerer and Bal dridge's study asserted that unioniza- tion challenged a basic principle of the academic profession: merit judgments based on peer evaluation. The authors concluded. "There is serious danger that unions will reduce the quality of the profession by substituting egalitarianism for meritocracy" (p. 12). The traditional faculty function of judging professional performance on the basis of skills and merit is not easily reconciled with the union concept of equality. The authors found that this basic philosophical difference could lead to a breakdown of the traditional academic and professional approach to managing an academic organization. Thus. authors of the literature have speculated that collective bargaining has the potential of having a direct effect on the role of the professor as a professional. A study directly addressing how and to what extent professionalism has been affected was unavailable. W The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of the professor as a professional in a unionized and a nonunionized environ- ment. The study will center on faculty in three departments. chem- istry. history. and psychology. in the unionized and nonunionized state universities of Wayne State University and Michigan State University. respectively. The study is designed to accomplish the following: 1. To survey the literature to develop a typology of profes- sionalism appropriate to the professor's role. IO 2. To develop a methodological design for determining whether differences in perceptions of professionalism exist between unionized and nonunionized faculty. 3. To develop information and knowledge not currently avail- able concerning the perceived impact of faculty unionism on the profes- sional role of the professor. 4. To provide a basis for further. more extensive study of the impact of faculty unionism on the professorial role and its implica- tions for higher education. W The study is founded on the need for a preliminary investiga- tion. exploratory in nature. that could provide a research basis for a more extensive study on the compatibility of faculty unionism and professionalism. A descriptive method of research is used for this study: that is. the objective of the research is to describe rather than to explain a phenomenon (Borg & Gall. 1971). Best. in 1970. defined descriptive research in the following manner: . . . describes and interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions or relationships that exist: practices that prevail: beliefs. points of view. or attributes that are held; processes that are going on; effects that are being felt: or trends that are developing. Its purpose is to tell "what is)‘ (In Ary. Jacobs. & Razavieh. 1979. p. 26) Information for the study was obtained during May and June. 1979. by interviewing a cross-sectional group of faculty in three 11 departments at a unionized and a nonunionized institution. .A semi- structured interview methodology was selected because of its value in exploratory research. Kerlinger (1965) defined the interview as "a face-to-face interpersonal role situation in which one person. the interviewer. asks a person being interviewed. the respondent. questions designed to obtain answers pertinent to the purposes of the research problem" (p. 469). The use of the personal interview as a research technique to probe for personal opinions and beliefs about the professional role of the faculty and the impact of unionization upon that role has inherent advantages and disadvantages. The principal advantage is its adapta- bility and flexibility in individual situations. The interviewer- interviewee interaction permits the acquiring of information possibly not able to be conveyed through written replies; thus. interviewing permits probing into the context of and reasons for answers to the question (Borg & Gall. 1971). Among the disadvantages would be the possibility that the adaptability gained by using the method can be offset by possible subjectivity and bias. The interaction between the respondent and the interviewer is subject to biases within the inter- viewer's expectations as well as the respondent's answers (Borg 8. Gall. 1971). An interview guide for the interviewing process was designed with two objectives: to obtain the necessary information required to address the study's purpose and to standardize the interviewing proc- ess. The guide was composed of both structured questions. requiring 12 only short. succinct answers. and also open-ended questions allowing for unrestricted and expansive opinions. Questions found in the guide were based on the results of a literature survey encompassing the attributes of professionalism and academicians' attitudes of faculty unionism. For the study two public research-oriented universities were selected: Michigan State University. a nonunionized university. and Wayne State University. a unionized university. These institutions were chosen from the typology of institutions developed by the Stanford Project on Academic Governance. ‘The category from which both were identified is termed the Public Multiversity (Baldridge et ah» 1977L The Public Multiversity is characterized as being an extremely large institution. receiving enormous amounts of federal research money. and as having highly prestigious graduate programs and elite faculties (Baldridge et alu» 1977). Other selection factors included the internal organizational structure of departments. the institutions' accessibility for research. and the unionized and nonunionized faculties. Wayne State University first bargained collectively in 1972. Its faculty bargaining agent is the American Association of University Professors. Michigan State University has three times defeated a move to bargain collectively. first in 1972. in 1978. and most recently in 1982. From these two institutions three departments were selected: history. chemistry. and psychology. representing disciplines in the humanities. applied sciences. and social sciences. respectively. Three 13 distinct disciplines were selected to provide a broad scope of percep- tions of the professional roles and the professional associations associated with each discipline. The perceptions and identifications held by one discipline may not be held by another. From each depart- ment within each institution. faculty were interviewed representing the professorial ranks of assistant. associate. and full professor. The relatively small size of the sample. 66 professors. limited the quanti- tative analysis of the data. but the size of the survey sample. coupled with personal interviews. allowed for an in-depth intensive pursuit of the problem. Additionally. because of the sample size. the results are not assumed to be representative of the discipline even though they may well be. The incorporation of content analysis was determined to be an appropriate methodological approach for classifying the collected interview information for statistical interpretation. In preparation for this methodological analysis. a code book was developed to quantitatively display the results of the 66 interviews. A detailed explanation of the design can be found in Chapter Three. Overall. the use of the comparative analysis method allowed for an approximation of a laboratory. experimental design. in which two systems were compared. the relevant variables of which. through matching and sample selection. were held constant except for the critical variable being studied. This variable was the incidence of collective bargaining. 14 Limitations In view of the nature of the study and the research techniques used. the following limitations may affect the results: 1. The exploratory nature of the study limited to three disciplines in two higher education research institutions. 2. The sample size within each discipline. 3. Subjectivity and biases inherent in the research method- ology. 4. The reliability of the survey instrument. 5. The institutional characteristics and environments of Michigan State University and Wayne State University. 6. The lack of pretest measures. QeJJmnatJons The study is delimited to the following: 1. The selection of a unionized and a nonunionized research- oriented institution within the Public Multiversity typology of the Stanford Project on Academic Governance. 2. The matching of the three departments within the two selected institutions. 3. The library research. which includes books and periodicals on file at Michigan State University library. published and unpublished material obtained through interlibrary loan with Michigan State Univer- sity. and books and materials owned or borrowed by this investigator. 15 4. Research data were collected in 1979 before the NLRB v. Yeshiva. Supreme Court decision. Qeflninons For the purpose of this study. the following definitions apply: .lelegjjxe_barga1n1ng--an institutional relationship between an employer (university administration) and a labor organization repre- senti ng a defined group of employees (faculty members) concerned with negotiations. administration. interpretation. and enforcement of writ- ten agreements covering joint understandings as to salaries and other conditions of employment (Davey. 1972L .Bangain1n9_agent--an organization selected by the employees through an election or by signing authorization cards. to be their exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining (Davey. 1972). .EEQIQSEQ£5--a collective body of university faculty representing the traditional academic ranks of assistant professor. associate professor. and full professor (Dressel. Johnson. & Marcus. 1971). .Engjessign--an "intellectual" occupation based on a long process of formal assimilation of theoretical knowledge (Nosow a Form. 1962). .QnllanI1¥a_ha£ga1n1ng_agneement--a legally binding written agreement between the bargaining unit and the employer. specifying the nature of the employment relationship. 16 W In Chapter One the problem of the study. the need for the investigation. its focus and purpose. the research design. and the study's limitations and delimitations were introduced. Chapter Two contains a review of the literature concerned specifically with defining the characteristic attributes of profession- alism for the purpose of developing a typology of professionalism appropriate to the professor's role. The chapter also represents a historical overview of the American Association of University Profes- sors. Chapter Three contains a discussion of the research design of the study. the population of the survey. and the instrument used. Chapter Four is a presentation of information collected from the survey instrument and the results of the interviews of the sampled faculty groups. Chapter Five contains a summary of the overall study findings. conclusions. implications. recommendations. and suggestions for further research. CHAPTER II SURVEY OF LITERATURE .Intnoduction The purpose of this chapter is to survey the sociological literature that defines the attributes of professionalism. The find- ings will be used to develop a typology of professional attributes appropriate to faculty members in higher education research-oriented institutions. The typology will serve as the criteria against which the perceptions of the surveyed faculty will be tested. Additionally. the evolution of the AAUP from a higher education professional associa- tion to a collective bargaining agent will be addressed. There exists a large. well-defined body of literature concerned with describing the attributes of a professional. For this study two methodological approaches were identified in these sociological examinations of professionalism. First. the more traditional and common. was the trait approach in which sociologists focus on identifying commonalities of traits in given professions. but lacking 'in nonprofessions. Such a model. which assumes homogeneity within the profession. examines professionalism in terms of outcomes of the professionalization process. A second approach. one not as widely explored in the literature as the first. is the Bucher and Strauss (1961) process model for studying professions. While the trait l7 18 approach tends to overlook differentiation within a defined profession. the process approach develops the concept of professionalization as an ongoing process of change and development in response to internal and external conditions. Identities. values. and interests vary as seg- ments within the professional community pursue varying objectives in different manners. The trait model will be the basis for the development of the typology appropriate to the professor in higher education. It is the trait approach that delineates the foundational characteristics for determining a profession from a nonprofession. Further. the trait model provides a mechanism for viewing the academic professional community as relatively homogeneous and cohesive. Yet. an overlay of the process model is necessary to reach an understanding of the faculty as a cluster of professions within the overall academic profession as defined by the trait model. 'The process model recognizes the differentiation found within academic specialties and their unique professional identities. The main issue in the literature of professions and profession- alization centers on distinguishing a profession from a nonprofession. This is usually accomplished by describing a set of critical character- istics or attributes through the trait model approach. Flexner. writ- ing in 1915. represented one of the earliest efforts in this direction (in Becker. 1962). As a pioneer in medical education he identified a profession as basically intellectual: learned by being based on special knowledge: practical. being based on techniques that could be taught: internally organized: and guided by altruism. Although he presented 19 the objectives as criteria against which an occupation might be com- pared. he added an attitudinal qualifier at the end of his paper. He stated. "What matters most is professional spirit" (p. 28). Carr-Saunders and Wilson (1933). Greenwood (in Nosow a Form. 1962). Cogan (1953). Caplow (1954). and Wilensky (1964). noted socio- logical authorities on the characteristics of professions. each viewed professionalization as a complex developmental process. In general they concluded that an occupation develops to the point of exhibiting a number of attributes which are the core elements of professionalism. In canvassing the occupational literature. Greenwood found the dis- tinguishing outcome of the process of professionalization to be syste- matic theory. authority. community sanction. ethical codes. and a culture. But he cautioned that the distilled attributes could be found in both professional and nonprofessional occupations. Therefore. it is a quantitative difference of degree that differentiates the professions from the nonprofessions. Because of the absence of a common set of traits in the major sociological studies. Goode (1950)1and Millerson (1964) each endeavored to determine a definitive set of attributes characterizing a profes- sion. Goode. who examined the growth and patterns of professionaliza- tion in an industrial society. found unanimity in the various definitions that attempt to characterize a profession. In attempting to extract the most commonly cited definitions. he found basically no contradictions and only differences of omission. Millerson provided further substantiation of the difficulty of determining a definite set 20 or number of basic attributes or traits from the literature. After canvassing 21 sociological studies. each attempting to define the essential traits of a profession. Millerson arrived at 23 various elements. . Upon the completion of a thorough survey of the sociological literature on the attributes of professionalism for this study. the investigator suggests that professionalism as appropriate to the academic profession can be considered in terms of five broad categorical attributes: l. Specialized knowledge 2. Internal authority 3. Community sanction 4. Ideology 5. Professional association These characteristics represent the major points of emphasis garnered from the literature on the sociology of the professions. As such. each will be used to structure a typology to serve as the test criteria in examining the professional role of the professor. We A core characteristic of a professional occupation prominently recognized in the literature is that a profession has an essential foundation of abstract principles which has been organized into a theory. a body of specialized knowledge. The process of prolonged training to acquire such specialized knowledge is a basic variable in determining the difference between professional and nonprofessional 21 occupations. Greenwood (1962) most clearly described this character- istic: A profession's underlying body of theory is a system of abstract propositions that describe in general terms the classes of phenom- ena comprising the profession's focus of interest. Theory serves as a base in terms of which the professional rationalizes his operations in concrete situations. Preparation for a profession. therefore. involves considerable preoccupation with systematic theory. a feature virtually absent in the training of a non- professional. (p. 208) The university has as one of its basic functions the transmis- sion to students of generalized and systematic knowledge that becomes the basis for professional performance. ‘The American higher education model of today can be traced historically to the German universities of more than a century ago. which emphasized scientific training and scholarly research aimed at expanding knowledge without ecclesiastical control (Parsons & Platt. 1968). In the late nineteenth century the American university system of education became an extensive process of supervised training and research culminating in an original investiga- tion. a dissertation. The completion of the dissertation coupled with the attainment of the doctorate degree symbolizes two aspects of professionalization. First. the degree traditionally represents licensure from the academic profession signifying the mastery of the specialized body of knowledge underpinning expertise in an academic discipline. Second. it symbol- izes the completion of the process of socialization which initiates an identification with the academic professional role responsibilities. 22 Goode (196) asserted that the prolonged training process to master a specialized body of knowledge is an identifiable form of social control for the profession. It is clearly a socializing process. Acceptance or rejection of graduate students for graduate education. determined by members of the academic profession. is the initial evaluative step in academia. Such a selection process helps insure that those who are not qualified for the training process do not eventually become members of the profession. Once admitted to train- ing. control is constantly maintained by a lengthy and difficult educa- tional evaluative process which eliminates those who were mistakenly selected. Harries-Jenkins (1970) suggested that a high level of pro- fessionalization is associated with groups which are limited to exclu- sive graduate entry. The university professor's occupational group is among those requiring graduate degrees. Extensive training in a specialized body of theory to attain a high degree of skill and knowledge also contributes to the maintenance and continuation of the traditions of the occupational group (Parsons. 1964). A further outcome of this prolonged professional training period is the perpetua- tion of the academic-community values and culture through role modeling (Barber. 1965). The granting of the PhJL historically recognized another transformation occurring in higher education. the evolution of the faculty from small groups of educators in the classical curriculum who shared the same education and intellectual heritage. into groupings of disciplines. each with a defined set of abstract principles and a 23 specialized theoretical base. This historical development provides foundation for Lightfls (1974) notion that there is not a single academic profession. but rather academic professions. Each has a specialized knowledge base that determines the academic disciplines. The faculty. a composite of the disciplines. represents a cluster of professions with certain identities and values related to their roles and disciplines. Light's assertion was corroborated by Clark (1966). who examined the evolutionary development of the academic profession. The higher academician of a century ago obtained only a bachelor's degree with a basic classical curriculum. Clark noted that no system of graduate education existed. nor was there reward for distinction in scholarship. The transmission of specialized discipline knowledge through graduate education was not within the recognized academic role. Academicians havelnoved from studying and transmitting general knowl- edge to the research. creation. and transmission of specialized knowl- edge of a discipline. In summary. the literature verifies the academici an as a professional. The acquisition of a specialized body of knowledge obtained through extensive training and evaluation. and evidenced by the attainment of the doctorate degree. serves as a qualifying consid- eration. Carr-Saunders and Wilson's (1933) classic study. which traced the development of modern professions from the guild society of medie- val Europe. concluded that the chief distinguishing characteristic of a profession is the level of knowledge and techniques demanded of members 24 of the profession and acquired as a result of a prolonged educational and socialization process. mm The literature recognizes that university faculty operate within two structural control systems: the formal bureaucracy of the institution and the academic profession with disciplinary substruc- tures. In the former. the academician is a salaried employee of a hierarchical organization which has the responsibility of coordinating organizational activities and tasks to accomplish a stated institu- tional mission (Harries-Jenkins. 1970L In the latter. the power traditionally accorded faculty to control certain aspects within the university. especially the relationship between peers and the assign- ment of the tasks of teaching and research. is commonly known as colle- giality. the internal authority mode of governance (Parsons & Platt. 1968). Gross (1958) proposed that the essence of occupational unity is colleagueship. Once entry to the profession has been accomplished. all members are then colleagues and have a clear understanding of common symbols and values. Exceptions to Gross's broad meaning of collegi- ality were taken by Bucher and Strauss (1961). who stressed the impor- tance of segmentation within a profession. While they agreed that colleagueshi p refers to a peer relationship characterized by commonly shared interests and symbols. it is rare that all members of the pro- fession are actually colleagues. They suggested a more narrow focus. Colleagueship is an indicator of persons who not only share a 25 professional identity but who also "hold in common notions concerning the ends served by their work and attitudes and problems centering on it" (p. 330). Segmentation within the academic profession was supported by Clark's (1966) studies. The size and complexity of large campuses and internal specialization of disciplines diffuse Gross's conception of the esprit fie corps of colleague relationships. Clark contended that segmentation is influenced by the organization's structural character- istics. ‘Therefore. the decision making. power. and influence of fac- ulty members are segmented by disciplines. colleges. divisions. and departments (Gross. 1958). A campus is bureaucratically centralized and collegially decentralized. In Clark's terms. the campus is "not a closely knit group of professionals who see the work from one perspec- tive" (p. 228). The professorial authority gained by virtue of the special knowledge and skills of the academician is balanced with administrative/coordi native authority of the department. These departments tend to be the "centers of commitments" for participation in internal governance (Clark. 1966). The focus of authority and power within segmented disciplines and departments is the pivotal point in balancing the informal and formal responsibilities of collegiality within the bureaucratic structures of the organization. Barber (1965) proposed three accommodative mechanisms to exam- ine the role conflict between the collegial authority and bureaucratic authority. These three mechanisms. differentiated role structures. 26 differentiated authority structures. and differentiated reward struc- tures. are useful in arriving at‘a better definition of the responsi- bilities of the internal-authority trait of collegial control. Barber suggested that specialized roles in the substructures of organizations provide the professionals with the opportunity to carry out the required role activities. The substructure of the university represented by social science. humanities. and behavioral science can be further stratified into departments of psychology. history. and chemistry. Faculty roles within each department can be conceptualized into the activities of research and teaching. the development and application of new knowledge as well as the transmitting of the learned knowledge. Baratz (1978) was most concise and specific in detailing the professional role activities: the process of admitting. of awarding grades. and of granting degrees to students. the character of instructional curricula. the content of individual courses. the choice of teaching techniques; decisions to hire. promote and award tenure to individual faculty members. decisions about selection and reappointment of academic administrators: and the character and conduct of individual professors' scholarly or artistic work. (p. 199) In addition to the differentiated role structures within pro- fessional organizations. one also finds a specialized type of authority structure. which Barber (1965) stated "is an accommodation between the organization's needs for the pattern of superordinate control and the professional's need for the colleague control pattern of authority" p. 27). Although Barber envisioned the key role of the mechanism to be supervisory and evaluative in nature. the concept can be interpreted to be the academician's evaluative role responsibilities. 27 Harries-Jenkins (1970) noted that an indicator of professional- ism is evaluation of merit. Whereas evaluation of work is common to all occupations. only in the true professions is the evaluation of merit by peers found. The evaluation is by a hierarchical colleague who has undergone a similar training and socialization process and who has internalized the standards of performance. Collegial members with higher professorial ranks assess the quality of colleagues! research and education contributions. their standing in the discipline. and the capacity to teach and train students in the discipline. Goode (1957) asserted that the profession. when viewed as a community. will submit to the social control modes of its members to protect itself and the professional values from the larger society. Evaluation is a social control mode for disciplining as well as rewarding. Failure to effec- tively discipline would mean a loss of community autonomy (Goode. 1957). Rankings within a profession are a mode of social control. Goode asserted that professional life is fundamentally based on achievement. Recognition of such achievements is made by awarding ranks. Within the academic profession ranks are represented by instructor and assistant. associate and full professor. While the rankings are an indicator of achievement by the collegial group. they are also the collegial structure of the professional career ladder (Goldner a Ritti. 1967). The final accommodative mechanism proposed by Barber to lessen conflict between professional and bureaucratic organizations is 28 differentiated reward structures. Goode more closely linked evaluation and the subsequent rewards of professional recognition to a social control mode. Barber suggested that rewards come from the organization creating opportunities for one to achieve awards while still serving the needs of the organization. Goode associated the ends being the reward. i.e.. rank and tenure. Barber proposed that reward is the means to achieve. Examples in academic organizations include the opportunity to participate in and attend professional association meet- ings. to publish research. and to continue professional training through leaves of absence and sabbaticals. Barbarino (1975) stated. "The essence of professionalism is autonomy and self-regulation of the conditions under which the profession is carried onJ' The academic collegial mode of governance is recognition of the assumption that faculty members are professionals whose knowledge and skills are so highly specialized that only they are competent to decide who may be a collegial member and to evaluate each member's performance. Clark (1966) believed the role of faculty authority is shifting from protecting the rights of the entire guild. the rights of the collective faculty. to protecting the autonomy of the separate disci- plines and the autonomy of the individual faculty member. WW Greenwood (in Nosow & Form. 1962) most clearly delineated the characteristic elements of community sanction recognized in the 29 achievement of professional status. He stated. "Every profession strives to persuade the community to sanction its authority within certain spheres by conferring upon the profession a series of powers and privileges" (p. 211). He defined powers to be (1) control over training centers achieved by an accrediting process and (2) control over admission to the profession achieved by graduation from an accredited school. Among the professional privileges Greenwood listed confidentiality between the client and professional. immunity from community judgment in setting standards for professional performance. and internal evaluation of performance to those standards. Goode (1957). while basically agreeing with Greenwood's premise. emphasized the qualitative aspects of the relationship between a professional community and society at large. Power. Good believed. is achieved by the profession demanding a high standard of education for its trainees to become members and by the trainees acquiring and mastering the complexity of skills judged critical to the development of society at large. He also supported Greenwood's notion of privi- leges through examination of internal professional social controls. He asserted that members of a profession need protection from lay judg- ments which are inappropriate. In other words. the lay community. which has not undergone the extensive socialization and educational process. could not fully understand the problems and complexity of technical skills involved or the proper standards to be used in making a professional judgment. For such protection from the.judgments of society at large. the professional must accept the social control 30 measures of the profession. Goode asserted that strong professional control over members of the profession is the most effective technique in avoiding lay control. This concept was fully supported by Harries- Jenkins (1970). who asserted that the more elaborate the sanction mechanism of group control the higher the degree of professionalism and thus insulation from outside intervention. In interpreting the characteristics of community sanction for the academic profession. several commonalities are apparent. The accrediting process in higher education applies not only to individual institutions through state and national educational organizations but also to schools of disciplines within the institutions. Control. exercised by granting or withholding accreditation. is manifested in regulating the number and locations of institutions. degree curriculum content. and the caliber of instruction of institutions and schools of discipline (Greenwood. in Nosow & Form. 1962). A basic assumption in attempting to enter the professorial ranks of the higher education profession is that one has had extensive graduate training culminating in a doctoral degree. The degree indicates licensure of qualifications. The final decision to grant entrance to the profession is made by a select group of academicians of the same discipline who pass judgment on whether to admit or reject a prospective faculty member. Once entrance is granted. performance against established standards is assessed at particular intervals. The reward for achievement is movement to the next professorial rank. The determination of the standards. the process of evaluation. and the 31 recommendation for reward are activities not under lay control. The process of achieving the appropriate degree. being evaluated for entrance. and being confirmed for professional acceptance is surrounded by symbols of professional recognition. In higher education these symbols are manifested in various degrees. memberships and participa- tion in professional associations. professorial rank or title. and academic gowns and accompanying insignias. These symbols represent the power of internal control (Cheek. 1967). The maintenance of such spheres of power provides barriers to lay control. Yet. academicians are not wholly independent from some forms of lay control. Due to the nature of education in general and the struc- turerof higher education. faculty members as an entity have a financial dependence and an accompanying obligation to society at large. 119919.91 The ideological elements that differentiate professions from occupations are induced in new members through the process of socialization. As previously described. socialization. defined as formal training and education. occurs over a period of years. The end result of this process is twofold. The ideological elements that are learned produce not only the common professional bonds that identify the group culture. but also the ideologies become those by which the professional status is maintained and encouraged (Harries-Jenkins. 1970). More precisely. the profession's ideology encompasses the norms and ethics of expected professional behavior and the common values and symbols of the group's professional culture. These identifiable 32 behavioral norms. group values. and cultural symbols which characterize professions are not found in nonprofessional occupations. Greenwood (1962) believed this attribute most clearly differentiates a profession from a nonprofession. In diagnosing the ideology of the professional culture in higher education. Goode's (1957) characteristics of a professional community most aptly apply. He stated that a profession is a community bound by common characteristics without physical locus. Goode's model is appropriate for examining the ideological and cultural elements of the profession generically while at the same time recognizing the existence of the academic discipline subcultures. Included in Goode's characteristics are a sense of identity. career orientation. shared values. understood role definitions. common language. power over members. social limits. socialization as maintenance and perpetuation. Recognizing that group members have similar educational back- grounds. that they are united by common professional bonds. and are affiliated and participate in similar professional associations con- tributes to the development of a common identity. While the literature widely recognizes the development of a common identity occurring through the extensive educational process. the complexity of a large campus provides other dimensions to a single group culture. Harries-Jenkins (1970) and Wilson (1979) both agreed that group» identity can be limited by the working environment and employing institution. Becker and Geer's (1958) empirical study suggested that 33 the extent to which an individual identifies with a group is constantly changing. This finding was supported by Bucher and Strauss's (1961) concept of segmentation in professions. Clark (1966) narrowed the definition and suggested that due to size. complexity. and internal specialization. the commitment of faculty localizes in departments of disciplines. Therefore. segmentation provides a more definitive group identity. Harries-Jenkins proposed that. while group identity can vary through segmentation. the underlying generic group culture of ideologi- cal and social values. the basic fundamental beliefs are sustained. Career orientation is a control concept in the ideological characteristics of professionalism. Greenwood (in Nosow a Form. 1962) associated the term "career" in reference to professional occupations. He stated. "Professional work is never viewed solely as a means to an end; it is the and itself" (p. 216). Ideally the professional has complete involvement with work activities and the work group so that no demarcation exists between work hours and nonwork hours. Performing professional tasks becomes a total social environment. There exists in the higher education profession a well-defined career ladder. A basic presumption is that an entrant to the profes- sorial ranks will professionally grow and attain higher professorial ranks over a period of time. A full professorship is ordinarily the top rank. but distinguished professorships by conferred title and in the form of named chairs do occur. Career orientation within the academic profession is supported by the concept of tenure. permanent employment.‘ The achievement of the top rank of full professor 34 accompanied by tenure is an achieved rather than an ascribed status. An individual's position at this career point is secure for life. and full professional status has been achieved. "A high degree of professionalization is associated with the belief of the group that the service it renders to the remainder of society is for the good of the whole. and that withdrawal of the service would cause immeasurable harm" (Harries-Jenkins. 1970. p. 79). Whether or not service to society is conceived as altruistic in nature. as most of the literature implies. or egotistic in concept. as Parsons (1939) suggested. it is identified as a shared social value. The phrase. service ideal. implies that professionals serve the needs of clients. Hughes (in Blau. 1973) pointed out that academicians in their role as researchers and scholars in various disciplines have no clients. and thus are not professionals in the truest sense. In their teaching role faculty have students whose needs they are expected to serve. The term "professional" is appropriate here. for students are clients. Blau (1973) supported the notion that university students. particularly graduate students. are not really clients. The objective of graduate education is scholarship. and the relationship in the educational process is one of scholar and student. Blau believed the student is being socialized into the profession to become a colleague. While the literature offers a variety of definitions of the service ideal in higher education. it does not waver in emphasizing the importance of an environment supportive of academic freedom. a commonly shared value. Professionals have considerably more autonomy in their 35 work than do nonprofessionals; the professional expects to be allowed maximum discretion in the selection of the means for achieving the desired results (Scott. 1966). An extensive educational process devel- oped the requisite skills for achieving the results. and the socializa- tion process internalized the norms for acceptable procedures. The Hofstadter and Metzger study (in Parsons & Platt. 1968) on the develop- ment of academic freedom found it to be a necessary condition for the advancement of higher learning. Clark (1966) stated that. as profes- sionals. "academics have perhaps the highest requirements for autonomy to engage in research. in unfettered teaching and in scholarship" (p. 2881. Academic freedom represents professional autonomy. Although the ethics of professional behavior are to some extent unenforceable by law. they do represent the codes of conduct sanctioned and supported within the profession. Whether explicit or implicit. the ideology of the codes is important for professional maintenance. Greenwood (1962) interpreted the ethics governing collegial relation- ships within a professional group as encompassing cooperation. egali- tarianism. and support. Cooperation is evidenced by participation in professional asso- ciations. ‘These organizations are the formal information mechanisms used for disseminating knowledge and for the advancement of theories to professional colleagues. Therefore. the ethic of cooperation helps set apart the professions from the occupations found in profit-based indus- trial organizations which work in an environment of secrecy and high security. Further. Greenwood suggested that the professional 36 association not only fosters cooperation but also reinforces the professional's cultural identity. Egal itarianism is evidenced in collegial relationships through the evaluation of individuals largely in terms of technical competency and accomplishments. Greenwood stated. "Norms of the professional group are guides to behavior in social situations. The professional group which maintains the cultural norms has a commonly shared perspective on the transactions and behavior of the group" (p. 213). With the behavioral norms well established in the culture and learned through the socialization process. individuals within the association can approach each other with certain expectations for interaction. which. when experienced. confirms and reinforces the original perceptions of cultural behavior. In this way individuals of a professional association are continually supporting one another's perceptions of behavior. Culture. in this sense. could be a product of communication. the establishment of a common language of norms. The professional community's power over its members consists of control mechanisms necessary for the protection of the professional from lay judgments. In turn. the professional community provides a service to the larger society by regulating its members' professional lives. assuring the larger society of the competence of its members (Goode. 1957). Since the work of specialized academicians in various disciplines is too complicated to be judged by those outside the profession. fellow colleagues of the same specialized body of theory are the only ones qualified to evaluate a member's work. Bal dridge. 37 Curtis. Ecker. and Riley (1973) found in their study on the elements of professional autonomy that the demands of scholarship and research and the skills of academic specialists are so rigorous that only those in the same highly specialized areas can adequately evaluate professional work. Consequently. when performance is to be evaluated for promotion. tenure. or for the setting of salary. professionals demand evaluation by peers. not by administrators or outsiders. W In examining the evolution of the professions. Carr-Saunders (in Vollmer & Mills. 1966) found that. as a profession emerged. the practitioners formed an association around the comnmniinterests. 'These early professional associations existed for three main reasons: to certify competency. to define rules of professional conduct. and to raise the status of the profession. As the effectiveness of the association rose and the profession became firmly established. the association broadened in focus. Additional functions included socialization and education of members. communications with the public. and the defense of professional interest against intrusion by society at large (Barber. 1965). While the professors in higher education have no association to which a majority belong. many are members of national organizations of professionals representing particular disciplines. In general. these specialized associations serve two purposes: to advance the knowledge of the respective discipline and to provide an opportunity for 38 academicians to advance themselves (Wilson. 1979L By presenting papers. serving on association committees. publishing articles. and participating in various association activities. the academicians gain recognition as professionals. The American Association of University Professors. since its inception in 1915. has been concerned with the professional status of the professor. Over time the Association has [been concerned with and supportive of academic freedom. tenure. due process in appraisal sys- tems. salaries. and academic roles in institutional governance. The following provides a historical overview of this professional associa- tion. WW Estey (1976) termed the traditional professional employee associations. which now are recognized bargaining agents. as the new frontier of the American labor movement. Such an example in higher education is the long-established professional association. the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). which in 1972 turned to collective bargaining as a way of approaching professional employment issues. By February 1978. the Association had been selected as the bargaining agent in 43 higher education institutions and a joint representative with the American Federation of Teachers or the National Education Association in seven other higher education institutions. To understand the development of the American Association of University Professors from a professional association to a collective bargaining agent. a historical background will be presented. 39 By the early part of this century. the university professor in the United States had lost much of the stature the position had enjoyed in the nineteenth century. As late as 1901. in a decision of the West Virginia case of Hartigan vs. Board of Regents. the professor was designed a "mere employee" (Kirkpatrick. 1931). At this same time there were drastic changes taking place within the institution of higher education in this country. The changes were due partially to sociological factors. In the 30 years from 1883 to 1913. the percent- age of college-age citizens doubled. As a result. many more students began attending higher education institutions. and many new universi- ties and colleges were established. In this same 30 years. the national income quadrupled while the income of colleges and universi- ties multiplied 11 times (Metzger. 1965). One of the changes in higher education was in the area of curriculum. Traditionally. the student's course of study followed a carefully predetermined curriculum. Since most universities had here- tofore been founded by religious organizations or on religious grounds. the course offerings were confined to courses consonant with religious principles. They also reflected a classical bias: classical lan- guages. rhetoric. logic. mathematics. philosophy. and natural science. New colleges. established by a more divergent populace. greatly broadened the course offerings. even to the extent of offering the students the choice of electives. Among these new institutions were the graduate schools. With the growth of secular institutions and a broader curriculum came a change in the role and background of the 4O professor. In accordance with the religious nature of colleges. pro- fessors previously had religious or pietic backgrounds. Such was no longer the case in the emerging secular universities. Heretofore. the professor's sole role had been that of teacher. Now the professor's record of published works became of equal importance: hence. the need for research. In addition. the professor had gained enough respect to be considered a specialist in his field so that he began to take on the added duties of serving as a consultant. It would seem that this added prestige and the broadening educational goals and foundations would have given professors a feeling of accomplishment and contentment. On the contrary. the creation of new institutions caused concern among professors. ‘They felt that the proliferation was debasing academic standards. Growth within universi- ties. necessitating the establishment of academic units. caused some professors to fear that undue power was being given to administrators. Others thought that the newly attained wealth and worldliness would compromise the educational institution. making it more vulnerable to outside forces. In 1913. 18 full professors at Johns Hopkins University sent letters to full professors at nine other institutions urging them to join in the formation of a national association of professors. The professors contended that their specialized interests were served by the disciplinary societies but that their institutional and societal interests were not being cared for equally. "Realistic members of the profession recognizetd] that only through the solidarity of 41 organization can status be protected in a society where equilibrium is maintained through the counter-balance of pressure groups" (Wilson. 1942. p. 118). As a result. in January 1915. 650 prominent professors accepted invitations to become charter members of the American Associa- tion of University Professors. «John Dewey was elected its first presi- dent. The general functions were "to establish and articulate criteria and sanctions governing the mutual relations of members. to control the relations of members and non-members. and. if possible. to affect the behavior of non-member toward member" (Wilson. 1942. p. 119). Since these were full professors from major universities. cognizant of the growth of the number of institutions. one finds the following items among the concerns of the fledgling AAUP (Metzger. 1965): l. Standardized graduation requirements. 2. Elimination of duplicate efforts. 3. Cooperation in the awarding of fellowships. 4. Serving as an accrediting agency for graduate schools. 5. Democratization of departmental management. 6. Limiting and fixing the probationary faculty period. This last item revealed a concern for the appointment system. Faculty participation in the recruitment and appointment of their colleagues was not yet universally assured. Because of the expanding number of universities and a resultant increase in the number of newly appointed teachers. the percentage of teachers in the lower ranks. instructors and assistant professors. soared. Between 1869 and 1908. 42 the proportion of faculty in these ranks rose from 20 percent to 33 percent (Metzger. 1965). While senior faculty members did not always recognize their junior colleagues as having professional status. they did work toward more equal treatment of these colleagues in the matters of time in rank and probationary period. The growth in'the number of institutions created keen competi- tion among the better graduate schools for the best professors. To assist in retaining the best. or screening out the undesirables. another proposal was the establishment of an employment agency. In fear of the trade-union level. most members shied away from dealing with salaries. On one item there was very broad agreement: a code of ethics. A few months before the drafting of the letter calling for the creation of a professional association. Professor J. McKeen Cattell of Columbia University wrote that the time had come'to form an organiza- tion to cope with the "problem of administration" (Metzger. 1965. p. 230). This term referred to certain conditions that Cattell and other professors saw as being injurious to their profession. They partially blamed administrators for inadequate salaries. heavy teaching loads. and lack of academic freedom. But perhaps more important was the not- unusual situation in which the administration. personified by the president. regarded the faculty as subordinates while the faculty. each having an expertise in some specialty. viewed the president as being a specialist in nothing but administration. Cattell did not form such an organization. but he and his discontented colleagues were in the 43 forefront of the newly formed AAUP; 'Through their efforts the first committee to be established was one on academic freedom and tenure. An overview of the AAUP's history indicates that its prime weapon in pursuit of its goals has changed radically. from persuasion. through censure of administrations. to collective bargaining. the latter two incorporating rather than supplanting the former. .A fourth tactic has been the salary survey begun in the 19505. For this survey. "the AAUP collects detailed salary data from institutions. calculates averages for different types of respondents. assigns grades according to the salary level within types. and publishes the results" (Garbarino & Lawler. 1978. p. 46). Another of the association's prime functions is the conduct of investigations resulting from faculty reports of institutional viola- tions of the association's adopted principles. This aspect of the AAUP's purpose has gained considerable importance in the last ten years as the number of complaints has greatly increased. As has been noted. two problems have always confronted the American professoriate: the inherent conflict between the professori- ate as professionals and the bureaucratic system of university adminis- tration under which the professoriate work: and the question of professionalization or unionism as the path to take toward forming an organization to deal with the relationship of the profession to the outside world and the administration. The dichotomy of a professional working within a bureaucracy has been succinctly stated by Kornhauser (in Vollmer & Mills. 1966): 44 Professionalism has as its primary function the protection of standards for creative activities; organization has as its primary function the efficient coordination of diverse activities . . . for the combining of professionalism with bureaucracy entails certain contradictory principles. (p. 292) In establishing their professional status. the professoriate has desired that their profession and its organization be on a par with the professions of law and medicine and their organizations. the Ameri- can Bar Association and the American Medical Association. coupled with the kind of accommodation to the bureaucratic system enjoyed by some European faculty. However. the certifying system would never be as strict as those of the law and medical professions. In 1916 Quincy Wright (in Lewis & Ryan. 1977) defined autonomy as "freedom from cen- sorship: freedom from the explicit directives of superior authority: freedom from pressure to produce practical results: periods of freedom from time schedules and the coercions of an operative institution" (p. 200). In actuality the professor is "under the economic control of those who employ him and highly dependent on the discretion of supe— riors" (Wilson. 1942. p. 121). The only facet of a professor's profes- sional life less subject to the administration's governance is the content of his work. The AAUP had initial hopes that the bureaucratic system would share its power or that the profession would be able to integrate into the governing system to have an important part in the shaping of all the policies of the institution. Lewis and Ryan (1977) stated two other reasons for the lack of success on the part of the AAUP in dealing with the university bureau- cratic structure and external forces. The first was the "tendency to 4S emphasize the individual. or personality characteristics of representa- tives of the bureaucratic system rather than focusing on the structure of. and distribution of power within the system" (p. 203). Second. the AAUP adopted "an accommodating role when reacting to an intrusion by outside forces into the affairs of the occupation" (Lewis & Ryan. 1977. p. 203). They also found that the AAUP was ambiguous as to its internal structure. whether professional interests were to be best served by a centralized form of organization or more locally oriented. Baratz (1978) surmised that few faculty were willing to forego the pleasure of teaching and research to master the intricacies of adminis- trative governance. Finally. Lewis and Ryan believed that the AAUP was so involved with the defense of individual faculty members that it did not have the ability to challenge the power of the bureaucratic system. With the incorporation of the American Federation of Teachers in 1914 and its affiliation with the American Federation of Labor in 1919. the professoriate had a distinct choice between a professional organization and a union. 'The professoriate was intent on maintaining its professional stance rather than. in their view. lowering their status to that of the blue-collar worker who was unionizing. Profes- sionalization. the AAUP. was their choice instead of unionism. the AFT. The question of unionism and professionalization was prominent again in the 19305. a period of growth of the trade unions. Bain. Coats. and Ellis (1973) characterized the professional association as being primarily interested in such goals as increasing the status of the profession. promoting the study of specific subjects. qualifying the competent. and thereby serving and protecting the public. 46 Trade unions. on the other hand. are commonly portrayed as being almost solely interested in promoting the economic interests of their members. (p. 71) To unionize meant to use "collective bargaining. within-organization pressures. public attitude changes through public relations and the press. and occasional strikes” (Haug & Sussman. 1971. p..526). ‘Through professionalization the professoriate had attempted "to persuade the public at large. rather than a particular bureaucratic hierarchy. that they were due various emol uments" (Haug 8. Sussman. 1971. p. 527). Professionalization leads to associations rather than to unions. The association undertakes to protect and expand the profession's knowledge base; enforce standards of learning. entry. and performance: and engage in similar activities designed to enhance the position of the practi- tioners while simultaneously purporting to protect the welfare of the public in the person of the client (Haug & Sussman. 1971). Kadish (in Lewis 3 Ryan. 1977). in support of professionalization rather than unionization. stated that the ideal of the professoriate is to subordi- nate "personal interest to the advancement of the purposes of the university" (p. 210). The AAUP held firm to its role as an associa- tion. The 19505 and 19605 saw the establishment of numerous junior colleges. The AAUP did not consider their faculties as professional peers and did not admit them into membership. It was not until 1967 that a member of a junior college was added to its National Council. The year 1967 was also when the National Education Association. heretofore an organization of public school teachers. in concert with 47 the American Association for Higher Education. formally recognized a new professional organization to serve junior colleges. It is not surprising to view the following 1976 Ladd-Lipset (1976) survey of collective bargaining alternatives among junior colleges: AAUP NEA AFT No Agent 9% 23% 30% 19% As colleges and universities turned to collective bargaining. the AAUP realized that the NEA and AFT might totally replace it as the primary agent working for the faculty in maintaining academic freedom and in seeking resolutions to faculty-administrative conflicts. In 1964 the faculty of the City University of New York expressed its interest in bargaining collectively. The AAUP took the position that. if bargaining was necessary. the internal organization of a univer- sity's faculty. faculty senate. etc.. was the most appropriate repre- sentative (Garbarino. 1975). In 1966 its position changed so that "under extraordinary circumstances" an AAUP chapter might become the official bargaining agent (Garbarino. 1975). Further changes in 1968 and 1969 led to this position: "Where conditions of effective faculty participation in college or university governance do not exist. the local chapter may offer itself as the facultyfls representative" (Garbarino. 1975. p. 86). At the present time the AAUP operates under a policy adopted in October 1971: "The Association will pursue collective bargaining as a major additional way of realizing the Association's goals in higher education" (Garbarino. 1975. p. 46). The evolution of the AAUP from a 48 purely professional organization to one that could also be a collective bargaining representative was now complete. Sumac The purpose of this chapter was to survey the sociological literature to determine the attributes of professionalism. From the various trait approaches. five attributes were delineated and described as appropriate to the higher education professor: specialized knowl- edge. internal control. community sanction. ideology. and professional associations. These characteristics and their various components served as the basis for the development of a typology of professional attributes appropriate to the academic profession in research-oriented institutions. The typology serves two purposes. First. it demon- strates that the characteristics of faculty professionalism are con- sistent with and derived from the principles of professionalism found in the literature. Additionally. it provides criteria with which to measure the faculty perceptions of professionalism for this study. TYPOLOGY OF PROFESSIONAL ATTRIBUTES FOR PROFESSORS I. Specialized Knowledge A. Pursuit and attainment of doctorate degree 1. Recognition of process of extensive training and sociali- zation 2. Evidence of competency in research 3. Evidence of expertise in a specialized body of knowledge 4. 5. 49 Determination of academic discipline Knowledge of the professional role functions of teaching and research 11. Internal Authority A. Collegial maintenance responsibility to the academic pro- fession l. Admittance of competent professionals 2. Establishment of standards of conduct 3. Formal control over members 4. Recognition of competent professionals Collegial responsibilities operationalized at the department level 1. Selection of faculty for academic discipline 2. Evaluation of teaching and research role functions of colleagues 3. Rewards for performance through tenure. promotion. merit. sabbaticals. and leaves of absence 4. Selection of departmental administrators 5. Evaluation of departmental and college administrators 6. Determination of curriculum Individual authority and responsibility 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Selection of students for discipline Determination of course content Selection of teaching methodology Awarding grades Determination of research topics and publications III. IV. 50 Community Sanction A. Acknowledges collegial authority and obligations Recognition of professional authority of the accredit- ing process for institutions and disciplines Recognition of professional authority to award degrees Recognition of professional authority to award academic rank and title 8. Recognition of academic contribution and responsibilities of the profession to society Ideology A. Values and norms of the academic profession 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Lifetime career orientation supported by tenure Career achievement through rank promotions Ideal of service to society Academic freedom Egalitarianism within the profession Cooperation among members Supportiveness for creative thinking Openness and sharing of knowledge Professional Association A. Identification with the profession 1. American Association of University Professors B. Identification with the discipline 1. Discipline associations C. Values 1. Advancement of knowledge 2. Advancement of career CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .Intnnfinsiinn The purpose of this study is to determine whether any differences in perceptions of professionalism exist between a unionized and a nonunionized faculty in three selected departments of two state universities. This chapter contains a description of the population sampled. the research methodology. including the construction and pretesting of the data-collection instrument. data coding. and the statistical and descriptive treatment of the data. mm For this study the faculty of three departments within two ‘ public research-oriented universities were selected. 'The two universities. Michigan State University and Wayne State University. were chosen from the typology of institutions developed by the Stanford Project on Academic Governance (Baldridge et al.. 1977). The category from which both were selected is termed the Public Multiversity. ‘The Public Multiversity is characterized as being an extremely large institution. receiving enormous amounts of federal money. and as having highly prestigious graduate programs and elite faculties. Further research analysis by Baldridge of these large and complex institutions 51 52 revealed more professional autonomy. fewer bureaucratic constraints. more individual influence for the academic professional. and greater freedom for disciplinary departments. all indicators of an environment supporting academic freedom and professionalism (Baldridge et alu 1973). In addition to identifying large public research-oriented institutions within the same Stanford project classification with simi- lar institutional characteristics. the next factor to be considered was the presence or absence of academic unionism. The faculty of Michigan State University. which does not bargain collectively with the adminis- tration. has three times defeated a movement to unionize. first in 1972. again in 1978. and most recently in 1982. Wayne State Univer- sity's faculty voted to bargain collectively in 1972. Their selected bargaining agent is the American Association of University Professors. historically the nationally recognized faculty professional associa- tion. A further reason for selecting Michigan State University and Wayne State University was their geographic accessibility to the researcher. a necessity for exploratory research incorporating the personal interview methodology. In summary. the selection of Michigan State University and Wayne State University as the higher education institutions for the exploratory study was made in an attempt to match as many characteris- tics as possible with the major difference being the variable. non- unionized and unionized faculties. 53 Within each institution the departments of history. psychology. and chemistry. representing the humanities. social sciences. and applied sciences. respectively. formed the faculty populations to be sampled. Earlier attitudinal studies on faculty unionism in specific academic disciplines identified social scientists. humanists. and natural scientists (Lazarsfeld & Thielens. 1958: Ladd & Lipset. 1973. 1975; Trow et al.. 1972: Helfant. 1977). In general. the findings of the studies were similar: social scientists were most supportive of collective bargaining. followed by humanists. with natural scientists being the least supportive. Therefore. the faculty in the departments of history. psychology. and chemistry are representative of previous studies on academic disciplines and unionism and represent a broad scope of perceptions of professional roles and professional identifica- tions associated with each discipline. Within these departments only full-time faculty representing the professorial ranks of assistant. associate. and full were considered for the study. No department chairpersons or other college administrators were included in the sample. Sixty-six professors in three departments. history. chemistry. and psychology. at two state graduate institutions. Michigan State University. nonunionized. and Wayne State University. unionized. comprised the sample to be interviewed for the study during the period May through June. 1979. The total population of the three paired departments from which the sample was randomly selected was 213 persons. The sample size represented 30.9 percent of the population. 54 11 persons from each department. a total of 33 persons from each university. Each respondent had an earned doctorate. a full-time faculty appointment. and academic rank. Table 2.--Participation. Michigan State Mayne State Pop.a Sample Percent Pop.‘a Sample Percent History 31 ll .35 27 ll .40 Psychology 58 11 .19 35 11 .31 Chemistry 32 11 .34 30 11 .37 aPopulation includes full-time assistant. associate. and full professors not on leave and available to be selected for the sample. Of the 66 professors in the sample. 89 percent (59) were male and 11 percent (7) were female. Four females were found in the Michi- gan State University sample and three in the Wayne State University sample. Within the total sample. the length of time that the respond- ents had held a university appointment ranged from 5 years to 42 years. the mean number of years being 16.75. The minimum number of years for a faculty member to have held an appointment at either Michigan State University or Wayne State University was 5 and the maximum wa5142 years. The sample mean was represented by 14.69 years. The number of years that the respondents had been in their present academic rank ranged from 5 years to 30 years for an average of 8 years and 5 months. 55 It was determined that the average age of the respondents in the sample was 45 years. The youngest in the sample was 27 years old and the oldest was 75. Age was found to be evenly distributed across the three departments and two universities when divided into three age ranges: 39 years and below. 40 to 48 years. and 49 years and above. Table 3 displays the number of respondents by department in each age range. Table 3.--Age distribution by department. 39 and Below 40-48 49 and Above Tetal History 4 10 8 22 Chemistry 9 6 7 22 Psychology 8 6 8 22 Totals 21 22 23 N=66 The sample yielded 21 persons with an age of 39 years and below. The chemistry departments held the largest number. nine persons. in the youngest of the three age groups. The range of 40 to 48 years old consisted of 22 persons. with the history departments containing the most. 10 persons. The age range of 49 years and above had 23 persons in it. with the departments of chemistry having seven persons. only one less than the departments of history and psychology 56 with eight persons each. In summary. each age range contained approximately one-third of the total sample. The distribution of respondents' ages divided into the three age ranges by university is displayed in Table 4. Table 4.--Age distribution by university. 39 and Below 40-48 49 and Above Total Michigan State 11 11 ll 33 Wayne State 10 ll 12 33 Tetals 21 22 23 N=66 Examining age distribution by university revealed that the age ranges were evenly distributed at Michigan State University. At Wayne State only minor variation was found. The random sample of 66 yielded an uneven distribution of professors by rank. as summarized in Table 5. Full professors inter- viewed numbered 40. or 60.6 percent of the sample. The total number of persons in the assistant and associate ranks differed only by two persons with 14 and 12. respectively. The relatively small sample size. 11 from each of the six departments. allowed for use of the personal interview technique for information collection. To determine the participants in the sample. the chairperson of each department was. personally contacted. An overview of the study was presented. followed by a request to contact. 57 at random. professors representative of the three professorial ranks within the department for extensive interviews. The chairperson supplied a list of faculty names with the academic rank of each faculty Inember and verified those who were full-time faculty who had been awarded an earned doctorate and currently held a full-time appointment on campus. Table 5.--Academic rank distribution. Michigan State Wayne State Total Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Assistant 6 18.2 8 24.2 14 21.2 Associate 8 24.2 4 12.2 12 18.2 Full 19 57.6 21 63.6 40 60.6 Tetals 33 100.0 33 100.0 N=66 100.0 After receiving approval from each chairperson. professors within each department were randomly selected and contacted by telephone. To avoid bias in the selection process. a systematic random sampling technique was used. From the identified possible participant list supplied by the department chairperson. every third person was contacted until each department yielded a total sample of 11 persons. By telephone the investigator introduced herself. briefly explained the purpose of the study. and solicited the faculty member's participation in the study. Each faculty member was requested to allow approximately 58 an hour for the interview. All persons contacted for participation at Michigan State University agreed to be interviewed for the study. Two persons initially contacted at Wayne State University declined to participate. one due to schedule conflicts and one due to lack of interest in the study. All interviews were conducted during a six-week period in the months of May and June. 1979. W A descriptive method of research. the personal interview. was selected as the methodology for data collection. Interviewing as a research technique provided the opportunity to probe for personal beliefs and opinions concerning the perceptions of academicians as professionals. Additionally. it provided the opportunity to observe the respondents' behavior and interest in the subject (Babbie. 1973). While interviewing did provide a methodology for an in-depth intensive pursuit of the problem. it also had restrictions: the sample size and the data analysis. The relatively small sample size within each department and the open-ended questions used in the interviews limited the quantitative analysis of the data. .InIaLxien.fiu1§a.flufistinnnninfi An interview guide was designed to obtain perceptions of the academician as a professional. Following a survey of the literature. the questions were constructed in two categories. First. a review of the literature was completed to determine the attributes of profession- alism as it applies to the academic profession. Additionally. to 59 better understand the critical variable in the study. academic union- ism. the literature was surveyed to ascertain academicians' attitudes toward faculty unionism and their perceived impact on the profession. Based on these studies. the information gathered fell into four broad categories of information: individual authority and responsibility. collegial maintenance. unionism. and demographics. Except for the demographic information. the interview question guide was composed of open-ended questions appropriate to the interview methodology of data collection. The initial questionnaire was critiqued by the cofdirectors of the investigator's doctoral guidance committee. Corrections and changes were made as a result of the suggestions made. ‘The instrument was then protested with three professors who were not included in the study. ‘The pretest had two purposes: to evaluate the instrument and to evaluate and refine the interviewing skills and techniques of the investigator. The interview guide questionnaire was analyzed in the pretest to determine the clarity of questions. the order and length of ques- tions. the information yield. an effective communication vocabulary. and the length of a completed interview. The results of the pretest demonstrated that the information collected during the interview yielded the type of information the questions were designed by elicit. but ordering of the questions needed to be revised to better structure the interview process. ‘The wording of the questions and the clarity of communications were deemed appropriate by the three professors. 60 The length of time needed for a complete interview was approxi- mately 45 minutes. .As a result of the pretest. the questions were rearranged to begin the interview with the focus on the individual's professional responsibilities. broadening to professional concerns and perceptions. and ending with demographic questions. As previously noted. the second objective of the pretest was the practice and evaluation of the interviewing skills of the investi- gator to help eliminate possible personal bias and subjectivity. As Babbie (1973) stated. "The interviewer's presence should not affect a respondent's perception of the question nor the answer given. The interviewer should be a neutral medium through which questions and answers are transmitted" (p. 172%. A postinterview discussion with each professor involved in the pretest provided the investigator with an evaluation of her interview- ing style and pace. her technique to probe for in-depth information without evidence of bias. and her ability to effectively communicate and establish rapport with the respondent. The process of pretesting the interviewing methodology resulted in adjusting the arrangement of the questions contained in the inter- view guide and the strengthening of the interview techniques of the investigator. The 66 interviews for the study were conducted uninterrupted in the private offices of the participating professors. The average time for each of the interviews was approximately 45 minutes. with the outer limits being one of 25 minutes in length and one of 75 minutes. 61 The interview process began with the interviewer introducing herself. providing a brief overview of the study. requesting that the interview be taped. and pledging anonymity for each participant by name. Both tape recordings and note taking were used as the method for documenting the information. In one case only notes were taken. the participant having requested that no tape recording be made. Inter- views within each department were limited to four consecutive days. This control was set to limit possible discussion among those being interviewed and possible contamination of the information due to the discussions. A copy of the Interview Guide questionnaire is found in Appendix A. 1233339311119 The information collected from the 66 interviews was analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Content analysis was selected as the methodological approach to classify the data for statistical interpreta- tion. A code book was developed as a mechanism for quantifying a large volume of qualitative data and can be found in Appendix B. As Berelson (1952) suggested. "Content analysis is a research technique for the objective. systematic. and quantitative description of the manifest content of communications" (p. 18). This technique was chosen because it provided a structured approach to classifying the large volume of interview data into a manageable format. and as Borg and Gall (1971) stated. “Content analysis can consider not only content frequencies. but also the interrelationships among several content 62 variables. or the relationship between content variables and other research variables" (p. 253). Additionally. the content analysis approach provides a research control mechanism to protect the raw interview data from subjective bias in the analysis procedure. To quantitatively format the information collected from the interview process. a code book was developed for content classifica- tion. A code book is a document that describes the location of inter- view responses in the survey data. According to Babbie (1973). it serves two primary functions. It is a guide used in designating responses for the keypunching process. Additionally. it is the researcher's guide to locating variables in the data file during analy- sis. To construct the code book. each question from the interview questionnaire was listed with numerous variables as possible responses. These variables were selected from the professionalism typology discussion in Chapter II and from a random sampling of 11 of the 66 interviews. Since content analysis depends on frequency count. the extensive process of constructing a code book tended to minimize inference or evaluation on the part of the coders of the data by establishing broad. exhaustive variables for the interpretation of each answer in the coding process. Following the development of the code book. the content classification tool. coders were selected and trained. Criteria for selection included knowledge and experience in higher education. familiarity with the language used by academicians. ability to code 63 accurately. and the willingness to code all assigned interview ques- tionnaires within a six-week period. Two higher education professors served as the coders. one who had served as an associate professor at a nonunionized institution and the other who is an assistant professor at a unionized institution. The investigator served as a trainer and clarifier during the coding process. Each coder was requested to read Chapter II to better understand the typology of professionalism as it applied to professors and to become familiar with the variables to each question in the code book. To achieve a high degree of consistency and reliability. the two coders were trained and supervised by the investigator. ‘The coding process began with the two coders and the researcher systematically interpreting and coding the responses to each answer of three complete interviews. The purpose was to identify ambiguous responses and clarify the coding of such responses. to test for discrepancies of interpretation in the coding. and to become familiar with the code book procedure. The researcher did not code. but served as a point of reference when discrepancies arose. Following the initial process of coding the first three questionnaires. each coder coded independently on the next three interviews. At the completion of the coding process of those three identical interviews. the coders' results were compared to determine if any discrepancies in coding existed. The researcher again served as a point of reference in clarification. Following the process of coding the first six questionnaires. each coder proceeded to 64 code independently on nine separate interviews. To maintain consis- tency and reliability between coders. each tenth interview was coded by both coders and checked for discrepancies. The researcher was avail- able to the coders at all times to help solve possible coding problems. The coded data reflected the frequency of occurrence of the responses. Despite the number of times a particular response was mentioned or referred to in the context of the answer of one question. it was recorded only once. A copy of the Codebook is located in Appendix B. DatLAnalxsls Appropriate comments from the data were used to provide an in- depth view of the respondents' perceptions which could not be captured quantitatively. The coded data were quantitatively analyzed using three subprograms from the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) system of computer programs (Nie et al.. 1975). Subprogram FreQUencies was used to determine the number and percentage distribution of each coded response for the total sample (Nie et al.. 1975). The program did not identify and subdivide the responses by institution or department. Frequency analysis of the demographic information provided a basis for determining further analysis options in the investigation of the data. Following an examination of the frequency distribution of each response. crosstabulation analysis was selected to examine the responses by institution and department as well as by institution and 65 age. Subprogram Crosstabs was the SPSS computer program used (Nie et al.. 1975). No tests to determine statistical significance were considered in the crosstabulation due to the nature of the open-ended questions of the research instrument and the small sample size. Subprogram ANOVA was used to analyze those questions that could be interpreted as having interval-level data for responses (Nie et a1" 1975L. For interview questions one. two. three. and five the assump- tion was made that the number of responses was additive. resulting in the use of this higher level of analysis. Analysis of variance is a statistical tool used to test for significance of differences between several means. When the probability of the obtained F ratio is equal to or less than the determined significance level. it can be concluded that the probability that obtained differences between the sample means is due to chance is equal to or less than the predetermined significance level (Borg & Gall. 1971). The establishment of the level of significance was developed by R. A. Fischer. a British mathematician. in the early twentieth century. He acknowledged the risk of error in decision making and proposed a 5 percent level of significance as a reasonable risk to take in experi- mental biological problems. While the .05 level of significance has historically dominated scientific research. there are many factors that can affect the choice of a significance level (Plutchik. 1968). The selection of a .05 level of significance for this study considered the factors of (l) the exploratory nature of the study and (2) the sample 66 size. The investigator acknowledges that the higher the significance level. the greater the probability that the obtained differences between sample means is due to chance (Phillips. 1982). Two independent variables central to the study were examined: institutional status with two levels. unionized and nonunionized fac- ulty: and departments represented by three levels. history. chemistry. and psychology. Cell configuration for the two independent variables Department History Chemistry Psychology Nonunion Institution Union Additional variables of sex and rank were not investigated due to the small number of women and the large number of full professors. respectively. The frequency distribution revealed the age variable to be evenly distributed across institutions and therefore. an independent variable option. Age. divided into three levels. 39 and below. 40 to 48. and 49 and above. was paired with two levels of institutional status to further investigate possible differences in perceptions of professionalism. 67 Cell configuration with age and institution as independent variables Age 39 6 Below 40-48 49 8 Above Nonunion Institution Union Summary To examine whether differences in perceptions of professors as professionals exist between a unionized and nonunionized faculty. an exploratory method of research was selected. ‘The population for the study was composed of a random sample of 66 faculty from three departr ments in two state universities. A data-collection instrument was designed and pretested as the questionnaire guide for the personal interview methodology. In addition to demographic information. the guide consisted of open-ended questions about professional responsi- bilities. collegial maintenance. and unionism. The data were analyzed by using a content analysis approach through the development of a code book. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data were under- taken. A detailed analysis of those data is contained in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Intnodustinn This chapter contains a description of the sample based on demographic information and an analysis of the interview information appropriate to the central questions of the study. The data presented are the results of personal interviews of 66 randomly selected faculty in the departments of history. chemistry. and psychology at Michigan State University. a nonunionized graduate institution. and Wayne State University. a unionized graduate institution. Participants within these six groups responded to questions concerning their perceptions of professional responsibility and individual judgment. collegial maintenance. unionism. and professional identification. Demographic information was also included. The purpose of the exploratory research was to determine if differences in perceptions of professionalism exist between professors at a unionized state university and professors at a nonunionized state university. More specifically. the study compared the perceptions of 11 professors within each of the paired three departments in the two state institutions. The collected data for the exploratory research were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. A content analysis method was used to organize the interview information into a quantitative format 68 69 for frequency and percentage distribution analysis. .A two-way analysis of variance was used in Interview Questions 1. 2. 3. and 5 to determine if differences existed between faculty in three departments at the two universities as to their perceptions of the opportunities to exercise individual responsibility and judgment in teaching. research. educa- tional policies. and evaluation of colleagues. Within this test an F ratio and the statistical significance of F were computed to analyze categorized responses to each question according to institutional status and department. Direct quotations from the open-ended questions are documented in the analysis to provide depth to the discussed per- captions. The interview guide contained 14 open-ended questions each related to a question central to the research of the study. Six demographic questions concluded the data-collection instrument. Questions central to the study and related interview questions are as follows: 1. Are there differences in the opportunities of exercising individual judgment in teaching and research between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? Interview Question 1 To what extent do you have the opportunity to exercise individual judgment. responsibility and discretion regarding teaching? Interview Question 2 To what extent can you exercise individual judgment in the areas of research and publication? 2. 5. 70 Are there differences in the opportunities to participate in decision making with regard to educational policies between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? Interview Question 3 To what extent can you participation in decision making with respect to educational policies such as student admissions. teaching and research load. courses taught. and class size? Are there differences in opportunities to exercise collegial responsibilities with regard to evaluation of colleagues and administrators between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? Interview Question 4 How much opportunity do you have in determining the person to hold your department chair? How important is this determination to you? Interview Question 5 To what extent do you have the formal opportunity to evalu- ate peers in promotion. retention. tenure. and monetary rewards? How significant is faculty evaluation in these areas? Interview Question 6 To what extent do you have the formal opportunity to evaluate the chairperson of your department and your dean? Are there differences in faculty perceptions of the profes- sional criteria for evaluation of colleagues between the pro- fessors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? Interview Question 7 What do you believe to be the most important criteria in granting tenure? Have you always held this belief? Interview Question 8 What criteria would you consider to be most important in determining full professorial rank? Associate? Assistant? Have you always believed this? Are there differences in faculty perceptions of possible threats to the professional status of the academician between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? 6. Are 71 Interview Question 9 What do you perceive to be the greatest threat or hindrance to professional status? How can this be countered? there differences in perceptions concerning the value of faculty collective bargaining between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? Interview Question 10 How do you feel about faculty collective bargaining? Interview Question 11 How do you generally feel about collective bargaining? 7. Are there differences in professional identification between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? Demographic Interview Question 12 Have you ever belonged to the AAUP? Are you a member now? How do you value the organization nationally? Locally? For what reason did you allow your membership to elapse? Interview Question 13 To how many professional associations do you belong? Have you attended national meetings within the last two years? Are there any conditions set by the department or univer- sity concerning the attendance or your participation in these meetings? Interview Question 14 With1which reference group do you have the most significant professional identification? information in the interview guide included the following: Interview Question 15 For how many years have you had a faculty appointment at a university? Interview Question 16 How many years have you had a faculty appointment at MSU/WSU? Interview Question 17 How many years have you been in your present rank? Interview Question 18 What is your age? 72 Interview Question 19 What is your rank? Interview Question 20 What is your department? InterneLQatLAnastis This study is a preliminary investigation. exploratory in nature. on the compatibility of faculty unionism and professionalism. Seven questions were formulated as central to the research problems of the study. The data analysis will be presented as appropriate to each question in both quantitative and qualitative format. StudLQuestinnJ Are there differences in the opportunities of exercising individual judgment in teaching and research between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of‘higher educa- tion? Two questions in the Interview Guide addressed the extent to which professors have the opportunity to exercise individual judgment. responsibility. and discretion with regard to teaching. research. and publication. Responses by the unionized (WSU) and nonunionized (MSU) sample groups from the departments of history. chemistry. and psychol- ogy demonstrated absolutely no variation. All 66 perceived that the university allowed them the fullest extent of opportunity to exercise individual judgment. responsibility. and discretion in the areas of teaching. research. and publication. Table 6 presents the results of the two-way analysis of variance. 73 Table 6.--Two-way analysis of variance for exercising individual judgment in teaching. research. and publication. Sum of Mean Significance Variable Squares df Square F of F Institution .000 l .000 Department . .000 2 .000 Institution x Department .000 2 .000 Explained .000 5 .000 Residual .000 60 .000 Total .000 65 .000 Means History Chemistry Psychology Total MSU 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 (11) (11) (ll) (33) WSU 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 (11) (11) (ll) (33) Totals 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 (22) (22) (22) N=(66) Examining the responses qualitatively revealed the following qualifiers. One faculty member in the MSU department of psychology found the only constraint in exercising the opportunity was internal or self-imposed. A MSU chemistry professor expanded the internal constraint to include the ethics and safety of research. A full professor in the MSU psychology department found absolute freedom to exercise individual judgment from within the university and department but referred to an external constraint being the editorial and publishing policies of refereed journals. "the gatekeepers of the 74 disciplineJ' Eight respondents. while totally in agreement with the notion that exercising individual judgment to the fullest extent was evident. also mentioned the presence of collegial pressure to research and publish. They interpreted the pressure as necessary for it helped produce criteria against which to measure promotion. reputation. and commitment to the profession. Seven out of the 22 responses from the departments of chemistry mentioned research limitations inherent in the guidelines set forth by external funding agencies. In summary. employing the coded data. a two-way analysis of variance was used to assist in determining the extent to which differences existed in the opportunities of exercising individual judgment. responsibility. and discretion in teaching. research. and publication. No differences were found between the unionized (WSU) and nonunionized (MSU) institutions in the opportunity to exercise individual judgment. responsibility. and discretion in teaching. research. and publication. StudLQuestiomZ Are there differences in the opportunities to participate in decision making with regard to educational policies between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? The Interview Guide Study Question 3 specifically addressed the extent to which faculty can participate in decision making with respect to educational policies such as student admissions. teaching and research loads. courses taught. and class size. 75 Table 7 presents the results of a two-way analysis of variance for participation in educational policy decision making. Using an alpha of .05. no significant effect was found between the unionized (WSU) and the nonunionized (MSU) institutions in the degree to which a faculty member can participate in educational policy decision making (Fl.65 = 1.936. p = .1691. Although not statistically significant at the .05 level. faculty selected from the three departments at MSU can participate to a slightly greater extent than faculty members at WSU. No significant difference was found by departments with respect to participation in educational policy decision making. Table 7.--Two-way analysis of variance for participation in educational policy decision making. Sum of Mean Significance Variable Squares df Square F of F Institution 20.742 1 20.742 1.936 0.169 Department 12.485 2 6.242 0.583 0.562 Institution x Department 2.303 2 1.152 0.107 0.898 Explained 35.530 5 7.106 0.663 0.653 Residual 642.909 60 10.715 Tetal 678.439 65 10.438 Means History Chemistry Psychology Total MSU 5.73 7.00 6.63 6.63 (11) (ll) (11) (33) WSU 5.09 5.82 4.82 5.24 (11) (ll) (11) (33) Totals 5.41 6.41 5.59 5.80 (22) (22) (22) N=(66) 76 All sampled faculty at MSU in the three departments answered the question positively. indicating an individual can participate in decision making with respect to educational policies whether by for- mally participating in a department committee or informally in discus- sions with other faculty members and the department chairperson. Of the sampled faculty at Wayne State. 28 of the 33 respondents answered in the affirmative. Reasons given for the negative answers were the following. Three. one in each department. believed they could not participate. One female indicated a department "cl ique of white males" prevented participation. ‘Two others who did not participate cited their rank of assistant professor as the limiting factor. 'Two of the 28 WSU faculty responding affirmatively specifically stated that the extent of individual participation in educational decision making had declined since the advent of faculty unionism. In summary. a faculty member's opportunity to participate in decision making with regard to educational policies at MSU and WSU was found not to be statistically different using an alpha of .05. No significant difference was revealed by departments with respect to the opportunity to participate in educational policy decision making. StudLOuastinnB. Are there differences in opportunities in exercising collegial responsibilities with regard to evaluation of colleagues and administrators between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? The opportunity to evaluate the department chairperson was found to be positively exercised by 51 of the 66 respondents. Each 77 cited a formal mechanism within the organization which could be used for this purpose: by-laws. department committees. and participation in the evaluation process conducted by the dean. Table 8 displays the responses by institution and department. Table 8.--Opportunity for chairperson evaluation participation. History Chemistry Psychology Total Freq. Z Freq. % Freq. S Freq. Z MSU 9 17.6 10 19.6 10 19.6 29 56.9 WSU 4 7.8 9 17.6 9 17.6 22 43.1 Total 13 25.4 19 37.2 19 37.2 51 100.0 Legend: Total N = 51. Twenty-nine of the 33 in the sample at MSU had the opportunity to participate in the evaluation of the chairperson. WSU yielded fewer responses with 22 of 33 indicating an opportunity to participate. The history department at WSU produced a very low positive response of 4 out of 11. 'Two WSU faculty responses cited reasons for nonparticipa- tion. One stated. "Although a review procedure is outlined in the union contract. 50 percent of the faculty must request the review. This procedure has negative overtones." Another WSU history professor responded. "As established in the union contract it could only have negative consequences-~in other words. a witch huntJ' 78 The respondents were asked to comment on the opportunity they had to evaluate the college dean. Table 9 displays the responses by institution and department. Table 9.--Opportunity for college dean evaluation participation. History Chemistry Psychology Total Freq. S Freq. S Freq. 5 Freq. S MSU O 0.0 4 100.0 0 0.0 4 100.0 WSU O 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 Total 0 0.0 4 100.0 0 0.0 4 100.0 Legend: Total N = 4. Four faculty in the MSU department of chemistry listed as positive the opportunity to evaluate the dean. No other department in the sample from either MSU or WSU indicated an opportunity for college dean evaluation. The opportunity to participate in colleague evaluation with respect to promotion. retention. tenure. and monetary rewards was examined by analysis of variance to discern if differences existed by department or by institution. Table 10 presents the results of a two-way analysis of variance for institution by department on the opportunity to evaluate col- leagues. 79 Table 10.--Two-way analysis of variance for institution by department on the opportunity to evaluate colleagues. Sum of Mean Significance Variable Squares df Square F of F Institution 42.561 1 42.561 3.169 0.080 Department 2.273 2 1.136 0.085 0.919 Institution x Department 8.212 2 4.106 0.306 0.738 Explained 53.045 5 10.609 0.790 0.561 Residual 805.818 60 13.430 Total 858.864 65 13.213 Means History Chemistry Psychology Total MSU 3.18 2.55 2.55 2.76 (11) (ll) (11) (33) WSU .73 .91 1.82 1.15 (11) (11) (ll) (33) Total 1.95 1.73 2.18 1.95 (22) (22) (22) N=(66) Using an alpha of .05. no significant difference was found between the unionized (WSU) and nonunionized (MSU) institutions in the degree to which faculty have the opportunity to evaluate colleagues (F1.65 = 3.169. p = .080). Although not statistically significant. the results reveal a difference in that the nonunionized sampled faculty at MSU demonstrate a greater opportunity to evaluate colleagues with respect to promotion. retention. tenure. and monetary rewards than in the unionized institution. No significant differences were found by department. 80 Table 11 displays the results of a two-way analysis of variance for institutional status and respondent's age. Table ll.--Two-way analysis of variance for institution by age on the opportunity to evaluate colleagues. Sum of Mean Significance Variable Squares df Square F of F Institution 49.665 1 49.665 6.249 0.015 Age 267.490 2 133.745 16.829 0.001 Institution x Age 71.981 2 35.991 4.529 0.015 Explained 382.032 5 76.406 9.614 0.000 Residual 476.842 60 7.947 Total 858.864 65 13.213 Means 39 & Below 40-48 49 & Above Total MSU 1.27 3.18 3.82 2.76 (11) (ll) (11) (33) WSU -3040 3055 2075 1015 (10) (ll) (12) (33) (21) (22) (23) N=(66) Institutional status and respondent's age as the independent variables yielded the following results in regard to evaluation of colleagues. Using an alpha of .05. a significant main effect was found between the unionized (WSU) and nonunionized (MSU) institutions in the degree to which faculty have the opportunity to evaluate colleagues 81 ”-1.65 = 6.249. p = .015). Additionally. a significant main effect using an alpha of.05 was found between the age groups in the degree to which faculty have the opportunity to evaluate colleagues (F2,55 = 16.829. p = .001). A significant two-way interaction effect was also revealed (F2.65 = 4.529. p = .015). Examining the three age groups. faculty in the 40-48 and 49 and above categories have more opportunity to evaluate colleagues than those in the youngest age range of 39 and below. The two-way interac- tion indicates that the unionized (WSU) faculty members in the 39 and below age range have the least opportunity to evaluate colleagues. Most of the respondents from both institutions explained that their participation in collegial evaluation for rank and tenure was a function of their personal academic rank. Full professors could evaluate both assistant and associate for academic rank. Associates could only evaluate assistant. Tenured faculty could evaluate non- tenured faculty in tenure decisions. ‘The decision-making mechanism most commonly referred to was a faculty committee. Table 12 shows by department and university the number of faculty who rated faculty collegial evaluation as low in significance. Only two MSU respondents of the 33 possible found low significance in the opportunity to evaluate peers. Both. a full professor and an assistant professor. were faculty in the psychology department. ‘The assistant did not participate due to assigned academic rank. ‘The full professor was negative because the opportunity had becomera "meaningless ritual." and "standards for achievement were no longer clear." 82 Table 12.--Collegial evaluation as low significance. History Chemistry Psychology Total Freq. 5 Freq. X Freq. z Freq. Z MSU 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 28.6 2 28.6 WSU 1 14.3 1 14.3 3 42.9 5 71.4 Total 1 14.3 1 14.3 5 71.5 7 100.0 Legend: Total N = 7. Five respondents from WSU. three in psychology and one each in history and chemistry. rated the opportunity to evaluate colleagues as low in significance. Three respondents identified their assistant pro- fessor rank as the limiting factor in the opportunity to participate. The other two found the committee structure confining in the oppor- tunity to evaluate. High significance regarding collegial evaluation was found to be rated by 47 of the 66 respondents. Table 13 indicates the generally even distribution between the unionized (WSU) and nonunionized (MSU) institutions and across the three departments. Twenty-four from the sampled departments of chemistry. history. and psychology at MSU rated participation in collegial evaluation as having high significance. Twenty-three from the same sampled departments at WSU also rated the opportunity as having high significance. 83 Table 13.--Collegial evaluation as high significance. History ' Chemistry Psychology Total Freq. s Freq. x Freq. Z Freq. % MSU 8 17.0 9 19.1 7 14.9 24 51.1 wsu 9 19.1 ' 7 14.9 7 14.9 23 48.9 Total 17 36.1 16 34.0 14 29.8 47 100.0 Legend: Total N = 47. While the given reasons for selecting high significance varied with the respondent. two themes were apparent. At MSU. the nonunion- ized university. professional maintenance was evident in the comments. . Two examples are: The evaluation of colleagues is one of the most important things we do as faculty members. Individual careers and the reputation of the department and university are at stake. These decisions are extremely important in maintaining the quality of the department. The choice of colleagues is important in aca- demic life. Comments from faculty at WSU had a historical perspective and the component of unionism within their answers. Examples are as follows: The collegial evaluation process is more open and democratic now and not as secret as it used to be. Unionism generally has helped restore the democratic processes of promotion and tenure. but the opportunity to participate in monetary rewards is less important since unionism because of the lack of merit money. Evaluation for monetary reasons does not exist. Compensation is by a formula. ' 84 Unionism has made the opportunity to participate more difficult. As the process now stands there is no democracy--the chairman carries the weight. The opportunity to evaluate for monetary rewards was mentioned by eight respondents as not as important as the opportunity to partici- pate in rank and tenure decisions. They generally believed that the small amount of merit funds available and small economic compensation factors made their participation in the decision inconsequential. In summary. Study Question 3 sought to find differences between the two institutions with regard to the opportunities to exercise collegial and administrative evaluation. The opportunity to partici- pate in the evaluation of the department chairperson was very positive in both universities. with Michigan State faculty displaying a slightly higher opportunity. The opportunity to participate in the college dean evaluation was found to be totally absent at WSU and present at MSU in the chemistry department only. Important differences were found in the opportunity to partici- pate in collegial evaluation in the areas of promotion. retention. tenure. and monetary rewards. Although not statistically significant at the .05 level. the data revealed that the sampled faculty at MSU have more opportunity to participate in collegial evaluation than the sampled faculty at WSU. Age was found to be an independent variable in which statistically significant differences were displayed between institutions. The age range of 39 and below at WSU had the least opportunity for participation in collegial evaluations. In testing for significant differences by department. none was revealed. 85 W Are there differences in faculty perceptions of the professional criteria for evaluation of colleagues between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized institution of higher education? Two questions on the Interview Guide Questionnaire requested the interviewees to provide a personal assessment of the important criteria for determining collegial evaluation in the areas of tenure and aca- demic rank. Table 14 illustrates the responses most commonly cited by frequency and percentage of the total sampled population. Table l4.--Criteria for tenure and rank.a Tenure Rank Response Frequency 5 Frequency 5 Quality of research 62 94 56 85 Quality of teaching 49 74 48 73 Service to department and university 16 24 20 30 Commitment to profession 16 24 ll 17 Professional standards of conduct 12 18 11 17 Service to community 6 9 4 6 Other 6 9 7 11 Legend: N = 66. 6Multiple responses permitted. None of the respondents found only one criterion as the most important in either tenure or academic rank evaluations. The answers consistently contained a combination of several criteria. 'Two responses were given more frequently by the 66 sampled than any other 86 response. the Quality of Research and the Quality of Teaching. The Quality of Research was mentioned by 94 percent of the total sample as an important criterion in evaluating for tenure and 85 percent as an evaluation criterion for academic rank. Also ranked substantially high in frequency for evaluation of both tenure and academic rank was the criterion of Quality of Teaching. with 74 percent and 73 percent. respectively. .All other categories yielded lower frequencies and were found in the bottom quartile percentage of importance. Table 15 presents the important criteria used in tenure evalua- tion by the three departments and by the two universities. The cri- terion Quality of Research had the highest percentage of responses found in tenure evaluations in both institutions. The frequencies were generally evenly distributed across departments. The WSU sample yielded two more responses. 32. in Quality of Research than did the sampled faculty at MSU with 30. Forty-nine of the 66 respondents found the Quality of Teaching to be an important criterion. Of these responses. 49 percent were MSU responses and 51 percent were from WSU. While the percentage differences between the two institutions are negligible. the departmental responses displayed some variation. The MSU chemistry sample and the WSU history sample yielded the lowest number of responses with 6 out of 11 faculty listing Quality of Teaching. The departments with the highest number of responses for the Quality of Teaching criteria in tenure evaluations were revealed in the MSU history and WSU chemistry departments with 10 out of 11 responses each. While the total frequency response rate was low for the 87 .ooua_ELoo mumcoomoc o_o_u_:zo @@ I 2 —NUOF mm a z co_u:u_umc_ __ I z acoEuLmqoo "ozone; c.00— 0.00— N— 0.00— m— 0.00— @— o.co_ m: 0.00— mm m.mm N... o.mN N. a... o.m5 SN «.m: on o.o 0 m..: m o.m~ : o.m~ : ~.~_ m _.m_ o— N .oocu oom>com >u_c:EEOu N uoaocou mo .aocm mocoocmum .mco_mmouoLm N co_mmomoLm .oocn Ou acoEu_EEOQ N >u_mco>_c= one .oocn acoeucmooa cu oo_>com N .uocu mc_;omoh mo >u__o:d N .oocu nocmomoz mo >u__m:d .aoo» o.o o.o o o m.w m.m _ _ m.o m.m _ _ m.o m.m_ _ m :.m_ :.o~ m o— ~.~_ m.“— __ __ .>mm .Eocu .moop .socu oumum oc>m3 oumum :mm_;o_z m.u:oEuLmooo can co_u:u_umc_ >n momcoomuc m_Lou_Lu ocacoh11.m_ o_nmh 88 categories of Service to the Department and University. 16 responses. Commitment to the Profession. 16 responses. Professional Standards of Conduct. 12 responses. and Community Service. 6 responses. the di ffer- ences between universities were substanti a1. On all four criteria the MSU sample yielded higher percentages of responses than did the WSU sample faculty. Table 16 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of important criteria used in evaluation for academic rank by the three departments and the two universities. In evaluation for academic rank decisions the criterion of Quality of Research was most frequently found. The WSU sample yielded 30 responses while the MSU sample found only 26 responses. The most variation between departments was found in chemistry. The total chemistry sample of 11 at WSU mentioned the»Quality of Research as an important criterion in determining academic rank. In contrast. MSU's chemistry department had only 8 out of 11 responses in this criterion. In evaluation for academic rank the Quality of Teaching criterion ranked second in the list of categories with 48 of 66 responses. The WSU history department had the lowest number of responses. 6 of 11. and the highest number was found in the MSU history department. 10 of 11. The criterion. Service to the Department and University. was found in more responses at WSU than at MSU with 13 and 7. respectively. The criteria Commitment to the Profession. Professional Standards of Conduct. and Community Service had low frequencies of responses in both institutions. but within each department the sampled faculty at MSU 89 .oouu_ELoo momcoomoc o_a_u_:zm 0m I z —mHOI—. mm . z co.o=o_o.=. __ n z acueucmouo "ocomoo o.oo_ o.m~ o.o c.m~ o.o c.mN o.mN o.o o.o N s _ o _ o m m o o .uocn mum>cum >o_==eeou o.oo_ 5.3m o.o o.o 3.3m o.mo _.m 5.3m ~.w_ N ousecou co __ a o o a N _ a N .aocu mocoocmum .mco_mmomoLm o.oo_ ~.m_ o.o o.o ~.m_ m..m m.N~ _.m m.ms N co...ococa __ N o o N m m _ m .aocn o. Cacao_esou o.oo_ o.mo o.m~ o.o~ o.o~ o.mm o.o_ o.o_ o.m_ N >o_.co>_== ea. 0N m. m a a N N N m .oocn ucoEuLmooo cu oo_>com o.oo_ m.Ns N.o_ w.m_ m.~_ _.~m N.m_ o.5_ m.o~ N ms MN m m a m~ m N o. .uocn mc_;umu» to >o__m=a c.oo_ o.mm ..m_ o.m_ m.N_ 5.0: _.m_ m.s_ _.o_ N .mm on m __ o. oN m w m .uocn cucmomom .8 >o__m=a .muoh .sma .emgo .o._= .moop .>.a .eogo .u._= .moop oumum oc>m3 oumum cmm_;o_z o.u:oEuLoooo ocm :o_u:u_umc_ >n momcoomuc m_Lou_Lo xcmc o_Eoomo<11.m_ o_nmh 9O yielded higher frequency rates than did the sampled faculty at WSU. The greatest variation was found in the criterion. Commitment to the Profession. with 81.8 percent of the 11 responses being within the MSU sampled faculty. In addition to the criteria discussed above for evaluation of academic rank. several others were found in the data: ability to be an individualist. member of the old boys' network. ability to secure outside funding. leadership ability. administrative knowledge. and ethical conduct with colleagues. Graduate student advising and support was mentioned by three respondents in the psychology department of WSU. Throughout the 66 interviews. the problems of how to evaluate the quality of teaching and research were constantly mentioned. The majority of respondents found difficulty in evaluating the quality of teaching. Quoted statements of the seriousness of the dilemma follow: Teaching is an important criterion. but it is very difficult to evaluate until the graduate level. For undergraduate teaching we must rely on enrollment indicators and student evaluations--both flimsy. (MSU. Chemistry) Teaching is very important. but it is full of intangibles in standards and processes for evaluation. Teaching evaluation generally is no better than word of mouth. (MSU. History) I was taught to be a scholarly researcher. but not taught to teach. The standards for evaluation of my teaching are not clear to me or anyone else I think. (WSU. Chemistry) The impact of teaching on students is not quantifiable. Quality of teaching is very important. but hard to define. We should do better in defining good teaching. for without students we do not exist. (MSU. Psychology) In evaluation of teaching accomplishments. we are always dealing with second-hand information. We have no real opportunity to judge it first hand. (WSU. Psychology) 91 The interviews revealed that while the Quality of Research was the most important criterion for evaluation of tenure and rank. there were no clear standards as to what constitutes the term "qualityJ' Within departments variations of the definition were found. Scholarship judgment is difficult and standards vary. How does one evaluate the number of small publications in journals versus one major impactful book? (WSU. History) Scholarship through research procedure needs evaluation. as does the long-range potential for scholarship. (WSU. History) I believe that the content of publications are more important than the number. but in this department eight publications without substance will get you promoted faster than two with substance. (WSU. Chemistry) We have the collegial responsibility to evaluate on specific criteria. but we each carry a different set of criteria. (WSU. Chemistry) Research criteria is most easily evaluated by standards of the profession--those of outside referees. (MSU. Chemistry) I pl ace more weight on research than on teaching. It is easier to evaluate through professional reputation earned. articles in respected refereed journals. and value estimates by others in our field outside of MSU. (MSU. Chemistry) The Quality of Research also had additional variables that were considered in defining the evaluative criteria. ‘The MSU department of chemistry placed great emphasis on the need for outside evaluation of the Quality of Research. 0f the 11 faculty interviewed. nine specifi- cally identified these additional references as carrying weight in the evaluation. Three of the 11 in the WSU chemistry department sample included the need for national recognition in their responses. Following a discussion of the criteria used in collegial evaluation for tenure and academic rank. each respondent was asked if 92 he/she had always believed their stated responses. Fifty-eight of the 66 had not changed their opinions during their academic career; the MSU sample yielded 32. or 55.2 percent. and the WSU sample found 26. or 44.8 percent. Although the questionnaire did not request the respond- ent to evaluate the relative importance of the tenure and academic rank decisions. each respondent provided the information in the interviews. Forty-six of the 66 sampled. 25 at MSU and 21 at WSU. found evaluation of tenure to be more important than evaluation for rank. 'The history department at WSU had the lowest frequency on this question. with only 5 of 11 responding that tenure was more important than rank. The remaining six in the WSU history department found no difference in the importance. Support for such a split in the department can be found in the statements given during the interviews. Criteria for evaluation of tenure and academic rank is not clearly focused in this department. Everyone has different generally unspoken ideas. (WSU. History) Distinctions between academic rank are not sharp in this department. The same holds true for tenure. You can be an Associate with or without tenure. (WSU. History) Tenure and academic rank decisions are of co-equal importance. Teaching ability. scholarly achievement. and the ability to function as a colleague are criteria for both judgments. (WSU. History) Study Question 4 sought to determine if differences in faculty perceptions of the professional criteria for evaluation of colleagues existed between the professors of the two universities and in the three departments. ‘The criteria Quality of Research and Quality of Teaching were determined to be the most important in collegial evaluation for tenure and academic rank decisions. The standards for 93 assessing the criterion of Quality of Research appeared to be more clearly identified and measurable than did the standards used in assessing the Quality of Teaching. The Wayne State University sampled faculty had a slightly higher frequency rate of responses in these two criteria than the sampled faculty at Michigan State University. Only minor variation occurred by department. Considerable variations were apparent between universities and within departments in examining other criteria used in evaluation of tenure and academic rank. Substantially more professors in the MSU sample than the WSU sample mentioned the criteria Service to the Department and University. Commitment to the Profession. Professional Standards of Conduct. and Community Service. Analyzing the interview data suggests that many responses were tradi- tional and reflected the learned expectations for academicians' work. WM Are there differences in faculty perceptions of possible threats to the professional status of the academician between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? The answers given to the interview question requesting the interviewees' perceptions of the possible threats to professional status of the academician generated the most diverse and extensive answers within the interview process. The data-coding technique produced a list of the categories of responses most frequently given. Table 17 presents the identified categories of threats to professional status perceived by the sampled faculty. The frequency and percentage 9h o.oo_ N. N.o_ N N._s m o._s, m .muop o.mN m o.o o N.o_ N m.m _ am: co_omco o.mN m N.m_ N o.mN m m.mm : am: -m_c_sem co auzocu o.oo. m. o.oN m o.0N m o.oe m .mooh N.mo o. o.ON m o.CN m N.oN 5 5m: comomusem to. some... N.NN m o.o o o.o o N.NN m 5m: to ..o_ ..>uu_uom o.oo_ m. m.NN N .buom m N.NN m .388» o.mm o. N.e_ m m.mm o m.m _ am: 5.55 m o.m _ N.m_ m N.NN 5 5m: co_omso_m 8_eocoum o.oo_ m. N.NN 5, m.mm o ewes m1 .moop N.mm N. _.__ N N.NN 5 N.NN 3 am: mucmecmo. N.NN m _.__ N _.__ N _.__ N am: _m=o_..o.oca .8 .mon N .oocm N .oocu N .oocu N .oocm .mNON >mo_o;o>mm >Lum_eocu >L0um_: m.ucoEuLmaoo ocm co_u:u_umc_ >3 msumum .mco_mmomoca ou mumoczu oo>_oocon-1.N_ o_nmh 95 .couu_ecoo momcoomoc o_o_u_:zm 00 n 2 —GUO.—. mm a z co_aso_5.c_ _. a z acoEuLmooo "cacao; o.oo_ m _.__ _ N.NN N _.__ _ .mu0h :.:4 : _.__ _ m.mm m o.o o :m) o.mm m 5.5 o 5.55 5 _.__ _ 5m: mc_ec=. names .8 .mos 0.00. m N.NN N _.__ _ .MNmm w .mu0h N.NN : _.__ _ _.__ _ N.NN N am: mucm .mcoa__ m.mm m _.__ _ o.o o :.:: a am: no» mauoum mo New; o.oo. m _.__ _ :n55, 5 5.:5 a. .muoh N.om w _.__ _ N.NN N m.mm m 2m: m.mm m 0.0 o N.NN N _.__ _ :mz Em_co_c: o_Eoomu< o.oo_ __ N.m_ N m.:m m m.NN m .ma0h N.NN w N.m_ N 5.om : N.w_ N :m: mocmzoc m.NN m o.o o N.m_ N _.m _ :mz u_50couo mo xoog N .oocn N .oocu N .oocu N .oocm .mNON >mo_o;o>mm >Lum_Eo;u >L0um_: .eu=c_o=oo--.N_ 8.5mp 96 data are displayed by institution and department in a rank order format. Two responses were most frequently given: the threat concern- ing the loss of professional standards and the economic situation. Both perceived threats were identified by 18 of the 66 respondents. 27 percent. The Loss of Professional Standards threat was strongly repre- sented in the WSU responses. with 66.7 percent of the total 18 compared with MSU respondents of 33.3 percent. The WSU history department had six professors finding this category a significant threat compared with only two from the MSU history department. The sampled faculty in the psychology departments at both universities had only two responses from each which commented on the loss of professional standards. Com- ments below are representative of the concerns felt by faculty who discussed the perceived threat. An enormous number of faculty were hired in the 19605. Tenure was given to those who would normally not be considered. The quality of the professional was lowered. We are saddled with these poor- quality people and they have changed the rules of the game. The value of our degree has gone down. (WSU. History) Higher education has begun competing with social programs for support in the state of Michigan. We have become a marketing commodity at the expense of a quality education. Maintaining our professionalism and standards has becomerdifficult because our work life has been affected and our professional status reduced. (WSU. Chemistry) Small universities are now offering doctorate degrees and are watering down our degree. ‘This means less rigor and requirements for the PhJL. thus inferior quality education and degree. These things erode our professional status and our professional stand- ards. (MSU. Psychology) 97 The emphasis today is on quantity not quality. ‘The academic enterprise is destroying itselfi. Judgments are based on numbers and costs. not whether education is actually taking place. (MSU. Psychology) . Because of the competition for students we have commercialized ourselves. Recruitment is now commercial. Grade inflation. reduction in required readings. reduced expectation from students is our professional problem. Students can shop around and find classes without papers. (WSU. History) There is tremendous pressure for research which I believe leads to mediocre teaching. particularly at the undergraduate level. No rewards are given for good teaching. yet that is truly our profes- sion. We are losing it. (WSU. Psychology) The standards of our profession are dissolving because of the numbers of Ph.D.'s since World War II. Specialization has also added to this loss. Demoralization has occurred in the humanities. (MSU. History) The perceived threat of the Economic Situation was discussed by 18 of the 66 respondents. ten in the WSU sample and eight in the MSU sample. The chemistry departments had the highest frequency with 50 percent of the total responses (six were WSU chemistry. and three were MSU facultyL. The MSU psychology department yielded only one response indicating the economic situation as a perceived threat. ‘Hhe following comments were obtained from the recorded data. The economic situation today does not encourage studying for advanced degrees. A B.S. in chemistry now pays very well and a FUND. does not guarantee any more. Salaries must improve or we will continue to have a lack of students. (WSU. Chemistry) Salary scales. except for older full professors. are not in line with people in other professions. Salaries have not kept up with inflation. Students today make more than assistant professors. (WSU. Chemistry) The lack of money is absolutely demoralizing and people donFt function well when demoralized. To have to fight for money to do research is demoralizing. (MSU. Chemistry) 98 There has been a tremendous erosion of monetary support for the chemical sciences. We live constantly with the threat of more loss. (MSU. Chemistry) Society's Loss of Respect for Education was found to be a threat by 15 of the 66 respondents. five at MSU and ten in the WSU sample. Of the 15 responses. 60 percent were from the departments of history. While both chemistry and psychology yielded 20 percent each. no responses were found within the MSU sample in those departments. Examples of the comments follow: Society looks on us no differently than a garbage collector. (WSU. History) Education is not highly valued with the public. The work we do is not understood. It is worse now than 30 years ago. The value of education is generally treated more skeptically now. particularly with heavy taxes and pleas for support money. There is growing fearfulness about progress. intellectual work. scientific advance- ment. nuclear energy. etc. There is no prestige to intellectual work today. (WSU. History) There is diminishing public regard and awareness of our important contributions to society and the world. This has occurred during the last ten years. (WSU. History) The public has a misunderstanding of science. They view scientists as dangerous and spending the publicfls money frivolously. We always get the "Golden Fleece" award. (WSU. Psychology) People do not perceive the need for the university or education. They are seeing only technical training and not real education. There exists today a very narrow concept of living. Jobs above education in the world today. There is no teaching of the learning process. Maybe the trouble is internal. People do not understand teaching and learning roles. (WSU. Psychology) The public's attitude toward education is our greatest threat. Universities can’t be run like businesses with a bottom line profit. (MSU. History) Twelve respondents found theeGrowth of Administration as a threat to professional status. Referring to Table 17. 75 percent of 99 the respondents discussing this threat were from the MSU sample. The MSU department of history had four responses. chemistry three. and psychology two. In contrast. WSU had no responses in the psychology department and only one in the history department. The following comments were selected from the interview data. The administration is top heavy and growing. 'These are profes- sional bureaucrats who tend to lose interest in teaching and schol- arship and divorce themselves from traditional education. (MSU. History) The bureaucracy of the large university doesntt allow leadership. We are being buried by the administration. corporate management. the need to raise money and a total loss of direction. (MSU. History) Administrative bureaucracy inhibits freedom. Departments feel threatened. resources reduced. and individuals are no longer creative. (MSU. Chemistry) The administration is a growing superstructure. There are too many non-academics in administration who have no understanding of gradu- ate or undergraduate programs. (MSU. Chemistry) Wayne State respondents accounted for 72:7 percent of the 11 professors who stated the Loss of or Lack of Economic Rewards as threatening to the profession. ‘The WSU chemistry department had four responses. the most of any department. MSU's psychology department had no responses to this category. Comments in this category include the following: The rewards here are very narrow in focus. We are rewarded for articles not for diversity and creativity. (WSU. Chemistry) You have to enjoy what you are doing in this profession because there are no financial incentives for staying. (WSU. Psychology) Academic Unionism was viewed as a threat to professional status by 9 of the 66 respondents. six in the WSU sample and three in the MSU I00 sample. The MSU and WSU departments of history and chemistry each had four responses. Psychology had one from the WSU sample and none from the MSU faculty. The following comments from the taped interviews were typical of the strength of conviction found in all answers in this category. Unionism is a growing threat. It promotes mediocrity and provides a person a means of proceeding on an adversarial basis not related to professionalism. It sets only minimum achievements and relieves the individual from the responsibility for professional growth. (WSU. History) The greatest threat is faculty unionism. It has an adverse influence on professionalism. It shifts the focus of attention from academia to pay. and reduces the role of the professor to a job. Professional roles should transcend the bread and butter issues. (WSU. History) Unionism is not pleasant. Professionals should stand alone. Unions can be a major threat to quality. (WSU. Chemistry) Unionism of the faculty. It introduces into academic life the threat of a strike. I believe that a strike is degrading to a professor. (WSU. Chemistry) Unionism is not under control. It hinders the professional viewpoint and status. (MSU. Chemistry) Nine persons responded that the Lack of Status for the Liberal Arts was a threat to the profession. Sixty-six percent were in the departments of history. four at MSU and two in the WSU history sample. Chemistry and psychology departments yielded only three total responses between the two institutions. Comments typical of the responses follow: There is a lack of concern today about the liberal arts. This is the soul of the university. and it is dying. (WSU. History) 101 There is a decline in the value of the liberal arts. People are shifting away from the liberal arts degrees to job oriented degrees. But people are graduating who cannot write and cannot think. (WSU. History) Minimal exposure is being given to the humanities and the liberal arts. We are training a society of illiterate technocrats and are becoming a vocational university. Colleges should force history. literature. foreign language. philosophy. etc. We should build sensitivity into the humanities and social concerns. (MSU. History) The final category listed on Table 17 to receive a substantial number of responses was the threat of Loss of Grant Funding. 0f the nine responses. seven were centered in the departments of chemistry. Four respondents were from the chemistry department at MSU. and three were representative of the WSU chemistry department. Excerpts from the interview data follow: I am constantly dealing with the erosion of monetary support. grant funding. for chemical research. This is very detrimental to productive research. (MSU. Chemistry) State and federal funding has dropped off considerably. We are threatened by this decline in grant funding. (MSU. Chemistry) The funding situation is worsening. It is much harder to obtain grants and becoming much more of a political ball game. There are many. many people seeking a smaller pot of funding money. (WSU. Chemistry) In addition to the above responses which yielded the highest frequencies. several other threats were discussed by the sampled faculty. Egalitarianism across academic ranks within departments and in° compensation and reward issues was identified as a threat to profes- sional status by nine faculty. Of the nine responses. seven were in the unionized WSU sample. all within the department of history. 102 Declining enrollments. coupled with lower standards for admit- ted students. was designated as a threat with long-term consequences by eight respondents. ‘The Wayne State sample yielded five faculty and Michigan State found three faculty providing this response. Further analysis found one response from each department at MSU. At WSU the respondents numbered two each in the history and chemistry departments and one in the psychology sample. Government interference and the university administration's lack of control and influence with the government was discussed by five respondents. Three were from the psychology department at WSU and two were found in the MSU history department. The lack of role definition. mission. and purpose of the department and university were discussed by three persons. one in each psychology department and one in the MSU history department. Addi- tionally. the lack of leadership in the university was a variable mentioned in the context of the lack of role and mission. The threat of the loss of tenure was identified by two indi- viduals. one in each institution. Other responses appearing individu- ally as perceived threats to professional status included: lower quality faculty now than 20 years ago: the exclusion of women from the profession; lack of recognition for excellence: student evaluation comments in the tenure and promotion decision: lost creativity through teaching overloads; and short-term problem solving by the administra- tion. 103 In summary. Study Question 5 sought to discern differences in faculty perceptions of possible threats to the professional status of the academician. In examining the diversity of responses by institu- tion. two themes appear. At Michigan State many faculty centered their comments on the threats of administrative growth in the university. administrative control of departments. and administrative interference into the departmental domain. Threaded through the comments were statements indicating a lack of trust and confidence in the abilities of the administrators to led the institution and play a needed communi- cations role with the outside public. A theme appearing in the Wayne State faculty responses was the threat of greater compensation losses. This response was viewed as a major variable in maintaining competent faculty and attracting new faculty. The lack of compensation to stay even with inflation was interpreted as adding to the plight of maintaining professionalism. Additionally. the loss of financial merit through unionization eliminated the needed expectations of reward. Assessing the perceived threats to professional status by departments found unevenness in categories of responses. The psychol- ogy departments at both WSU and MSU did not manifest a centralized focus in the responses. ‘The 22 sampled faculty covered many areas in their answers. from loss of professional standards to too much govern- ment interference and short-term problem solving by the administration. The responses from the chemistry departments sampled centered on monetary issues. 'The answers indicated the greatest perceived th threats to them as professionals related to the poor compensation and reward issues and the lack of adequate grant funding. The 22 sampled faculty from the history departments of the two universities had great variation of responses but a focused pattern. The anti-intellectual attitude in society was viewed as a threat to education and particularly to the liberal arts. Comments on the loss of professional standards indicated that the above external threat related to the development of the loss-of-standards threat. ifluUbLJhufifldquji Are there differences in perception concerning the value of faculty collective bargaining between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized institution of higher education? When the sampled faculty were asked about their perceptions of faculty unionism. all but four stated positive or negative opinions. Two from the MSU psychology department and one each from the departments of chemistry and psychology at WSU responded with no definite opinions. The faculty views in the sampled departments as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of faculty unionism and the reasons underlying these beliefs are described in Table 18. which presents the perceptions of the inappropriateness of faculty unionism by institution and department. Forty of the 66 sampled faculty found unionism inappropriate. Michigan State. the nonunionized institution. accounted for 62.5 percent of the negative perception. Wayne State. the unionized institution. had 15 fachty out of a possible 33 respond that unionism is inappropriate for academicians. The departments of chemistry yielded the highest departmental response with 16 of 22. 4O 105 percent of the total departmental responses. ‘The departments of psychology had 11 of 22 faculty register a negative opinion toward faculty unionisu. Examining the responses within each university. the MSU sample found the highest number of negative responses in the department of chemistry with ten. The departments of history and psychology had eight and seven responses. respectively. The WSU sample was more evenly distributed. with five negative responses for history. six for chemistry. and four for psychology. Table 18.-~Faculty unionism is inappropriate. History Chemistry Psychology Total Freq. s Freq. Z Freq. % Freq. Z MSU 8 20.0 10 25.0 7 17.5 25 62.5 WSU 5 12.5 6 15.0 4 10.0 15 37.5 Total 13 32.5 16 40.0 11 27.5 40 100.0 Legend: Total N = 40. Table 19 presents by department and university the categories of responses. having the highest frequency rating. as basis for the belief that faculty unionism is inappropriate. The perception that faculty unionism is detrimental to professionalism was described by 21 of the 66 sampled faculty. 32 percent. While the frequency of this perception was found to be generally evenly divided between universities. considerable variation .oouu_ELoa momcoomoc o_o_u_:zo .o: n z "teamed 106 5.55. N 5.5N N m.5_ _ _.N5 5 .mooN _.N5 5 m.5_ _ 5.5 o m.N5 m =5: uu__ccou m.N5 m m.5_ _ m.5_ _ m.5_ _ =5: 55.nuuc mouseoca 5.05. N. lewmm 51, 5._5 m c.5N m .mooN co_amcom_c_Eem 5.5N m N.5_ N m.5 _ 5.5 o =5: 5:. No.5umc 5.5N m N.5_ N N.NN 5 5.5N N 55: 55...... 8. .ecoN 5.55. N. 5.mm 5 m.mm N 545 _ .mooN 5.5N m N.5_ N m.5 _ 5.5 o :5: son»... unsound. c.5N m N.5_ N 5.55 5 N.5 _ :5: co mumc_ccc_ 5.55. m. Tm.om 5. NA»: 5 _.mN m .mNoN 5._5 5 _.NN m 5.55 5 N.N _ =53 co_ommceasou 5.55 5 N.N _ 5.5. N 5.5. N :5: c_ 5_.oe .8 .mo5 5.55. N. 5.mN 5 n.5m m N._5 N .mooN m.N5 m 5.N_ m 5... N 5.NN 5 :53 _.N5 5 5.5 _ N.NN 5 5.N_ m =5: e.__.5e_>_ec_ .5_e_5 5.8. E .N..5_ N 5.55 m N.NN 5 .38 _._5 __ _.__ N N.NN 5 N.NN 5 =53 855.caocaamc_ ._ 5.55 N 5.5 _ 5.NN m 5.5 _ =5: e._cm_..5__mmu msomum 5.55. .N 5.551, m 5.N5 __ N.NN N .mooN 5.N5 __ 5.5 N 5.mN 5 5.5. 5 =53 s.__mco_m.ococa 5.N5 o. 5.5 _ 5.5N 5 m.5_ m :5: oo .mucee_touo N .uocm N .oocu N .oocm N .oocm .muoh >mo_o;u>md >Lum_so;u >L0um_: m.u:oEuLmooo one comu:u_umc_ >n Em_co_c: >u_:omw mo mmocouo_cooLoomc_ ecu mc_ucooo:m momcoomoc mo mo_comouou11.m_ o_nmh 107 did exist in departments. ‘The chemistry departments at both institu- tions revealed the highest number of faculty finding faculty unionism detrimental to professionalism. The psychology departments had the lowest with three faculty responses to this category. Below is a representative sample of the perceptions found in the interview data. Unionism leads to mediocrity and limitation of the reward structure and rewards incompetence. .All are symptomatic of the bargaining process. (MSU. Chemistry) Unionism should not have to happen. It is not good for the profession. Ideally the university professor should not have to turn and resort to union tactics. Maybe some do not have profes- sional status. and they try to get it through bargaining. That behavior is inappropriate to faculty members. (WSU. Psychology) Faculty unions only care about money and protection of their own poorly done jobs. They forget students and the excellence of education. (MSU. Psychology) No one has shown what the union will do for students. ‘The quality of students is important if we want a strong institution. Collec- tive bargaining produces weaknesses and people forget the univer- sity mission and their professional purpose. (MSU. Psychology) I am not in agreement with the union's goals. Reward comes through the development of a better university and the union does not see the university in this light. (WSU. Chemistry) Faculty unions are not advantageous professionally. Supporters here at MSU tend to be those of scanty scholarship and receive the least pay because of scanty scholarship. (MSU. History) Unions produce guild mentality. The weakest faculty are always the most interested in unions. not the strongest teachers or research- ers. (MSU. History) Academic standards and concerns are totally lost in unionism. Professional standards at WSU have dropped since the union came in. No standards that I know of have been raised. (WSU. History) Egalitarianism of faculty within department and departments across the university was viewed as a negative factor of faculty union- ism by 18 of 66 respondents. WSU accounted for 61.1 percent. 11 108 responses. with the highest frequency in the department of history. MSU's sample contained seven responses in this category. with five being in the department of chemistry. ‘The strength of the convictions concerning the inappropriateness of egalitarianism is found in the comments. Unions mean inequality in the future through equity now. (WSU. History) Collective bargaining can bring unplanned consequences. No one does any better than the worst. (MSU. Chemistry) Today. through the union. we have minimized upward mobility financially for the most talented and have maximized mobility for the less talented. Unions lower ceilings and raise floors and make us all look alike. (WSU. Psychology) Uni oni 5m brings a more homogeneous structure between departments and among department members. ‘This is*wrong. for distinctions are important to recognize. Collective bargaining is a leveling process. and the level it seeks is the lowest common denominator. (MSU. Chemistry) With unionism we might have better salaries. but it would destroy us otherwise. We would sink to the lowest level--all of us would be alike. A good department would be equal to a poor department. Unionism has also a leveling effect in the allocation for equipment and supplies. (MSU. Chemistry) Unionism usually rewards the least deserving and does not strive or push for excellence. An enlightened democracy does not work well in a university. (MSU. Chemistry) Seventeen of 66 interviewed faculty. eight at MSU and nine at WSU. discussed faculty unionism as inappropriate because it tended to limit individualism. The history and chemistry departments had the highest rate of response in this category with 41.2 percent and 35.3 percent. respectively. Examples of comments given during the interviews are given below. 109 Union work takes time away from teaching and research. Collec- tively it takes away from individual excellence. (MSU. Chemistry) Unionism disturbs me. I want to be my own person with my profes- sional standards. Unionism threatened this autonomy. I am happy with what I do. I feel with the union I would have to give up something to get something back. I just don’t need that. (MSU. Psychology) I am not for unionism. Union groups dontt have my interest at heart because they do not understand my discipline. (MSU. History) The loss of merit in compensation was an issue raised by 13 of the 66 sampled faculty. WSU. the unionized institution. had 8 of the 13 responses. 4 in chemistry. 3 in psychology. and 1 in history. Five responses were from the nonunionized sample at MSU. Some comments appropriate to faculty concerns about the loss of merit through faculty unionism are found below. Collective bargaining is necessary where the mentality says all should be rewarded equally. No merit system exists really in collective bargaining. (MSU. History) Unionism is very distasteful to me. It treats everyone equally. and actually everyone is not equal. Salaries are now across the board regardless of performance. Merit increases are gone and longevity is in. (MSU. Chemistry) Academic persons in the state supported university are not faring well financially. but it must be much worse to be really detrimen- tal to the system. The only role of faculty collective bargaining is a money role--yet. not a merit money role. (MSU. Chemistry) The perception that faculty unionism infringes on academic freedom was found in 12 responses. ‘The MSU sample produced 75 percent of the responses in this category. Sampled faculty from the MSU chemistry department had the greatest number of concerns about infringement on academic freedom. llO Tenure could be damaged. It has tremendous value now. for it serves as a strong screen. With outside union-type input. tenure decisions could hurt us. (MSU. Chemistry) Academic freedom has been sacrificed in places where faculty unions exist. (MSU. Chemistry) Unionization is like price fixing in a market where all commodities are not equal. Actually I am in business for myself. I have freedom and the university has the environment for me to exercise this freedom. It is my responsibility to make the best use of my environment. Collective bargaining reduces mobility and tends to make things which are not equal. equal. (MSU. Chemistry) The union is hung up on numbers and is very detrimental to academic freedom. We have too many administrators now and we don't need another layer of them. (MSU. Chemistry) The Michigan State sample yielded 75 percent of the responses indicating that faculty unionism tended to separate the faculty and administration. Seven were found in the MSU departments of history and chemistry with three and four responses. respectively. Only 3 of 33 WSU faculty described this perception. Listed below are statements recorded during the interview process describing this perception. The University is a community of scholars. not a profit making corporation. Union leaders become academic politicians who cantt make their way politically through the established university channels. ‘This leads to confrontation between the administration and the faculty. (MSU. History) When unions arrive to change working conditions. they always create an adversarial relationship. (MSU. Psychology) Faculty collective bargaining brings mediocrity and averageness. I personally do not like the idea of separating faculty from the administration as the union tends to do. (MSU. Chemistry) Management and labor is an inappropriate relationship between col- leagues. Yet. that is the relationship between a department and a chairman in our union situation. (WSU. Chemistry) The final category to have a number of responses from both universities was found to be the perception that faculty unionism tends III to produce faculty conflict. Seven responses described this percep- tion. It is interesting that 42.9 percent were found in the department of history at WSU. Additional comments describing the faculty's perceptions on the inappropriateness of faculty unionism are found below. None of the comments was recorded in the frequency data found in Table 19. Professionals are too articulate and not action enough oriented to make a union work. Unionism is hard. dirty work accompanied by high risks. (MSU. History) Unions have no "faculty interest." (MSU. History) Unionizing does not make sense economically. Why bargain with a group who has no money? Only the legislature can appropriate money. (MSU. Chemistry) Faculty unionism was perceived as appropriate by 22 of the 66 faculty interviewed. Of the 22 respondents. WSU. the unionized institution. accounted for 72.2 percent. Table 20 presents a breakdown of the responses indicating that faculty unionism is appropriate by university and department. 0f the 33 possible Michigan State respondents. six (27 percent) found faculty unionism appropriate. Three were in the department of history. one in chemistry. and two were located in psychology. ‘The departments of chemistry at MSU and WSU had the least number of positive responses in the perception that faculty unionism is appropriate. 112 Table 20.--Faculty unionism is appropriate. History Chemistry Psychology Total Freq. 5 Freq. 5 Freq. 5 Freq. 5 MSU 3 13.6 1 4.5 2 9.1 6 27.3 WSU 6 27.3 4 18.2 6 27.3 16 72.7 Total 9 40.9 S 22.7 8 36.4 22 100.0 Legend: Total N = 22. The interviewees were requested to provide reasons for their positive perceptions of the appropriateness of faculty unionism. Table 21 formats in rank order the categories of responses receiving the highest rate of frequency department and university. The first category which linked the appropriateness of faculty unionism to greater monetary rewards found six responses from MSU. Comments from the six respondents indicated beliefs that unionism could improve salaries and the overall poor economic situation faced by faculty. The same types of comments held true for the nine responses from WSU. One response from the WSU psychology department stated. "Without collective bargaining our profession slid down the economic totem pole. It has provided us with more money than the administration had tried to do in the past." A substantial difference occurred between the two universities on the number of faculty indicating that faculty unionism provides greater democratic decision making. Of the 13 total responses in this .oouu_ELoo 555:055oc 0.5.5.525 .NN n z upcomod 113 5.55. N 5.5. _ 5.N511 5 5.N5, 5 .5555 N.55 5 5.5 5 5.N5 5 5.N5 5 553 555555_e_cu5_5 5.5. _ 5.5. _ 5.5 5 5.5 5 555 555c_s__5 55.55 5.55. 5. 5.55 5 5.5N N 5.55, 5, .5555 :5_555555_ 5.55 5 5.5. _ 5.5N N 5.55 5 555 5>_55555_c_555 5.55 5 5.55 5 5.5 5 5.5. _ 55: 555_555 55555555 5.55. 5. 5.5m N .5.N _ 5.55 5 .5555 5.55 __ 5.55 5 N.N _ 5.55 5 555 5:_55e =5_5_555 5.5. N 5.5. N 5.5 5 5.5 5 55: 5.55.55255 555_>5La 11.555 5. p.55 N 5.55 5 5.5N 5 .5555 .55 5 5.55 5 5.5N 5 N.5 _ 552 55.525. .55 5 5.5_ N 5.5. N 5.5. N 55: 5.555555 55555.5 N .5055 N .oocm N .oocm N .oocu .muoh >mo_o;o>5¢ >Lu5_so;u >L055_: 5.55_co_c: >u_:omw mo mmocoum_caocaom ecu mc_uL05555 momcoomoc mo mo_Lomoumu11._N p.55» llh category. 84.6 percent (11) were representative of the WSU sample. Five responses each were recorded in the WSU history and psychology departments. The perception that faculty unionism protects against administrative intrusion ranked third in the order of frequency with ten total responses. Sixty percent of the responses were from WSU. Four responses represented MSU. ‘The departments of chemistry had the least number of responses. Three comments typical of the tenor of the other responses came from the WSU history department. Unionism has protected us against a very unfair administration. Administrative costs and power rose dramatically until the union was formed here at WSU. The administration brought it on themselves. Prior to unionism the faculty had no recourse for protests or appeals. Collective bargaining has helped preserve the privileges of the faculty. The perception that faculty unionism has helped eliminate various forms of discrimination was mentioned by 7 of the 22 faculty. Only one response to this category was found in the MSU sample. The other six represented WSU perceptions. An example from a female historian at WSU follows. I am very enthusiastic about collective bargaining. It gives hope to females and younger faculty members. It includes us in the decision-making process that was not open to us before. Finally. a small corner of the system is available for women's participation. Two additional comments which were of interest but not coded into any category are provided below. In this institution the union is the lesser of all evils. It has improved the morale of the faculty in our department. (WSU. Psychology) 115 Collective bargaining improves leadership in the administration because someone must learn to respond to the union. ‘The union is not amorphous like the faculty. It is a force which cannot be ignored. (WSU. History) Following the question on the perceptions of faculty collective bargaining. each interviewee was asked how he/she felt about unionism in general. Fifty-one of the 66 interviewed had no difficulty in accepting collective bargaining in general. The positive responses were generally evenly distributed across departments and between both universities. The MSU faculty accounted for 47 percent of the 51 responses. and the WSU faculty had 53 percent. Phrases used in the positive responses included the following. Collective bargaining is invaluable. The working class needs it. The union movement has helped the American people. Collective bargaining is the only self-defense some workers have. In the complexity of modern organization it is a necessity for workers to have the right to unionize. Unions in general have been a progressive social force. Collective bargaining is okay for nonprofessional groups who cantt act as spokesman for themselves. In summary. the extent of Study Question 6 was to learn if differences existed in the perceptions of the value of collective bargaining between professors at MSU and WSU. Sixty percent of the total interviewed faculty found unionism inappropriate and of no value to the profession. The nonunionized university. MSU. accounted for the most responses. 25 out of 40. 62.5 percent. Examining the departments revealed the chemistry professors the most supportive of the nonunion 116 concept. Beliefs underlying the perception that faculty unionism is inappropriate centered on the union being detrimental to professional- ism. egalitarian with regard to compensation and status issues. and limiting to individualism and thus academic freedom. Thirty-three percent of the 66 faculty found faculty unionism to be appropriate. ‘The unionized university; WSU. was represented by 72.2 percent. 16 out of 22. of the positive responses. The departments of history and psychology provided the most responses. 12 out of 16. supporting the perception. Faculty favoring academic unionism cited greater monetary rewards. democratic decision-making processes. and protection against administrative intrusion as reasons supporting their positive perceptions. Four faculty. 6 percent. had no opinion as to whether unionism is appropriate or inappropriate. The majority of the total sampled faculty at both institutions were favorable to nonacademic unionism in general. StudLQuestionJ Are there differences in professional identification between the professors of a unionized and a nonunionized graduate institution of higher education? The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has historically been recognized as the professional association of higher education academicians. Traditionally. professors closely identified with its mission and goals. In 1971 the organization. through great internal turmoil. accepted an additional organizational purpose. that of a collective bargaining association. When the Wayne State 117 University faculty voted to bargain collectively in 1972. the AAUP was selected as the bargaining agent. Questions asked during the interview procedure sought faculty perceptions of professional identification with the present AAUP organization. Sixty-five percent of the 66 faculty interviewed stated that they had at some point in their academic careers been a member of the AAUP. Wayne State accounted for 27 of the positive answers. and the Michigan State sample revealed 16 responses. ‘Table 22 presents the data showing those who wererat one time AAUP members and those who are now members. by university and department. Table 22.--Differences in present and past membership in the AAUP by university and department. History Chemistry Psychology Total MSU Past 5 5 6 l6 Present 1 4 2 7 Loss 4 1 4 9 WSU Past 10 7 10 27 Present 7 4 8 19 Loss 3 3 2 ' 8 Total Past 15 12 16 43 Present 8 8 10 26 Loss 7 4 6 17 Of the 43 sampled professors in both institutions who had been members. only 26 continue to hold AAUP membership. Nineteen of the 26 are in the WSU faculty sample. and seven are found in the MSU 118 faculty sample. Variation was found in Michigan State's present membership by department. Only one member of the AAUP was found in the history department. two in the department of psychology. and four in the chemistry department. Within the sampled faculty at WSU. the chemistry department had the least number of members with four. No department has sustained the original number of members: each has experienced AAUP membership decline. Nine of the MSU faculty had at some point not renewed their membership. Five cited a lack of interest in the organization. and four found it had become less supportive of professionalism. Eight persons at WSU have allowed their membership to lapse. Four believed it was not adequately supporting professionalism. and three left because of the collective bargaining stance. Each respondent replied to the inquiry as to how they valued the AAUP on the national and local levels. The AAUP's continued support of the academic profession received the greatest response with 29 out of 66 as to its value nationally. Seventeen of the responses occurred at WSU and 12 at MSU. 'The perception of its value as a national professional association was supported by 24 faculty. 16 at WSU and 8 at MSU. Only nine responses. seven at WSU and two at MSU. found value in its collective bargaining purpose at the national level. Responses were evenly distributed across departments in both institu- tions. The responses as to the AAUP's value locally were of interest when the responses were analyzed by university. Sixteen respondents. 119 nine at WSU and seven at MSU. valued the local AAUP chapters as supportive of the academic profession. Fourteen respondents. 13 at WSU and l at MSU. believed the local AAUP to be valued for its collective bargaining role. Of the 12 sampled faculty who valued the local chapters of the AAUP as a professional association. eight respondents were at WSU and four were at MSU. Examining the responses by department revealed the paired chemistry departments to have 13 responses indicating value in the local AAUP as a professional association and as an organization supportive of the academic profession. The combined departments of psychology revealed eight responses in the same two categories. The combined history departments registered seven responses. The WSU history department had the greatest number of responses. seven. valuing the local AAUP for its collective bargaining stance. The WSU psychol- ogy department had four responses and the chemistry department two on the AAUP's collective bargaining role locally. 0f the 15 responses revealing no interest in the AAUP at the local level. 12 were MSU interviewees. Table 23 displays the data showing those who were at one time AAUP members and those who are now members by university and age group. The age group 39 and below within both institutions contained the least number of members historically and currently. nine and six. respec- tively. The greatest number of faculty. 20. who had been AAUP members was revealed in the 49 and above age group. Eleven continue to hold membership. The MSU age group of 39 and below found no faculty to be 120 currently a member of the AAUP. Although the sampled WSU faculty in the age group 39 and below lost two members. six faculty continue to have membership. Within the age group of 40-48. a total loss of mem- bership from both institutions was five. two at MSU and three at WSU. The Michigan State sampled faculty in the age group of 49 and above registered a loss of AAUP membership with six out of ten. while WSU lost three out of ten. Table 23.--Differences in past and present membership in the AAUP by university and age group. 39 8 Below 40-48 49 8 Above Total MSU Past 1 5 10 16 Present 0 3 4 7 Loss 1 2 6 9 WSU Past 8 9 10 27 Present 6 6 7 19 Loss 2 3 3 8 Total Past 9 14 20 43 Present 6 9 ll 26 Loss 3 5 9 l7 The 66 interviewed faculty were generally active in professional associations related to their disciplines. The mean number of organi- zations to which each faculty member belongs was found to be 4.6. ‘ Ninety-five percent of them had attended meetings of these organiza- tions within the last two years. Seventy-six percent indicated no conditions were established by the university for their attendance or 121 nonattendance at the meetings. Financial help for travel was available from the department or college. particularly if papers were to be presented. but amounts were extremely small. Finally. each interviewee was asked with which reference group he/she had the most.significant professional identification. Five from the total 66 had no group with which they identified. Forty-two. 21 from each university. cited colleagues in their specialized area of the discipline. The psychology departments had the highest number of responses. 16. for this professional identification group. The history departments had the least with 12 responses. Colleagues in professional associations was also cited as a group with whom 35 of ther66 respondents identified. Twenty-two of the 35 represented the faculty at WSU. MSU had 13 respond to colleagues in professional associations as a reference group. Of the 35 total responses. 13 were located in the departments of history. While identification with colleagues in the department had a low response rate of 14 out of 66. it is interesting that the chemistry departments yielded 57 percent of this category. In summarizing Study Question 7. differences in professional identification were revealed to exist between the two universities. While the AAUP has experienced a 40 percent drop in membership within the 66 sampled faculty. Wayne State continues to have a greater number of members than does Michigan State. Fifty-eight percent of the sampled faculty at WSU belong to the AAUP. Twenty-one percent of the sampled MSU faculty continue as members of the AAUP. Wayne State's 122 faculty registered much stronger support for the AAUP on both the national and local levels than did the MSU faculty. Areas cited were the AAUP's value as a professional association. its support of the academic profession. and its value as a collective bargaining agent. Faculty at both institutions have membership in several exter- nal professional organizations. ‘These organizations were shown to be valuable as reference groups for professional identification. The Wayne State faculty was found to have stronger identifications with these groups than the Michigan State faculty. ‘The chemistry depart- ments more closely identified with department colleagues than did the other sampled departments. The sampled faculty in the psychology departments identified with specialists within their discipline. Sampled faculty from the WSU and MSU history departments most fre- quently cited colleagues in professional associations as a reference group. Sum The investigator's purpose in this chapter was to analyze and describe the information collected from personal interviews with 66 faculty in the departments of history. chemistry. and psychology at Michigan State University. a nonunionized higher education institution. and Wayne State University. a unionized higher education institution. Sampled faculty within the six departmental groups responded to ques- tions concerning their perceptions of professional responsibility. individual judgment. collegial maintenance. unionism. and professional identification. I23 Content analysis methodology was employed to organize the interview information into a format for quantitative analysis. The responses to all questions were analyzed for frequency and percentage distribution by institution and department. For questions that could be interpreted as having interval-level data in the responses. the statistical test. two-way analysis of variance. was used to determine if differences in the perceptions of professionalism existed between sampled faculty in the three departments of the two universities. Additionally. quoted statements from the taped interviews were incorporated as qualitative information to provide an in-depth perspective to the quantified faculty perceptions. In Chapter V. a summary of the development of the study. the findings. conclusions. and implications from the data analysis and recommendations for further research are reported. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS. IMPLICATIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Sumarx In view of the substantial movement toward faculty collective bargaining over the past two decades. the literature has reflected concern as to whether the professional status of the professor might be undermined by the presence of unionisn. Given the historically professional roles of teaching and research. the extensive educational process to develop specialized knowledge. and the internal structural premise of the academic community. collegiality. the incidence of academic unionism appeared incongruous with the traditional roots and ideology of the profession. The purpose of the study was to explore for differences in the perceptions of professors as professionals in both a unionized and nonunionized academic environment. The two higher education institu- tions chosen for the study. Michigan State University. a nonunionized graduate university. and Wayne State University. a unionized graduate university. were selected from a Public Multiversity typology developed by the Stanford Project on Academic Governance (Baldridge et at” 1977). In an attempt to provide a broad scope of perceptions of the professional roles and professional identifications. three disciplines 12h 125 were selected: history. chemistry. and psychology. The investigator obtained information for the study by interviewing a cross-sectional group of 66 faculty representing the academic ranks of assistant. associate. and full professor. Questions central to the purpose of the study focused on the following professional attributes and issues: individual judgment in teaching and research. educational policy decision making. evaluation opportunities of colleagues and college administrators. colleague evaluation criteria. threats to professional status. faculty collective bargaining perceptions. and professional identification. Chapter Two contained two sections: (1) a review of sociologi- cal literature concerned with defining the attributes of professional- ism and (2) a historical overview of the American Association of University Professors. A typology of the professional attributes appropriate to professors of higher education research-oriented insti- tutions was developed from the literature survey. Five major attri- butes were identified and described: specialized knowledge. internal control. community sanction. ideology. and professional associations. The typology provided criteria against which the perceptions of the sampled faculty in the two universities could be compared. The faculty bargaining agency for Wayne State University is the American Association of University Professors. the long-established professional association of the academic profession. The presentation of the historical overview sought to place in context the evolution of 126 the AAUP from a professional association to an organization also performing the role of a collective bargaining agent. The research methodology was described in Chapter Three. The personal interview was selected as the research methodology for infor- mation gathering. Sixty-six professors. 11 professors from each department of history. chemistry. and psychology within the two univer- sities. were randomly selected to be interviewed. 1An interview guide. designed and pretested for the interview methodology. contained open- ended questions appropriate to the information needed for the central purpose of the study and demographic information on the surveyed population. A code book was developed as a mechanism for quantifying the volume of information collected from the166 interviews. Content analysis provided a structured methodological approach to classifying the information into a format for statistical interpretation. The coded data were quantitatively analyzed for frequency distribution of each response and cross-tabulated to examine responses by institution and department. .Analysis of variance was used to analyze questions which could be interpreted as having interval-level data responses. Quoted statements from the interview information were incorporated in the chapter's text to provide an i n-depth view of the respondents' perceptions. Chapter Four contained the results of the data analysis. The 14 open-ended questions contained in the interview guide and relating 127 to the seven central questions of the study were analyzed and the results presented. findings 1. .Stuny_0uestign_1 sought to discern if differences in the opportunities for exercising individual judgment in teaching and research existed between the sampled faculty at Michigan State Univer- sity and Wayne State University. No significant differences at the .05 level were revealed between the two universities or within the three departments of history. chemistry. and psychology in the amount of opportunity there is for exercising individual judgment in teaching and research. All of the 66 sampled professors perceived that their uni- versity allowed them to the fullest extent the opportunity to exercise individual judgment. responsibility. and discretion in the areas of teaching. research. and publication. 2. W was to determine if differences existed in the opportunities professors have to participate in decision making with regard to educational policies. Although no significant effect. using an alpha of .05. was found between the sampled WSU faculty and the sampled MSU faculty in the degree to which a faculty member can participate in educational policy decision making such as student admissions. teaching and research loads. courses taught. and class size. it is important to note that faculty selected for the study from MSU. the nonunionized institution. were found to have a slightly greater opportunity to participate than selected faculty from WSU. a unionized institution. No significant differences were revealed by 128 department with respect to faculty participation in educational policy decision making. 3. .Study_0uest19n;3 sought to find if differences in the opportunity to exercise collegial responsibilities with regard to evaluation of colleagues and administrators existed between the sampled faculty at the two universities. The sampled faculty at MSU perceived a slightly greater opportunity than the faculty at WSU to evaluate the department chairperson. Only the chemistry department at MSU was found to contain faculty who could participate in the college dean's eval ua- tion. In regard to the opportunity to evaluate colleagues for promotion. retention. tenure. and monetary rewards. using an alpha of .05. no significant differences were found between institutions and the three designated departments. While not statistically significant. the data did reveal that faculty within the nonunionized Michigan State University sample have a greater opportunity to evaluate colleagues than do the sampled faculty at unionized Wayne State University. No significant differences at the .05 level between the three paired departments with respect to the opportunity to evaluate colleagues for promotion. retention. tenure. and monetary rewards were revealed. Using institutional status and respondents' ages as the independent variables a significant difference. at the .05 level. was found between Michigan State and Wayne State in the degree to which faculty have the opportunity to evaluate colleagues. The nonunionized Michigan State respondents have a greater opportunity to evaluate 129 colleagues than sampled faculty at unionized Wayne State. Addition- ally. using an alpha of .05. a significant difference was revealed between the three age groups of 39 and below. 40-48. and 49 and above. in the degree to which faculty have the opportunity to evaluate col- leagues. Older faculty. those age 40 and above. have more opportunity to evaluate colleagues than faculty in the 39 and below age group. Such a finding would be expected in the professional system where participation in collegial evaluation is a function of academic rank. Using an alpha of .05. a significant two-way interaction effect between institution and age was also revealed. The unionized Wayne State faculty members in the 39 and below age group have the least opportunity to evaluate colleagues for promotion. retention. tenure. and monetary rewards. The opportunity to participate in collegial evaluation was found to be of high importance to faculty at both institutions. 4. .Study_0uest1on_§ was formulated to discern if differences existed in faculty perceptions of the professional criteria for evalua- tion of colleagues between sampled professors of the two institutions. The criteria Quality of Research and Quality of Teaching were deter- mined by the sampled faculty to be the criteria most important and most frequently used in academic rank and tenure decisions. While the standards for measuring the Quality of Research criterion are more commonly defined. the same did not hold true for the standards in assessing the criterion the Quality of Teaching. The Wayne State University faculty placed slightly more emphasis on the two categories 130 of criteria for collegial evaluation of rank and tenure decisions than did the Michigan State faculty. In the other identified categories of evaluation criteria. important differences were found between institutions. Service to the department and university. commitment to the profession. professional standards of conduct. and community service were more frequently cited by Michigan State faculty than by the Wayne State faculty as important criteria in tenure and academic rank evaluation. Service to the department and university. commitment to the profession. and profes- sional standards were mentioned more frequently by the Michigan State departments of history and chemistry than by the paired Wayne State departments. The MSU department of psychology identified the criteria community service for collegial evaluation of tenure and rank decisions to be of greater importance than did the WSU psychology department. The majority of the total sample of responding professors indicated that over the span of their academic careers there had been no change in their opinions concerning the evaluative criteria for rank and tenure decisions. 5. .Study_0uestion45 sought to determine if differences existed in faculty perceptions of possible threats to the professional status of the academician between the sampled professors of the two institu- tions. Substantial variation in faculty perceptions of possible threats to the professional status of the academicians was found between the two institutions. The sampled faculty at Wayne State felt threatened by the loss of professional standards. the overall economic 131 situation and its effect on faculty compensation. and the publicfls loss of respect for education. The faculty at Michigan State felt threat- ened by the growth of administration and accompanying administrative control over departments. .Additionally. the sampled Michigan State faculty expressed concerns about the overall economic situation in relation to faculty salaries. Differences between departments were also found in the data. The chemistry departments found the greatest threats to be the economic situation as it related to faculty compensation and the loss of grant funding. The history departments found society's loss of respect for education and the lowering of professional standards as the greatest threats. While the departments of psychology did not generate the number of concerns in any category as did the other two departments. two threats were cited: the loss of professional standards and the present economic situation. 6. .Stndy_0uest19n_6 was to explore the differences in perceptions concerning the value of collective bargaining between the professors of the unionized Wayne State University and the nonunionized Michigan State University. Considerable diversity in the perceptions concerning the value of faculty collective bargaining was found between institutions and between departments. Seventy-six percent of the sampled MSU faculty and 45 percent of the sampled WSU faculty perceived that faculty unionism was inap- propriate. ‘The belief that unionism was detrimental to professionalism registered the highest frequency of responses from the sampled faculty 132 at both universities supporting the inappropriateness of faculty col- lective bargaining. The WSU faculty who found faculty unionism inap- propriate strongly believed its presence produced detrimental egalitarianism. limited individualism. and resulted in a loss of meri- torious compensation. Beliefs behind the MSU faculty supporting the inappropriateness of faculty unionism included the limitations to indi- vidualism. the infringement on academic freedom. and the tendency to separate faculty and administration. Of the three sampled departments within the two institutions. the chemistry departments were markedly more supportive of the nonunion concept than were the history and psychology departments. Of those faculty within the three departments of the two universities supporting the concept of faculty unionism. 72.7 percent were Wayne State University professors. Beliefs underlying their perceptions of the appropriateness of faculty unionism were the oppor- tunities for greater monetary rewards. democratic decision-making processes. discrimination elimination. and protection against adminis- trative intrusion. The combined departments of psychology demonstrated the most support for the concept of faculty unionism. Seventy-seven percent of the sampled faculty in both universi- ties supported the concept of collective bargaining in general. 7. .51udy_fluest19n_1 sought to discern differences in professional identification between the sampled professors of the two institutions. Variations in professional identification were found to exist between the two universities and three departments. Wayne State 133 University‘s faculty. represented in the collective bargaining process by the American Association of University Professors. the historically recognized professional association of higher education. was found to have a much higher rate of membership in the AAUP than did the Michigan State faculty. However. the AAUP had experienced a substantial loss of Inembership (40 percent) over the past few years within the total 66 sampled faculty. The greatest percentage loss of membership occurred with the MSU sampled faculty. The responses from the total sample indicated that the AAUP continued to be highly valued at the national level for its support of the academic profession and as a professional association. The collec- tive bargaining role of the AAUP at the local level was more valued by the WSU respondents than by the MSU respondents. Additionally. at the local level the value of the AAUP as a professional association and the value of its support to the academic profession were more frequently cited by the sampled WSU faculty than by the MSU faculty. Examining present and past membership in the AAUP by age group revealed the greatest percentage loss in the 49 and above group. followed by faculty in the age group 40-48 and 39 and below. respectively. Although the highest percentage loss of membership was in the oldest age group. the youngest age group had the least number of members. No one in the MSU sample of 39 and below was found to be an AAUP member. The Wayne State University sampled faculty was found to have greater professional identification with external professional associations through professional organizational memberships than the 134 Michigan State University sampled faculty. The chemistry departments more closely identified with departmental colleagues than did the history and psychology departments. ‘The sampled psychology professors identified with specialists within their discipline. and the history professors in both institutions most frequently cited colleagues in professional associations as a reference group. AdditionaLEindings Integral to the study were the departments of history. chem- istry. and psychology representing disciplines in the humanities. applied sciences. and social sciences. respectively. Examining the overall responses of the sampled faculty within each discipline. gen- eral and additional findings can be gleaned. The sampled faculty. from the paired chemistry departments of Wayne State University and Michigan State University. were found to have commonalities within their responses. A fundamental concern appearing in the responses to various interview questions was the lack of monetary support related to the compensation of chemistry professors and to research funding for the discipline. A number of chemistry faculty members within both institutions believed they could exercise individual judgment in teaching and research to the fullest extent within the university but felt constrained by the guidelines for research projects established by the external funding agency. Although the criterion Quality of Research received their support as the most important criterion in academic rank 135 decisions. the ability to secure outside funding was also identified as a measuring criterion. Examining perceived threats to the academic profession. the chemistry professors centered their comments on the loss of grant funding. the economic situation and its effect on faculty salaries. and the lack of economic rewards. ‘The paired departments demonstrated strong opposition to faculty unionism. particularly in terms of limitations on merit compensation and reward structures leading toward egalitarianism. Although the sampled professors within the history departments of WSU and MSU did not demonstrate the unifying themes that character- ized the chemistry departments. cohesion was revealed in the responses to perceived threats to the profession. The responses centered on society's loss of respect for education. the loss of professional standards. and the lack of status for the liberal arts. Although col- legial evaluation was judged to be of high importance. the responses revealed the lack of clarity in the standards for measuring the common criteria of teaching and research. Additionally. a majority of WSU history faculty found tenure and rank decisions of equal importance. The psychology departments revealed issues not identified in the responses from other departments. Community service was found to be a criterion used by the MSU professors in tenure and academic rank decisions. while graduate student advising and support was identified by the WSU faculty as a criterion. Although the psychology department responses did not strongly support the perception that faculty unionism is detrimental to professionalism. two responses were of interest. It 136 was their contention that unionization of faculty was not in the best interest of students. Conclusions The conclusions of the study which were drawn from the study's principal findings and from the typology of professional attributes of professors are presented in this section. Based on the investigator's reasoned judgments. the conclusions are to be considered representative of the sampled population only. The conclusions are as follows: WWW .tho_indiuidual_nnoiossoris_aoadomio_iroodom_with_£ooo£d_to_tho_role LesponsibJJJtieLotJoaoninoJmLesoarsh. Based on Hofstadter and Metzger's (in Parsons 8. Platt. 1968) determination that academic freedom was a necessary condition for higher learning and on Clark's (1966) statement that as professionals professors have perhaps the highest requirements for autonomy in research and teaching. it was assumed that academic freedom would be a common professional attribute at the two research-oriented graduate universities. The interviewed unionized and nonunionized professors responded that neither of their respective universities imposed constraints on the opportunity to exercise individual judgment. responsibility. and discretion in the areas of teaching. research. and publication. Each professor believed that he/she had the individual authority and responsibility to exercise judgment in course content. selecting 137 teaching methods and techniques. awarding grades. certifying degree completion. and determining research topics and publications. ‘These identified role responsibilities associated with individual autonomy and academic freedom were corroborated by Baratz (1978) in his detail- ing of professional role activities of professors. ’ ‘6 O C O 0‘ ‘ ‘ O O ‘O ’ O O ‘0 II.' - - I I . I 5 5| 5 5 5 I I- I II I 5 Gross (1958) proposed that the essence of occupational unity is colleagueship. ‘The maintenance of and responsibilities associated with collegiality are learned through the extensive socialization and educational process required for entrance into the academic profession. Based on Goode's (1957) professional community model. the collegial responsibilities can be interpreted to be the characteristics which provide common bonds of identity to the professional community of professors. As identified in the literature. these collegial responsi- bilities can include selection and evaluation of colleagues and admin- istrators: rewards determination for promotion. retention. and merit: and the selection of curricula. Harries-Jenkins (1970) and Wilson (1979) cautioned that the bonding identity with collegial community responsibilities can be limited by the working environment and the employing institution. In the evaluation of collegial maintenance operationalized at the depart- ment level for this study. the professors at the nonunionized univer- sity had more opportunity to exercise collegial responsibilities than 138 did the unionized professors. The nonunionized professors had more opportunity to participate in educational policy decision making. a greater opportunity to evaluate administrators. and a greater oppor- tunity to evaluate colleagues with respect to promotion. tenure. and merit. Additionally. within the unionized environment. meritocracy in compensation through collegial evaluation had changed to a concept of compensation egalitarianism under the faculty union contact. A critical professional attribute. defined through a survey of the literature. was community sanction. The lay community. which has not undergone the extensive professional socialization and educational process. could not understand the problems and technical skills involved or the standards to be used in making professional judgments (Goode. 1957). To protect itself from judgmental intrusion by society. the profession must accept measures of internal social control. Harries-Jenkins (1970) asserted that the more elaborate the sanction mechanisms of group control. the higher the degree of professionalism. The determination of standards for entrance to the academic profession. the process of evaluation. and recommendation for academic rank. tenure.1and merit rewards are processes of social control for the 139 academic profession. Most of the sampled professors from both institu- tions responded that their participation in collegial evaluation was a function of personal academic rank. Full professors evaluated both assistants and associates for academic rank. and associates evaluated only assistants. Only tenured faculty could evaluate nontenured fac- ulty in tenure decisions. However. the study revealed that the union- ized professors have less opportunity to evaluate colleagues than the nonunionized professors for rewards of tenure and academic rank and no opportunity for merit evaluation. Additionally. the unionized faculty did not place as high an importance on the opportunity to evaluate peers as did the nonunionized faculty. The ideological elements that differentiate professions from the nonprofessions are learned in the process of socialization. The elements produce an overall group cultural identity and become the ideologies by which professional status is maintained. .According to Goode (1957). these ideologies encompass a sense of identity. career orientation. shared values. understood role definitions. comnmn1lan- guage. power over members. social limits. and socialization as main- tenance and perpetuation. In the decision-maki ng processes for determining recommenda- tions for academic rank and tenure. the majority of unionized profes- sors identified the criteria Quality of Teaching and Quality of 140 Research as the most important criteria to be considered. The non- unionized professors' responses concurred. However. the ideological elements of professionalism were more prevalent in the nonunionized professors across departments when the professors identified additional evaluative criteria categories. Service to the department and university and community service were values exhibited to a greater extent by the nonunionized faculty. Service is an identified shared social value in professionalism. It is associated with the belief that the service the profession renders to society is for the good of the whole. and withdrawal of the service would cause harm (Harries-Jenkins. 1970). The nonunionized professors valued the concept of service to the academic profession as a function of committee participation and internal governance participation and a demonstration of professional responsibilities to the institution and community at large. Professional standards of conduct identified through the lit- erature as the ethics of professional behavior was more frequently used as an evaluative criterion by the nonunionized faculty. Additionally. the criterion commitment to the profession. a factor in the ideology of career orientation. was markedly more supported by the nonunionized faculty than by the unionized faculty. 141 MW .disoiolinos5_maintain_thoir_oun_identitu_in_ooth_a_uniooizod_and oonunionizodJmLiIonmont. Each faculty represented in the sample had an earned doctorate and a recognized specialization within the identified academic discipline. ‘The doctorate symbolized the completion of the process of socialization and education where the initial role responsibilities of an academician were learned and the academic traditions. values. and cultural norms were introduced. The findings of the study corroborate with Light's (1974) assertion that a university faculty "represents a cluster of academic professions each with certain identities and values related to it" (p. 258). The following generalizations were drawn from the study to illustrate the differences found between disciplines in terms of professional identities. values. and norms. In general. the study's results indicated that of the three departments. the chemistry departments. representative of applied sciences. were found to be the least supportive of academic unionism. the most concerned about the issues of adequate compensation and of grant funding. and the department that more closely identified with the departmental colleagues as a professional reference group. A summary of the responses of the members of the psychology departments. representative of the social sciences. indicates the most support for academic unionism. the least concerned by threats to the profession. and the departments that most closely identified with 142 specialists within their discipline as the professional reference group. The history departments. representative of the humanities discipline. demonstrated a slightly less favorable view toward faculty unionism. Concern was expressed over society's loss of respect for education and the perceived lowering of professional standards. And the history departments moreuclosely identified with colleagues in external professional associations. The results of the disciplines' responses to faculty unionism corroborate with previous studies that found social scientists the most supportive of collective bargaining. followed by humanists. with natural scientists being the least supportive. om . o o 3, 0|. . o . o. o .| . .03.” o 3. : a. o; | I. .asl g. 0| 0 :c o . a .1 . o 0 113.110: .0 . , .gc At its inception in 1915 the AAUP was concerned with the professional status of the professor. In the early years of the organization. the professoriate membership was intent on maintaining its role as a professional association rather than becoming a union organization. The association undertook to protect and expand the profession's knowledge base and enforce standards of learning. entry. and performance (Haug & Sussman. 1971). For example. membership in the association was limited to professors teaching at four-year and graduate institutions until 1967. when faculty from two-year 143 institutions were permitted to become members. In the late 19605 the association's position on collective bargaining began to change. but not without publicly expressed concern about the loss of professional- ism by some members. By 1971 the collective bargaining role of the AAUP was ratified in policy (Garbarino. 1975). A majority of interviewed faculty had at some point in their careers been a member of the AAUP. Of these memberships approximately 40 percent are no longer maintained. Reasons cited included inadequate support of professionaliém and the AAUP's collective bargaining stance. Additionally. the greatest number of AAUP members in the sample are found in the older age groups. ImpJJoations The analyzed interview information. correlated with the professional attributes derived from the sociological literature on professionalism. provided the investigator with the opportunity to draw general conclusions pertaining to the sampled population. Holding the study's findings. conclusions. and identified professional attributes. consideration must be given to overall implications of the study. The extensive socialization and educational process necessary for the attainment of the doctorate degree is symbolic of two factors in academic professionalisnn First. the doctorate symbolizes the mastery of the specialized body of knowledge in an academic discipline. Second. it symbolizes the completion of the process of socialization where identification with the academic professional role 144 responsibilities and the academic community values and norms are intro- duced. While the role responsibilities of teaching and research are explicitly taught and evaluated. the cultural values of the academic community are learned more implicitly through faculty role modeling. Thee responsibilities. identified in the study with professional cul- tural values. include service to the university and department. comnnr- nity service. professional standards of conduct. and commitment to the profession. The universities studied were both research-oriented graduate institutions with large populations of graduate students participating in the socialization and education process for the doctorate degree. Given the general conclusion of the study that the unionized faculty in collegial evaluations held a more narrow perception of the professor's valued role responsibilities. e.g.. teaching and research. the implica- tion is that the graduate students in the unionized institution's educational process may be learning more limited professional role concepts. Unless the professional values and cultural norms are main- tained through socialization. the implication is that the currently identified professional culture will have less opportunity to be per- petuated. Such implications suggest that the faculty needs to re-examine the scope of valued and rewarded role responsibilities. Collegiality is the internal social control and governance structure of the academic community of professionals. Academic freedom. as it applied to individual autonomy in teaching and research. was concluded to be well functioning in both institutions. However. it 145 was learned through interview comments and examination of the analyzed data that the opportunity to exercise collegial and administrative evaluation was not as strong at the unionized university as in the nonunionized university. Such a finding implies a weakness at the unionized institution in the use of the internal governance and social control mechanisms. ‘The interviewed WSU faculty who support faculty unionism indicated in their interview comments that the collegial structures. before the unionism vote in 1972. became dysfunctional. allowing administrative power to intrude into departmental affairs. Unionism appears to have become the substitute for collegial social control. Relinquishing the professional social control located in the collegial structures implies a breakdown of the boundaries that traditionally protect the professions from lay intrusion and control. Threaded throughout the interview responses of the departments of history and psychology was the notion of the loss of departmental direction. cohesion. and purpose. and the lack of understanding of expected and understood criteria for rewards. The number of comments and their patterns implies the need for these departments to reassess their departmental professional mission. expectations. and standards for rewards. internal communications patterns. and working relation- ships. A theme exhibited by the nonunionized faculty when asked to comment on perceived threats to the profession was the lack of confi- dence in administrators to lead the institution and communicate to the lay community. Such proliferation of statements implies a need for 146 the departmental and college administrators' role responsibilities to be examined and possibly more explicitly defined to include boundary- management responsibilities. Initiating broader external communica- tions responsibilities could be interpreted as more supportive to the departmental professors in terms of better protecting the department from administrative control and external lay intrusion. BeoomondationLtoLEutthoLBosoarob Given the results of the study and the derived conclusions. a number of recommendations for further research are proposed concerning the continued study of faculty professionalism. 1. While this study focused on sampled faculty in two univer- sities. one unionized and one nonunionized. to learn if differences existed in their perceptions of professionalism. the study was limited by both institutions being located in a state of high industrialization and high unionization. There is a need to replicate the study in a state environment where unions have not traditionally been strong. In a state such as Michigan. unionism in general is observed as the norm. a valued part of the economy and culture. Selecting a state where unionism is less prevalent. the faculty attitude toward unions and academic unionization in particular may be in contrast to those of a faculty in a highly unionized state. 2. The economic situation was listed as an important threat to the profession by faculty at both institutions. No salary and infla- tion factor data were collected for the study. but available studies could indicate trends toward unionization by faculty as their economic 147 conditions worsen. A study of faculty compensation at comparable unionized and nonunionized universities could explore the implications of the economic situation as it pertains to attracting and retaining quality faculty. Integral to the study would be a look at the union- ized faculty salaries before and after the vote to unionize. 3. Departmental collegiality as defined by the attributes of professionalism was found to have signs of erosion within the unionized institution. There is a need to focus on the perceptions and meaning of collegiality as it becomes manifest in present university environ- ments to discern if differences exist between the perceptions of union- ized and nonunionized professors and any effect on the profession of such perceptions. 4. The study focused on present perceptions of the professor as a professional in the areas of individual judgment. collegial maintenance. perceived threats to the profession. unionism. and profes- 5ional association identification. It is recommended that the study be replicated in five years with the same departments and institutions to examine possible changes in faculty perceptions over time. A question to explore would be whether professors have held to their present perceptions regardless of changes in their economic conditions. 5. The study indicated that unionized professors believe faculty unionism was appropriate. for it provided protection against administrative intrusion. ‘The nonunionized faculty found unionism inappropriate. for they perceived it tended to separate faculty from administration. Given the dichotomy of these perceptions. there is a 148 need to examine the position of the department chair in unionized and nonunionized institutions in order to explore new avenues for the chair's role as faculty/administration facilitator. 6. Compensation through a negotiated contract has an equalizing effect on faculty pay increments without attention to faculty productivity. Comments from WSU faculty refer to this as a negative facton. In the nonunionized university compensation is merit based. allowing financial recognition for productive professors. There is a need to examine whether or not the egalitarian nature of unionism has affected the unionized professors' contributions and commitment to the profession. Does the professor continue to contribute to the profession and to high academic standards without the possibility of being financially rewarded? APPENDICES ”19 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE QUESTIONNAIRE 150 5. 10. 11. INTERVIEW GUIDE QUESTIONNAIRE To what extent do you have the opportunity to exercise individual judgment. responsibility. and discretion regarding teaching? To what extent can you exercise individual judgment in the areas of research and publication? To what extent can you participate in decision making with respect to educational policies such as student admissions. teaching and research load. courses taught. and class size? How much opportunity do you have in determining the person to hold your department chair? a. How important is this determination to you? To what extent do you have the formal opportunity to evaluate peers in promotion. retention. tenure. and monetary rewards? a. How significant is faculty evaluation in these areas? To what extent do you have the opportunity to evaluate the chair of your department and your dean? What do you believe to be the most important criteria in granting tenure? a. Have you always held this belief? What criteria would you consider to be the most important in determining full professorial rank? Associate? Assistant? a. Have you always believed this? What do you perceive to be the greatest threat or hindrance to professorial status? a. How can this be countered? How do you feel about faculty collective bargaining? How do you generally feel about collective bargaining? ISI 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 152 Have you ever belonged to the AAUP? a. Are you a member now? b. How do you value the organization nationally (locally)? c. For what reason did you allow your membership to elapse? To how many professional associations do you belong? a. Have you attended national meetings within the last two years? b. Are there any conditions set by the department or university concerning the attendance or your partici- pation in these meetings? With which reference group do you have the most significant professional identification? For how many years have you held a faculty appointment at a university? How many years have you had a faculty appointment at Wayne State University/Michigan State University? How many years have you been in your present rank? What is your age? What is your rank? What is your department? APPENDIX B CODE BOOK 153 CODE BOOK GUIDE 1. To what extent do you have the opportunity to exercise individual judgment. responsibility. and discretion regarding teaching? Individual has opportunity to: a. b. c. d. e. determine course content determine teaching methodology award grades certify student course completion determine courses taught 2. To what extent can you exercise individual judgment in the areas of research and publication? Individual has authority to: a. b. determine research topics seek publication 3. To what extent can you participate in decision making with respect to educational policies such as student admissions. teaching and research load. courses taught. and class size? Individual can participate in decision making: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. select students determine class size determine teaching load determine courses taught determine research load determine level of students taught determine discipline's curriculum individual chooses not to participate 4. How much opportunity do you have in determining the person to hold your department chair? Individual has opportunity to: participate in determining department chair ISA 5. 6. 7/8. 155 How important is this determination to you? a. low b. medium c. high To what extent do you have the formal opportunity to evaluate peers in promotion. retention. tenure. and monetary rewards? Individual has opportunity to: a. evaluate instructors for promotion b. evaluate assistant professors for promotion c. evaluate associate professors for promotion d. evaluate nontenured for tenure e. evaluate for merit recommendation How significant is faculty evaluation in these areas? a. low b. medium c. high To what extent do you have the formal opportunity to evaluate the chair of your department and your dean? Individual has opportunity to: a. evaluate chair b. evaluate dean What do you believe the most important criteria in granting tenure. determining full professorial rank. associate and assistant? Tenure: a. quality of teaching b. quality of research c. service to department and university d. service to community e. attainment of doctorate f. professional standards of conduct 9. lifetime career orientation h. commitment to profession 1. other Rank: J. k. 1. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. u. 156 quality of teaching quality of research service to department and university service to community attainment of doctorate professional standards of conduct lifetime career orientation commitment to profession other tenure more important than rank rank more important than tenure no discrepancy between tenure and rank Have you always believed this? V. yes/no 9. What do you perceive to be the greatest threat or hindrance to professional status? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. J. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. loss of professional standards academic unionism growth of administration egalitarianism within department egalitarianism among disciplines/departments egalitarianism in compensation vs. meritocracy declining enrollments society's loss of respect for education specialization in discipline lack of status for liberal arts/humanities economic situation loss/lack of academic freedom loss/lack of openness and sharing of knowledge loss/lack of grant funding loss/lack of economic rewards administration's control over departments mediocrity other l0. How do a. b. aa. bb. CC. dd. 69. ff. 99- rm. 11. JJ- kk. 11. mm. nn. 00. pp- qq- PF. 11. How do a. b. c. 157 you feel about faculty collective bargaining? unionism is appropriate provides democratic process for decision making provides greater monetary rewards protects academic freedom protects professionalism protects against intrusion from administration provides mechanism for communication supports egalitarianism in compensation lessens faculty conflict supports individualism represents all disciplines represents all faculty interest produces cooperation among faculty maintains environment of openness and sharing supports individual prerogatives in teaching supports status egalitarianism helps eliminate discrimination other unionism is inappropriate reduces democratic process for decision making does not provide greater monetary rewards infringes on academic freedom detrimental to professionalism tends to separate faculty from administration impedes significant communication loss of meritocracy in compensation produces faculty conflict limits individualism can not represent all disciplines can not represent all faculty interest limits cooperation among faculty limits environment of openness and sharing limits individual prerogatives in teaching status egalitarianism inappropriate maintains existing discrimination other you generally feel about collective bargaining? favor generally favor for blue-collar workers do not know 12. 13. 158 Have you ever belonged to the AAUP? yes/no Are you a member now? D. How do c. d. e. f. 9. How do u—JX’C—h—h: o o yes/no you value the organization nationally? do not know/no interest value for professional association value for collective bargaining agent value as supportive of academic profession other you value the organization locally? do not know/no interest value for professional association value as collective bargaining agent value as supportive of academic profession other For what reason did you allow your membership to lapse? m. n. 0. To how lack of interest in organization status change to collective bargaining agent nonsupport of professionalism many professional associations do you belong? (number) Have you attended national meetings within the last two years? b. yes/no Are there any conditions set by the department or university concerning the attendance or your participation in these meetings? c. d. e. yes/no conditions set financial support available to attend meetings financial support available to present papers 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 159 With which reference group do you have the most significant professional identification? a. none b. academic profession in general c. colleagues in department d. colleagues in specialization e. professionals outside academic f. colleagues in professional associations 9. colleagues across department within college h. colleagues across departments within university 1. none professionally related For how many years have you held a faculty appointment at a university? a. (number) How many years have you had a faculty appointment at MSU/WSU? a. (number) How many years have you been in your present rank? a. (number) What is your age? a. (number) What is your rank? a. assistant professor b. associate professor c. full professor What is your department? a. history b. psychology c. chemistry BIBLIOGRAPHY 160 BIBLIOGRAPHY Andes. J. o. Dexelopjnglnendsinfiontentoiflollestmmmlns .QQnthnts.1n.fl19h§£.Edu§at12n. Washington. D.C.: Academic Collective Bargaining Information Service. l974. Babbie. Earl R. .Suzxay Research Methods. Belmont. Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.. l973. Gain. George 5.; Coates. David; and Ellis. Valeris. .figgial.fitnat1£1: nation.and.Inade.Un19n1§m. London: Heinemann Educational Books. 1973. Baldridge. J. Victor; Curtis. David V.; Ecker. George P.; and Riley. Gary K. "The Impact of Institutional Size and Complexity on Faculty Autonomy." Journal of Higher Education 44 (October 1973): 532-47. Baldridge. J. Victor et al. "Diversity in Higher Education." .lmmal of Higher: Education 48 (July/August 1977): 367-88. Baratz. Morton 8. "Shared Authority and Collective Bargaining." .Educational.Bacond 59 (Summer l978): l93-203. Barber. Bernard. "Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions." Ih§.E£n£essinns in America. Edited by Kenneth S. Lynn. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co.. 1965. Becker. Howard S.. and Gear. Blanche. "The Fate of Idealism in Medical School." .Amatlsan.5991919919nl.8e11au 23 (1958): 50-56. Berel son. Bernard. Content Analxsis in Win match. Glencoe. 111.: Free Press. 1952. Best. John W. .Basganch in Education. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs. lLJ.: Prentice-Hall. l970. Cited in Ary. Donald; Jacobs. Lucy C.; and Razavieh. Asghaw. Introduction to Base:ngh.1n .Ednsitlnn. p. 26. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. 1979. Birnbaum. R. "Unionization and Faculty Compensation." .Edugational .Becotd 55 (Winter l974): 29-33. 161 162 Borg. Walter. and Gall. Meredith. Educational Baseangn. New York: David McKay Co.. l97l. Boyd. William B. "Collective Bargaining in Academe: Causes and Consequences." Liberal Education 57 (October l97l): 306-l8. Bucher. Rue. and Strauss. Anselm. "Professions in Process." ‘Amenigan lounnal.nt.§oclologx 66 (January l96l): 325-34. Caplow. Theodore. .59912199¥.QI Wonk. Minnesota. l954. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. .ngennange,9f.fl19hen.£duga: tion. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.. l973. Carr-Saunders. Alexander. and Wilson. P. A. .Ine.Eng£§551gns. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1933. Cheek. Neil H.. Jr. "The Social Role of the Professional." ‘Ihg .Enntassignal 1n the Qnganlzation. Edited by Mark Abrahamson. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.. l967. Clark. Burton R. "Organizational Adaptation to Professionals." .Engiassignalizatign. Edited by Howard M. Vollmer and Donald L. Mills. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. l966. Cogan. Morris L. ”Toward a Definition of Profession." ‘Enngntignal .Bexiaw 23 (January 1953): 33-50. Davey. Harold W. .Contamponany Collective Bargaining. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Inc.. 1972. Dressel. Paul D.: Johnson. Craig F.; and Marcus. Philip M. {Ihe .anfiden s 921515. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. l97l. Estey. Martin. Ihg Unions. New York: Harcourt. Brace and Jovanovich. l976. Flexner. Abraham. "Is Social Work a Profession?" .Enggegfi1nga. WWQIWMW. Cited by Becker. Howard. "The Nature of the Profession." .Edugatign .Igz.the.Enn£assion§. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. l962. Garbarino. Joseph W. .Eanulty Bargaining. New York: McGraw-Hill 800k COO, 1975. . and Lawler. John. "Faculty Union Activity in Higher Education." Industt1a1.8elatlons 17 (February 1978): ll7-18. 163 Goldner. Fred H.. and Ritti. R. P. "Professionalization as Career Imobiiity." American lounnal of Sociolccx 72 (1957): Goode. William J. "Community Within a Community: The Professions." Amenican Sociological Bexiow 22 (April 1957): 194-200. . "Encroachment. Charlatanism. and the Emerging Profession: Psychology. Sociology. and Medicine." .Amenigan Sociological .Bfixlfix 25 (December 1950): 902-15. Greenwood. Ernest. "Attributes of a Profession." Cited by Nosow. Sigmund. and Form. William H. .Mani.flotk.and.5ocietx. New York: Basic Books. Inc.. 1962. Gross. Edward. .HQLk.anfi.§ccietx. New York: Thomas Crowell Co.. 1958. Harries-Jenkins. G. "Professionals in Organizations." .Engfessigns ‘ann.Enofessionalization. Edited by J. A. Jackson. Cambridge: University Press. 1970. Haug. Marie R.. and Sussman. Marvin B. "Professionalization and Unionism." American Benayional Scientist 14 (April/May 1971): 525-40. Helfant. David B. "Ivory Tower Unionism: A Study of Unionist Profes- sionals in the American High Quality University.” Ph.D. disser- tation. University of Chicago. 1977. Herman. E. Edward. and Skinner. Gordon S. "A Survey of Faculty Attitudes Toward Collective Bargaining." Industrial Relations Research Association. Emceeninos of the W Winter 14mg (Dallas. 1975): 266-77. Hughes. Everett C. Cited in Blau. Peter M. .Ihe Qnganization of .Acadgmic.flgnk. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1973. Kadish. Sanford H. "Faculty Collective Bargaining." ‘Enoceedings.oi ‘a.Qon£eLence. New England Board of Higher Education (Boston. 1973): 7-15. Kemerer, Frank R", and Baldridge. J. Victor. .Unions on Campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Inc.. 1975. Kerlinger. Fred N. Eounoations of Behavional Reseanon. New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. Inc.. 1965. Kirkpatrick. J. E. Academicflmanizationandfiontnol. Yellow Springs. Ohio: The Antioch Press. 1931. 164 Kornhauser. A. Cited by Vollmer. Howard M.. and Mills. Donald L.. eds. .Ezoiessionalization. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice- H311: 1%60 Ladd. Everett. Jr.. and Lipset. Seymour M. .Ihe Divided Academy. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.. 1975. . "How Faculty Unions Rate With Professors." .Ihe.ChLonicle DI Highe£.Education 9 (February 1976): 12. _. Emiessonsiumsandnmenicanflinnenfiducation. Berkeley. Calif.: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. 1973. _. EmiessoLannionszannAmezicanflinnerfiducation. Washington. 0.0.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Domestic Affairs Study 16. 1973. Lazarsfeld. Paul. and Thielens. Wagner. .Ihe Academic Mind. Glencoe. Ill.: The Free Press. 1958. Light. Donald. Jr. "Thinking About Faculty." .Daedalus 103 (Fall 1974): 258-64. Lipset. Seymour M. "Academics and Collective Bargaining." .Enoceed: ings of the.EouLth Annual Conienence. National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education (April 1976): 21-270 McHugh. William F. "Collective Bargaining With Professionals in Higher Education." 'Wisconsin.Lax.Bex1ew l (1971): 55-90. Metzger. Walter P. "The American Academic Profession in Hard Times." ‘Daedalus 104 (Winter 1975): 25-44. . "Origins of the Association: An Anniversary Address." Amenican Assooiation of Unixensitx Enotessons Bulletin 51 (June 1965): 229-37. Millerson. G. ‘Ihe.Qualifying.Associations. London: 1964. N19. Norman H. et al. StatisticalfiackageiocthefiocialSciences. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.. 1975. Nosow. Sigmund. and Form. William H.. eds. .Man..Wotk.and.Society. New York: Basic Books. Inc.. 1962. Parsons. Talcott. "A Sociologist Looks at the Legal Professions." .Essaxs.in.§ocio1onical.Ineonx. New York: 1964. 165 . and Platt. Gerald M. "Considerations on the American Academic System." .Minenva 6 (1968): 497-523. Phillips. John L.. Jr. ‘Statistical.lh1nking. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.. 1982. Plutchik. Robert. .Eounoations of Experimental Beseangh. New York: Harper and Row. 1968. Scott. N. Richard. "Professionals in Bureaucracies--Areas of Con- flict." .Enofessignalization. Edited by Howard Vollmer and Donald L. Mills. Englewood Cliffs. N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1966. Trow. Martin et al. Iechnioal Beoooti .Qacnenie Comissinn on .flishcr Education. Berkeley. Calif.: Carnegie Commission. 1972. Wilensky. Harold L. "The Professionalization of Everyone?" ‘Amenigan Jon:nal.o£.§ocio1ogy 70 (September 1964): 137-58. Wilson. Logan. .Amenican Academics. Ihen and Now. New York: Oxford University Press. 1979. . .Ihe Academic Man. New York: Oxford University Press. 1942. Wright. Ouincy. Cited by Lewis. Lionel S.. and Ryan. Michael N. "The American Professoriate and the Movement Toward Unionization." Edited by Philip Altbach. Comoanatixe W on the .Academic.ELo£ession. New York: Praeger Publisher. 1977.