Job Satisfaction Around the Academic World 2012
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5434-8_13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Academic Job Satisfaction from an International Comparative Perspective: Factors Associated with Satisfaction Across 12 Countries

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
78
0
4

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
78
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The traditional tradeoff between higher salaries in competitive workplaces and lower salaries in secure academic workplaces does not seem to work anymore. Relatively modest academic salaries in major higher education systems always came with the freedom of working in a less stressful working environment (Bentley et al 2013). With this relative bonus being withdrawn in Poland, as elsewhere globally, the attractiveness of the academic profession is at stake (Altbach et al 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The traditional tradeoff between higher salaries in competitive workplaces and lower salaries in secure academic workplaces does not seem to work anymore. Relatively modest academic salaries in major higher education systems always came with the freedom of working in a less stressful working environment (Bentley et al 2013). With this relative bonus being withdrawn in Poland, as elsewhere globally, the attractiveness of the academic profession is at stake (Altbach et al 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several reasons for the increased intensification of work in higher education (HE) could be identified stemming from the radical reforms experienced in the sector in many countries. These include the 'massification' of HE; a student body from an increasingly varied social, cultural and educational background; increased demands for transnational education; the introduction of market-led policies requiring diversification and regular redesign; more stringent requirements for accountability and efficiency; an increased pressure to publish; the introduction of more "judgemental" performance management systems regarding the direction, quality and impact of teaching and research output; and more rigorous monitoring of the student experience (Altbach, 2000;Bentley, Coates, Dobson, Goedegebuure, & Meek, 2013;Biron, Brun, & Ivers, 2008;Miller, Taylor, & Bedeian, 2011;Shin & Jung, 2014;Tytherleigh et al, 2005;Ter Bogt & Scapens, 2012;Winefield et al, 2008;Yussof & Khan, 2013). A shift towards a more bureaucratic and non-participative style of management has also been highlighted, which is widely considered incompatible with expectations of collegiality and academic freedom (Fanghanel, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other research indicates that the effort that academics are required to put into their job can engender conflict between work and personal life, which can be a considerable source of distress (Kinman & Jones, 2008;Winefield, Boyd, & Winefield, 2014). Nonetheless, although academic work can be demanding and stressful, there is also evidence that it can be satisfying and rewarding (Bentley et al, 2013;Catano et al, 2010). Factors such as autonomy, variety, role clarity, intellectual challenge, collegiality, contribution to society, respect from colleagues and managers, and the ability to gain self esteem from professional reputation, have been cited as particularly powerful sources of satisfaction for academics (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the main reasons of this situation, flexible nature of academic world and effects of global imperatives can be mentioned. Global imperatives such as performance based incentives and competition were proposed to weaken the cooperation among academicians and positive climate (Bentley et al, 2013;Locke et al 2011;Lyons When we looked at the second part of the Table 4, we notice that APWb with two predictor variables significantly explain .43 of the variance in AC score (criterion). The strongest predictor, APWb 4 (Recognition), was responsible for 51% of one unit change in AC (β=.505, p=.000).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%