Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Faculty of Color Workload 1
Running Head: FACULTY OF COLOR WORKLOAD BY RANK
An Examination of Workload of Faculty of Color by Rank
Susan D. Johnson Project Associate
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research 1900 East Tenth Street
Eigenmann Hall, Suite 419 Bloomington, IN 47406-7512
[email protected]: 812.856.5824
John A. Kuykendall
Project Associate Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research
Thomas F. Nelson Laird
Assistant Professor Indiana University, Higher Education and Student Affairs
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, November 17-19, 2005
Philadelphia, PA
Faculty of Color Workload 2
Abstract
Research regarding faculty workload suggests that a variety of factors impact the ability
for faculty to equally balance their time among teaching, research, and service activities. For
faculty of color, added pressure and expectations for service and teaching often contribute to
greater workloads in these areas and may affect their ability to successfully conduct research.
This study suggests that faculty of color, particularly African American faculty, spend more time
on activities such as advising than their White colleagues. However, this extra time advising
does not seem to affect the amount of time spent on research. Rather, it appears that faculty of
color work more hours than White faculty.
Faculty of Color Workload 3
An Examination of Workload of Faculty of Color by Rank
Despite the level of growth in the racial and ethnic diversity of the college student
population, there remains a severe lack of diversity among college faculty of color. Studies show
that a number of factors impede diversification among college faculty including: racial climate
on college and university campuses (de la Luz Reyes & Halcon, 1996; Horton, 2000); a lack of
respect given to scholarly work regarding minority populations (Turner, Myers, & Creswell,
1999); and disproportionate service loads (Antonio, 2002; Turner & Myers, 2000). Until
institutions make additional strides to create a diverse professoriate reflective of the increasing
diversity among its students, the recruitment and retention of faculty of color will remain a
paramount issue in the study of higher education.
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac (2005), faculty of color
comprise a little over 15% of the all college faculty, including instructors and lecturers. Table 1
shows the underrepresentation of faculty of color in the professoriate by rank and racial/ethnic
categories. In such small numbers, faculty of color are repeatedly called upon to represent the
departmental voice for diversity; serve as primary advisor to students of color; and somehow
seek validation of these service and teaching roles as part of the tenure process (Tierney &
Bensimon, 1996).
Research regarding faculty workload suggests that a variety of factors impact their ability
to balance their time appropriately among teaching, research, and service activities; activities
necessary for tenure. It is not uncommon for faculty of color to experience feelings of isolation
(Tack & Patitu, 1992; Turner, 2002); to spend inordinate amounts of time engaged in non-
research activities (Mitchell, 1994; Turner, 2002); and to have limited access to mentoring
relationships (Blackwell, 1989; Gregory, 1998; Padilla, 1994). By examining variations in
Faculty of Color Workload 4
workload, or time spent on research, teaching and service activities, between faculty of color and
White faculty, we can begin to better grasp the relationship between workload and tenure status.
Table 1. Full-Time Faculty of Color in the Professoriate by Rank, Race/Ethnicity Fall 2003 Rank
Full Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Lecturer/ Instructor
African American 5343 (3%) 7204 (5%) 9464 (6%) 7950 (7%)
American Indian 507 (0%) 529 (0%) 661 (0%) 930 (1%)
Asian 10202 (6%) 9183 (7%) 13216 (9%) 5505 (5%)
Hispanic 3429 (2%) 3861 (3%) 5321 (3%) 7835 (7%)
White 144924 (87%) 109313 (82%) 112920 (74%) 91727 (79%)
Total 166415 (100%) 132961 (100%) 153064 (100%) 116471 (100%)
SOURCE: The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, 2005-2006
Purpose and Research Questions
Given the limited number of faculty of color in the academy and the paucity of
statistically comparative exploration of their workload by rank, this study has two central
purposes. The first is to examine whether faculty of color spend their time differently than
White faculty. Findings in this area will inform where faculty of color seem to focus their
energy most and if their focus differs from that of White faculty. The second purpose is to
compare the workload of faculty of color and White faculty within academic ranks. With this
information, we will gain a better sense of whether the patterns of differences in workload for
faculty of color and White faculty vary by academic rank.
Faculty of Color Workload 5
Review of the Literature
The underrepresentation of faculty of color in academe continues to be an issue in higher
education. Despite various policies and actions to increase the level of diversity in the
professoriate, the number of faculty of color remains highly disproportionate to that of White
faculty. Research suggests that the lack of diversification in academe may in part be due to the
differentiation of time spent by faculty of color versus White faculty on research, teaching, and
service-related activities (Antonio, 2002; Turner & Myers, 2000).
The notion of “time spent” is comparable to that of faculty workload research. In other
words, the amount of time faculty members dedicate to various activities is the amount of work
they produce in each area. Workload/time appears to affect faculty production and their
subsequent ability to dedicate a sufficient number of hours to “appropriate” activities. Antonio
(2002) found that White faculty produced more research based on traditional tools of
measurement (i.e. number of publications) whereas faculty of color spent more time actually
conducting research. This suggests that while faculty of color understand the importance of
research, they may not have sufficient opportunity to produce at the same rate as their White
counterparts due to other constraints on their time.
The “Academic Ratchet” and Cultural Taxation
Massy and Zemsky (1994) theorized the “academic ratchet” as an explanation of where
faculty members were placing their time. The “academic ratchet” is defined as an individual
faculty member increasing his/her discretionary time to the detriment of seemingly less valued
activities. Their proposition is that as faculty place greater value on discretionary time, activities
less likely to carry significant weight in the tenure process are afforded less importance. Put
simply, those hours not used for activities such as committee work, advising and meeting with
Faculty of Color Workload 6
students, and reflecting on teaching become available for research and scholarship, for consulting
and other professional activities, and in most research universities, for specialized teaching at the
graduate level. While service and other discretionary activities may be personally satisfying,
faculty run the risk of losing both professional stature and mobility if they fall short in various
productivity areas.
Restrictions on the ability of faculty of color to “ratchet” up their research time may be
further explained by the concept of cultural taxation. Cultural taxation, as detailed by Padilla
(1994), is having little or no time to cultivate the research expertise necessary for the tenure
process. According to this phenomenon, faculty of color are often obligated to show good
citizenship toward the institution by serving its needs for ethnic representation on committees,
mentoring students of color; acts taking up inordinate amounts of time that are not typically
rewarded. Despite possibly bringing accolades to the institution for culturally taxing activities,
faculty of color often reap little reward for non-research related activities (Alexander-Snow &
Johnson, 1998; Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001)
Are faculty of color being taxed more than White faculty? If so, in which areas does
taxation occur? By examining workload in terms of culturally taxing activities (keeping faculty
from more “valued” activities) as compared to teaching and research activities (typically more
precious commodities), we can begin to infer the effects of these taxing activities on faculty of
color.
The Effect of Workload on Productivity Faculty workload studies have examined a wide range of factors that affect the
productivity of teaching, research, and service. Early work with these factors included effects of
age, gender, socioeconomic status, educational background (Bell & Seater, 1980; Braxton &
Faculty of Color Workload 7
Bayer, 1986; Clark & Lewis, 1985; Creswell, 1986; Levin & Stephan, 1989; Lewis & Becker,
1989’ Tien & Blackburn, 1996), along with several cultural and organizational dimensions
(Conrad & Blackburn, 1986). Although there appears to be a strong age experience-workload
relationship in economic theory (as age and experience increase, workload and productivity also
increases up to a point and then levels off), this relationship has been found to be more mixed in
higher education and varies by field (Clark & Lewis, 1985; Levin & Stephan, 1989).
Nevertheless, it has also been noted that generally full and more senior professors (particularly at
research universities) tend to have accumulative advantages over most assistant and associate
professors that result in higher levels of productivity (Cole & Cole, 1972; Clark & Lewis, 1985;
Long, 1978; Porter & Umbach, 2001).
Racial Differences
Studies suggest that faculty of color are expected to spend more time on discretionary
activities as compared to White faculty. Subsequently, too much time devoted to these areas
could distract faculty of color from engaging in research, writing, and publishing activities
(Garza, 1993; Turner, Myers, & Creswell, 1999). Alexander-Snow and Johnson (1998) looked
at the perceptions of new and junior faculty of color at predominantly White colleges and
universities. When asked about the primary role expectations, faculty of color believed they
were expected to serve multiple roles for students of color and at the same time be involved in
service work involving ethnic related activities and the recruitment and retention of students of
color. Furthermore, faculty of color perceived an adverse reaction to declining committee work
in fear of a negative impact on the review process.
Although faculty of color may have greater service demands on their discretionary time,
they also feel a certain level of responsibility to students of color and their own cultural
Faculty of Color Workload 8
communities (Astin, Antonio, Cress, & Astin, 1997; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). This level of
obligation to one’s own community may lead to a sort of Catch 22 for faculty of color. On the
one hand, they are expected to perform service roles to a higher degree; on the other hand, these
expectations come at a cost to other faculty expectations, particularly research and writing.
With each additional responsibility, the discretionary time of faculty of color is eroded. The
greater the erosion, the less likely they can produce at the same rate as their White colleagues.
Rank Differences
Studies have shown that faculty with higher rank are more productive (Bellas &
Toutkoushian, 1999; Dundar & Lewis, 1998; Fairweather & Beach, 2002; Noser, Manakyan, &
Tanner, 1996; Tien & Blackburn, 1996; Wanner, Lewis, & Gregorio, 1981). Part of this may be
explained by the fact that full professors have passed through the tenure process and have
demonstrated an acceptable amount of research productivity. Additionally, faculty members
with greater research skills and training are expected to produce more research and often cite
“research” as their primary motivation as opposed to teaching or working with students (Noser et
al., 1996).
Faculty of color, disproportionately represented at lower ranks and shown to devote more
time to teaching and service activities, report marked differences in their motivations.
Particularly in teaching, faculty of color appear to focus more on the overall development of
students and are more apt to use their work for societal change (Antonio, 2002; Fairweather &
Beach, 2002). If the motivations of faculty of color at various ranks are different from their
White counterparts, they will likely devote a greater number of hours to activities other than
research. Seemingly, there are differences which make studying workload within rank
advantageous.
Faculty of Color Workload 9
Method
Data and Sample
Data for this study come from the 2004 administration of the Faculty Survey of
Student Engagement (FSSE), a companion survey of the National Survey of Student
Engagement. Whereas the student survey measures student participation in educational
experiences that prior research has connected to valued outcomes (Chickering & Gamson, 1987;
Kuh, 2001, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), the faculty survey measures faculty practices
and expectations that encourage student engagement in the same beneficial educational
experiences.
FSSE is administered annually at four-year colleges and universities across the country.
Institutions choose to participate and select their own sample of faculty to survey. Given that the
focus of the survey is on undergraduate teaching and learning, institutions are encouraged to
submit contact information only for those faculty members who teach undergraduates. In 2004,
of the 132 institutions that participated in FSSE, 104 surveyed all undergraduate teaching faculty
or all faculty members on their campus. In order reduce the potential effects of various
institutional sampling schemes, our study draws on responses from faculty at only these 104
institutions.
Although not representative of all U.S. four-year colleges and universities, the 104
institutions represent a wide cross-section of U.S. four-year institutions of higher education. For
example, of the 104 institutions, 21% are doctoral, nearly 50% are master’s level, 13% are liberal
arts, 16% are baccalaureate general, and 4% are other types of institutions. In addition, public
and private institutions are equally represented among the 104 colleges and universities.
Faculty of Color Workload 10
In 2004, FSSE was a completely online survey and did not take faculty long to complete
(most finished in around 15 minutes). In addition, faculty members were actively encouraged to
participate by their institutions and faculty responses were anonymous. These are among the
reasons faculty responded at relatively high rates. Because the survey was anonymous,
calculating exact response rates is difficult. However, FSSE staff estimate that the average
institutional response rate was close to 50% for the 104 institutions in this study.
To investigate racial and ethnic differences in how faculty spend their time, the sample
was limited to African American, Asian, Hispanic and White faculty members who identified
themselves as lecturers/instructors, assistant professors, associate professors, or full professors.
After these limitations and deletion for missing data, the sample consisted of 9620 White, 589
Asian, 349 African American, and 154 Hispanic faculty members. Unfortunately, there were too
few responses from Native American or American Indian faculty for inclusion in the study.
Measures
On the FSSE survey, several different types of questions are used to determine how
faculty members spend their time in and out of class. Of particular interest in this study is a
series of items about the number of hours faculty members spend in a typical 7-day week on a set
of professional activities, including teaching in class; grading papers or exams; research and
scholarly activities; working with students on activities other than course work, such as
committees, organizations, student life activities, orientation, intramurals, etc.; and conducting
service activities. A complete list of the items used in this study as well as their means and
standard deviations are in Table 2.
Faculty of Color Workload 11
Table 2. Survey Items about the Number of Hours Faculty Members Spend on Professional Activities
Item Mean SD Faculty were asked to estimate how many hours they spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the following
Teaching undergraduate students in class 8.65 4.85
Grading papers and exams 6.04 4.37
Giving other forms of written and oral feedback to students 4.71 3.63
Preparing for class 8.16 5.11
Reflecting on ways to improve my teaching 4.24 3.82
Research and scholarly activities 8.61 8.45
Advising undergraduate students 3.17 3.19
Supervising internships or other field experiences 1.91 3.65
Working with students on activities other than course work 2.11 3.04
Other interactions with students outside of the classroom 3.28 3.45
Conducting service activities 3.25 4.13
Total hours per week 54.13 19.02 N = 10,712 Note: Faculty responded to the items within a range of values: 0, 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20, 21-30, and more than 30. Faculty responses were then recoded to the mid-point of the indicated range. A value of 35.5 was assigned when faculty indicated more than 30 hours.
Faculty responded to these items within a range of hours (0, 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16, 17-20,
21-30, and more than 30). Items were recoded so that faculty responses equaled the mid-point of
the indicated range (for the final category, more than 30, a value of 35.5 was used).
Consequently, a mean for an item represents the average hours spent in a typical 7-day week on a
particular activity by a group of faculty. Summing all of the items together gives an estimate of
the average number of hours faculty work per week.
Analyses
Analyses were run to determine differences between racial/ethnic groups for the average
hours per week spent on the 11 activities in Table 2 as well as the total hours worked per week.
Faculty of Color Workload 12
Analyses were run separately for lecturers/instructors, assistant professors, associate professors,
and full professors to determine whether the pattern of those differences varied by faculty rank.
Mean scores for each racial/ethnic group were compared within each rank category. We report
two standardized mean differences (i.e., effect sizes with pooled standard deviation): one without
controls and one after controlling for the effects of gender, full-time/part-time status, disciplinary
area (arts and humanities; biology; business; education; engineering; physical science;
professional fields; social science; and “other” fields, such as agriculture, communications, and
family studies), and number of years teaching. Standardized mean differences were calculated
using regression analyses where the dependent measures were standardized and dichotomous
variables were entered indicating whether a faculty member was African American, Asian, or
Hispanic (White faculty served as the reference group). In addition, when the control variables
were entered into the regression model the dichotomous independent variables were entered as is
and the continuous control variable, number of years teaching, was standardized before entry.
All standardizations were done within faculty rank categories.
Limitations
There are three primary limitations to this study. First, due to the nature of participation
in the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement, our sample of faculty comes from a convenience
sample of institutions. This suggests that caution should be used when generalizing our findings
to faculty at other institutions of higher education. Fortunately, the 104 institutions included in
this study represent a wide cross-section of U.S. four-year colleges and universities where all
undergraduate teaching faculty or all faculty were surveyed and where rates of response were
respectable. While it is certainly possible that the results of a similar study done on faculty from
a particular segment of institutions (e.g., elite research universities) would produce quite
Faculty of Color Workload 13
different results, it would be surprising if other studies done on faculty from U.S. institutions in
general did not find similar results.
Second, while the data used for this study is from nearly 11,000 faculty members from
over 100 institutions, there are too few Native American and American Indian faculty to include
that group in the study and there are still relatively small numbers of other faculty of color,
particularly Hispanic faculty. This problem is apparent when we examine faculty by
race/ethnicity and rank (e.g., there are only 21 Hispanic full professors in our sample). This
limitation is less a function of the methods of data collection and analysis, and more a function of
the under-representation of faculty of color at U.S. colleges and universities. For this study, the
implication of having small numbers of respondents who are faculty of color means that
statistically significant differences between groups are more difficult to detect.
The final limitation of this study comes from the limited nature of the dependent
measures. The activities listed in Table 2 do not cover all possible work activities and certainly
do not cover all activities faculty members participate in during an average week. As a result,
when we find significant differences in the amount of time faculty spend advising students, we
may not be able to determine the particular activities from which certain faculty members are
“borrowing” that time. While this limits the conclusions that can be drawn from our work, it
allows us to identify logical next steps in continuing research in this area.
Results
Across most of the activities investigated in this study, the overall trend is that faculty of
color spend about the same amount time on the activities as White faculty, regardless of faculty
rank. In terms of the time faculty spend grading papers and exams, supervising internships or
other field experiences, or having other interactions with students outside of the classroom, no
Faculty of Color Workload 14
significant differences were found within any rank after controls were introduced. For activities
where significant differences exist, there is often not a clear pattern to the results. For example,
Hispanic lecturers and instructors spend more time conducting service activities (effect size =
0.40, p < 0.01) and Asian associate professors spend more time preparing for class (effect size =
0.25, p < 0.01), but similar differences do not exist at other ranks for these groups of faculty.
In only three instances, the amount of time Hispanic lecturers and instructors spend
teaching and the amount of time Asian assistant professors spend teaching and working with
students on activities other than coursework, did faculty of color spend significantly less time on
an activity than White faculty (although statistically significant, these differences were generally
small). The general lack of negative results for faculty of color, suggests that putting in more
time in one area, does not necessitate a reduction of time on other activities, a point we explore
further below and in our conclusions and implications.
The remainder of this section focuses on the results for four of our measures: the amount
of time spent advising, the amount of time faculty spend reflecting on their teaching, the amount
of time spent on research and scholarly activities, and the total hours spent on all 11 activities.
For these measures, a pattern of differences was apparent.
Advising
African American faculty at the lecturer/instructor, assistant, and associate levels
averaged the greatest number of hours per week in advising undergraduate students at 4.29, 4.00,
and 4.55 hours respectively (see Table 3). At the full professor level, Hispanic faculty averaged
the greatest number of hours in advising activities with 4.81 hours per week. After controlling
for the effects of gender, full-time/part-time status, disciplinary area, and years teaching, African
American faculty spent significantly more time advising than their White colleagues at each rank
Faculty of Color Workload 15
level: lecturer/instructor (effect size = 0.49, p < 0.001), assistant (effect size = 0.31, p < 0.01),
associate (effect size = 0.35, p < 0.01), and full (effect size = 0.32, p < 0.01). For Hispanic
faculty, differences from White faculty after controls were of a meaningful size at the
lecturer/instructor (effect size = 0.44, p < 0.01), associate (effect size = 0.36, p > .05), and full
professor ranks (effect size = 0.42, p > 0.05), but the small number of cases at the associate and
full ranks allows the probability that these results are due to chance to rise above the common
thresholds for statistical significance. The results suggest that, for the most part, Asian faculty
spend about the same amount of time advising as White faculty across ranks. At the assistant
level, Asian faculty members spend significantly more time advising than their white
counterparts (effect size = 0.14, p < 0.05), but even here the difference is small (it equates to
about 20 minutes per week).
Faculty of Color Workload 16
Table 3. Average Hours Per Week Spent Advising Undergraduates by Rank and Ethnicity
Faculty Race and Rank N Mean SD
Mean Difference
From White
Effect Sizea
Effect Size with Controlsb
Lecturer/Instructor White 2083 2.33 3.58 Reference Group African-American 90 4.29 5.76 1.96 0.52*** 0.49*** Hispanic 47 4.11 6.09 1.78 0.47** 0.44** Asian 81 2.44 2.84 0.11 0.03 0.10
Assistant Professor White 2476 3.05 2.79 Reference Group African-American 115 4.00 3.68 0.95 0.33** 0.31** Hispanic 57 3.72 3.17 0.67 0.23 0.20 Asian 221 3.41 2.91 0.36 0.12 0.14*
Associate Professor White 2472 3.44 2.93 Reference Group African-American 75 4.55 3.83 1.11 0.37** 0.35** Hispanic 29 4.53 3.80 1.09 0.37* 0.36 Asian 140 3.31 2.44 -0.13 -0.04 -0.06
Full Professor
White 2589 3.46 3.06 Reference Group African-American 69 4.64 3.26 1.18 0.38** 0.32** Hispanic 21 4.81 4.58 1.35 0.43* 0.42 Asian 147 3.70 3.88 0.24 0.08 0.07
Total 10712 3.17 3.19 * p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 a The effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation b Effect size with controls is the unstandardized regression coefficient for ethnicity (White versus faculty of color) from analyses where all non-dichotomous variables were standardized. Controls include gender, employment status, discipline, and number of years teaching.
That African American and Hispanic faculty spend more time advising students than their
White colleagues is consistent with previous findings that suggest faculty of color engage in non-
Faculty of Color Workload 17
research activities, such as advising, more so than their White counterparts (Mitchell, 1994;
Turner, 2002). Furthermore, the findings support the notion that faculty of color are involved in
service and other activities that typify cultural taxation. For example, at the associate level, the
time faculty of color spend advising is noticeably greater than that of White faculty at the same
rank. One might reasonably assume, based on the concept of cultural taxation, extra time spent
on areas such as advising would come at the cost of time spent on activities such as research.
However, this isn’t necessarily the pattern we find in our results (see Table 5).
Reflecting on Teaching
The results in Table 4 suggest that, across faculty rank levels, African American faculty
spend considerably more time reflecting on ways to improve their teaching than their White
counterparts even after controlling for the effects of gender, full-time/part-time status,
disciplinary area, and years teaching (effect sizes range from 0.37 for lecturers/instructors to 0.59
for assistant professors, p < 0.001 for all). For tenured Asian faculty (associate and full
professors), there were also sizeable differences from White faculty (effect size for both are 0.38,
p < 0.001). At the assistant level, both Hispanic and Asian faculty spent significantly more time
reflecting on teaching than their White counterparts, but the effects were relatively small in size
(0.27 and 0.18, respectively, p < 0.05 for both).
These findings suggest that in another area of their work, namely reflecting on teaching,
faculty of color may be experiencing cultural taxation. However, as with advising, this taxation
has tangible benefits for students and the institutions at which these faculty work. As with
previous findings based on FSSE data (Kuh, Nelson Laird, Umbach, 2004), these results suggest
that faculty of color emphasize good educational practice more than their White counterparts.
Faculty of Color Workload 18
Table 4. Average Hours Per Week Spent Reflecting on Teaching by Rank and Ethnicity
Faculty Race and Rank N Mean SD
Mean Difference
From White
Effect Sizea
Effect Size with Controlsb
Lecturer/Instructor White 2083 4.61 4.41 Reference Group African-American 90 6.33 5.59 1.72 0.39*** 0.37*** Hispanic 47 5.60 4.05 0.99 0.22 0.14 Asian 81 5.10 4.19 0.49 0.11 0.13
Assistant Professor White 2476 4.27 3.73 Reference Group African-American 115 6.56 4.67 2.29 0.60*** 0.59*** Hispanic 57 5.38 4.12 1.11 0.29* 0.27* Asian 221 4.69 3.88 0.42 0.11 0.18*
Associate Professor White 2472 3.94 3.54 Reference Group African-American 75 5.91 4.19 1.97 0.54*** 0.53*** Hispanic 29 4.57 3.64 0.63 0.17 0.17 Asian 140 5.09 5.22 1.15 0.31*** 0.38***
Full Professor
White 2589 3.72 3.26 Reference Group African-American 69 5.75 4.19 2.03 0.61*** 0.57*** Hispanic 21 4.79 2.99 1.07 0.32 0.29 Asian 147 4.79 3.49 1.07 0.32*** 0.38***
Total 10712 4.24 3.82 * p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 a The effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation b Effect size with controls is the unstandardized regression coefficient for ethnicity (White versus faculty of color) from analyses where all non-dichotomous variables were standardized. Controls include gender, employment status, discipline, and number of years teaching.
Faculty of Color Workload 19
Table 5. Average Hours Per Week Spent on Research and Scholarly Activities by Rank and Ethnicity
Faculty Race and Rank N Mean SD
Mean Difference
From White
Effect Sizea
Effect Size with Controlsb
Lecturer/Instructor White 2083 5.14 20.94 Reference Group African-American 90 4.85 23.21 -0.29 -0.04 -0.04 Hispanic 47 5.60 25.37 0.46 0.07 0.01 Asian 81 7.33 21.33 2.19 0.33** 0.28*
Assistant Professor White 2476 9.25 17.80 Reference Group African-American 115 9.52 21.36 0.27 0.03 0.05 Hispanic 57 10.29 17.60 1.04 0.12 0.11 Asian 221 15.39 18.33 6.14 0.68*** 0.51***
Associate Professor White 2472 8.62 17.51 Reference Group African-American 75 10.28 22.73 1.66 0.20 0.22 Hispanic 29 9.66 18.16 1.04 0.13 0.05 Asian 140 12.87 19.59 4.25 0.52*** 0.40***
Full Professor
White 2589 9.83 17.99 Reference Group African-American 69 8.35 20.28 -1.48 -0.17 -0.07 Hispanic 21 8.24 15.70 -1.59 -0.18 -0.14 Asian 147 13.09 20.08 3.26 0.37*** 0.31***
Total 10712 8.61 8.45 * p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 a The effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation b Effect size with controls is the unstandardized regression coefficient for ethnicity (White versus faculty of color) from analyses where all non-dichotomous variables were standardized. Controls include gender, employment status, discipline, and number of years teaching.
Research and Scholarly Activities
With the notion of cultural taxation in mind and given the results for time spent advising
and reflecting on one’s teaching, we hypothesized that the extra time faculty of color spend on
Faculty of Color Workload 20
such activities would come at a cost to their time spent on research and scholarly activities.
However, as can be seen in Table 5, our results do not support our hypothesis. Rather, within
each rank level, African American and Hispanic faculty appear to spend about the same amount
of time as their White colleagues on research and scholarly activities and Asian faculty spend
significantly more time even after controls are introduced.
Total Hours
Table 6 contains the results of our analyses on the composite measure of all 11 activities.
Given the results reported above (that faculty of color do certain activities significantly more
than their White colleagues and that very few negative results were found), it is not surprising
that the results in Table 6 suggest that faculty of color work more hours on the 11 activities than
their White colleagues. At the lecturer/instructor level, the differences are small (after controls,
effect sizes range from 0.08 to 0.14) and not significant (p > 0.05). This suggests that the
differences for lecturers/instructors reported above, some of which were of moderate size, get
washed away by marginal negative differences from other activities. At the other ranks, this is
not the case.
At the assistant level, faculty of color averaged about 60 hours per week while white
faculty averaged about 56 hours per week. The effect sizes for total hours, while relatively
small, were significant for African American (after controls, effect size = 0.21, p < 0.05) and
Asian faculty (after controls, effect size = 0.22, p < 0.01). For Hispanic faculty, the effect size
was slightly smaller and not significant (after controls, effect size = 0.15, p > 0.05).
The differences in time spent were largest at the associate level where faculty of color
averaged more than 60 hours per week on all activities as compared to slightly less than 55 hours
per week for White faculty. The effect sizes for African American and Asian faculty were the
Faculty of Color Workload 21
same (after controls, 0.41, p < 0.001). The results for full professors were similar to those for
assistant professors.
Table 6. Average Hours Per Week On All Activities by Rank and Ethnicity
Faculty Race and Rank N Mean SD
Mean Difference
From White
Effect Sizea
Effect Size with Controlsb
Lecturer/Instructor White 2083 47.82 20.94 Reference Group African-American 90 50.68 23.21 2.86 0.14 0.08 Hispanic 47 52.81 25.37 4.99 0.24 0.12 Asian 81 47.98 21.33 0.16 0.01 0.14
Assistant Professor White 2476 56.21 17.80 Reference Group African-American 115 60.19 21.36 3.98 0.22* 0.21* Hispanic 57 59.88 17.60 3.67 0.20 0.15 Asian 221 59.96 18.33 3.75 0.21** 0.22**
Associate Professor White 2472 54.93 17.51 Reference Group African-American 75 62.02 22.73 7.09 0.40*** 0.41*** Hispanic 29 60.36 18.16 5.43 0.30 0.26 Asian 140 61.66 19.59 6.73 0.38*** 0.41***
Full Professor
White 2589 54.70 17.99 Reference Group African-American 69 60.05 20.28 5.35 0.29* 0.29* Hispanic 21 59.19 15.70 4.49 0.25 0.27 Asian 147 59.01 20.08 4.31 0.24** 0.27**
Total 10712 54.13 19.02 * p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001 a The effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation b Effect size with controls is the unstandardized regression coefficient for ethnicity (White versus faculty of color) from analyses where all non-dichotomous variables were standardized. Controls include gender, employment status, discipline, and number of years teaching.
Faculty of Color Workload 22
At the associate and full ranks, the effect sizes for Hispanic faculty were of comparable
size to effects that were significant for other groups of faculty. In fact, for full professor Hispanic
faculty averaged slightly more hours worked per week than Asian faculty, but the result for
Hispanic faculty was not significant while the result for Asian faculty was. This illustrates the
statistical difficulties that arise from having such a limited number of Hispanic faculty members
in the population and sample.
Conclusion and Implications
The results of this study suggest that although faculty of color are taxed in certain areas,
namely in time spent advising and reflecting on teaching, it does not appear to come at the cost
time spent on research and scholarly activities. In fact, across many of the activities examined
individually in this study, faculty of color spent a similar amount of time on these activities as
White faculty. However, when investigating the total number of hours based on the composite
measure of multiple scholarly and non-scholarly activities, faculty of color averaged more hours
per week. Differences were particularly evident at the associate level. Even after earning tenure,
faculty of color in the study did not seem to “buy into” the institutional culture associated with
tenure. In other words, rather than accepting the security often associated with tenure, faculty of
color “ratcheted up” their efforts while White faculty worked fewer total hours per week. It is
interesting to further note that White faculty spent fewer total hours per week both prior to and
following tenure; begging the question, what are White faculty members doing with their time?
With both tangible and intangible requests placed on faculty of color (i.e., promotion of
diversity on the campus, committee work, mentoring students of color), we need to better
understand how to assist the disparate number of faculty of color at all ranks (Essien, 2003;
Faculty of Color Workload 23
Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001). This study highlighted certain areas that warrant additional
research and potential areas on which to further concentrate.
Future Directions for Research
The results of this study raise important questions about the study of workload,
particularly for faculty of color. While previous scholarship suggests that the extra time faculty
of color spend on activities such as advising often come at the cost of time spent on research
(Essien, 2003; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Turner & Myers, 2000), this does not appear to be the
case for the faculty in this study. But, that extra time has to come from somewhere. Our results
suggest that faculty of color work more per week than their White colleagues on the 11 activities
in our study, due largely to the extra time they spend advising undergraduates and reflecting on
their teaching. This amounts to a cultural tax (Padilla, 1994), but the tax does not come out of
research time. So it must be coming out of other areas that we have not captured. Are faculty
members of color spending less time with their families, socializing, in community-based
activities, or somewhere else? Determining in what areas faculty members borrow time is
important to our understanding faculty workload as well as determining appropriate ways to
support the work of faculty of color.
The connection between research workload and productivity is another important area for
further exploration. We found that faculty of color are spending as much or more time on
research compared to their White colleagues and yet, as Antonio (2002) suggests, White faculty
members are more productive in terms of research output (i.e., publications). For us, this raises
questions about efficiencies and the challenges faculty of color face in areas of productivity,
which greatly affect promotion and tenure decisions. For example, while our results suggest
time on advising doesn’t affect time on research, do the cultural taxes faculty of color pay have
Faculty of Color Workload 24
efficiency costs? In other words, does extra time advising make one a less efficient and therefore
less productive researcher?
Our results suggest that there are differences in the experiences of African American,
Hispanic, and Asian faculty that are also worth further exploration. For example, why are
tenured Asian faculty members spending more time reflecting on their teaching than Hispanic
and White faculty while Asian lecturers/instructors and assistant professors are not? In addition,
why does the cultural taxation seem to be highest for African American faculty of all ranks?
Lastly, why are the differences in hours spent on advising the largest for African American and
Hispanic lecturers/instructors?
Each year, the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement asks faculty several new questions.
We hope to explore some of the above questions in the coming years. In fact, the 2005 survey
included several additional items about how faculty spend their time outside of work. In a future
study, we will examine those activities to determine racial/ethnic differences in areas such as
spending time taking care of dependents.
Faculty of Color Workload 25
References
Alexander-Snow, M., & Johnson, B. (1998, November). Faculty of color and role performance.
Paper presented at annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Miami, FL.
Antonio, A. L. (2002). Faculty of color reconsidered: Reassessing contributions of scholarship.
Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 582-602.
Astin, H.S., Antonio, A. L., Cress, C. M., & Astin, A. W. (1997). Race and ethnicity in the
American professoriate, 1995-1996. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute,
UCLA.
Bell, J. G., & Seater, J. J. (1980). Publishing performance: Departmental and individual.
Economic Inquiry, 16(4), 599-615.
Bellas, M. L., & Toutkoushian, R. K. (1999). Faculty time allocations and research productivity:
gender, race, and family effects. Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 367-390.
Blackwell, J. E. (1989). Mentoring: An action strategy for increasing minority faculty. Academe,
75(5), 8-14.
Braxton, J. M., & Bayer, A. E. (1986). Assessing faculty scholarly performance. In J. W.
Creswell (Ed.), Measuring Faculty Research Performance. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 50. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brayboy, B. M. J. (2003). The implementation of diversity in predominantly White colleges and
universities. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 72-86.
Chickering, A. W. & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
Chronicle of higher education almanac (2005). Volume 52, Number 1. Washington, DC.
Faculty of Color Workload 26
Clark, S. M., & Lewis, D. R. (1985). Faculty vitality and institutional productivity: Critical
perspectives for higher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1972). The ortega hypothesis. Science, 178, 368-375.
Conrad, C. F., & Blackburn, R. (1985). Correlates of departmental quality in regional colleges
and universities. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 279-295.
Creswell, J. W. (1986). Measuring faculty research performance. New Directions for
Institutional Research 50, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
de la Luz Reyes, M., & Halcon, J. J. (1996). Racism in the academia: The old wolf revisited. In
C. Turner, M. Garcia, A. Nora, & L. I. Rendon (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity in
higher education (pp. 337-348). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom
Publishing.
Dundar, H., & Lewis, D.R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education.
Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 607-631.
Essien, V. (2003). Visible and invisible barriers to the incorporation of faculty of color in
predominantly White law schools. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 63-71.
Fairweather, J. S., Beach, A. L. (2002). Variations in faculty work at research universities:
Implications for state and institutional policy. Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 97-
115.
Garza, H. (1993). Second-class academics: Chicano/Latino faculty in U.S. universities. In J.
Gainen and R. Boice (Eds.), Building a diverse faculty: New directions for teaching and
learning, No. 53. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gregory, S. T. (1998). Faculty diversity: Effective strategies for the recruitment and retention of
faculty of color. Trotter Review, 5-7.
Faculty of Color Workload 27
Horton, H. W. (2000, December). Perspectives on the current status of the racial climate relative
to student, staff, and faculty of color at predominantly White colleges and universities in
America. Equity and Excellence in Education, 33(3), 35-37.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning: Inside the National
Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17, 66.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2),
24-32.
Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1989). Age and research productivity of academic scientists.
Research in Higher Education, 30(5), 531-549.
Lewis, D. R., & Becker, W. E. (1979). Academic rewards in higher education. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger Publishing.
Long, J. S. (1978). Productivity and academic positions in the scientific career. American
Sociological Review, 43, 889-908.
Massy, W. F., & Zemsky, R. (1994) Faculty discretionary time: Departments and the “academic
ratchet”. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 1-22.
Mitchell, J. (1994). Visible, vulnerable, and viable: Emerging perspectives of a minority
professor. In K. Feldman & M. Paulsen (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the college
classroom (pp. 383-390). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing.
Noser, T. C., Manakyan, H., & Tanner, J. R. (1996). Research productivity and perceived
teaching effectiveness: a survey of economics faculty. Research in Higher Education,
37(3), 299-321.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Faculty of Color Workload 28
Padilla, A. M. (1994). Ethnic minority scholars, research, and mentoring: Current and future
issues. Educational researcher, 23(4), 24-27.
Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using multilevel
modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 171-196.
Singh, D. K., & Stoloff, D. L. (2003, January). Mentoring faculty of color. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. New
Orleans, LA.
Tack, M. W., & Patitu, C. L. (1992). Faculty job satisfaction: Women and minorities in peril.
Report No. 4. Washington, DC: School of Education and Human Development, The
George Washington University.
Tien, F. F., & Blackburn, R.T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty
research productivity. Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 2-22.
Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization
in academe. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Thomas, G. D., & Hollenshead, C. (2001). Resisting the margins: The coping strategies of Black
women and other women of color faculty members at a research university. Journal of
Negro Education, 70(3), 166-175.
Turner, C. S. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple marginality. Journal of
Higher Education, 73(1), 74-93.
Turner, C. S., & Myers, S. L., Jr. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Turner, C. S., Myers, S. L., Jr., & Creswell, J. W. (1999). Exploring underrepresentation: The
case of faculty of color in the Midwest. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 27-59.
Faculty of Color Workload 29
Wanner, R.A., Lewis, L. S., & Gregorio, D. I. (1981). Research productivity in academia: a
comparative study of the sciences, social sciences and humanities. Sociology of
Education, 54(4), 238-253.