Content uploaded by Ann Burnett
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ann Burnett on Mar 05, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 18(1), 1–19 (2012)
ISSN 1072-8325/12/$35.00 Copyright © 2012 by Begell House, Inc. 1
EXAMINING THE COMPLEXITIES OF
FACULTY ATTRITION: AN ANALYSIS OF
STEM AND NON-STEM FACULTY WHO
REMAIN AND FACULTY WHO LEAVE
THE INSTITUTION
Ann Burne,1,* Canan Bilen-Green,2 Christi R. McGeorge,3 &
Cali L. Anicha4
1
Director of Women and Gender Studies Program, North Dakota State Univer-
sity, Fargo, North Dakota 58108, USA
2
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, North Dakota State
University, Fargo, North Dakota 58108, USA
3
Department of Human Development and Family Science, North Dakota State
University, Fargo, North Dakota 58108, USA
4
Graduate student, Institutional Research, North Dakota State University, Fargo,
North Dakota 58108, USAl
*Addressallcorrespondenceto:AnnBurne,E-mail:ann.burne@ndsu.edu
University personnel have long wrestled with the question of why faculty leave the institution. In
particular, scholars have drawn aention to the dearth of university women faculty in Science, Tech-
nology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) disciplines. Using a quantitative method and supplementing
it with qualitative data, this study advances understanding of retention by studying arition at an
upper-Midwest land grant institution, examining dierences between faculty who remained at the
institution and faculty who le. We further compared these results by gender and STEM and non-
STEM status. Results revealed that, not surprisingly, resigned faculty were less satised in the areas
of Climate, Culture, and Collegiality; Policies and Procedures; and Global Satisfaction than were cur-
rent faculty; resigned faculty did not dier by gender nor by non-STEM or STEM status. Current
women faculty were less satised than current men faculty, and current non-STEM faculty were less
satised than current STEM faculty. In the area of Policies and Procedures, an interaction eect was
found for gender and STEM/non-STEM status; non-STEM women reported the lowest satisfaction
and STEM women reported the highest. Implications of these results and recommendations for future
investigation are oered.
KEY WORDS: faculty arition, faculty retention, workplace climate, STEM women
faculty, non-STEM faculty
1. INTRODUCTION
Recently the Council of Graduate Schools reported that the overall percentage of women who
earned doctorate degrees outpaced that of men in 2008–2009 (Jaschik, 2010). Although women
made sizable gains in engineering, science, and math, they still lag behind their male counter-
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Burnett et al.
2
parts, with only 22% and 27% of engineering and mathematics doctorates, respectively, awarded
to women (Jaschik, 2010). In fact, much attention has been drawn to the lack of women faculty
in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) (e.g., Committee on Maximizing, 2007 ;
Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Hess, 1997; MIT, 1999; Nelson and Rogers, 2004; Rossiter, 1982, 1995;
Summers, 2005). This low representation of women is costly to society as the needed work-
force is not being educated, and the needed diversity of intellectual thought is absent within the
available homogeneous group of workers (Maher and Thompson Tetreault, 2007). To attempt to
address this problem, the National Science Foundation established the ADVANCE program in
2001, which has awarded substantial funding to select institutions to address issues of recruit-
ment, retention, and advancement with regard to women STEM faculty in higher education (Na-
tional Science Foundation, 2009).
With the prospect of more female faculty entering STEM ranks, one of the other chal-
lenges is in retaining women faculty members. In fact, women faculty in STEM disciplines
face barriers such as implicit bias that can lead to subjective evaluation, or even worse, covert
discrimination (Committee on Maximizing, 2007). These challenges create a “chilly climate”
for both women and men which can lead faculty to choose to leave higher education. Although
scholars have investigated reasons for faculty attrition, few studies have focused on women in
STEM elds, using both qualitative and quantitative data. Further, few studies have attempted
to assess a university’s climate by comparing perceptions of the institution with faculty who
have left and faculty who remain at the institution. Thus, the purpose of this investigation is to
further explore issues of faculty attrition, focusing on STEM women. An examination of this
topic is important because it can provide more detailed information about how the climate at a
particular institution can inuence faculty to seek another position. This study, then, also may
be helpful in devising programs for creating more positive climates, not only for women STEM
faculty, but all faculty.
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The issue of determining why faculty leave has become increasingly important because replac-
ing faculty is costly, both literally and guratively. In an era of tight budgets and decreasing
state support for higher education (State Higher Education Executive Ofcers, 2010), it is
costly to undertake a search, beginning with the recruitment efforts, to the interview process,
to start-up costs, to lost research grant support. Indirectly, departmental members lose teaching
and research time while engaging in the search process; research programs and course offer-
ings are disrupted; student mentoring may be discontinued; morale decreases among those
who remain; and investment in new faculty who leave within a few years is wasteful (Daly
and Dee, 2006; Xu, 2008a). Perhaps more importantly, institutions must retain women faculty
in order to remain competitive (Williams and Norton, 2008), and especially when women fac-
ulty in STEM leave the institution, the indirect costs, while more difcult to measure, may be
signicant. These indirect costs may include fewer women faculty to attract female students,
especially in under-represented elds (Williams and Norton, 2008), loss of competitive edge
relative to other universities that are able to recruit and retain women faculty (Goulden et al.,
2009), loss of diversity in intellectual thought brought to research and the classroom (Commit-
tee on Maximizing, 2007), and reduced ability to provide the educational workforce needed in
the global society (Goulden et al., 2009).
Volume 18, Issue 1, 2012
Examining the Complexities of Faculty Attrition 3
Unfortunately, determining exactly why faculty members leave an institution is difcult
(Weiler, 1985; Xu, 2008a). Multiple factors may be involved, both individual (e.g., a desire to
move near family), or structural (e.g., low salary, ineffective mentoring, poor department cli-
mate); these factors are described in the following paragraphs in studies that examine retention
of both male and female faculty. In order to better explain why faculty leave, Matier (1990)
developed an internal push/external pull model, in which he described the process of leaving an
institution as one in which faculty have reasons that push them out (e.g., lack of support, lack
of autonomy) and/or externally pull them into another institution (e.g., reputation of the institu-
tion, salary offer). Matier (1990) hypothesized that individuals may remain at an institution if
the internal push or external pull are not strong enough in either direction. Spivey et al. (2009)
concurred, arguing that factors that contribute to job satisfaction and factors that contribute to job
dissatisfaction do not mirror one another, though they are not direct opposites either.
One way of investigating the internal push/external pull phenomenon has been to examine
intent to leave an institution (Johnsrud and Rosser, 2002; Rosser, 2004; Xu, 2008a). Such efforts
have merit, because recollections of already-departed faculty might be incomplete or inaccurate
and thus may not gauge actual reasons for departure. Instead, intention to leave is “an immedi-
ate precursor to actual turnover behavior” (Daly and Dee, 2006, p. 778). Xu (2008a) argued that
perception of the work environment, or job satisfaction, is key to determining why faculty leave.
Johnsrud and Rosser (2002; Rosser, 2004; see also Smart, 1990) support Xu’s (2008a) position,
nding that professional priorities of teaching and research, relationships with administration,
and the quality of benets and services all contribute to faculty morale. When morale is high, fac-
ulty are engaged, have regard for their institution, and maintain a sense of well-being; they are,
therefore, less likely to intend to leave. Echoing these studies, Piercy and colleagues found that
high morale, sense of community, mentoring opportunities, sense of autonomy, intellectual chal-
lenge, clear and pervasive institutional support, opportunity to make a good living, broad deni-
tion of scholarship, and leadership opportunities all contribute to retention (Piercy et al., 2005).
Additional studies, mostly quantitative in nature, discuss factors that seem to make a differ-
ence to faculty who choose to leave their institution, especially with regard to job satisfaction.
Dee (2004), for example, contended that structural factors at the community college level, such
as allowing for faculty autonomy, providing adequate support for innovation, and supporting
collegial communication networks are related to low faculty turnover intention. Dee (2004) ar-
gued that organizations, such as universities and colleges, have control over structural factors
and should be able to create climates that provide incentives to remain at the institution, thereby
minimizing an internal push. In a similar study of urban public universities, Daly and Dee (2006)
found that autonomy, communication, and distributive justice (i.e., perceived fairness of pay and
other awards) impact job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Smart (1990) concurred,
claiming that faculty are more likely to leave institutions that have autocratic governance or have
experienced decline (i.e., nancial or enrollment).
Women faculty can face additional challenges that create incentives for leaving the institu-
tion. For example, in studies related more specically to attrition and gender, men tend to spend
more time on research and less time on teaching than do women (Bellas and Toutkoushian,
1999); in fact, to receive strong student ratings, female instructors must be more nurturing than
their male counterparts, which takes more time (Laube et al., 2007; Sprague and Massoni, 2005).
Further, in the medical school venue, Cropsey and colleagues (2008) submitted that attrition can
be avoided, especially if women faculty are supported in advancing to leadership positions, and
are not isolated and/or required to disproportionately serve as mentors. Additionally, if women
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Burnett et al.
4
faculty face an overwhelming workload, are unfamiliar with the university culture and do not
receive appropriate mentoring, do not feel they receive fair treatment, or do not feel that their
work or research is valid, they will be more likely to leave (Starnes-Ott and Kremer, 2007). For
some women and minority faculty, their positive expectations about workload, connections with
colleagues, and level of institutional support may not “t” what actually occurs in the institution;
reality may be more discouraging, creating low job satisfaction (Olsen et al., 1995). These stud-
ies highlight the importance of institutions of higher education to recognize that structures are
under their control that can positively inuence climate, especially for women faculty.
A few studies have revealed some reasons faculty do not leave the institution (i.e., internal
push). In her study of eight discipline clusters, Xu (2008a) found that family responsibility did
not affect turnover intention of either male or female faculty. In addition, although faculty highly
value an institution’s library, it is not a reason faculty leave an institution (Cluff and Murrah,
1987). Thus, while it appears that intent to leave revolves around a number of structural factors
that institutions can affect, a study revealed that 39% of productive and noteworthy faculty at one
institution did not feel supported and were considering leaving (Ambrose et al., 2005).
Additional research into faculty retention is warranted for several reasons. First, whereas
most of the studies of faculty retention and intention to leave cross different types of higher edu-
cation institutions and a variety of disciplines, scholars contend that institution-specic research
is important because institutional climate issues vary (Ambrose et al., 2005, Xu, 2008a, b). Addi-
tionally, women appear to have stronger turnover intentions (Xu, 2008b); therefore, it is important
to discover if and why gender differences might exist, particularly because such differences may
differ across and within institutions. In particular, women faculty in STEM disciplines may face
challenges regarding research and grant support, or, as in the case of women engineers, they may
be dissatised with receiving lower salaries than their male counterparts (Frehill et al., 2006).
There are methodological reasons for pursuing this line of research as well. Most of the ex-
isting literature is quantitative in nature, and while those data are compelling, it also is important
to supplement the numerical results with qualitative data that might provide greater insight into
the question of why faculty leave. This study examines faculty retention by comparing women
and men faculty, as well as STEM and non-STEM faculty, using quantitative and qualitative data.
To discover potential relationships in job satisfaction between faculty who left and faculty who
remain at the institution, we advance the following research questions:
RQ 1: Do faculty who remain at an institution have differing perceptions of job satisfaction
from faculty who left?
RQ 2: Do women and men faculty report different perceptions of job satisfaction and reasons
for staying/leaving?
A. Do men faculty who are currently at the institution have differing perceptions from
women faculty who are currently at the institution?
B. Do men faculty who left the institution have differing perceptions from women who
left the institution?
C. Do men faculty who are currently at the institution have differing perceptions from
men faculty who left the institution?
D. Do women faculty who are currently at the institution have differing perceptions from
women faculty who left the institution?
RQ 3: Do STEM and non-STEM faculty report different perceptions of job satisfaction and
reasons for staying/leaving?
Volume 18, Issue 1, 2012
Examining the Complexities of Faculty Attrition 5
A. Do STEM faculty who are currently at the institution have differing perceptions from
non-STEM faculty who are currently at the institution?
B. Do STEM faculty who left the institution have differing perceptions from non-STEM
faculty who left the institution?
C. Do STEM faculty who are currently at the institution have differing perceptions from
STEM faculty who left the institution?
D. Do non-STEM faculty who left the institution have differing perceptions from non-
STEM faculty who left the institution?
RQ4: Is there a gender difference between STEM and non-STEM faculty when both resigned
and current faculty are considered simultaneously?
If resigned faculty recollections are viewed as reecting internal push factors, and if current
faculty have similar perceptions (i.e., intent to leave), then those areas of dissatisfaction are what
institutions need to attend to, especially with regard to women STEM faculty.
3. METHOD
3.1 Participants
Participants were selected from a large upper-Midwestern public university that was recently
awarded as one of 108 schools in the Carnegie Research University category, with approximately
12,000 undergraduate and 1,800 graduate students. STEM faculty at this institution reside in
elds such as biology, chemistry, computer science, engineering, agriculture, mathematics, and
social sciences; non-STEM faculty reside in elds such as business, education, humanities, fam-
ily science, and liberal arts such as music.
Current faculty at this university (n= 449) were asked via a faculty listserv to participate in
an online survey regarding job satisfaction. Of the 449 possible respondents, 215 faculty com-
pleted the survey—a 48% response rate (93 females, 87%; 120 males, 35%; 1% did not identify
sex; see Table 1 for overall composition of sample). Ninety identied as assistant professors,
sixty-four as associate professors, sixty as full professors, and one did not identify. Time at rank
ranged from less than one year (n=32) to more than six years (n=61), with the remainder of the
participants falling into the 1–6-year time span. Faculty reported either being in STEM (n=116,
54%) or non-STEM colleges (n=95, 44%; 2% did not report academic area). Most of the partici-
pants were married with children (n= 134), with eighteen participants reporting being single and
never married. Others were married without children (n=31), were cohabitating (n=4), were sep-
arated, divorced, or widowed (n=21), or had another living arrangement (n=4). Participants were
not asked about teaching loads, but in general, STEM faculty teach two classes one semester,
followed by one course the following semester, and non-STEM faculty carry a 3/2 teaching load.
Faculty who had left the university in the past two years also were contacted by e-mail to
complete the same online survey (past-tense version). Of the 132 possible respondents in this
category, we were able to make contact with 78 former faculty, and 46 participants completed the
survey (59% response rate; 29 males, 63%; 17 females, 37%; see Table 1 for overall composition
of the sample). Twenty-seven had been assistant professors when they left the institution, fteen
had been associate professors, and four had been full professors. Time at rank before leaving the
institution ranged from less than one year (n=3) to more than six years (n=5), with the remainder
of the participants falling in the 1–6-year time span. Over half the faculty who left the institu-
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Burnett et al.
6
tion reported being in STEM disciplines, 43% reporting being in non-STEM disciplines (n=20).
Almost half the participants who had left the institution were married with children (n=20),
with twelve participants reporting being single and never married. Nine participants were mar-
ried without children, two were co-habitating, and two were separated, divorced, or widowed.
Although the survey did not ask about employment status at the time of the survey, based on the
contact information we gathered, approximately two-thirds of them had found positions at other
institutions, and the others were in positions outside academia or were seeking employment.
3.2 Instruments
The authors obtained written permission from the Collaborative On Academic Careers In Higher
Education (COACHE) to adapt their faculty job satisfaction survey for the purposes of this study.
The 83-item COACHE survey is a highly respected, reliable, and validated survey in wide use in
research on academic workplace satisfaction that examines ve broad factors: Tenure and Pro-
motion; Nature of Work; Climate, Culture, and Collegiality; Policies and Procedures; and Global
Satisfaction. Adaptations included the use of fewer items, editing of items to reect institution-
specic questions, as well as the use of past tense for resigned faculty. For this study, we used
29 items from the survey, which participants answered using the same ve-point Likert-type
response format as in the COACHE instrument: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = In
Between, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree. Participants also answered ve demographic ques-
tions at the beginning of the survey. Cronbach’s alphas for each factor/subscale are reported for
Resigned and Current faculty, respectively. The three questions comprising the Tenure and Pro-
motion factor (α = 0.81; α =0.79) focused on clarity of the process and evaluation criteria (e.g.,
“The tenure process is/was clear.”). The eight items for the Nature of Work factor (α = 0.68; α
= 0.68) dealt with issues in the workplace (e.g., satisfaction with course load, library services,
computer services, time to conduct research). Another eight items addressed Climate, Culture,
TABLE 1: Percentage of female/male faculty and STEM/non-STEM faculty survey participants
2007 Current faculty Survey response rate
STEM: 282 Women: 107 STEM: 116 0.41 Women: 93 0.87
Non-STEM: 167 Men: 342 Non-
STEM: 95 0.57 Men: 120 0.35
No
response 4No
response 2
2007 Resigned faculty Survey response rate
STEM: 66 Women: 37 STEM: 20 0.30 Women: 17 0.46
Non-STEM: 66 Men: 95 Non-
STEM: 26 0.39 Men: 29 0.31
Volume 18, Issue 1, 2012
Examining the Complexities of Faculty Attrition 7
and Collegiality (α = 0.72; α = 0.81) focused on the positive or negative atmosphere of the uni-
versity (e.g., “Communication between me and my chair is/was effective.”). The seven items in
the Policies and Procedures factor (α = 0.68; α = 0.76) were devoted to practices established at
the university (e.g., “The informal mentoring is/was effective.”). Finally, the Global Satisfaction
factor (α = 0.62; α = 0.58) contained three items that tapped broad perceptions of satisfaction
with the university and community (e.g., “My department is/was a good place to work.”). At the
conclusion of the survey, participants were offered the opportunity to provide additional written
comments; seventeen faculty who resigned made comments, and there was one comment from a
current faculty member. These comments comprise the qualitative portion of this analysis.
4. DATA ANALYSIS
The analyses utilized in the present study (independent samples t-tests, equal variances assumed)
are modeled on those used by COACHE (The Collaborative on Academic Careers, 2010). Data
were examined in order to conrm the suitability of parametric analyses and to determine reli-
ability of the current factors. Visual inspection of histograms for individual survey items indicated
unimodal distributions that in most cases approximated a normal distribution, though with slight
positive or negative skew. Further, nonparametric analyses conducted comparing current women
and men faculty on individual survey items revealed p values that were highly similar and in every
case were identical in terms of statistical signicance, p < 0.05. As noted above, moderate to high
Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities (0.58–0.81 range) were obtained for each of the subscales.
Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare ratings on each of the ve factors
comprising the survey for this study in the following nine conditions: (1) current faculty and fac-
ulty who had resigned; (2) current women and men faculty; (3) resigned women and men faculty;
(4) current men faculty and resigned men faculty; (5) current women faculty and resigned women
faculty; (6) current STEM and current non-STEM faculty; (7) resigned STEM and resigned non-
STEM faculty; (8) current non-STEM and resigned non-STEM faculty; (9) current STEM and
resigned STEM faculty. Signicant results are reported within the text (t statistics); means with
signicance levels are reported in Tables 2 and 3. Because these ve factors represent subscales
that vary in number of items included, the mean scores are not directly comparable. To make
these scores more interpretable, each factor mean score is transformed to reect the original re-
sponse format and is presented in brackets next to the subscale mean score.
Research question 4 asked if there was an interaction between gender and STEM/non-
STEM status. An analysis of covariance (resigned status as covariate) was conducted on each
of the ve subscales as well as on an Overall Index measure computed for each participant (an
average of satisfaction ratings across all survey items). Prior to analysis, assumptions of ho-
mogeneity of regression slopes/noninteraction and homogeneity of variance were conrmed.
The written comments at the end of the survey, predominantly provided by resigned faculty,
were analyzed by thought units, “the smallest unit of verbal interaction communicating a com-
plete thought” (Cline and Cline, 1980, p. 30). The eighteen individuals who provided comments
produced 35 thought units in total. Using Pettus’ (1990) data coding method, the comments were
coded by creating categories for each theme. A new category was created if the comment did not
t previously created categories for each theme. This process resulted in fteen subcategories.
Then, to provide a more meaningful explanation of the data, these subcategories were placed into
three of the ve factors that comprise the quantitative portion of this study; there were no com-
ments that aligned with the Tenure and Promotion or Nature of Work categories.
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Burnett et al.
8
TABLE 2: Means and signicance values for current and resigned faculty and current faculty
by gender
Factor Current
faculty
Resigned
faculty
p
value
Current
faculty men
Current
faculty
women
p
value
Tenure 11.12 [3.71] 10.69 [3.56] 0.43 11.37 [3.79] 10.76 [3.59] 0.10
Nature of
Work 26.70 [3.34] 27.774
[3.47] 0.31 27.54 [3.44] 25.51 [3.19] 0.01
Climate,
Culture,
Collegiality
28.40 [3.55] 24.78 [3.10] 0.00 29.52 [3.68] 27.11 [3.39] 0.02
Policies
and
Procedure
22.55 [3.22] 18.42 [2.63] 0.00 22.95 [3.29] 21.92 [3.13] 0.24
Global 12.22 [4.07] 9.98 [3.27] 0.00 12.32 [4.11] 12.03 [4.01] 0.39
Note: Data are reported rst as means for each factor/subscale. Because the ve factors vary in number of
survey items included, those scores are not directly comparable; thus, each factor mean score is converted
back into the original Likert-type response value and is presented in brackets [1-5] for ease of interpreta-
tion. Scores that were statistically signicant at < 0.05 are in bold.
TABLE 3: Current STEM and non-STEM and resigned STEM faculty
Factor Current
STEM
Current
non-STEM
p
value
Resigned
STEM
p
value
Tenure 11.02[3.67] 11.16[3.72] 0.69 10.63[3.54] 0.622
Nature of Work 27.59[3.45] 25.21[3.15] 0.00 28.36[3.54] 0.636
Climate, Culture,
Collegiality 29.78[3.72]] 26.41[3.30] 0.00 25.00[3.13] 0.01
Policies and Procedure 23.31[3.33] 21.39[3.06] 0.03 16.88[2.41] 0.00
Global 12.55[4.18] 11.79[3.93] 0.02 9.74[3.25] 0.00
Note: Data are reported rst as means for each factor/subscale. Because the ve factors vary in number of
survey items included, those scores are not directly comparable; thus, each factor mean score is converted
back into the original Likert-type response value and is presented in brackets [1-5] for ease of interpreta-
tion. Scores that were statistically signicant at < 0.05 are in bold.
Volume 18, Issue 1, 2012
Examining the Complexities of Faculty Attrition 9
5. RESULTS
5.1 Comparisons of Resigned and Current Faculty
Research question 1 asked: Do faculty who remain at the institution have differing per-
ceptions of job satisfaction from faculty who left? Data suggest that, not surprisingly, they do
(see Tables 2 and 3 for selected means). Statistically signicant differences were seen in the
Climate, Culture, and Collegiality (CCC) ratings for current faculty and resigned faculty condi-
tions, t(185)= 3.19, p = 0.003. The qualitative data bore this out as well; interestingly, all of these
qualitative comments came from faculty who had left. For example, in the Deans and Climate
subcategory, a male non-STEM respondent wrote, “My dean lied to me,” and another male non-
STEM faculty member comment in the College and Climate subcategory concerned frustra-
tion with “the lack of support from [my] college.” In the Department and Climate subcategory,
another male non-STEM participant remarked that there was no departmental support for his
teaching, even though most of the undergraduates in the department took his classes. Comments
specic to the Overall Climate subcategory included one non-STEM female who reported feel-
ing “unhappy and isolated,” a male non-STEM participant who lamented the “good old boys
club that thrives at [the university], and yet another non-STEM female who mentioned “closed
mindedness and covert prejudice.” A STEM female noted “no support for university partners;
not fair on the promotion issue.” Perhaps one of the most powerful statements echoed the “good
old boys” sentiment, arguing, “The problem with [the university] is it is very clannish and very
paternalistic,” adding that if one disagrees with any policy, “it’s over for you” (non-STEM male).
Two comments were positive in terms of CCC: “I loved my colleagues” (male non-STEM), and
“I was most impressed with the Dean of my school” (female non-STEM).
There were also statistically signicant differences in the Policies and Procedures (PP) rat-
ings for current and resigned faculty conditions, t(170)=3.28, p = 0.002, which were articulated
in the qualitative results. Several individuals (three female, two non-STEM; two males, one non-
STEM) in the Low Salary subcategory reported being unhappy with their salaries, contending
that salaries were “extremely low” and “demoralizing.” The above male non-STEM participant
elaborated that other faculty in the department had salaries twice as large and had been at the
university the same number of years. In fact, according to this participant, adjunct faculty were
paid more. A male STEM respondent commented in the Unsupportive Legislators subcategory
that they were not understanding or helpful to the university. In the Insufcient Policy subcat-
egory, a female non-STEM respondent discussed her request for early tenure and a raise; it was
only after she had signed a contract at a new institution that the current university offered both,
at which time it was too late. The Procedures subcategory also included a comment regarding the
provision for adequate work space; a STEM female reported, “not enough lab space; not enough
research facilities.” The Ineffective Administration subcategory included the only current faculty
comment (male STEM), which was that higher administration needed to be evaluated “for what
they do and how they perform.”
Global Satisfaction (GS) ratings for current faculty were statistically signicantly different
from resigned faculty conditions, t(241)=5.44, p = 0.000. These results indicate that in three of
ve workplace satisfaction factors, resigned faculty reported lower levels of satisfaction com-
pared with current faculty. Several of comments from faculty who left were coded into the Global
Satisfaction factor. In the University as Ineffective subcategory, a female non-STEM faculty
member said, “I did not feel supported by the university as a whole.” Another female non-STEM
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Burnett et al.
10
participant recommended sensitivity training for all university administrative staff. Also, on the
Global Satisfaction level, two non-STEM females made comments in the “Cold” Community
subcategory, including the concern that the city in which the institution was located did not offer
a rewarding cultural environment, and that it was not a warm and friendly place to live. One of
the comments was positive in GS: “[The university] was difcult to leave” (male STEM).
5.2 Comparisons of Resigned and Current Faculty by Gender
Research question 2 asked: Do women and men faculty report different perceptions of job sat-
isfaction and reasons for staying/leaving? This research question was subdivided into four areas
of comparison: men and women faculty currently at the institution, men and women resigned
faculty, current and resigned men faculty, and current and resigned women faculty.
5.2.1 Current Men and Women Faculty
Statistically signicant differences were seen in the Nature of Work (NW) ratings for current
men faculty and current women faculty conditions, t(185)= 3.19, p = 0.013 as well as in the
CCC ratings for current men faculty and current women faculty conditions, t(185)= 3.19, p =
0.019. These results indicate that in two of ve workplace satisfaction factors, current women
faculty reported lower levels of satisfaction than did their male colleagues. In fact, on a single
item rating work/life balance and stress, current women faculty reports were statistically signi-
cantly higher than current men faculty, t(205) = -2.65, p = 0.009.
5.2.2 Resigned Men and Women Faculty
Men and women faculty who had resigned from the institution did not differ in their ratings of the
ve factors. Both male and female faculty who resigned had comments in the qualitative portion
of this survey; those comments are reported in research question 1. Both male and female faculty
who left had comments regarding CCC, PP, and GS.
5.2.3 Current and Resigned Men Faculty
Statistically signicant differences were seen in the CCC ratings for current men faculty and
resigned men faculty conditions, t(101)= 3.78, p = 0.001. There were also statistically signi-
cant differences in the PP ratings for current men faculty and resigned men faculty conditions,
t(99)=2.73, p = 0.007, as well as in the GS ratings for current men faculty and resigned faculty
conditions, t(137)=4.36, p =0.001. These results indicate that in three of ve workplace satisfac-
tion factors, resigned men faculty reported lower levels of satisfaction compared with current
men faculty.
5.2.4 Current and Resigned Women Faculty
Statistically signicant differences were seen in the NW ratings for current women faculty and
resigned women faculty conditions, t(68)= -2.25, p = 0.028. There were also statistically sig-
nicant differences in the PP ratings for current women faculty and resigned women faculty
conditions, t(67)=2.12, p = 0.038, as well as in the GS ratings for current women faculty and
resigned faculty conditions, t(100)=3.11, p = < 0.002. These results indicate that in two of ve
workplace satisfaction factors, resigned women faculty rated their satisfaction as lower than did
current women faculty. However, regarding NW ratings, resigned faculty indicated higher levels
of satisfaction than did current women faculty.
Volume 18, Issue 1, 2012
Examining the Complexities of Faculty Attrition 11
5.3 Comparisons of Resigned and Current Faculty by STEM and Non-STEM
Research question 3 asked: Do STEM and non-STEM faculty report different perceptions of job
satisfaction and reasons for staying/leaving? As with research question 2, this research question
was subdivided into four areas of comparison: STEM and non-STEM faculty currently at the
institution, STEM and non-STEM resigned faculty, current and resigned STEM faculty, and cur-
rent and resigned non-STEM faculty.
5.3.1 Current STEM and Non-STEM Faculty
Statistically signicant differences were seen in the NW ratings for current STEM faculty and
current non-STEM faculty conditions, t(142)= 2.90, p = 0.004, as well as in the CCC ratings for
current STEM faculty and current non-STEM faculty conditions, t(147)= 3.47, p = 0.001. There
were also statistically signicant differences in the PP ratings for current STEM faculty and cur-
rent non-STEM faculty conditions, t(148)=2.27, p = 0.025, as well as in the GS ratings for cur-
rent STEM faculty and current non-STEM faculty conditions, t(196)=2.32, p = < 0.021. These
results indicate that in four of ve workplace satisfaction factors, current non-STEM faculty
reported lower levels of satisfaction compared with current STEM faculty.
5.3.2 Resigned STEM and Non-STEM Faculty
No signicant differences in workplace satisfaction ratings were seen for STEM and non-STEM
faculty who had resigned from the institution. Both STEM and non-STEM faculty who left made
comments in the qualitative portion of this survey; in fact, more of the comments in this section
came from non-STEM faculty who resigned. STEM and non-STEM faculty who left articulated
concerns in the CCC, PP, and GS categories.
5.3.3 Current and Resigned STEM Faculty
Statistically signicant differences were seen in the CCC ratings for current STEM faculty and
resigned STEM faculty conditions, t(97)= 2.90, p = 0.005. There were also statistically signi-
cant differences in the PP ratings for current STEM faculty and resigned STEM faculty condi-
tions, t(91)=3.29, p = 0.001, as well as in the GS ratings for current STEM faculty and resigned
STEM faculty conditions, t(128)=4.92, p = < 0.001. These results indicate that in three of ve
workplace satisfaction factors, resigned STEM faculty reported lower levels of satisfaction com-
pared with current STEM faculty.
5.3.4 Current and Resigned Non-STEM
Signicant differences were seen in the GS ratings for current non-STEM faculty and resigned
non-STEM faculty conditions, t(107)=2.75, p = 0.007. Thus, non-STEM faculty who had re-
signed from the institution and current non-STEM faculty differed only in ratings of GS work-
place satisfaction, with resigned non-STEM faculty indicating lower satisfaction.
5.4 Interaction and Main Effects: Gender and STEM/Non-STEM
A two-by-two analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted in order to compare the satis-
faction ratings of Resigned and Current faculty across Gender (male/female) and STEM/non-
STEM status. Table 4 shows estimated marginal means, standard errors, and condence intervals
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Burnett et al.
12
for the interaction; estimated means were lowest for non-STEM women faculty. No other interac-
tions were found for the remaining ve dependent variables.
TABLE 4: Estimated means for STEM/non-STEM status by gender interaction for Policy and
Procedures factor
STEM Gender Mean Std. Error 95% Condence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
STEM Male 3.114*0.078 2.959 3.268
Female 3.243*0.112 3.023 3.464
Non-
STEM
Male 3.187*0.099 2.992 3.382
Female 2.928*0.092 2.747 3.109
*Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Current Resigned = 0.8189.
With the variance associated with Resigned/Current status adjusted, a statistically signicant
interaction of STEM/non-STEM status by gender was found for the Policy and Procedures fac-
tor (PP), F (1, 249) = 4.10, p = 0.04, ηp2 = 0.02 (see Fig. 1 for graphical representation). The
PP factor includes items such as satisfaction with formal and informal mentoring, perceptions of
professional and collegial support, and salary. This nding suggests that regardless of Resigned
or Current status, it is non-STEM women faculty who report the least satisfaction in these ar-
eas. Notably, in this analysis, STEM women faculty reported the highest levels of satisfaction,
slightly higher than men faculty in STEM and non-STEM disciplines.
FIG 1: Estimated marginal means of Policy and Procedures subscale; interaction of Gender and
STEM/non-STEM status adjusted for Resigned status as covariate in ANCOVA
Volume 18, Issue 1, 2012
Examining the Complexities of Faculty Attrition 13
With the variance associated with Resigned status adjusted, a number of main effects were
also seen. In this analysis, a main effect was present for gender on the Tenure subscale such that
women faculty reported lower levels of satisfaction than did men faculty, F (1, 249) = 4.15, p =
0.04, ηp2 = 0.02 (see Table 5 for descriptive statistics for ANCOVA main effects). This suggests
that women faculty reported less clarity regarding tenure policy and criteria than did men faculty.
Main effects were also seen for STEM/non-STEM status on Nature of Work (NW); non-STEM
faculty reported lower satisfaction than did STEM faculty, F (1, 249) = 5.22, p = 0.02, ηp2 =
0.02. The NW subscale reects satisfaction with teaching load and support for research. Simi-
larly, on Climate, Culture, and Collegiality non-STEM faculty reported lower satisfaction than
did STEM, F (1, 249) = 4.97, p = 0.03, ηp2 = 0.02. Items on the CCC subscale included commu-
nication, a sense of unity within one’s department and college, and opportunities to collaborate.
Finally, on the Overall Index measure, non-STEM faculty also reported lower satisfaction than
did STEM faculty, F (1, 250) = 4.63, p = 0.03, ηp2 = 0.02. Thus, when we explore faculty satis-
faction across Resigned and Current status we see that women faculty struggle more with tenure
concerns than men faculty, and non-STEM faculty of both genders report lower satisfaction on
several key aspects of institutional structure and climate.
TABLE 5: Descriptive statistics for ANCOVA main effects
Subscale Mean SD n
Tenure
Women faculty
Men faculty
3.56
3.80
0.90
0.89
146
108
Nature of Work
STEM
Non-STEM
3.41
3.20
0.64
0.60
133
121
Climate, Culture, Collegiality
STEM
Non-STEM
3.61
3.32
0.73
0.80
133
121
Overall Index
STEM
Non-STEM
3.49
3.30
0.58
0.56
134
121
6. DISCUSSION
6.1 Faculty Comparisons by Gender
Comparisons of resigned men and women faculty did not differ in their ratings on the ve fac-
tors. Not surprisingly, resigned faculty reported lower satisfaction compared with current faculty
in three of ve workplace satisfaction factors (Climate, Culture, and Collegiality, Policies and
Procedures, Global Satisfaction). Matier’s (1990) theory suggests that internal push factors were
strong enough in these areas to encourage faculty to leave the institution. However, comparisons
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Burnett et al.
14
of current men and women faculty showed that women reported lower levels of satisfaction than
did their male colleagues in two of ve workplace satisfaction factors (Nature of Work, CCC),
as well as in the Tenure factor when resigned status was adjusted in the analyses, suggesting that
women currently at the institution may feel more push than the men faculty. Specically, an area
worthy of additional exploration concerns the amount of time women faculty spend on teaching
rather than research as compared to male faculty; the NW items showed signicant differences
between male and female faculty at this institution.
In comparisons by gender of resigned and current faculty, resigned women faculty rated
their satisfaction as lower than did current women faculty in two of ve workplace satisfaction
factors (PP, GS); however, regarding NW ratings, resigned women faculty indicated higher lev-
els of satisfaction than did current women faculty. Although no signicant differences emerged
for participants’ ratings on CCC factors between current women faculty and resigned women
faculty, ratings in both conditions were equally neutral or noncommittal. Resigned men com-
pared with current men faculty reported lower levels of satisfaction in three of ve workplace
satisfaction factors (CCC, PP, GS).
Thus, lower ratings of workplace satisfaction related to PP and GS were given by both men
and women resigned faculty relative to current faculty, whereas resigned men faculty also rated
CCC lower than did current male faculty and, anomalously, resigned women faculty reported
higher levels of satisfaction regarding the NW factor than did current women faculty. The quali-
tative comments from the surveys, some strongly worded, support these conclusions, as most of
the comments were about climate and policy. Overall, results show that resigned faculty of both
genders as well as current women faculty reported lower workplace satisfaction ratings.
6.2 Faculty Comparisons by STEM and Non-STEM
No signicant differences in workplace satisfaction ratings were seen for STEM and non-STEM
faculty who had resigned from the institution. Resigned non-STEM faculty and current non-
STEM faculty differed only in ratings of GS, with resigned non-STEM faculty indicating lower
satisfaction. Comparatively, resigned STEM faculty reported lower levels of satisfaction in re-
lation to current STEM faculty in three of ve workplace satisfaction factors (CCC, PP, GS).
Current non-STEM faculty reported lower levels of satisfaction compared with current STEM
faculty in four of ve workplace satisfaction factors (NW, CCC, PP, GS). When variability as-
sociated with ratings from resigned faculty was adjusted in the analyses, differences emerged
between STEM and non-STEM faculty regarding NW, CCC, as well as in an Overall Index score.
In sum, results show that resigned faculty in both STEM and non-STEM disciplines as well as
current non-STEM faculty reported relatively lower workplace satisfaction ratings.
6.3 Interactions Between Gender and STEM/Non-STEM Status
Results indicated that non-STEM women faculty provided the lowest ratings of Policies and
Procedures relative to STEM women faculty and men faculty in both areas. This nding could
be construed as reecting successful efforts to provide a welcoming and supportive work envi-
ronment for STEM women faculty. However, mean satisfaction scores for all respondents were
less than 4 (on the response scale, 3 indicates a rating of “In Between” and 4 indicates “Agree”).
Further research might assess what a score of “3” out of 5 points represents in terms of actual
satisfaction.
Volume 18, Issue 1, 2012
Examining the Complexities of Faculty Attrition 15
7. IMPLICATIONS
In summary, these ndings suggest that faculty who have resigned, women faculty, and faculty in
non-STEM disciplines experience lower levels of workplace satisfaction than do current faculty,
male faculty, and faculty in STEM disciplines. It is not surprising that the ratings of resigned
faculty were lower than currently employed faculty. Similarly, the nding that women faculty in-
dicated lower ratings than did men faculty would not be unexpected given the well-documented
gendered environment of postsecondary academia. However, the nding that current non-STEM
faculty reported lower ratings in four of ve workplace satisfaction factors relative to their peers
in STEM disciplines is somewhat startling. In fact, non-STEM woman faculty members at this
institution, resigned or current, experience greater dissatisfaction than any other group.
These differences in satisfaction may be a reection of the higher valuation accorded to
STEM disciplines across academia in the United States (Brown, 2011). Signicant social and
nancial privilege indeed does exist in the STEM disciplines when compared to the non-STEM
disciplines (Fish, 2003; Maher and Thompson Tetreault, 2007). In fact, at any given institution,
it is a reasonable conjecture that if faculty on campus were polled, we would nd that although
teaching and research assignments are perceived as relatively equal, the STEM disciplines do ap-
pear to hold more social and nancial caché. Non-STEM faculty, while perhaps appearing to be
petty, may struggle with the fact that STEM faculty receive higher salaries, more grant funding,
and may have a stronger voice on campus (Churchill, 2011). Pressures for academic institutions
to make up funding shortfalls by cultivating relationships with corporate entities also differen-
tially privileges the more market-relevant STEM disciplines (Nathan, 2005). Thus, it may well
be that the ndings in this study are reective of a deep cultural rift. If that is so, then attempts
to address gender equity issues through additional programming that prioritizes the STEM disci-
plines may serve to intensify the discord.
When the workplace climate of the campus as a whole is valued equally to the climate found
in each of its constituent colleges and departments, the discord may be minimized. Whereas goals
for a diverse campus or workforce have historically been predicated on a fairness/equity argu-
ment, current analyses recognize that academic excellence requires a broad diversity of view-
points and approaches (Maher and Thompson Tetreault, 2007). A positive campus workplace cli-
mate, then, relies upon an equitable balance of power across STEM and non-STEM disciplines.
This study also sheds light on the importance of focusing on structural factors that can be ad-
dressed in institutions, a key nding in Dee’s (2004) research. The rst factor in the quantitative
survey addressed perceptions of Tenure and Promotion; in general, respondents who were current
and resigned faculty rated these policies and processes as effective, and none of the qualitative
comments related to tenure and promotion. Yet despite this apparent positive reaction, gender dif-
ferences emerged when variability associated with resigned status was adjusted, such that female
faculty were less satised than male faculty with Tenure and Promotion policies. In fact, the par-
ticipants in this study, particularly the resigned and women faculty, generally were not satised
with Policies and Procedures. More careful attention to a wider variety of policies and procedures
(e.g., family, evaluation, hiring) might promote more satisfaction in this area.
This study sought to explore attrition by comparing current and resigned faculty, women
and men faculty, and STEM and non-STEM faculty. We found that global issues, such as percep-
tions of how women faculty are supported by the institution as a whole, climate challenges, and
problems with policies and procedures appeared to be key factors in deciding to stay or leave an
institution. We further discovered that non-STEM faculty struggled, perhaps to a greater degree,
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Burnett et al.
16
than did STEM faculty. Such a discovery highlights the need that Xu (2008b) originally articu-
lated, that faculty attrition must be studied discipline by discipline.
This study also aimed to discover if there were differences between current faculty and
faculty who left the institution. In fact, disparities did exist, in that faculty who left were
more dissatised. This nding is not surprising. Of greater interest is that the levels of dissat-
isfaction occurred in three areas: Climate, Policies, and Global Satisfaction. It appears that
the internal push happens when one or more factors in these categories tips the scale toward
departure; further research ought to delve more deeply into these three areas to determine
when intention to leave becomes reality. These results also suggest that external pull factors
may be secondary to internal push factors (Matier, 1990), since the areas of dissatisfaction
were the same. Hence, it may not be as productive to explain faculty members’ reasons for
leaving as being external to the institution as it would be to examine and attempt to address
internal factors. Indeed, if the factors that lead faculty to leave are weighted heavily toward
that which is within the control of the institution, such information can lead directly to re-
medial actions.
The differences between current and resigned faculty could be better understood if the
current faculty had offered written comments at the end of the survey. As mentioned earlier,
only one current faculty member commented, and it was a suggestion that upper administra-
tors be evaluated on a regular basis. In fact, the plethora of comments from faculty who left
may well have come from those who had particularly strong feelings, so we urge caution
in interpreting these qualitative comments. Future research could attempt to obtain more
qualitative data from current faculty to help better understand their perspectives. However,
methods other than open-ended survey questions may be needed to make participants feel
safer in responding.
8. CONCLUSION
In this study, we aimed to further research on faculty attrition by examining current and resigned
faculty, STEM and non-STEM faculty, and women and men faculty by using both quantitative
and qualitative measures. A study of this breadth has not yet been conducted, and it was impor-
tant to do so as we were able to provide new insights into why faculty, especially women, leave
their institution. One of the strengths of this study is that it is institution-specic, but this could
also be a limitation. In the future, comparisons could be made between multiple institutions of
varying size and scope, integrating the variables of gender and discipline. However, the data in
this study still provide useful information about the need to address climate, policies, and global
issues with all faculty. With the ever-increasing concern about recruitment and retention of wom-
en faculty, especially in STEM, we hope this study provides a catalyst for further investigation
into this growing challenge.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Dr. Jeffrey Child for his statistical assistance on this manuscript. This re-
search (in part) was supported by National Science Foundation Grant # HRD-0811239 to the NDSU
Advance FORWARD program.
Volume 18, Issue 1, 2012
Examining the Complexities of Faculty Attrition 17
REFERENCES
Ambrose, S., Huston, T., and Norman, M., A qualitative method for assessing faculty
Satisfaction, Res. Higher Educ., vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 803–830, 2005.
Bellas, M. and Toutkoushian, R., Faculty time allocations and research productivity: Gender, race and fam-
ily effects, Rev. Higher Educ., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 367–390, 1999.
Brown, M., The sciences vs. the humanities: A power struggle, Chronicle of Higher Education, 2011, Re-
trieved April 20, 2011, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/old-new/the-sciences-vs-humanities-a-power-
struggle/336.
Churchill, M., The science vs. humanities divide is false and ideologically driven, Chronicle of Higher
Education, 2011, Retrieved April 21, 2011, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/old-new/the-science-vs-
humanities-divide-is-false-and-ideologically-driven/343.
Cline, R.J. and Cline, T.R., A structural analysis of risky-shift and cautious-shift discussions: The diffusion-
of-responsibility theory, Commun. Q., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 26–36, 1980.
Cluff, E.D. and Murrah, D.J., The influence of library resources on faculty recruitment and retention, J.
Acad. Librar., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 19–23, 1987.
Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, National Acad-
emy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Beyond bias and barri-
ers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering (free executive summary),
2007, Retrieved January 29, 2011, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11741.html.
Cropsey, K.L., Masho, S.W., Shiang, R., Skiia, V., Kornstein, S.G., Hamptom, C.L., and the Commit-
tee on the Status of Women and Minorities, Why do faculty leave? Reasons for attrition of women
and minority faculty from a medical school: Four-year results, J. Women’s Health, vol. 17, no. 7, pp.
1111–1118, 2008.
Daly, C.J. and Dee, J.R., Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public universities, J. Higher
Educ., vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 776–803, 2006.
Dee, J.R., Turnover intent in an urban community college: Strategies for faculty retention, Commun. Coll.
J. Res. Pract., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 593–607, 2004.
Etzkowitz, H., Kumelgor, C., and Uzzi, B., Athena Unbound: The Advancement of Women in Science and
Technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
Fish, S., Hard choices, Chronicle of Higher Education, 2003, Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://chron-
icle.com/article/Hard-Choices/13178/?key=GmshIF9qMSpMYiRjfHRHKXEGbyErJkgqaXRHZS8ab
FtS.
Frehill, L., Javurek-Humig, A., and Jeser-Cannavale, C., Women in engineering: A review of the 2005 lit-
erature, Mag. Soc. Wom. Eng., vol. 52(Summer), pp. 34–63, 2006.
Goulden, M., Frasch, K., and Mason, M.A., Staying Competitive: Patching America’s Leaky Pipeline in the
Sciences, 2009, Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/pdf/
women_and_sciences.pdf.
Hess, D.J., If you’re thinking of living in STS: A guide for the perplexed, in G.L. Downey and J. Dumit,
eds., Cyborgs & Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies, Har-
vard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 143–164, 1997.
Jaschik, S., Women lead in doctorates, Inside Higher Education, 2010, Retrieved October 20, 2010, from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/14/doctorates.
Johnsrud, L.K. and Rosser, V.J., Faculty members’ morale and their intention to leave, J. Higher Educ., vol.
73, no. 4, pp. 518–542, 2002.
Laube, H., Massoni, K., Sprague, J., and Ferber, A.L., The impact of gender on the
evaluation of teaching: What we know and what we can do, NWSA J., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 87–104, 2007.
Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering
Burnett et al.
18
Maher, F.A. and Thompson Tetreault, M.K., Privilege and Diversity in the Academy, Routledge, New York,
2007.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT:
How a Committee on Women Faculty Came to be Established by the Dean of the School of Science,
What the Committee and the Dean Learned and Accomplished, and Recommendations for the Future,
MIT, Cambridge,1999.
Matier, M.W., Retaining faculty: A tale of two campuses, Res. Higher Educ., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 39–60, 1990.
Nathan, R., My Freshman Year: What a Professor Learned by Becoming a Student, Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, NY, 2005.
National Science Foundation, ADVANCE at a glance, 2009, Retrieved January 29, 2011, from http://www.
nsf.gov/crssprgm/advance/index.jsp.
Nelson, D. and Rogers, D.C., A national analysis of diversity in science and engineering faculties at re-
search universities, 2004, Retrieved October 25, 2010, from http://www.now.org/issues/diverse/diver-
sity_report.pdf.
Olsen, D., Maple, S.A., and Stage, F.K., Women and minority faculty job satisfaction: Professional role
interests, professional satisfactions, and institutional fit, J. Higher Educ., vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 267–293,
1995.
Pettus, A.B., The verdict is in: A study of jury decision making factors, moment of personal decision, and
jury deliberations–from the jurors’ point of view, Commun. Q., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 83–97, 1990.
Piercy, F., Giddings, V., Allen, K., Dixon, B., Meszaros, P., and Joest, K., Improving climate
to support faculty diversity and retention: A pilot program for new faculty, Innovative Higher Educ., vol.
3, no. 1, pp. 53–66, 2005.
Rosser, V.J., Faculty members’ intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction, Res.
Higher Educ., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 285–309, 2004.
Rossiter, M., Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940, Johns Hopkins Press, Balti-
more, 1982.
Rossiter, M., Women Scientists in America: Before Affirmative Action, 1940-1972, Johns Hopkins Press,
Baltimore, 1995.
Smart, J. C., A causal model of faculty turnover intentions, Res. Higher Educ., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 405–424,
1990.
Spivey, C.A., Chisholm-Burns, M.A., Murphy, J.E., Rice, L., and Morelli, C., Assessment of and recom-
mendations to improve pharmacy faculty satisfaction and retention, Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm., vol. 66,
no. 1, pp. 54–64, 2009.
Sprague, J. and Massoni, K., Student evaluations and gendered expectations: What we can’t count can hurt
us, Sex Roles, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 779–793, 2005.
Starnes-Ott, K. and Kremer, M.J., Recruitment and retention of nurse anesthesia faculty: Issues and strate-
gies, Am. Anesth. Nat. Assoc. J., vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 13–16, 2007.
State Higher Education Executive Officers, State higher education finance, FY 2009, 2010, Retrieved Oc-
tober 25, 2010, from http://www.sheeo.org/finance/shef_fy09.pdf.
Summers, L., Remarks at NBER conference on diversifying the science & engineering workforce, 2005,
Retrieved October 25, 2010, from http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php.
The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education, The Experience of Tenure-
Track Faculty at Research Universities: Analysis of COACHE Survey Results by Academic Area and
Gender, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2010.
Weiler, W.C., Why do faculty members leave a university?, Res. Higher Educ., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 270–278,
1985.
Volume 18, Issue 1, 2012
Examining the Complexities of Faculty Attrition 19
Williams, J.C. and Norton, D.L., Building academic excellence through gender equity, Am. Acad., vol. 4,
no. 3, pp. 185–208, 2008.
Xu, Y.J., Faculty turnover: Discipline-specific attention is warranted, Res. Higher Educ., vol. 49, no. 1, pp.
40–61, 2008a.
Xu, Y.J., Gender disparity in STEM disciplines: A study of faculty attrition and turnover intentions, Res.
Higher Educ., vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 607–624, 2008b.
