The Impact of Social
Interaction and Reward System Norms
on Underrepresented Faculty
By Annie Gubitosi-White
Portland State University
Abstract
In this qualitative single-institution
case study of full-time instructional
faculty at a predominantly white, public
comprehensive urban university, cultural
norms are examined to see how they impact
underrepresented faculty. A preliminary
analysis of this study was previously
conducted (Gubitosi, 1996). This report
is based on final analyses. Semi-structured,
in-depth interviews are the source of
data. Results include the identification
of social interaction and reward process
norms, and the implications these norms
have for underrepresented faculty. The
results indicate that underrepresented
faculty experience these norms differently
than majority faculty, and that underrepresented
faculty are often disadvantaged by these
norms. The social interaction and reward
process norms identified include the
following: Rank-Based Hierarchy, Untenured
Faculty Silence and Individualism. Recommendations
that address underrepresented faculty
alienation are provided.
The Impact of Social Interaction
and Reward System Norms on Underrepresented
Faculty
For many years now, universities
throughout the United States have tried
to build more welcoming climates on
their campuses for faculty of color
and white female faculty. Despite these
efforts, a vast discrepancy in faculty
representation still exists. The Chronicle
of Higher Education Almanac (1997) cites
a 1992-93 U.S. Department of Education
study showing that nationwide, white
male faculty currently hold 58.9% of
all full-time instructional faculty
positions, while white female faculty
hold 27.9%, and male and female faculty
of color hold merely 13.2%. Male and
female faculty of color are clearly
underrepresented in the academy. White
female faculty, although much better
represented than faculty of color, tend
to be concentrated in lower ranks and
are without tenure, and are therefore
considered to be underrepresented as
well (Tack and Patitu, 1992).
Tenured faculty have a significant
influence on campus culture and climate
through their influence on campus policies,
curriculum, classroom experiences, and
by serving as mentors, advisors and
role models (Green, 1989). Consequently,
efforts targeted at increasing the number
of underrepresented tenured faculty
may be effective at improving the climate
for an increasingly diverse student
population. Increasing the number of
underrepresented faculty requires more
than just focusing on recruitment efforts.
Efforts toward retaining underrepresented
faculty are also important because even
the most successful recruitment strategies
are futile if faculty are not satisfied
and do not remain at the institution.
Specific Research Interest
Of the many faculty norms, this
study specifically focuses on examining
how social interaction norms and reward
process norms impact faculty at a public
urban university. The first major question
of this study asks what the social interaction
and reward process norms are. The second
major question asks how underrepresented
faculty are impacted by these norms.
The overall goal of this study is to
provide a framework for understanding
potentially hidden disadvantages for
underrepresented faculty and to initiate
dialogue among academic leaders for
generating solutions.
Literature Highlights
Martha Tack and Carol Patitu (1992)
describe many reasons why underrepresented
faculty are dissatisfied with their
jobs and look for employment outside
academia. These include: feelings of
isolation, experiences with prejudice
and discrimination, lower salaries,
lower professional ranks, and lack of
tenured status. Scholars writing in
this area have identified the many distinct
problems that underrepresented faculty
face, and many have suggested that these
problems arise from subtle discrimination
in academic structures (Hersi, 1993;
Tack and Patitu, 1992; Sutherland, 1990;
Menges and Exum, 1983; Hall and Sandler,
1982). One variable that is rarely addressed
in the faculty retention literature
is the identification of the specific
cultural norms that form the basis of
subtle discrimination, which is why
cultural norms are the focus of this
study.
This study has been conducted from
a cultural studies perspective, and
defining culture is central to this
analysis. Culture has been defined as
a historically transmitted system of
values and beliefs about expected norms
of behavior which must be met to be
considered in good standing (Porter
and Samovar, 1994). When cultural norms
are identified, they tend to seem obvious,
but because we experience culture as
"business as usual," the cultural values
upon which we operate are often invisible
and go unnoticed (Porter and Samovar,
1994). Cultural studies analysis is
a process of identifying how individuals
or groups of people are treated differently
when they do not meet expectations of
what is "normal." (Nelson, Treichler,
and Grossberg, 1992).
William Tierney (1993) has written
extensively on the topic of cultural
differences in higher education. In
Building Communities of Difference,
Tierney (1993) asserts that the power
of the "norm" prevents the valuing of
differences. He explains that images
of what is normal puts us in the position
of labeling, and that when labeling,
we associate images of negative characteristics
to an entire group. Privileged groups
of people are those who fit the "normal"
image and are seen as whole individuals
instead of being stereotyped in negative
ways. Tierney's example is that we see
"lesbian" and "Native American", but
we do not see "heterosexual woman" or
"Caucasian". If one is normal, then
the other is abnormal.
Methods
Research Design
This is a single-institution case
study of full-time instructional faculty
at a predominantly white, Carnegie Doctoral
II, public comprehensive urban university.
Qualitative methods were chosen because
this study involves looking at organization
processes and unstructured linkages,
and the exploration of variables not
yet identified, all of which are best
suited for qualitative research (Marshall
and Rossman, 1995). Semi-structured
interviews, 90 to 120 minutes in length,
with follow-up interviews 30 to 60 minutes
in length, are the source of data.
Research Subjects
This study employs purposeful sampling,
using the maximum variation technique
described by Patton (1987). According
to Patton, the logic of purposeful sampling
is to get "information-rich cases...from
which one can learn a great deal about
issues of central importance to the
purpose of the evaluation," as opposed
to "gathering little information from
a large, statistically significant sample"
(Patton, 1987, p. 52). Maximum variation
sampling is a type of purposeful sampling
that describes, "central themes...that
cut across a great deal of participant...variation"
(Patton, 1987, p. 53).
The variations for constructing the
sample population in this study are
sex, race, and ethnicity differences.
This study includes male and female
faculty of color, and white female and
white male faculty. Among the faculty
of color, a representation of Asian,
African American, Hispanic and Native
American racial and ethnic backgrounds
are included. Analysis includes data
from fourteen interviewees, mostly untenured
at the time of the interview, and spanning
a wide range of disciplines. The names
of the interviewees have been changed
in this report to protect anonymity.
Data Analysis Procedures
Interviews were audiotaped, then
transcribed and coded for themes by
hand. As Matthew Miles and Michael Huberman
(1984) suggest, data analysis was conducted
on an ongoing basis to strategize collecting
better quality data with each interview
and to facilitate the development of
the preliminary report written for this
study (Gubitosi, 1996). After all data
were collected, the transcripts were
re-coded and re-analyzed using NUD*IST
software (Richards and Richards, 1997).
Matrix analyses were conducted to identify
relationships between themes. The broad
range of norms that were identified
in a preliminary report were refined
in the final analysis.
Norms and Implications
The Norms and Implications section
is essentially the results and analysis
section, which includes the norms that
have been identified and the implications
that these norms have on underrepresented
faculty. Three primary norms emerged
from interview questions relating to
issues of social interaction and reward
processes. These include: Rank-Based
Hierarchy, Untenured Faculty Silence
and Individualism. Each of these norms
are discussed in detail below. Rank-Based
Hierarchy and Untenured Faculty Silence
have been integrated into one section
because they are intricately linked
together.
Rank-Based Hierarchy and Untenured
Faculty Silence
Interviews suggest that the tenure
track ranking system, combined with
the length of time a faculty member
serves within a department, create a
norm of Rank-Based Hierarchy.
Interviewees describe that to follow
this Rank-Based Hierarchy is to defer
their own authority to tenured faculty
members' opinions, and to consult with
tenured faculty before taking unprecedented
actions. One interviewee reports, "taking
action of some sort is immediately considered
too much because I am supposed to respect
the existing hierarchy...I am supposed
to be quiet and wise and listen and
learn." Untenured faculty report feeling
particularly fearful that if they do
not defer to their senior colleagues
they will negatively impact their chances
for tenure, thus creating a norm of
Silence for untenured faculty.
When asked about having voice within
the department, one interviewee responded,
"Yeah, as much as an untenured faculty
can. [As an untenured faculty] you have
to be careful about how much of a voice
you have...not that they say I have
to, but the implication is that if I
[upset anyone], I won't get tenure."
Many untenured interviewees give examples
of feeling like an "outcast" and being
seen as "suspicious" when they have
spoken up or taken action without such
consultation or deference.
Implications of Rank-Based Hierarchy
and Untenured Faculty Silence.
Although both majority and underrepresented
faculty are influenced by Rank-Based
Hierarchy and Untenured Faculty Silence,
the data suggest that this norm impacts
underrepresented faculty differently
than majority faculty. Untenured underrepresented
faculty interviewees show a pattern
of having more difficulty with this
cultural norm than untenured majority
faculty. Issues that majority faculty
chose not to speak out about are "other-centered"
issues. When majority faculty interviewees
report remaining silent, the types of
issues not discussed include expanding
the departmental doctoral programs or
departmental hiring decisions. None
of the majority interviewees report
remaining silent on issues that directly
relate to themselves.
In contrast, underrepresented faculty
report feeling that they cannot speak
out on issues of support directly relating
to themselves. The types of concerns
they remain silent about include unfair
salaries, limited space, and unfair
merit pay distribution. Statements supporting
this include the following comments
by underrepresented interviewees: "But
I think if we [underrepresented faculty]
speak out too loudly, we are accused
of overreacting or being too sensitive
or just being irrelevant really."; "So
I have to let it be known, 'don't give
away any prize space...' I have to make
my position in line known."; "Yes, yes,
I definitely thought it was [disrespectful],
but I said nothing."; and the following,
"I don't feel like I am paid what I
am worth."
Underrepresented faculty interviewees
experience a "Catch 22" situation; if
they speak out about the perceived unjust
resource distribution, they risk "making
waves" and defying the norm of deferring
to senior faculty. However, if they
do not speak out, they risk an accumulation
of injustices that leave them feeling
alienated and distrustful of their colleagues.
Underrepresented interviewees indicate
their distrust and alienation with statements
such as: "There's been one person...my
mentor advised me to [talk to], he's
been okay but I wouldn't totally trust
anyone."; "Here, people assume their
colleagues are stupid...they assume
that [I am] wrong."; and, "Let me get
to the publishing. Let's talk about
how I feel that I'm set up to fail."
Majority interviewees did not indicate
feelings of alienation from and distrust
of colleagues. The comments from underrepresented
interviewees clearly show that they
have a more difficult time with the
norm of Untenured Faculty Silence.
Individualism
The norm of Individualism
can be described by the contrast between
the job interview experience and the
experience of beginning work at the
institution. When these faculty members
interviewed with the University to be
hired for their current positions, they
typically described being socialized
into a network of colleagues. Initial
campus job interviews typically consisted
of well-planned and coordinated meetings
and activities with departmental faculty,
the department chair, and the dean of
the school or college. One interviewee
describes, "We have a breakfast with
faculty, lunch with faculty, dinner
with faculty. You meet the Dean and
all kinds of people." This positive
interview experience typically sets
up an expectation that this institution
is a caring environment. However, once
faculty arrive, both majority and underrepresented,
they rarely experience a continuation
of the type of care derived from the
coordinated efforts that created the
positive interview experience. Instead,
they experience infrequent social interaction
with their colleagues, and little intellectual
interaction within their departments.
Some examples describing this include:
"There is that culture in the department.
Work is work and then home [is home].";
"Everyone's so busy doing their jobs
that there really isn't any kind of
play to kind of socialize."; and, "When
I arrived there was absolutely no orientation."
The contrast between the typical job
interview experience and the typical
experience upon arriving at the institution
provides an example of the norm of individualism
which emphasizes a "separateness" orientation;
leaving most new faculty "on their own."
The norm of Individualism is also
evident in the reward process. All interviewees
report that having research published
far outweighs the value of teaching
or service related activities within
the promotion and tenure process. Although
interviewees report that executive administrators
at this university emphasize the importance
that community service and teaching
has to its mission, interviewees still
perceive that publications are most
rewarded by departmental tenure committees.
In reference to a discussion with the
department's promotion and tenure committee,
one interviewee explained, "When I told
them that the Dean told me community
service was important, they said they
discourage that. They said...that I
needed to drop all these [mentoring
and community commitments]." Additional
statements reflecting this perception
include: "The stated policy is one-third
service, one-third scholarship, one-third
teaching, okay. The reality is that
you better have your scholarship...at
the highest level."; "There is some
stuff that I feel really is pushing
me, that if I don't get these publications
out, then I won't get tenure."; and,
"I am satisfied that I am doing a good
job of teaching...but I don't think
I will get tenure on the basis of that."
Conducting and publishing research are
considered individual-based work because
they are predominantly done in isolation
and typically have less direct social
connection than the community-based
work of teaching and service. As evident
by the above statements, faculty perceive
they are rewarded more for individual-based
work.
Implications of Individualism
The norm of individualism impacts
underrepresented interviewees differently
than majority interviewees. Majority
interviewees report more satisfaction
with their socialization experiences
and level of support than underrepresented
faculty. The following majority comments
are indicative of majority interviewee
experiences:
Douglas: When I got here, ...the
person who is our contact here...[was
saying], "stay with me when you
look for a place to live. [Let me
know] anything I can do for you
as far as house hunting or apartment
hunting." [This person was] sending
me stuff, trying to get me acclimated...From
that point it was very, very good.
Kenneth: [There] have been...people
who have been very cordial and have
taken upon themselves to try and
include me socially in the fabric
of the University. [My colleague]
invited me to be a member of a [faculty
society]...you know, the old boy's
network.
Underrepresented interviewees report
contrasting experiences. For example:
Linda: The Dean has socials at
the end of each quarter...I don't
really know the other people because
it is so [old] boys and [old] girls
network...I am going, but I don't
feel comfortable in those situations.
Brendan: I didn't have as much
support as I thought I would have...I
guess I expected to be invited to
people's homes and that somebody
would kind of help me. I was invited
once, but for the most part I was
pretty much isolated.
Individualism sanctions the avoidance
of getting to know and help one's colleagues.
Based on the data, it is hypothesized
that it is easier for majority faculty
at this institution to reach out to
majority colleagues than to underrepresented
colleagues because it is assumed that
it will take less time to do
so, based on their likeness. If so,
Individualism results in majority faculty
receiving more support than underrepresented
faculty.
Individualism can perpetuate an environment
where prejudices flourish. As Tierney
illustrates (1993), those who are different
from the norm are targets for negative
stereotyping. The following is one example
of how underrepresented interviewees
experience prejudice:
These experiences of prejudice may
contribute to underrepresented faculty
feelings of alienation.
Alienation by prejudices is reinforced
by the norm of individualism because,
as stated, this norm sanctions the avoidance
of taking the time to get to know one's
colleagues. Perhaps the impact of negative
prejudice would be minimized if individualism
was not the norm. One underrepresented
interviewee explains, "When people get
to know each other, they're more likely
to drop prejudicial thoughts and that
kind of thinking." Another underrepresented
interviewee similarly expresses, "Once
you get to know other people, you begin
to care about them." Underrepresented
faculty could benefit from more social
interaction than what is typical, simply
because they are targets for negative
prejudices otherwise. Majority faculty
may have an easier time with Individualism
because they don't face the same prejudices
that underrepresented faculty face.
As Tierney suggests, being like the
norm, they are seen as whole.
Underrepresented faculty are disadvantaged
by having less time for the higher rewarded
individual-based activities of research
and publications, a finding consistent
with faculty retention literature (Menges
and Exum, 1983). Underrepresented faculty
members, particularly faculty of color,
are often expected, and sometimes explicitly
asked, to take on a role of community
involvement in a way that is typically
not asked of majority faculty members.
For example, one interviewee states,
"When you are an ethnic person, everybody
wants some of your time...and that is
a factor of low numbers." Another underrepresented
interviewee states:
Well they're in essence doing two
jobs, and one of the jobs is not
acknowledged by the university.
One is to play a role model and
the other one is to do the traditional
faculty stuff. So you're automatically
coming into a system that doesn't
necessarily acknowledge something
that is part of who you are and
whom you represent.
This expectation becomes burdensome
because there are typically too few
underrepresented faculty in a given
department to match the demand. In addition,
this disadvantage may be further aggravated
by the norm of untenured faculty silence,
where interviewees report feeling like
they cannot turn down requests for their
time. As this interviewee states, "If
senior faculty ask me to do something,
then I automatically think that I can't
say no." These demands and expectations
might not disadvantage underrepresented
faculty if there was a balance of values
in academia between individual-based
faculty work and community-based faculty
work.
Recommendations
Despite the negative implications
that the previously discussed norms
have on underrepresented faculty, there
are several ways this institution, and
institutions like this one, can take
positive action to address these issues.
The intention of this report is to initiate
dialogue among academic leaders to generate
solutions regarding these implications,
and in particular, to address the double
standard in faculty work and rewards.
However, recommendations are provided
to specifically address underrepresented
faculty alienation. Promoting community-based
organizational norms is one way to combat
alienation. Efforts toward creating
a community-based organization could
include: structuring faculty meetings
so that there are opportunities for
small group interaction; developing
departmental faculty forums where presenters
are required to conduct and present
their research in teams; offering benefits
to team presenters such as travel money;
and coordinating team teaching opportunities.
Practicing the technique of coordinated
care (Gubitosi, 1996) is another,
non-costly and simple way to make a
big difference in combating faculty
alienation. The type of effort that
goes into arranging a faculty job interview
experience is an example of coordinated
care. It requires two principles: 1)
that "care" is scheduled on a calendar
and not left to happen by chance; and
2) that more than one person is responsible
to carry it out. Another example of
coordinated care could be creating a
month-long sign-up sheet where department
faculty, staff and students sign-up
for one or two times during the month
to acknowledge and support the new faculty
member.
Conclusion
Data in this study strongly indicate
that Rank-Based Hierarchy, Untenured
Faculty Silence, and Individualism are
predominant social interaction and reward
system norms at this institution, and
that these norms impact underrepresented
faculty differently than majority faculty.
Data further suggest that underrepresented
faculty are disadvantaged by these norms
in multiple ways. Rank-Based Hierarchy
combined with Untenured Faculty Silence
creates a "Catch 22" situation, leaving
underrepresented faculty trapped in
silence. Individualism norms sanction
the avoidance of getting to know one's
colleagues and taking time to support
them, creating few opportunities to
overcome barriers of difference. Individualism
also supports a double standard reward
structure that disadvantages faculty
that are implicitly and/or explicitly
expected to serve underrepresented students
and community populations.
Becoming aware of these "invisible"
norms and their impacts is the first
step in improving circumstances for
underrepresented faculty. Institutions
can work to create more personal and
professional rewards for community-based
work that improve opportunities for
socialization and overcome barriers
of difference. In addition, individuals
can make conscious efforts to create
support groups using coordinated care
techniques. This report can help initiate
dialogue among academic leaders to further
generate solutions for problems arising
from these norms.
References
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (1982).
Qualitative Research for Education:
An Introduction to Theory and Methods.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
The Chronicle of Higher Education (1997).
Characteristics of Full-Time Faculty
Members With Teaching Duties, Fall,
1992. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
Almanac Issue, 26.
Green, M., ed. (1989). Minorities
on Campus: A Handbook for Enhancing
Diversity. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education.
Gubitosi, A. (1996). A Preliminary
Report on the Impact of Social Interaction
and Reward System Norms on Underrepresented
Faculty. Poster session presented
at the annual meeting of the Association
for the Study of Higher Education, Memphis,
TN.
Hall, R., & Sandler, B.R. (1982).
The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One
For Women? Project on the Status
and Education of Women of the Association
of American Colleges.
Hersi, D.T. (1993). Factors Contributing
to the Job Satisfaction for Women in
Higher Education Administration. CUPA
Journal, 44(2), 29-35.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1995).
Designing Qualitative Research: Second
Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Menges, R.J., & Exum, W.H. (1983).
Barriers to the Progress of Women and
Minority Faculty. Journal of Higher
Education, 54(2),123-144.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1984).
Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook
of New Methods. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Nelson, C., Treichler, P.A., &
Grossberg, L. (1992). Cultural Studies:
An Introduction. In L. Grossberg, C.
Nelson & P.A. Treichler (Eds.)
Cultural Studies. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to
Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Porter, R.E., & Samovar, L.A. (1994).
An Introduction to Intercultural Communication.
In L.A Samovar and R.E. Porter (Eds.)
Intercultural Communication: A Reader.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Inc.
Richards, T. & Richards, L. (1997).
QSR NUD*IST (Version 4) [Computer Software].
Melbourne, Australia: Qualitative Solutions
and Research Pty Ltd.
Sutherland, M.E. (1990). Black Faculty
in White Academia: The Fit is an Uneasy
One. The Western Journal of Black
Studies, 14(1), 17-23.
Tack, M.W., & Patitu, C.L. (1992).
Faculty Job Satisfaction: Women and
Minorities in Peril. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 4. Washington DC:
The George Washington University, School
of Education and Human Development.
Tierney, W. (1993). Building Communities
of Difference: Higher Education in the
Twenty-First Century. Westport,
Conn.: Bergin & Garvey.
Paper presented at the Keeping our
Faculties Conference, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, October, 1998.
For more information about this study
contact Annie Gubitosi-White, Assistant
Director of Affirmative Action, Portland
State University, at: Whitea@mail.pdx.edu.
|
