<%BANNER%>

Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment and Job Satisfaction at a Southeastern University College of Dentistry

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041013/00001

Material Information

Title: Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment and Job Satisfaction at a Southeastern University College of Dentistry
Physical Description: 1 online resource (215 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Cooper, Sharon
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: academic, administration, american, association, career, climate, college, culture, dental, development, environment, faculty, framework, gender, hagedorn, job, mentoring, perceptions, predictors, professional, promotion, recruitment, retention, satisfaction, schools, survey, tenure, university, workplace
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to replicate the American Dental Education Association 2007 Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment survey at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry. The study examined dental faculty perceptions of academic workplace variables including culture and environment, as well as professional development support and resources at SEUCD. In addition, the study collected data on significant workplace environmental factors that best predict overall faculty job satisfaction at the college. The study examined faculty perceptions of workplace environment with regard to gender, as well as professional attributes, including tenure status, academic degree, faculty rank, job position, salary, history of effective mentorship, total number of years in academic dentistry at SEUCD, and total number of years in academic dentistry, regardless of academic institution. Following IRB approval, an online survey about faculty perceptions of workplace environment was sent to 168 full-time faculty at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry, main campus. Fifty-seven faculty (34 percent) responded. The research indicated that faculty with lower salaries were less likely to perceive availability of opportunities and resources for faculty development, including promotion and tenure workshops and mid-tenure review and feedback. Faculty not effectively mentored by a senior academic colleague were less likely to perceive availability of opportunities and resources for faculty development, and were more likely to rely on outside resources for development. Less than 50 percent of faculty were aware of formal mentoring programs for new or untenured faculty. Faculty not effectively mentored were less likely to report positive collegial relationships or to perceive fair treatment by department chairpersons. A history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague was found to be a significant factor in relation to overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with the balance of career and personal life. Perceptions of availability of professional development support and resources, as well as perceptions of an inclusive, collegial academic environment and culture, contribute to overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with the balance of career and personal life. The college should provide, promote, and support policies and programs which foster faculty mentoring and professional development, and which contribute to an optimal academic environment and culture. Creating positive change in the academic workplace environment contributes to faculty job satisfaction, and to the recruitment, development, and retention of future dental faculty.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Sharon Cooper.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Clark, Phillip A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041013:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041013/00001

Material Information

Title: Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment and Job Satisfaction at a Southeastern University College of Dentistry
Physical Description: 1 online resource (215 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Cooper, Sharon
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: academic, administration, american, association, career, climate, college, culture, dental, development, environment, faculty, framework, gender, hagedorn, job, mentoring, perceptions, predictors, professional, promotion, recruitment, retention, satisfaction, schools, survey, tenure, university, workplace
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Higher Education Administration thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to replicate the American Dental Education Association 2007 Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment survey at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry. The study examined dental faculty perceptions of academic workplace variables including culture and environment, as well as professional development support and resources at SEUCD. In addition, the study collected data on significant workplace environmental factors that best predict overall faculty job satisfaction at the college. The study examined faculty perceptions of workplace environment with regard to gender, as well as professional attributes, including tenure status, academic degree, faculty rank, job position, salary, history of effective mentorship, total number of years in academic dentistry at SEUCD, and total number of years in academic dentistry, regardless of academic institution. Following IRB approval, an online survey about faculty perceptions of workplace environment was sent to 168 full-time faculty at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry, main campus. Fifty-seven faculty (34 percent) responded. The research indicated that faculty with lower salaries were less likely to perceive availability of opportunities and resources for faculty development, including promotion and tenure workshops and mid-tenure review and feedback. Faculty not effectively mentored by a senior academic colleague were less likely to perceive availability of opportunities and resources for faculty development, and were more likely to rely on outside resources for development. Less than 50 percent of faculty were aware of formal mentoring programs for new or untenured faculty. Faculty not effectively mentored were less likely to report positive collegial relationships or to perceive fair treatment by department chairpersons. A history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague was found to be a significant factor in relation to overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with the balance of career and personal life. Perceptions of availability of professional development support and resources, as well as perceptions of an inclusive, collegial academic environment and culture, contribute to overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with the balance of career and personal life. The college should provide, promote, and support policies and programs which foster faculty mentoring and professional development, and which contribute to an optimal academic environment and culture. Creating positive change in the academic workplace environment contributes to faculty job satisfaction, and to the recruitment, development, and retention of future dental faculty.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Sharon Cooper.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Clark, Phillip A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041013:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 DENTAL FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT AND JOB SATISFACTION AT A SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY By SHARON L. COOPER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Sharon L. Cooper

PAGE 3

3 To Apa as promised, and to my children, Lane, Lindsay, and Logan

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As an undergraduat e student at the University of Louisville, I promised myself that I would one day earn a doctoral degree. Shortly thereafter, I made the same promise to my grandfather. Now more than thirty years later, I am fulfilling that promise. It has been a long and interesting journey, with many starts and stops, and several side trips along the way. I have learned a great deal, perhaps as much about myself as my subject matter. However, I believe that the greatest lesson I have learned on this quest is how to ask for and receive help from others In doing so, I have had the opportunity to work with outstanding mentors and peers, made some friendships that will last a lifetime, and experienced incredible gifts of love and support from family and friends I am tremendously grateful to have had this opportunity to learn and grow, and even more grateful to the people who helped and supported me along the way. Without them, this achievement would not be possible. I want to thank my graduate committee chairperson, Dr. Phillip A. Clark, for your guidance and infinite patience as I completed this process. Thanks also to the members of my graduate committee, Dr. Linda Behar Horenstein, Dr. Dale Campbel l, and Dr. Teresa Dolan, for your contributions to my educational process. In particular, I wish to thank my mentors, Dr. Linda Hagedorn, Dr. Cyndi Garvan, and Dr. Linda Behar Horenstein, for the gift of your time and intellect, and for guiding me through the dissertation process. Without your help, I would never have f inished my dissertation, and I am indebted to you all. I also wish to thank Ms. Pearl Harris an d Ms. Deborah McEdward for your help and expertise in navigating the Institutional Review Board process. In addition, I wish to thank Mrs. Diane Fischler for y our time, skills, and advice in editing my dissertation.

PAGE 5

5 T hroughout the past twelve years of my graduate education, I have been surrounded by a group of incredibly supportive and loving friends They have enriched my life and I am grateful for each of them. I was fortunate to go through the entire doctoral program with two wonderful friends, Ron Lester and Nick Grimaudo. Thank you both for many laughs and great companionship. I cannot imagine what graduate school would have been like without you. Thank you to my closest friends, Glenda Gua rino and Mac Young, both of you encouraged me, fed me, and kept my spirits up with laughter and love. You know how much you mean to me. And thank you David, my special friend and companion, for being a very bright and wonderful part of my life. You are simply the best. Finally, I must thank my family for all things tha t are worthwhile. Magda, thank you for inspiring me to achieve more than I trul y believed I could. Pop, thank you for encouraging me and giving me the security to try my wings without fear of failure. Kim, my sister and role model, t hank you for paving the way before me Apa, thank y ou for watching over me, always And to my children, Lane, Lindsay, an d Logan, how can I ever begin to thank you for all that you are to me? I could never have made it this far, never achieved this dream, without your love, support, and encouragement, and best of all, your humor. The three of you have been my rock and I love you all so very much. I thank you from the bot tom of my heart. This truly is our achievement.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 10 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 11 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND FOR THE STUDY ........................................................................... 1 3 Faculty Development and Recruitment ...................................................................... 16 Faculty Retention ........................................................................................................ 18 Purpose of this Study ................................................................................................. 19 Research Questions ................................................................................................... 21 Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................... 23 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 25 Limitations of the Study .............................................................................................. 27 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................................... 28 Factors Affecting Faculty Sh ortages and Position Vacancies .................................. 33 ADEA Survey .............................................................................................................. 36 Career Satisfaction ..................................................................................................... 41 Key Variables .............................................................................................................. 45 Relationship of Key Variables with Faculty Career Satisfaction ............................... 45 Faculty Inclusion .................................................................................................. 45 Faculty Collaboration, Networking, and Support ................................................ 47 Workplace Environment: Academic Resources, Professional Environment, & Academic Climate and Culture ..................................................................... 51 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 64 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 66 Setting ......................................................................................................................... 66 Participants ................................................................................................................. 67 Informed Consent ....................................................................................................... 67 Tasks and Materials .................................................................................................... 68 Operational Definition of Variables ............................................................................ 70 Instrument of Measure: Reliability and Validity .......................................................... 71 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 72 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 73

PAGE 7

7 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA....................................................................... 80 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 80 Sample Description ..................................................................................................... 81 Results ........................................................................................................................ 84 5 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 127 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 127 Summary of the Findings .......................................................................................... 127 Discussion of Significant Findings ..................................................................... 128 Perceptions of Faculty Development (RQ1, RQ2) ............................................ 128 Perceptions of Workplace Environment and Culture (RQ3, RQ4) ................... 140 Relationship of Gender, Professional Attributes, and Perceptions of Academic Environment with Overall Job Satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentis try (RQ5) ........................................................... 146 Best Predictors of Faculty Job Satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry (RQ6) ............................................................................. 153 Compariso n of SEUCD Study with ADEA 2007 Nationwide Study ........................ 153 Comparison of the Findings: Professional Development and Mentoring ............... 154 Comp arison of the Findings: Culture of the School ................................................. 157 Comparison of the Findings: Job Satisfaction and Life Balance Satisfaction ........ 159 Comparison of the Findings: SEUCD Survey and Hagedorns Conceptual Framework of Faculty Job Satisfaction ................................................................. 160 Implications of the Study: A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ........... 161 Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................. 167 APPENDIX A IRB DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................................... 177 B INFOR MED CONSENT DOCUMENTATION .......................................................... 181 C LETTERS TO PARTICIIPANTS ............................................................................... 187 D SURVEY ................................................................................................................... 190 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 206 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................................................. 214

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 -1 Demographic data ................................................................................................ 102 4 -2 Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Gender ................. 104 4 -3 Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Degree .................. 105 4 -4 Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Rank ..................... 106 4 -5 Perceptions o f Availability of Professional Development by Career Focus ....... 107 4 -6 Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Tenure-Accruing Status .................................................................................................................... 108 4 -7 Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Salary ................... 109 4 -8 Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Years of Employment at SEU -CD ...................................................................................... 110 4 -9 Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Years of Employment in Academic Dentistry ..................................................................... 111 4 -10 Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Mentoring Experience by Others ........................................................................................... 112 4 -11 Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Gender 113 4 -12 Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Academic Degree ................................................................................................. 114 4 -13 Percepti ons of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Rank ..... 115 4 -14 Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Career Focus .................................................................................................................... 116 4 -15 Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by TenureAccruing Status .................................................................................................... 117 4 -16 Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Salar y ... 118 4 -17 Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Years of Employment at SEU -CD ...................................................................................... 119 4 -18 Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Years of Employment in Academic Dentistry ..................................................................... 120

PAGE 9

9 4 -19 Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Mentoring Experience by Others ......................................................................... 121 4 -20 Relationship of Gender and Professional Attributes, and Perceptions of Workplace Environment with Overall Faculty Job Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Balance of Life .......................................................................... 122 5 -1 SEUCD Research: Confirmation or Refutation of Key Theories ........................ 170

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 -1 Hagedorns Conceptual Framework of Job Satisfaction Model. ........................... 78 3 -2 University of Florida College of Dentistry research model. ................................... 79

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Di ssertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DENTAL FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT AND JOB SATISFACTION AT A SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY By Sharon L. Cooper December 2009 Chair: Phillip A. Clark Major: Higher Education Administration The purpose of this study was to replicate the American Dental Education Association 2007 Dental Faculty Per ceptions of Workplace Environment survey at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry The study examined dental faculty perceptions of academic workplace variables including culture and environment, as well as professional development support and r esources at SEUCD In addition, the study collected data on significant workplace environmental factors that best predict overall faculty job satisfaction at the college. The study examined faculty perceptions of workplace environment with regard to gend er, as well as professional attributes, including tenure status, academic degree, faculty rank, job position, salary, history of effective mentorship, total number of years in academic dentistry at SEUCD, and total number of years in academic dentistry, regard less of academic institution. Following IRB approval, an online survey about faculty perceptions of workplace environment was sent to 168 full -time faculty at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry main campus. Fifty -seven faculty (34 percent) responded. The research indicated that faculty with lower salaries were less likely to perceive availability of opportunities and

PAGE 12

12 resources for faculty development, including promotion and tenure workshops and midtenure review and feedback. Faculty not effectively mentored by a senior academic colleague were less likely to perceive availability of opportunities and resources for faculty development, and were more likely to rely on outside resources for development. Less than 50 percent of faculty were aware of formal mentoring programs for new or untenured faculty. Faculty not effectively mentored were less likely to report positive collegial relationships or to perceive fair treatment by department chairpersons. A history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague was found to be a significant factor in relation to overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with the balance of career and personal life. Perceptions of availability of professional development support and resources, as well as perceptions of an inclusive, collegial academic environment and culture, contribute to overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with the balance of career and personal life. The college should provide, promote, and support policies and programs whic h foster faculty mentoring and professional development, and which contribute to an optimal academic environment and culture. Creating positive change in the academic workplace environment contributes to faculty job satisfaction, and to the recruitment, d evelopment, and retention of future dental faculty.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND FOR THE S TUDY The mission of the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) the national organization of academic dentistry and dental educators, is to address contemporary issues relating to dental education and research. The a ssociations core values include promoting and improving excellence in dental education, serving the individual needs of members and institutions, and expanding the diversity of dental education. The ADEA membership includes all dental schools as well as graduate dental programs hospital dental programs and allied dental education programs in the United States. Prior to the year 2000, the American Dental Education Association was identified as the Americ an Association of Dental Schools. The American Association of Dental Schools (AADS) Presidents Task Force on Future Dental S chool Faculty issued an August 1999 report regarding a crisis in dental education due to a nationwide faculty shortage. The report focused on an insufficient number of dental faculty available to meet the needs of current students, and also stated that the problem is projected to escalate within the next ten years (AADS 1999 Task Forc e Report). The report described the consequences of not addressing the faculty shortage as no less than a national impact on the quality and accessibility to oral health care. ( AADS 1999 Task Force Report p. 7) Providing primary care to underserved populations is a significant mission of the institut ions of dental educat ion (AADS 1999 Task Force Report ). The report indicated that the average number of total faculty per dental school has declined 5.4 percent and that the average number of total dental faculty nationwide has declined by 18 percent (AAD S 1999 Task Force Report ). Since the time of the report,

PAGE 14

14 more dental schools have opened, and during the years 20032005, the total number of faculty have increased from 11,348 to 11,715. This number includes 4, 736 full time, 5 097 part -time, and 1, 791 v olunteer faculty (Chmar, Weaver, & Valachovi c, 2006). Estimates are that approximately 33 percent of dental school faculty turn over every five years, requiring between 210 and 220 new faculty and administ rative replacements yearly (AADS 1999 Task Force R eport ). The annual rate of faculty turnover for the academic years between 2003 and 2006 has averaged approximately 910 percent of total dental faculty yearly (Chmar et al., 2006). Total vacant positions for the academic year 200420 05 include 76 perce nt in the primary clinical science, 12 percent in research, 5 percent in basic sciences, and 5 percent in administration (Chmar et al., 2006). Of the reported vacant positions, 14 percent were at the professor level, 19 percent at associate professor leve l, 36 percent at assistant professor level, and 4 percent at instructor level (Chmar et al., 2006). Research shows that it is taking longer to fill vacant positions than in the past. For the academic year 200420 05, 50 percent of t he positions had been op en for six months or less, 24 percent for seven to twelve months, and 15 percent for one year or more (Chmar et al., 2006). Research also shows a lack of response to the advertised positions, often due to budget and salary limitations as well as a lack o f applicants who meet the job criteria (Chmar et al., 2006). The current turnover of dental faculty is primarily influenced by the migration of dental faculty to the more lucrative private practice. Statistics show that 47 percent of the total dental faculty separations for the academic year 200320 04 were the result of dentists entering or returning t o private practice (Weaver, C hmar, Haden, & Valachovic,

PAGE 15

15 2005a) and 36 percent for the academic year 2004-20 05 (Chmar et al., 2006). Faculty fixed term contr acts accounted for 21 percent of departures in 2003 20 04 (Weaver, et al., 2005a ) and 18 percent in 2004 -20 05 (Chmar et al., 2006). Recruitment by another academic institution accounted for 13 percent of separations in 200420 05 (Chmar et al., 2006). Reti rement accounted for 15 percent of the total number of faculty separations in 200320 04 (Weaver, et al., 2005a ) and 20 percent in 2004-20 05 (Chmar et al., 2006). Death of faculty accounted for 3 percent of departures in 2004 20 05 (Chmar et al., 2006). It is estimated that 55 percent of dental faculty are currently fifty years of age of older, 24 percent are sixty years of age or older, and 30 percent of the current dental school facult y will retire within the next ten years, leaving approximately 3,400 fa culty positions to b e filled (Weaver et al., 2005a). An ADEA 2004 2005 survey of the fifty -five U.S. and Canadian dental schools reported a total of 275 vacant budgeted faculty positions, 250 full time positions and twenty -four part -time positions, with one position unaccounted for (Chmar et al., 2006). The vacant faculty positions in 2003-2004 totaled 296 includin g 241 full time positions and fifty -five part time positions (Weaver et al., 2004). The report stated that the total number of vacant positi ons is influenced by the number of those positions which were lost when vacated or that were no longer held as a vacated budget ed position. The positions had been terminated in part due to declines in state funding of the public dental schools. American dental schools reported a lo ss of 147 budgeted positions (seventy -four full time and seventy three part time) for the academic year 200320 04 (Weaver et al., 20 05a). Ten dental schools lost twenty -five positions in the academic year 200405, including eig hteen full -time and seven part time positions (Chmar et al.,

PAGE 16

16 2006). The total number of vacant budgeted faculty positions for that academic year would have been higher had those positions remained open. The ADEA 2004-2005 survey indicated that 28 percent of dental school deans consider faculty recruitment and retention to be a problem at their institutions, and 45 percent reported having increased difficulty in filling the v acant positions over the past five years (Chmar et al., 2006). The survey also indicated that many of the dental school deans anticipated an increase in the number of vacated positions needing to be filled within the next five years, with 58 percent suggesting that it would become increasingly difficult to fill those positions (Weaver et al., 2005a ; Chmar et al., 2006). The average number of vacancies at each dental school averages slightly less than five vacancies per school. On average, deans report 3.7 vacancies to be usual and normal t o school operations, however, thirty one school s reported having more vacancies than usual (Chmar et al., 2006). Based on the results of the 200320 04 and 200420 05 academic y ear surveys, the ADEA recommended that faculty recruitment, development, and retention remain priority issues in meeting the teaching, research, patient care, and administrative needs of the dent al education community ( Chmar et al., 2006 ; Weaver et al., 2005a). Faculty Development and Recruitment The 1999 American A ssociation of Dental Schools (AADS ) Task Force issued the follo wing statement regarding faculty development and recruitment: The changing demographics of society must be reflected in the faculty that we are recruiting now and in the future. Unless interventions occur soon to develop, recruit, and retain future facult y, and to create new models of delivering dental education, faculty shortages will affect the quality of dental education and the ability of dental education to produce an adequate number of practitioners to meet the oral health needs of the public. (AADS Task Force Report, 1999, p. 3)

PAGE 17

17 The Bylaws of the American Dental Education Association recognizes the value of students, dental educators, administrators, staff, and patients who reflect the diversity and demographics of American s ociety (ADEA Bylaws, Cha pter I [Core Values] Section A, Number 5). The ADEA Policy, Position Statement and Resolution Regarding Equity and Diversity states: The ADEA strongly endorses the continuous use of recruitment, admission, and retention practices that achieve excellenc e through diversity in American dental education. All dental education institutions and programs should identify, recruit, and retain females and underrepresented minority students. All dental education institutions and programs should identify, recru it, and retain women and underrepresented minorities to faculty positions, and promote women and underrepresented minorities to senior faculty and administrative positions. Thus, the demographics of females and minorities included in the population of dental academicians should accurately reflect the population of female and minority dental students and dentists within the United States (ADEA Policy, Position Statement and Resolution Regarding Equity and Diversity 2003, p. 1 ) According to the AADS 1999 Task Force Report one major dental education objective regarding the recruitment of dental graduates for academic careers has not been effectively pursued. The 1998 American Dental Education Association Survey of Dental School Seniors indicated that only 0.5 percent of graduates had immediate plans that would include teaching, research, or administration in the field of dental education. The 2003 Survey of Dental School Seniors indica ted that only a slight increase in the number of seniors planning an immediate career in dental education, from 0.5 percent to 1.6 percent Upon graduation, the number of seniors planning an immediate career in dental education rose to 1.9 percent The survey also indicated that 46.5 percent of the senior dental stude nts would consider teaching on a part time basis upon graduation or in the future. Females indicating long-range plans for a career in acade mic dentistry outnumbered males: 2.3 percent females, 1.2 percent males.

PAGE 18

18 Despite the slight increase in the number of dental students choosing a career in dental education, much work needs to be done regarding the recruitment and mentoring of dental students into academic dentistry. Faculty Retention According to Nesbitt, Inglehart, and Sinkford (2003), gender may ha ve be en one of the factors affecting faculty retention, resulting in the recent reduction in the total number of dental educators. A 2002 research questionnaire regarding workplace experiences and perc eptions was sent to 2,203 U. S ADEA members. The 40 p ercent response rate to the survey included 870 dental school administrators and faculty m embers. Data from the 738 full time faculty respondents indicated that 257 (34.8 percent ) were female and 481 (65.1 percent ) were male (Nesbitt et al., 2003). Analys is of the study results showed similarities between female and male faculty in the average number of hours worked per week, amount of time spent on research, and amount of available grant support. The results also showed significant differences between female and male faculty. Males were more likely to have office space, secretarial support, protected research time, and lab space. Females were more likely to spend their time teaching. They also reported more incidences of experienced and perceived haras sment. Compared to males, females perceived the work environment as less welcoming and supportive. Th e study showed a significant difference between males and females in the experiences and perceptions of the academic climate at American dental schools ( Nesbitt et al., 2003). Researchers who conducted the ADEA survey suggest ed that addressing gender specific problems related to workplace experiences and p erceptions of school climate would be integral to improving the work environment for all faculty and administrators.

PAGE 19

19 They proposed that learning about and creating supportive and inclusive work place environments would encourage greater retention of those who serve in the academic dental community. In addition, the researchers proposed that dental facult y and administrators worki ng in positive environments would serve as influential role models for dental students considering a career in academic dentistry. The researchers hypothesize d that the resolution of gender -related workplace issues which infl uence dental school climate would increase the recruitment and retention of dental educat ors and administrators (Nesbitt et al., 2003). Purpose of this Study The American Association of Dental Schools Presidents Task Force on Future Dental School Faculty (1 999) issued a r eport indicating that there was and would continue to be a shortage of dental school faculty in the United States. The report also outlined the negative effects that such a shortage would have on the education of futur e dental professionals Follow -up surveys to the Task Report by dental school deans documented further evidence that the faculty shortage continues to be a problem and that it will escalate unless corrective interventions are taken (Haden, Beemsterboer, Weaver, & V alachovic, 2 000; Weaver, Haden, Valachovic, 2001). In 2001, the American Dental Education Association conducted a survey of its members to collect data on dental faculty perceptions of the academic workplace environment and to investigate whether female and male ful l time dental faculty members in U.S. dental schools differ in their workplace experi ences and perceptions (Nesbitt et al., 2003). The study showed significant differences in the experiences and perceptions of the academic climate between male and female dental faculty members.

PAGE 20

20 According to the researchers, t he survey results indicated that male and female faculty members still do not encounter comparable situations in their professional lives and that the results of the survey may ultimately be usefu l when exploring effective recruitment and retention strategies for d ental faculty members (Nesbitt et al., 2003, p. 24). Furthermore, researchers stated that acknowledging that the dental school climate is not gender blind can be a first step on the way to improve the work environment for all dental faculty members (Nesbitt et al., 2003 p. 24) The researchers suggested that the same survey should be administered within individual dental schools. The results of a gender specific cultural audit woul d provide valuable information to individual dental school deans to better unde rstand and address the gender b ased problems that are unique to that institution (Nesbitt et al., 2003) An individual survey of each dental school would allow dental school deans to develop strategies that would create a dental workforce that is able to provide culturally sensitive care (Nesbitt et al., 2003, p. 25) The ADEA Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment Survey was revised and re administered nationally to American dental school faculty in 2007. The survey was divided into fiv e categories of data : 1) faculty demographics, 2) perceptions of professional development support and resources, 3) perceptions of academic environment, culture and climate, 4) sat isfaction with day to day activities as a faculty member, and 5) satisfaction with the dental school as a place to work. T he authors of the revised 2007 survey suggested that dental school leaders use these findings to perform their own assessment to determine the culture and climate of their own dental

PAGE 21

21 institution and to plan changes as needed. The 2007 form of the ADEA survey was used for this study. The purpose of this study wa s to examine dental faculty perceptions of academic workplace variables incl ud ing culture and environment, as well as professional development support and resources at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry (SEUCD ). In addition, this study collect ed data on significant work place environmental factors that best predict ov erall faculty job satisfaction at the College of Dentistry The study examined faculty perceptions of workplace environment with regard to gender as well as professional attributes including tenure status, academic degree, faculty rank job position, sa lary, history of effective mentorship, total number of years in academic dentistry at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry and total number of years in academic dentistry, regardless of academic institution. The data were submitte d to the admin istration of the C ollege of Dentistry as information f or planning strategies to address generic and gender -based workplace issues unique to the institution, thereby improving the academic climate and professional environment. Implementation of the develop ed strategies will contribute to faculty job satisfaction, and will aid in the recruitment and retention of dental faculty at the college. In addition, the r esearch results were submitted as feedback to the American Dental Education Association and the researchers who conducted the original study. Research Questions Questions that were addressed in this study are: Research Question 1. What are the significant faculty perceptions of availability of professional development at A Southeastern University, Coll ege of Dentistry ?

PAGE 22

22 Research Question 2. What among gender and professional attributes (i.e., tenure status, academic degree, rank, job position, salary, number of years in academic dentistry at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry total number of years in academic dentistry, history of mentoring experiences) best predict faculty perceptions of the availability of professional development at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? Research Question 3. What are the significant faculty pe rceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? Research Question 4. What among gender and professional attributes (i.e., tenure status, academic degree, rank, job position, salary, number of y ears in academic dentistry at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry total number of years in academic dentistry, history of mentoring experiences) best predict faculty perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? Research Question 5. What is the relationship of gender, professional attributes, perceptions of availability of professional development, and perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors with overall faculty job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? Research Question 6. What are the best predictors of faculty job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? Statement of Hypotheses 1 There will be no significant faculty perceptions of availability of professional development at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry 2 There will be no gender and professional attributes (i.e., tenure status, academic degree, rank, job position, salary, number of years in academic dentistry at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry total number of years in academic dentistry, history of mentoring experiences) that best predict faculty perceptions of the availability of professional development at A Southeastern Uni versity, College of Dentistry 3 There will be no significant faculty perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry 4 There will be no gender and professional attributes (i.e., tenure status, ac ademic degree, rank, job position, salary, number of years in academic dentistry at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry total number of years in academic dentistry, history of mentoring experiences) that best predict faculty perceptions of wor kplace cultural and environmental factors at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry

PAGE 23

23 5 There will be no significant relationship of gender, professional attributes, perceptions of availability of professional development, and perceptions of workplac e cultural and environmental factors with overall faculty job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry 6 There will be no best predictors of faculty job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry Definition of Ter ms ACADEMIC CLIMATE. The environment in which the art and science of dentistry is taught. The academic climate includes the faculty, staff, and administrators, the academic philosophy regarding dental education, the social and psychological climate of th e program, and the physical facility. ACADEMIC RESOURCES. Faculty access to lab space and equipment, office space, secretarial support, allotted research time, and release time fo r academic endeavors and tenure promoting activities. ACADEMIC/RESEARCH TRACK DENTAL FACULTY. Employees on a twelvemonth tenured or tenure-track appointment with the responsibilities of didactic, laboratory and clinical teaching, research, publishing, and service. ADMINISTRATIVE FACULT Y. Dental instructors with administrative appointments such as department chair, clinic director, program director, associate dean, or dean. ASSISTANT IN, ASSOCIATE IN, SENIOR ASSOCIATE IN. Faculty titles given to individuals with advanced degrees, and who are non-tenure track, with primary responsibilities for teaching and administration. B.S. Bachelor of Science Degree CAREER SATISFACTION. The psychological state of contentment and pleasure an individual experiences with regard to their employment and their work based on perceptions and experiences within the working environment. CHILLY ENVIRONMENT. A term that describes a place of work and climate that women faculty perceive as being noninclusive, non welcoming, and/or professionally inequitable. CLINICAL TRACT. Faculty position with the primary re sponsibilities of clinical and laboratory teaching, and possibly clinical research. D.D.S Doctor of Dental Surgery Degree D.M.D. Doctor of Dental Medicine Degree

PAGE 24

24 FORMAL MENTORING. An organized program endorsed and sponsored by the academic institution, de signed to address the needs of students and/or junior faculty. GENDER BIAS. To discriminate against or favor an individual based on his gender. INCLUSIVE ENVIRONMENT. A workplace in which all individuals have an equal opportunity to participate and to be p romoted, regardless of race, culture, gender, age, or sexual preference. INFORMAL MENTORING. Th e relationship between a senior employee and a protg that is not specifically endorsed or sponsored by the academic institution. The relationship is typically initiated by the colleague or by the protg and is designed to address the needs of a student or junior faculty. M.D. Doctor of Medicine Degree M.S. Master of Science Degree MENTOR. A person who shares expertise and background in career development and work -related psychosocial issues with a protg. NETWORKING. An informal or formal method of linking people and institutions with the purpose of employment, collaboration, or information sharing. PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONM ENT. Includes the quality of educationa l facilities, the academic abilities and activities of the faculty, and the overall educational climate and morale of the institution. PART-TIME FACULTY. Individuals who work less than 40 hours a week and are utilized for clinical teaching. PH.D. Doctor of Philosophy Degree PROMOTION. An upward progression of faculty through the academic ranking system. Although ranking is usually linked to tenure, it is possible to gain tenure and not be promoted, or to be promoted without achieving tenure. PROTG. A stu dent or junior faculty who seeks the assistance and guidance of a mentor to learn and progress in their academic and career endeavors. QUALITY OF LIFE. The level of satisfaction with the personal and professional aspects of ones life. RECRUITMENT. The p ro cess of actively seeking potent ial dental educators for a career in academic dentistry. Prospective dental education faculty are recruited

PAGE 25

25 from the population of dental students and residents, as well as from individuals in the dental profession. RETENTIO N. En couraging faculty to remain in the academic dental environment that is influenced by factors such as a welcoming, inclusive, and supportive environment, and in most cases, the achievement of tenure. SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and behavior s which interferes with the work and educ ation of its victims. V iolation of state and federal laws subjects the perpetrator to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal or expulsion from the working environment. STRESS. The biophy sical response to experienced and perceived events. SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMEN T. A work environment that provides career and pers onal assistance through mutually beneficial working relationships, mentoring, peer networking, and adequate academic resources. TENU RE. E mployment status granted after serving a probationary period that is typi cally seven years in length. This achievement is usually based on the quality and amount of research accompli shed, teaching performance, service to the community and the univers ity and promotion of faculty from assistant professor to associate professor status, and typically confers job security to the person attaining tenure. TENURE-TRACK. A faculty position one assumes with the intent and purpose of acquiring a lifetime appointment TIME ALLOCATION. The amount of effort scheduled or allowed for activities such as research faculty practice, writing, and so forth. S. E. U C D A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry VACANT BUDGETED FACUL TY POSITION. The result of a delay between the departure of a n instructor and th e hiring of a new instructor or the creation of an entirely new faculty position. WELCOMING ENVIRONMENT. A place -setting in which all individuals are welcomed equally, regardless of race, culture, gender, age, or sexual preference. WORKPLACE CULTURE. A work atmosphere that is characterized by acceptance, respect, collegiality, support, and equal opportunity. Significance of the Study The significance of the study was to contribute useful information for the for mulation of solutions to faculty shortages in American dental schools. The findings

PAGE 26

26 from this study contributed to the body of knowledge, theory, and practice that promotes the successful development, recruitment, and retention of faculty and administrators at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry and American dental schools The research has contributed to a better understanding of the issues that affect faculty perceptions of the workplace climate in the a cademic dental institution, and to the develop ment and implementation of strategies which are likely to promote a welcoming, supportive work environment for all dental educators. Improved academic work environments result in increased faculty job satisfaction and improvements in the recruitme nt, development, and retention of future faculty at all American academic dental institutions. The study sought information regarding faculty perceptions of variables within the academic workplace environment that have an effect on overall career satisfaction. In addition, the study looked for differences in faculty perceptions of workplace environment variables based on gender and various professional attributes. The resulting data were examined for indications of problematic workplace environ ment issues unique to SEUCD. Results of the study were submitted to the College of Dentistry as information for the formulation of policies to address those issues. Improvements in the academic climate and professional environment will contribute to the successful recruitment and retention of faculty at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry. While the results of the study reflected the existing workplace environmental climate at SEUCD, the findings also provided data for American dental school a dministrators who are examining ways to improve recruitment, development, and

PAGE 27

27 retention of faculty at their own colleges. A nationwide effort to improve the academic workplace environment in American dental colleges is a determining factor in alleviating the crisis of current and future dental faculty shortages. Limitations of the Study The study was limited to approximately 167 full-time dental faculty employed at the main campus of A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry Faculty who teach at th e SEUCD satellite sites and clinics around the state were eliminated from this study due to the fact that they do not work at the physical location of the College of Dentistry main campus They therefore could not accurately report on perceptions of the w orkplac e environment at the main campus institution. The population of full -time dental educators working at the main campus of A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry is reflective of the full -time faculty who teach at dental schools across the U nited States The results of the study can therefore be generalized to full -time faculty at all American dental schools. An additi onal limitation of this study was the small number of subjects in the target populatio n (i.e., approximately 167 full time de ntal faculty) which could affect the validity of the survey. A survey return rate of 60 percent or greater wa s desired to assure validity of the study. Identi ties of survey participants remain ed anonymous. The surv ey was self -report with no right or wron g answers, or answers that were deemed more or less acceptable or desirable. Respondents were instructed to answer in the manner that best reflected their knowledge and perceptions of the academic workplace environment at A Southeastern University, Colleg e of Dentistry The quality of the responses was dependent on the authenticity of the participants self reports.

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE American dental schools are facing an educational crisis due to a nationwide f aculty shortage. The Amer ican Association of Dental Schools Presidents Task Force on Future Dental School Faculty issued an August 19 99 report focused on an insufficient number of dental faculty available to meet the needs of current dental students. The report indicated that de ntal hygiene programs are also facing faculty shortages and have difficulty recruiting educators. The majority of dental hygiene programs are located in community colleges rather than universities, resulting in graduates who are less pr epared to become ed ucators (A ADS 1999 Task Force Report ). The report projected that the faculty shortage would escalate within the next ten years unless steps were taken to address the problem. The provision of primary dental care to the general population and, in particula r, underserved populations, is a significant mission of American dental schools. The report stated that a nationwide dental faculty shortage would result in a national impact on the accessibility and qu ality of oral health care. (AADS 1999 Task Force Re port p. 7) The first Surgeon General report on oral health in America reinforced the need for the provision of oral health care. The report indicated an essential relationship between oral health and general health, and that it is a basic right of Americ ans to have access to those mechanisms that allow for individual health and we llbeing. The report showed that poor oral health significantly impacts individuals, communities, and societies. The report also pointed that the impact of poor oral health is a disproportionate burden on populations including the economically disadvantaged, children, elderly, and racial and

PAGE 29

29 ethnic m inorities. The report concluded that access to dental care, health promotion, and disease prevention is a priority that must be addressed by partnerships between government agencies, private industry, health professionals, educators, and researchers (Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2000). In her 2006 presidential inaugural speech to the American Dental Assoc iation, Dr. Kathleen Roth stated, It is critical that we ensure dentistry remains a strong, desirable profession for our children and grandchildren, and that begins with quality, dynamic education . W e need to open doors, foster relationships, build alliances and partnerships, and create innovations to improve access to care (Kathleen Roth presidential inaugural speech to the ADA House of Delegates, October, 2006). Dr. Roths statements reflect the mission, core values, and policies of the American Dental Education Association regarding excellence, equity and diversity, and the promotion of oral health. The mission of ADEA is to lead the dental educational community in addressing contemporary issues influencing education, researc h, and the health o f the public (ADEA Policy, Core Values, and Mission Statement, 2007). The ADEA values diversity and believes that the community of dental educators, administrators, researchers, students and staff should be reflective of the diversity of American societ y (ADEA Policy, Core Values, and Mission Statement, 2007). The ADEA endorses and promotes student recruitment, admission, and retention practices that achieve excellence through diversity in American dental education (ADEA Policy, Core Values, and Mission Statement, 2007). The ADEA endorses and promotes excellence in dental education through the recruitment, development, and retention of a culturally diverse dental faculty, staff, and administrators (ADEA Policy, Core Values,

PAGE 30

30 and Mission Statement, 2007). The ADEA values oral health care as an integral part of general health and advocates access to care for all Americans (ADEA Policy, Core Values, and Mission Statement 2007 ). The ADA Future o f Dentistry Report (2001) stated that the goal of American dental education is to provide a qualified, ethical, professional workforce through education and training, basic and applied research, generation of new knowledge, and provision of care to the underserved, tertiary care, and community oral health care service. (Position Paper, ADA Future of Dentistry R eport, 2001 p. 89) The conclusion of the ADA Future of Dentis try task force calls for a thorough and intensive follow -up study on the extent and future magnitude of a dental faculty shortage in order to allow better policy formation regarding future dental faculty development. (ADA Future of Dentistry Report, 2001, p. 113) The results of the study should identify the underlying factors that contribute to facul ty shortages and recommend solutions to avoid fut ure shortages (ADA Future of Dentistry Report, 2001). It is imperative that dental schools recruit, develop, and retain dental ed ucators and researchers to achieve the mission of access to quality and culturally sensitive oral health care for all Americans The current faculty shortage originally predicted in the 1999 Task Force Report places that mission in jeopardy. The American Dental Education Association has responded to the dental educator shortage with an initiative to examine the factors affecting faculty recruitment, development, and ret ention, thus providing evidence based information for policy development and intervention strategies.

PAGE 31

31 An American Dental Education Associat ion 20042005 survey of the fifty -six U.S. dental schools reported a total of 275 vacant budgeted faculty positions. The survey indicated that 45 percent of dental school deans considered faculty recruitment and retention to be a major problem at their institutions, and they anticipated an increase in the number of vacated posit ions at their schools within the next 5 years. Fifty eight percent indicated that it would become increasingly difficult to fill those positions (Chmar et al., 2006). The ADEA concluded and recommended that faculty recruitment, development, and retention should remain priority issues in meeting the teaching, research, patient care, and administrative needs of the dent al education community. (Weaver et al., 2005; p. 305). The purpose of this study was to examine workplace environment issues relative to t he recruitment, development, and retention of faculty at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry The rate of dental faculty attrition at this institution will continue to increase over the next fifteen years due to the number of faculty approachi ng retirement age. According to statistics from the State Board of Governors, State University System of Florida (2005), 53.5 percent of faculty employed by the State University System were born in the baby boom years between 1946 and 1959. F aculty in t h is age group are approaching sixty -five years of age and faci ng retirement within the next fifteen years. In addition, the return of faculty to the more lucrative private practice setting and the transfer of faculty to positions at other dental instituti ons will contribute to the faculty attrition rate. A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry must address issues of faculty recruitment, dev elopment, and retention to meet the current and projected need for dental educators.

PAGE 32

32 This study is based on a 2001 survey by the American Dental Education Association that investigate d differences in males and females experiences and perceptions of workplace environment The survey was administered to ADEA members nationwide. Results of the study indicated th at gende r-based differences of workplace environment exist and that such perceptions could affect the recruitment, development, and retention of faculty at American dental schools. The researchers suggested conducting the survey at individual dental scho ols to provide a gender specific cultural audit of each institution s workplace environment. Researchers s uggested that the findings be used to address issu es and formulate strategies to improve workplace conditions unique to each institution. In addition, they s uggested implementing improvements in workplace environment be used to improve the recruitment, development, and retention of dental faculty at individual institutions. A variety of factors have influenced American colleges and universities to examine faculty work -life and career sati sfaction issues. Johnsrud and Heck (1998) pointed out that m any high -demand disciplines are facing similar faculty shortages; women and minorities continue to be underrepresented among tenured and seni or faculty membe rs; public demands for accountability and criticism of higher education is widespread; and higher education costs continue to r ise. Johnsrud (1996) showed that f aculty report an erosion of morale and quality of life due to the publics attack on their pro fessional priorit ies, and the faculty perceive that the institution is not supportive or protective of their personal or profess ional interests Changes in morale and quality of life also contribute to faculty retention issues. I ncreasingly it has becom e important for insti tutions of higher education to identify and establish outcome m easures and

PAGE 33

33 benchmarks in order to monitor life changes that influence the retention of qualified faculty (Alstete, 1995; Johnsrud & Heck 1998). Factors Affecting Faculty Shortages and Position Vacancies The number of dental school vacancies at a dental school is influenced by the length of the delay. Factors which result in budgeted faculty posit ion vacancies include faculty recruitment, development, and retention. A lac k of emphasis on faculty recruitment, new faculty development and mentoring programs has exacerbated the budgeted vacancy position problem. The promotion and tenure process, recruitment by other academic institutions, salary issues, and retirement of an aging academic workforce affect the retention of qualified and experienced faculty. Issues of workplace environment including climate, culture, and career satisfaction, influence both the recruitment and retention of dental faculty. The annual flow of fa culty coming into and leaving dental education has remained consistent, averaging between 8 percent and 11 percent according to ADEA vacant faculty position surveys (Dental School Vacant Budgeted Faculty Positions: Academic Year 2004-2005). The ADEA surve y between academic years 200320 04 and 2004 20 05, showed that 9.2 percent of the faculty separated from their respective dental institutions 20 percent left due to retirement and 3 percent due to death. An additional 13 percent of faculty separations res ult ed from transfer s to another institution. The surveys also indicated that the greatest source and drain of dental academicians is private practice dentistry accounting for 61 percent of new hires and 36 percent of departures (Dental School Vacant Budg eted Positions: Academic Years 2003-04 and 200405).

PAGE 34

34 Results of the surveys indicated that the characteristics of private practitioners entering academ ics include an average age of fifty -four years and typically filling part time, non-tenure track, clinical instructor or assistant professor positions. The characteristics of dental faculty leaving academics are an average age of forty -three years and typically part -time, non-tenure track, clinical instructors, or assistant professors. Many of these academi cians maintain a part -time private practice to which they return full time and at a much greater salary than they could earn in academic dentistry (Dental School Vacant Budgeted Positions: Academic Years 200304 and 200405). The survey results showed that an additional source of new faculty is recruitment of graduates directly from dental schools (16 percent ) or advanced education programs (16 percent ). Within the past ten years, a small number of dental schools have initiated formal mentoring programs to cultivate interest in academic dentistry among students. Yet to be resolved is the issue that recent dental graduates entering academic dentistry (44 percent in the Vacant Position surveys) accept full -time positions in spite of heavy debts from student loans. Graduates entering private practice dentistry enjoy a distinctly higher earning capacity than those who enter academic dentistry, and therefore have greater potential to reduce or pay off student loan debt. The primary factor which influences the ability to fill vacancies at academic dental institutions is a lack of competitive salary. Issues of salary and budgetary constraints are followed by a lack of response to position announcements. The inability to meet position requirements, standards of sc holarship, board eligibility, or licensure requirements also prevents potential academicians from applying to or accepting

PAGE 35

35 positions in dental schools. The needs and priorities of individual dental departments influence the schools ability to hire new fa culty for various positions. In addition, the geographic location of the institution and the cost of living of the area can affect the application of potential faculty for listed positions (Dental School Vacant Budgeted Faculty Positions: Academic Year 2004 -05). The Future o f Dentistry 2001 Report predicted that the expectations of future faculty qualifications will be higher and difficult to attain, and may result in an exacerbation of the existing faculty shortage. Candidates for tenured faculty positions will need to be formally trained and qualified for teaching, research, and scholarly publication. In addition, the composition of dental academicians will need to change to reflect the diversity of dental faculty and students in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity. The report also stated that retention efforts must now focus on dental faculty salaries to compete with a strong private practice dental economy (ADA Future of Dentistry, 2001; Haden et al., 2002). The importance of addressing these issues i s reflected in a summary statement from the Future of D entistry 2001 Report that stated, The most critical element in ensuring a strong and excellent dental education system for the U.S. is the quality of the systems teaching faculty (2001, p. 98 ) The 1999 American Dental Education Association Task Force report recommended that dental schools implement culture changing programs to recruit, mentor, and develop future faculty The ADEA supports collaborative recruitment and retention strategies including f ormal mentoring programs as well as programs which promote the development and advancement of women and minorities in dental education (Haden et al., 2002).

PAGE 36

36 ADEA Survey Previous research in various academic fields in higher education showed gender specif ic experiences and concerns expressed by faculty, however, no studies reported in the area of academic dentistry. A survey of medical school faculty in 2000 revealed that the perception of gender based discrimination by females in the work environment was 2.5 times higher than their male colleagues. Female medical faculty reported gender -based impediments in professional development that included discrimination and sexual harassment. The s urvey also showed relationships betw een gender -based discriminatio n and career satisfaction and advancement through th e academic ranks (Nesbitt et al., 2003). The results of similar studies in various academic fields of higher education describe d chilly professional cl imates where female faculty reported being under v alued in a male dominated system. Female faculty reported exclusion from professional networks and specific differences in academic administrative leadership positions (Nesbitt et al., 2003). The goal of the American D ental Education Association 2001 stu dy was twofold: 1) to assess, formulate and implement strategies toward the improvement of workplace climate, culture, and career satisfaction in American dental schools; and 2) to improve rates of recruitment, development, promotion, and retention of dental school faculty. The survey entitled Work Environment Perceptions of Full time Dental Educators: Does Gender Matter? was distributed to 2,203 member s of the ADEA nationwide in May 2001. The survey investigated whether or not female and male full -time dental faculty members in American dental schools differ ed in their experiences and perceptions of workplace environment, and if so, how they differ ed The researchers s uggested that the findings could be used to formulate strategies for creating a positive work

PAGE 37

37 environment s in which both male and female faculty members felt welcomed and supported. The researchers proposed that the data would provide ba ckground information for policymaking concerning gender -specific recruitment and retention considerations (Nesbitt, et al., 2003). The ADEA 2001 Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workpl ace Environment Survey items were divided into subsections including faculty demographics and background, faculty inclusion, faculty collaboration and networking, faculty support, academic resources, professional environment, and academic climate. The survey was designed to gather both qualitative and quantitative information regarding academic characteristics, experiences, and perceptions of dental faculty The survey was conduc ted within a 6week period and there were no follow up mailings (Nesbitt et al., 2003). The survey generated a 40 percent response rate, 870 dental school faculty responded including 738 full -time faculty respondents, 257 female (34.8 percent ) and 481 male s (65.1 percent ) (Nesbitt et al., 2003). A greater percentage of females (34.8 percent ) responded to the survey than males (24.5 percent ) based on the ratio of female to male dental fa culty in the year 2000 (Nesbitt et al., 2003). Faculty dental hygienis ts represented 17.9 percent of the respondents (Nesbitt et al., 2003). The results of the survey showed differences between male and female faculty in their experiences and perceptions of the academic climate at A merican dental schools (Nesbitt et al., 2003). Significant differences appeared between males and females in the degree of experienced and perceived harassment (men: 9.9 percent vs. women: 33.3 percent p = .000) (Nesbitt et al., 2003). The survey showed that males exceeded

PAGE 38

38 females in terms of av ailability of office space (men: 99.2 percent vs. women: 96.5 percent ; p =.012), availability of secretarial support (men: 87.0 percent vs. women: 75.8 percent ; p = .000), protected time for research (men: 37.8 percent vs. women: 31.6 percent ; p = .056, and availability of lab space(men: 23.2 percent vs. women: 10.6 percent ; p = .000) (Nesbitt et al. 2003). The survey also showed some areas where females exceeded males in terms of time spent teaching (men: 16.84 percent vs. women: 19.00 percent p = .078) perception of work environment as less supportive (men: environment supportive = 30 percent vs. women: environment supportive = 9.3 percent p = .000), and perception of being welcome as members of the dental school community (men: 73.8 percent vs. women : 50.2 percent p = .000) (Nesbitt et al. 2003). No significant differences were found between males and females in the average hours worked per week (men: 46.1 vs. women: 47.1), in amount of time spent on research (men: 11.67 percent vs. women: 12.76 pe rcent ), and available grant support (men: 20.1 percent vs women: 19.7 percent ) (Nesbitt et al., 2003). The researchers concluded that the differences in experiences and perceptions of workplace environment could be useful when formulating effective recruitment and retention strategies for dental faculty members of either gender. The researchers suggested that a gender -specific cultural audit of each dental institution could be used as an eyeopener for dental institutions, allowing administrators to gai n an understanding of problems unique to their own institution and to develop strategies to remedy gender b ased situations. The creation of work environments that are responsive to the needs of male and female faculty are likely to create a more positive attitude toward work and encourage more faculty to remain in the academic

PAGE 39

39 workforce. Faculty who are satisfied with their academic career are likely to provide role models for dental students considering a career in academic dentistry. Ultimately, dental institutions would create a faculty workforce that is able to provide culturally sensitive dental care to its patients (Nesbitt et al., 2003). The ADEA (2001) survey targeted three domains of key variables concerning dental faculty demographics and perceptions of workplace environment. Variables from the demographic domain include faculty attributes such as participant gender, ethnicity or race, and age. Additional demographic variables include academic ranking and position, tenure status, education and degree held, academic department, focus of academic appointment, salary, and the number of career years in d ental education. Another section in the upd ated ADEA (2007) survey included a section regarding perceptions of the tenure and promotion process at th e facultys present institution of employment. Six key variables are related to perceptions of the workplace environment. The professional development support and resources domain includes three var iables that are closely related: faculty inclusi on, collaboration and networking, and faculty support. Faculty inclusion refers to eq uity in workplace participation and opportunities for promotion for male and female faculty. Faculty collaboration and networking refers to equity in opportunities for c ollaboration in teaching and research, networking, and information sharing. Faculty support refers to those entities which support and promote faculty success, and includes opportunities for formal and informal mentoring relationships, peer networking, mutually beneficial working relationships, career and personal support, and adequate resources.

PAGE 40

40 Three key variables contribute to the workplace environment domain, including academic resources, professional environment, and academic climate. The academic res ources variable includes access to and equity in office and lab space, secretarial support, protected research time, available grant support, and time allocation for teaching and research. The professional environment variable includes faculty perceptions of the workplace in terms of being a welcoming, collegial, and supportive atmosphere. The variable also includes faculty perceptions of peer acceptance in their role as colleague or leader and peer respect for their scholarship. Variables such as salary and gender equity, equity in opportunities for professional development and advancement, and career satisfaction are included in this category. The academic climate variable includes perceptions of environmental issues such as freedom from gender bias or harassment, freedom from sexual harassment, and equity in opportunities for tenure vs. non-tenure accruing positions, administrative positions, and professional advancement. The variable also includes perceptions of the psychological and social climate, and the academic philosophy of the institution regarding dental education. In addition, the variable includes factors which affect faculty well -being and job satisfaction, such as the location of the institution and the state of the physical facility, envi ronment, furnishings, and equipment. The ADEA Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment was revised and re administered to dental faculty nationwide in 2007. The revised survey items were grouped in categories that included faculty demographics, perceptions of availability of professional development resources, perceptions of the academic culture and

PAGE 41

41 env ironment, satisfaction with day to day activities, and overall levels of satisfaction with the dental school as a place to work. The AD EA survey collected data on the perception of academic environmental variables which were intended to reflect the overall climate and culture o f the institution, and subsequently the career satisfaction of faculty. A discussion of the literature regarding career s atisfaction and the elements of the key variables follows to describe how each variable contributes to overall career satisfaction. Career Satisfaction The culture and climate of an academic institution influences the workplace atmosphere and career satisf action of faculty. Individuals receive satisfaction from their employment and work based on their perceptions of institutional culture and climate, as well as from their experiences within the working environment. The culture and climate of an academic i nstitution strongly influences faculty motivation and productivity, retention, pr omotion, and success (Arnold & Peterson, 1998). According to Arnold and Peterson (1998), institutional culture is the organizations vision of it self and its environment. It has an established identity that permeates the entire organization, is slow to change, and enduring (Arnold & Peterson, 1998). Institutional culture consists of the basic assumptions, beliefs, and values held by the organization (Arnold & Peterson 1998). This phenomenon does not lend itself easily to measurement but is determi ned by perception (Arnold & Peterson, 1998). Institutional climate pertains to the current dimensions of organizational life and its membership (Arnold & Peterson, 1998), therefore it is subject to change over time. The climate of an institution can be indirectly measured through an individual members perceptions of that climate (Arnold & Peterson, 1998). According to Arnold and

PAGE 42

42 Peterson (1998), their analys is show ed that an indi viduals perception of his wor k climate is influenced by his perception of the work culture. In addition, studies have shown that gender structures also influence an individuals perception of his work climate (Arnold & Peterson, 1998). Arnold and Peter son (1998) stated that work -related gender differences exist even though organizational theory depict s organizations as being gender neutral. Institutions must acknowledge workpl ace gender differences to formulate and implement more equitable policies for all employees (Arnold & Peterson, 1998). An individuals perception of the institutional culture and climate is based on many variables which, in turn, influence career satisfact ion. Hagedorn (2000) classified the variables as two categories of interacti ng constructs referred to as triggers and mediators A trigger is a significant life event that may be either person al, family, life stage, or work related, that results in a change in reference to ones self, a change in ones emotional state, or a c hange in the manner in which one responds to situations and issues at the workplace (Hagedorn, 2000). Examples of work related issues include acquisition of tenure, perceptions of inequities or injustices in the workplace, and changes in job position or pl ace of employment (Hagedorn, 2000). A mediator is a variable or a situation that has an influence on other personal or job-related variables, and can include situations and circumstances that affect career satisfaction (Hagedorn, 2000). Hagedorns (2000) categorization of mediators is similar to the variables used in the ADEA study of workplace perception. The category Motivators and Hygienes contains variables comparable to variables found in the category of Environment and

PAGE 43

43 Culture, and re fers to th e personal rewards an individual receives from his work. This category includes the nature of the work itself, as well as a perception of accomplishment and recognition, promotions, awards and rewards received, and salary (Hagedorn, 2000). Variables foun d in the category Demographics are similar to the variables in the Demographic category in the ADEA study, and includes a persons gender, the type of institution where employed, and the academic discipline in which he teaches (Hagedorn, 2000). Variable s of the category Environmental Conditions are similar to the variables of Professional Development Support and Resources as well as the variables found in the category of Academic Environment and Culture. These variables include the quality of col legial and student relationships, the institution al climate and culture, and the relationship with school administration (Hagedorn, 2000). Hagedorn (2000) stated that t he complex feedback between mediators and triggers affects the experience of career sati sfaction. Career satisfaction is experienced on a continuum from low (a state of disengagement) to neutral (acceptance and tolerance of the work situation) to high (an active engagement in the workplace and an appreciation of an individuals work ) (Hagedor n, 2000). A negative response to mediators and triggers will result in stress whereas positive social and working relationships and satisfying working conditions will lead to career satisfaction (Hagedorn, 2000). Hagedorn studied individuals at different life stages in their careers and found that low stress levels are a predictor for career satisfaction at all life stages (Haged orn, 2000). Personal or family -related circumstances, as well as conflicts between job and family life, create high levels of in dividual stress. The increase in stress creates a

PAGE 44

44 snowball effect, negatively affecting physical and emotional health and career satisfaction. Stress from job and family conflicts prove to be more acute in females (Hagedorn, 2000). In addition, individu als who under go a change in rank or position or who transfer to another institution, report higher levels of stress and lower levels of job satisfaction (Hagedorn, 2000). Hagedorn (2000) found that predictors for success vary along a continuum according to life stages and that career satisfaction increases with advanced life stages (Hagedorn, 1994, 2000). Individuals with twenty -five or more years to retirement, termed novices, receive satisfaction from their positive relationships with their institution s administration and interactions with students. Individuals who are fifteen to twenty years from retirement, termed mid -careerists, receive satisfaction related to appropriate compensation for their work. Individuals with 5 years or less to retirement termed disengagers, receive satisfaction from positive relationships with administration and appropriate compensation (Hagedorn, 1994). Overall, the mediators found most highly predictable for career success include the work itself, equitable salary c ompensation, relationships with administration and students, the quality of students, and institutional climate and culture (Hagedorn, 2000). Faculty who perceive high levels of justice within their institution report higher levels of career satisfaction t han those whose perception of institutional justice is low (Hagedorn, 2000). In addition, perceived inequities in opportunity for participation and promotion, as well as in compensation, result in the perception of injustice. Hagedorn (2000) found a signi ficant relationship between multiple measures of career satisfaction for female faculty and gender -based wage differentials. Salary inequities affect the

PAGE 45

45 intent of female faculty to remain in academia, suggesting a need for gender equitable salary structur es (Hagedorn, 2000). Key Variables The ADEA Perception o f Workplace Environment survey wa s designed to elicit information regarding perceptions of institutional conditions and experiences that affect dental faculty career satisfaction. The survey sought i nformation regarding demographic factors and examined two categories of key variables which contribute to overall career satisfaction: perceptions of availability of professional development support and resources and perceptions of academic environment and culture. The demographic items collect ed data regarding personal and professional faculty attributes. Items in the workplace envir onment and culture category sought information regarding the perception of variables such as faculty inclusion, collegialit y, mentoring, collaboration, recognition, and college culture. Items in the professional development support and resources category sought information regarding the perception of variables such as academic support for teachi ng, research, and writing, and developmental support for the tenure and promotion process. R elationship of Key Variables w ith Faculty Career Satisfaction Faculty Inclusion The key variable termed faculty inclusion pertains to the perception of equity in participation and promotion opportunities and inclusion in informal networks regardless of race, culture, gender, age, religion, or sexual preference. The perception of transparency and equity in the promotion and tenure process is a key component of career satisfaction (August & Wal tman, 2004). Clearly defined promotion and tenure policies help to guide faculty through the tenure process. Equitable opportunit ies for

PAGE 46

46 participation in tenure-related activities allow faculty to navigate themselves through the tenure process. Inclusion in professional networks support and facilitate faculty efforts toward the promotion and tenure goal. Differences in the perception of equity and inclusion in the workplace between male and female faculty members can affect the acquisition of tenure and promotion. Various studies have shown that in general, female faculty tend to experience more stress regarding the tenure and promotion process than do male faculty (Park, 2000). Two studies found that the rate of voluntary departure from academic positio ns before tenure review is more than two times greater fo r female faculty (Rausch, Ortiz, Douthitt, Reed, 1989; Rothblum, 1988). Reasons for early departure include issues related to tenure expectations, equity and fairness in the tenure process, and a la ck of clarit y in tenure guidelines ( Austin & Rice, 1998; Johnsrud & Atwate r, 1993; Johnsrud & Des Jarlais, 1994; Rausch et al., 1989). Women cited relations with the departmental personnel committee and poor relations with department chairpersons as barri ers to success that resulted in more female than male faculty leaving their positions (Johnsrud & Atwater, 1993; Johnsrud & Des Jarlais, 1994). Family issues often present ed challenge s and disadvantage s to faculty, particularly female faculty and those eng aged in the tenure process. Balancing a professional career with family responsibilities creates difficulties and time constraints for male and female faculty (Aisenberg & Harrington, 1988; Parson, Sands, Duane, 1991; Riger, Stokes, Raja, Sullivan 1997). Female faculty report unique disadvantages as many are in their child -bearing years while seeking tenure. In addition, baby boomers often take on the task of elder care for their aging parents. In total, time pressures and

PAGE 47

47 quality of life issues result e d in more female than male faculty leaving their ac ademic positions (Barnes, Agago, Coombs, 1998; Johnsrud & Heck, 1994). Faculty Collaboration, Networking, and Support Two key v ariables, faculty collaboration and networking plus support, are interrelated and interdependent. The faculty collaboration and networking variable includes equitable opportunities for teaching and research and equitable access to networking and information sharing. The faculty support variable encompasses the entities which suppo rt and promote faculty success in the areas of teaching, research, networking, and information sharing. Faculty support entities include equitable access to adequate resources as well as equitable opportunities for participation in mentoring relationships and peer networking, mutually beneficial working relationships, and personal and career support. F aculty support entitie s contribute to faculty success; they are an important component of career satisfaction. According to Johnsrud and Heck (1998), some support variables for higher education faculty exist outside of the academic institution and play a role in career satisfaction. The public perception of faculty status affects faculty feelings of appreciat ion and support (Johnsrud & Heck 1998). A Carnegie Foundation faculty surv ey indicated that 64 percent feel that respect for acad emia is declining (Boyer, Altback, Whitelaw 1994). Johnsrud and Heck (1998) reported that when faculty perceived the public as questioning their priorities, performance and worth, it eroded the quality of life they once enjoyed. Strong faculty support from within the academic institution improved faculty performance and therefore the public perception of faculty status. A vital component of institutional support for facul ty is the provision of formal and informal mentoring and

PAGE 48

48 networking opportunities in higher education. Faculty participation in mentoring relationships and professional networks contributed to career satisfaction and success. Academic institutions that pr ioritize d the development and retention of faculty provided formal mentorship programs i n which senior faculty mentors were paired with junior faculty protgs. Mentors served as role models, provided inspiration, influence (Anderson & Ramey, 1990; Cullen & Luna, 1993), encouragement and affirmation (Nye, 1997). Faculty mentors instill ed confidence in their protgs (Nye, 1997) by serving as sponsors, protectors, and research coaches (Hall & Sandler, 1983). Department chairpersons mentor ed through their interaction with protgs by providing support and help ing with facul ty socialization (Gmelch, Lovrich, Wilke 1984; Olsen & Crawford, 1998). A paper addressing dental sch ool faculty shortages by Haden et al. (2000) stated There is a continuing need for faculty members who manifest the ability to achieve a balanced profile of academic activity that includes teaching, research, and institutional service, especially through patient care (p. 669). Haden et al. (2000) added that dental schools are challenged to recruit and retain high caliber academicians with the specialized clinical skills and scholarship credentials needed to fill nationwide faculty vacancies. The ADEA addresses that challenge by supporting formal mentorship programs that aid in the recr uitment, development, and retention of dental school faculty (Haden et al., 2000). Mentoring relationships provide career and psychosocial functions for protgs. The benefits of mentorship include learning through the expertise of the mentor, socializing junior faculty into the academic culture of the institution, strategizing for

PAGE 49

49 professional growth, and receiving career counseling. Mentors empower protgs, offer personal critique and constructive feedback, and emotional support (Twale and Jelinek, 1996) Mentors provide guidance and sponsorship, opening doors to professional networks, thereby helping protgs to reach th eir full potential (Twale & Jelinek 1996). Mentorship is critical to career development and advancement for junior faculty (Twale & Jelinek 1996). Mentoring relationships may be established through formalized mentoring programs or through informal pairings of mentors and pr otgs. A protg may seek a mentor or the mentor may identify a protg. Junior faculty may have a primary mentor, secondary mentors, and subsequent mentors throughout the stages of their career development. In addition, the mentoring dyad may consist of either the same-gender or cross-gender pairings depending on circumstance and personal choice. Regardless of the mentoring context, those who participate as protgs in mentoring relationships are more likely to serve as mentors when they achieve seni or faculty status (Twale & Jelinek, 1996). Mentorship is essential for female faculty while negotiating the tenure and promotion process, and particularly for those who enter ed administrative ran ks (Twale & Jelinek 1996). Female faculty report ed that samegender dyads provided key emotional support, while cross -gender dyads provide d promotion and tenure support (Twa le & Jelinek 1996). Characteristically, female mentors tend ed to be knowledgeable, supportive, and caring, while male mentors tend ed to be visionary role models, teacher s, and consultants (Twale & Jelinek 1996).

PAGE 50

50 Mentoring is an important component to ov erall career satisfaction, particularly for women (August & Whitman, 2004). However, female faculty tend to have more difficulty in establishing mentoring relationships than their male counterparts do. (August & Waltman 2004) Women who have not particip ated in mentoring relationships do succeed, however, they perceive that they are less productive, less connected to peer and university networks, and less able to develop in multiple areas of endeavor (Waltman, 2001). The ADA Future o f Dentistry Report (20 01) stated that the proportion of women and minorities in the dental student population has increased to thirty -five to thirty eight percent of the overal l enrollment for females, and thirty -four percent of overall enrollment for minorities. The report em phasizes that efforts to mentor women and minority fac ulty will be necessary to provide a faculty workforce reflective of the diverse dental student body population. The number of women and minority faculty has increased in recent years but continues to lag behind in proportion to the number of women and minority dental students (ADA Future of Dentistry Report, 2001). The lack of diverse faculty creates three issues of concern to women and minority faculty. The under -representation of females and minorit y faculty creates a void in mentoring and role modeling opportunities for dental students, a lack of faculty to faculty support and mentoring, and a disproportionate limit of opportunities for tenure, promotion, and advancement to higher positions (ADA Fut ure of Dentistry Report, 2001).

PAGE 51

51 Workplace Environment: Academic Resources, Professional Environment, & Academic Climate and Culture Three key workplace environment variables interrelated and interdepen dent, also contribute to career satisfaction. The ac ademic resources variable includes issues such as access and equity regarding office and lab space, secretarial support, protected research time, available grant support, and time allocations for teaching and research. The professional environment variable refers to gender -based perceptions of the workplace atmosphere, which affect faculty career satisfaction and retention. The professional environment includes factors such as a welcoming versus a chilly environment, acceptance and respect of individuals in their job roles and for the work that they do, equitable salaries, equitable opportunities for professional development and advancement, and career satisfaction. The academic climate variable refers to the existence of certain conditions within t he workplace culture, which contribute to faculty career satisfaction and retention. The academic climate includes factors such as freedom from sexual and gender bias and harassment, equitable opportunities for tenure accruing and administrative positions and professional advancement, the psychological and social climate of the workplace, and the institutional philosophy regarding dental education. Also included in this variable are the factors regarding the physical facility, furnishings, equipment, and location of the academic institution. Surveys of faculty worklife issues indicate that the majority of experienced faculty would choose an academic career if they had the chance t o do it over again (Boyer et al., 1994). College faculty report satisfaction with their intellectual life and profession, and they particularly enjoy their relationships with colleagues (Boyer et al., 1994).

PAGE 52

52 Robertson and Bean (1998) stated that collegial relationships found within the community of sch olars positively influenced job satisfaction. Another key aspect of faculty career satisfaction is the actual work in research, teaching, and service (Olsen, Maple, & Stage, 1995). Other sources of satisfaction included a high degree of autonomy (Tack & Patitu, 1992), the perception of control over career development (Olsen et al., 1995), and the challenge of the work (Manger, 1999). The level of career satisfaction is higher when faculty perceive that they are valued and recognized by their peers and their institution (Johnsrud & D es Jarlais, 1994). The hallmarks of appreciation include comparable salaries (Hagedorn, 1996), rewards, and the perception of an adequate and equitable allocation of resources and support (Johnsrud & Des Jarlais, 1994). The perception of inadequate rewar ds and recognition (Gme lch et al., 1984; Gmelch, Wilke, Lovrich, 1986) creates dissatisfaction and stress, contributing to faculty at trition (Barnes, et al. 1998). Conversely, faculty morale is highest when they believed that they had opportunities to pa rticipate in governance and in fluence decisionmaking (Rice & Austin, 1988). Johns rud (1996) presented three broad concerns that create frustration and erode faculty morale: the 1) publics questioning of faculty professional priorities, 2) facultys lack of confidence in the academic institutions ability to support and protect their professional priorities, and 3) subsequent erosion of the quality of life once enjoyed by academicians. Research indicates that the majority of faculty point to the academic institution as the source of their career frustrations (Boyer et al. 1994). The facultys perception of these concerns has a negative effect on promotion and tenure (Johnsrud

PAGE 53

53 & De Jarlais, 1994), and retention, thus affecting the quality of the academic enterprise (Johnsrud & Heck, 1994). The professional priorities of faculty in higher education include the traditional triad of research, teaching, and service. However, the academic institution often places a heavy emphasis on research and less value on teaching (Edgerton, 1993). Although the triad is a requisite for tenure, research and publishing are more highly rewarded, often at the expense of teaching (Boyer, 1990). The acquisition of tenure permits a certain amount of autonomy, allowing faculty t he academic freedom to determine their subject matter and method of instruction, the topic and method of their research, and the type of service they will perform (Johnsrud & Heck, 1998). Coincidentally, the public and legislators are holding faculty increasingly accountable for their productivity, the relativity of their research, and their dedication to undergraduate education and to the needs of the society (Johnsrud & Heck 1998). The prioritization of professional academic endeavors is therefore affe cted by the balance between faculty autonomy, institutional reward, and the public demand for accountability. Maintaining such a balance places a strain on academic administrators as well as the faculty (Johnsrud & Heck, 1998). Many faculty members lack c onfidence in the ability of the academic institution and administration to support and protect their professional priorities. This lack of confidence can be attributed to autocratic administrations, poor leadership, and ineffective communication (Johnsrud & Heck, 1998). Faculty members have more confidence in the leaders who are closest to them and this confidence lessens as the distance between faculty and their l eaders increase (Johnsrud & Heck 1994). Studies

PAGE 54

54 show that faculty members develop strong ties to their department chair, and that the strength of the relationship between the chairperson and the department directly influences the success and reten tion of faculty (Johnsrud & Heck 1994). Faculty members feel less connected to and confident of d eans, senior administrators, presidents, an d board members (Johnsrud & Heck 1994). In addition, the majority of faculty report feeling demoralized due to a loss of influence in decision-making or policy -forming processes within the institution (Boyer et al., 1994). The effect of the demand for accountability and the lack of confidence in institutional support impacts facultys perceived quality of life (Johnsrud & Heck, 1998). Compounding the problem is the facultys per ception of a declining respect for academics (Boyer et al., 1994). Salary discrepancies and poor working conditions, including the state of the physical facilities or a lack of facilities, supplies, support personnel, and support services, also have a negative effect (Johnsrud & Heck, 1998). Faculty point to poor working conditions including lack of facilities, lack of supplies, lack of support personnel, parking issues, and the deterioration of the physical plants as major concerns that impact how they perceive their quality of life ( Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Johnsrud & Heck 1998). Faculty describe the problem of inequitable distribution of limited resources as a source of gr eat frustration (Johnsrud & Heck 1998). Research indicates that female faculty report access to fewer resource s than male faculty in terms of start -up equipment, financial assistance, and graduate student support (Astin, 1991; Johnsrud & Wunsch, 1991; Olsen & Sorcin elli, 1992; Park, 2000; Parson et al., 1991; Sandler & Hall, 1986).

PAGE 55

55 Des Jarlais (1995) stated that faculty perceptions of workplace climate affect morale more than structural factors do. The perception of worklife quality significantly impacts the level of job satisfaction and morale (Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002), a key component in facultys decision to re main in academia (Mattier, 1990; Smart, 1990). Johnsrud and Heck (1998) report ed that administrators must monitor faculty perception s of workplace climate to reward and retain faculty. They suggest ed that administrators establish benchmarks of the issue s important to faculty work life, and use those benchmarks to constantly monitor and improve the culture and climate of the academic environment (Johnsrud & Heck, 1998). The quality of the academic enterprise depends ultimately on the vitality of the fa culty (Johnsrud & Heck, 1998, p. 553) Administrators must change the climate and culture of the academy by addressing issues that affect faculty morale, and they must support facu lty efforts to deliver the high -caliber research, t eaching, and service th at addresses the needs of society (Johnsrud & Heck, 1998). Administrators must focus on the issues which affect career satisfaction, a key component in the recruitment, promotion, and retention of faculty in American higher education. According to Maslow s Hierarchy of Needs and Aldorfers E/R/G (existence, relatedness, growth) Theory, satisfaction is synonymous with need fulfillment (Robertson & Bean 1998). Therefore, career satisfaction occurs when individual jobrelated needs are met (Robertson & Bean 1998). As each component of the job provides satisfaction by fulfilling a jobrelated need, it results in greater global career satisfaction for the individual (Robertson & Bean 1998).

PAGE 56

56 Caffarella and Zinn (1999) presented numerous factors which support career development and indicated other factors that occur simultaneously and which serve as barriers to development. Three types of activities support professional development : self -directed learning experiences, formal professional development programs and organizational development (Cranton, 1994). Self -directed learning experiences include coursework development, teaching, research, and activities that are planned, implemented, and evaluated by individual faculty (Cranton, 1994). Formal professional development programs include mentoring programs, institutional programs, meetings, conferences, and workshops (Cranton, 1994). Organizational development includes systematically planned strategizing activities which focus on institutional improvement an d change rather than individual change (Cranton, 1994). Zinn (1997) indicated four domains of supports and barriers to career development, each existing along a continuum from positive, present, to negative, not present. The supports and barriers are main tained in a balance within and across the domains with individuals having varying levels of control over the issues that influence the supports and barriers (Zinn, 1997). The perception of greater control and influence has a positive effect on job satisfa ction. The supports and barriers domains are similar to the domains found within the ADEA Perceptions of Workplace Environment study. Domain I includes the people and interpersonal relationships within and outside the work environment. Domain II includes interpersonal structures that provide opportunities for professional growth, the necessary resources to support professiona l growth, and the time to do so. Domain III

PAGE 57

57 includes the personal, private life considerations and commitments, circumstances, even ts, and people affecting an individuals work performance. Domain IV includes the intellectual and personal characteristics of the individual, and the personal perception of self in the role of scholar, teacher, and mentor (Zinn, 1997). Research by Robertson & Bean (1998) showed that women and men differ in the factors which are responsible for career satisfaction. Career satisfaction factors for males are related to work an d institutional issues, whereas the factors for females are related to coll egial relationships, socialization, and workplace climate (Robertson & Bean, 1998). The research points to the importance of social networking, workplace relationships, peer support, and mentoring in the recruitment and retention of the best female and male faculty (Robertson & Bean 1998). Robertson & Bean (1998) stated that mentoring is an excellent means of career development for faculty, but fewer mentoring opportunities exist for females than fo r males. In addition, o ther workplace inequities negati vely affect females, reducing career satisfaction, and thus, recruitment, promotion, and retention of women in academia. These inequities must be addressed and resolved to remedy the faculty shortage in American dental schools. Dental schools must be both leaders and partners with other university units and professional organizations to do all that is possible to ensure a positive and equitable career environment for women and minority faculty in the nations dental schools ( Future of Dentistry R eport, 2001 p. 101) Women are less likely to choose an academic career as opportunities arise in other sectors of the workforce (Trower, 2000). In addition, deterrents to choosing an academic career include the demands and time commitment of the job, the chall enge of

PAGE 58

58 balancing personal, family, and professional life, and low salaries that do not reflect the education and preparation required for the job (Trower, 2000). Females who do choose careers in academia have higher rates of pre tenure and post -tenure at trition than their male counterparts (Rausch et al.,1989; Rothblum, 1988) Rausch et al., (1989) and Rothblum (1988) found that women voluntarily leave academia before tenure review twice as often as men, suggesting that the tenure process and tenure stat us may negatively affect career satisfaction and retention for female academic s. A cademic institutions must create and support a satisfying workplace environment to retain female faculty (August & Waltman, 2004). Career satisfaction is a crucial componen t of faculty retention (Johnsrud & Heck, 1994; Rausch et al., 1989). Aug ust (2004) indicated an under -representation of women in academe, the result of a number of issues that combine to produce a complex problem. Women are hired less frequently than men for positions in academia (Moore & Sangria, 1993), are hired disproportionately into lower ranked positions (Harper, Baldwin, Gansneder & Chronister, 2001; Leslie, 1998), are disproportionately represented in low paid, nontenure track positions of lectur er and instructor (Harper et al., 2001), are tenured and promoted more slowly (Bentley & Blackburn, 1992; Moore & Sangr ia, 1993), and less often (Bain & Cummings, 2000), and are paid less (Nettles, Perna, & Bradburn, 2000) than male faculty, even when cont rolling for demographic variables of age, rank, discipline, and institutional type (Perna, 2001). Tijdens (1994) described three types of organizational structures that are collectively gendered and which contribute to the under -representation of women i n academe. Industrial segregation refers to the uneven distribution of men and women in

PAGE 59

59 academe, in which the number of women may be high, but the distribution of women across workplace domains is uneven (Tijdens, 1994), as in teaching and research. Occu pational segregation occurs when more females are traditionally employed in a certain field (Tijdens, 1994), such as in nursing. Hierarchical segregation refers to an uneven vertical distribution of men and women in multiple job levels (Tijdens, 1994), su ch as in teaching, research, and administrative positions. The rate of representation of female faculty in higher education is heavily influenced by the level of career satisfaction an academic career affords them. The factors that determine female career satisfaction are often different than the factors which determine male career satisfacti on. Hagedorn (1996) categorized indicators for male and female faculty satisfaction including salary levels, tenure and rank, perceived support, interaction with superiors or facilitators, job stress, interaction with students, social aspects and collegial relations, and the personenvironment fit [ sat isfaction with the institution.] Studies show that when controlling for gender, females indicate different categories of influences on career satisfaction. According to Riger, Stokes, Raja, and Sullivan (1997), six factors affect female faculty career satisfaction including dual standards and opportunities, sexist attitudes and comments, informal socializing, balancing work and personal obligations, remediation polici es and practices, and mentoring (p. 64). Studies by Hagedorn (1996) indicate d that the most predictive fa ctors of fe male career satisfaction are perceptions of the institution, the administration, and collegiality within the academic setting. In addition, perceptions of wag e equity, rank, tenure, and

PAGE 60

60 academic perceptions of students contribute to overall career satisfaction of female faculty (Hagedorn, 1996). The perception of shared values and mission, good working relationships with students and colleagues, and support from administrators influences the perception of institutional fit for female faculty (Hagedorn, 1996). In addition, the perception of opportunities for participat ion and involvement in de cisionmaking influences self esteem and contributes to a sense of accomplishment, thus improving career satisfaction and commitment (Hagedorn, 1996). Hagedorn (1996) stated ineq uity of wages has the greatest e ffect on stress levels for female academics. The lack of control over wage inequities generates feelings of helplessness (Hagedorn, 1996). She found that as wage differentials between male and female faculty increase, the global career satisfaction of female faculty decrease. The perception of fair ness in salary levels is a greater factor in determining career satisfaction than the actual salary amount (Hagedorn, 1996). In addition, wage differentials affect the way i n which female faculty perceive the institution and directly affect their intent to remain in academia (Hagedorn, 1996). There are s everal sources of wage differentials between male and female faculty. W omen are more likely to work part time in a teaching capacity, are less likely to be involved in research or to be published, and are therefore, less likely to be tenured and promoted. Female faculty have less opportunity to participate in mentoring and collegial relationships, and they are less likely to hold more highly paid administrative positions. In addition, female faculty are over -represented in institutions with less perceived academic prestige and thus receive lower salaries (Hagedorn, 1996).

PAGE 61

61 Hagedorn (1996) concluded that nondiscriminatory monetary compensation will increase career satisfaction and encourage retention of f emale faculty in higher education. She suggested that the establishment of formal mentoring programs would increase the perception of collegiality for female academics and would increase their sense of inclusion and institutional satisfaction. In a study of faculty productivity, satisfaction, and salary, Hagedorn (2001) found minimal differences between male and female faculty in terms of productivity and overall career satisfaction. She conceded that the number of female faculty has risen but that women still remain under -represented among the higher faculty ranks. In addition, women continue to be over -represented among the non-tenured and non-tenure track faculty and they are less likely to have attained the rank of fu ll professor. Female faculty are more likely to teach in institutions of lower prestige or in twoyear colleges and if employed part -time, they would prefer to be employed on a full -time basis In addition, the majority of female faculty report having lower salaries ($8,681 mean differe ntial) and higher levels of job-related stress than male faculty (Hagedorn, 2001). Hagedorns 2001 study showed that the significant career satisfaction predictors for female faculty included equity in salary levels, the perception of fair treatment for fe males at the institution, the commitment to students, and job stress. Non-significant predictors of career satisfaction included factors such as rank, tenure, discipline, marital status, having dependent children, stress from personal issues, and career i nterruption for health or family issues (Hagedorn, 2001). She concluded that there is a need to closely examine and adjust the reward structure t o be fair and equitable for all (Hagedorn, 2001, p. 7).

PAGE 62

62 The National Education Association Florida Salary Surveys (2004 20 05) show that the salary gender gap at American public institutions is $11, 082 and at private institutions is $14,027. Males earned a greater salary in every rank and level at public institutions except for lecturers at baccalaureate college s and faculty with no rank at comprehensive institutions. Female faculty salaries had continued to improve over the past thre e years but continue to lag behind male faculty salaries. Statistics show that women are more likely to teach in the lower academic ranks (56.9 percent of instructor positions, 56.2 percent of lecturer positions) as opposed to the higher academic ranks (28.2 percent of professor positions and 41.1 percent of associate professor positions). Women comprise 51.1 percent of the total faculty at two year institutions as opposed to 35.1 percent of total university faculty. In addition, women are more likely to teach in lower paying disciplines while men are more prevalent in the higher -salary fields (NEA Florida Salary Surveys, 20042 0 05). The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Educati on (COACHE) Survey of September 2006 was sent to 8,308 ful l -time, pre-tenure faculty at fifty one colleges and universities. The overall response rate was 59 percent 4,866 responded. The surve y was organized around five themes : 1) tenure, 2) nature of the work, 3) policies and practices, 4) climate, culture, and collegiality, and 5) global satisfaction. Females reported less satisfaction with climate, culture, and collegiality. For overall gl obal satisfaction, females reported less satisfaction than males, faculty of color reported less satisfaction than white faculty, and university faculty reported less satisfaction than college faculty.

PAGE 63

63 For faculty overall, six factors independently predict ed global satisfaction for faculty : 1) collegiality (most predictive), 2) nature of the work, 3) tenure, 4) work -family, 5) policy effectiveness, and 6) compensation. By gender, all six factors predicted global satisfaction for faculty, however, policy ef fectiveness and work -family were better predictors for female global satisfaction, and tenure was a better predictor for male global satisfaction (COACHE Survey, 2006). A study by August and Waltman (2004) utilized Hagedorns Conceptual Framework to determ ine predictors of faculty career satisfaction. The findings showed that the components of career satisfaction for female faculty may differ as a function of tenure status. The variables in the environmental conditions block were the most significant pred ictors of career satisfaction for all female faculty. Environmental variables include departmental climate, quality of student relationships, a supportive relationship with the department chairperson, and the level of influence within the department or un it. The most significant motivator/hygiene variable was the perception of equitable salaries within the academic ranks (August & Waltman, 2004). Trigger variables were significant for tenured women and included measures of disparate workload and salary eq uity. Perception of work overload negatively affects career satisfaction for female academics (August & Waltman, 2004). Women who work in departments with few female faculty members report ed feeling pressured to assume heavier committee and student advis ing loads (Sonnert & Holton, 1995) and heavier teaching loads (Park, 2000) than their male counterparts. Significant variables for non -tenured women included college peer relations and having a senior mentor and role model (August & Waltman, 2004). The qu ality of

PAGE 64

64 teaching, mentoring, and advising relationships with students was significant for both tenured and non-tenured women, although less for non -tenured women who were involved in research and publishing for tenure. Involvement and influence in depart ment matters was significant only for tenured women. The study concluded that career satisfaction issues salient to non-tenured female faculty are likely to change as tenure is attained (August & Waltman, 2004). Researchers have report ed that a sense of c ommunity is important to career satisfaction for females. However, female faculty report ed perceptions of challenging and chilly workplace climates, exclusion from male networks and isolation from male colleagues, differential treatment, less support and approval from colleagues and chairpersons, and less information regarding the tenure process (Astin, 1991; Boice, 1993; Fox, 1991; Johnsrud & Wunsch, 1991; Olsen et al., 1995; O lsen & Sorcinelli, 1992; Parson et al., 1991; Riger et al. 1997). Conclusion I n September 2007, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report entitled Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. The report, chaired by Dr. Donna Shalala, President of the University of Mia mi and former U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, proposed a national effort to maximize the potential of women scient ists and engineers in academia. The report s tated that the pipeline for women in academia is not the problem and that the focus should be on the need for a culture change within the scientific community (National Academy of Sciences, 2007, Executive Summary, p. S-2 ). Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, Director of the National Institutes of Health, responded t o the NAS re port by stating

PAGE 65

65 It is critical to address the barriers that women face in hiring and promotion at research universities in many fields of science. We have increased our pool of talented women who choose to study science and engineering. We must now focus on our efforts on retaini ng and advancing them (Source: http://info.adea.org/BDE/Printall.aspx ) The NAS report concluded that academic institutions must promote the educational and professional success of all of its members. The concluding p aragraph of the report described the purpose and focus of this dissertation study: The United States can no longer afford the underperformance of our academic institutions in attracting the best and brightest minds to the science and engineering enterprise. Nor can it afford to devalue the contributions of some members of that workforce through gender inequities and discrimination. It is essential that our academic institutions promote the educational and professional success of all people without regard for sex, race, or ethnicity. So that our scientists and engineers can realize their greatest potential, our academic institutions must be held accountable and provide evidence that women and men receive equitable opportunities, resources, and support. Institutional policies and practices mus t move from the traditional model to an inclusive model with provisions for equitable and unbiased evaluation of accomplishment, equitable allocations of support and resources, pay equity, and gender equal family leave policies. Otherwise, a large number of the people trained in and capable of doing the very best science and engineering will not participate as they should in scientific and engineering professions (Nati onal Academy of Sciences, 2007, Executive Summary, p. S -5)

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Setting The Dental School Faculty Perceptions of the Academic Work Environment Survey was distributed to the faculty and administrators of A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry main campus The College of Dentistry was established in 1972 and is located in the Dental Sciences Building on the campus of the Health Science Center The college is one of two dental schools serving the state in which i t is located, and it is the only publicly funded dental college in th at state. The college recruits the nations top dental students, faculty, and researchers, and is nationally recognized as a leader in dental research, teaching, and service. A Southeast ern University, College of Dentistry consists of ten dental science departments and clinics, and ten dental specialty centers for research and patient treatment. The college offers sixteen degree and certificate programs in dentistry and in the various dental specialties. Students, residents, and faculty participate in interdisciplinary learning and oral health research, with an emphasis on infectious dental diseases, bone biology, biomaterials, pain and neurosciences, and translational clinical research. A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry provides dental services to patients from its own state and from the surrounding southeastern states. The diverse patient pool reflects the college mission of improving access to affordable dental health care for patients of all socioeconomic populations, ages, and cultures. Students and faculty provide services for special needs patients, and community outreach services for indigent populations throughout the state in which SEUCD is located. In addition,

PAGE 67

67 se rvice missions in the United States and abroad provide dental care to underserved populations throughout the world. Participants Survey participants were recruited from the population of full time faculty and administrators at the colleges main campus S urvey participants were identified using the colleges directory. Approximately 167 faculty members met the criteria and were eligible for the study. Because the purpose of the study was to capture routine perceptions of the workpl ace environment within the dental schools main campus F aculty and administrators working at off -campus satellite clinical sites throughout th e southeastern state as well as part -time employees of the College of Dentistry, were not surveyed. Participants of the study included all individuals at who fit the criteria of full -time, tenured, nontenured, clinical track, assistant in dentistry, and associate in dentistry faculty and administrators. The population of participants included dentists, dental hygienists, and dental researchers, with graduate level degrees in dentistry, medicine, dental sciences, education, or some combination thereof. The approximate age range of the s tudy participants was between thirty and seventy years of age. Participants were contacted via the coll eges email directory. Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained utilizing verbal and written communication of information about the study. The researcher presented information regarding the study directly to survey participants at departmental meeti ngs, faculty assembly, and at meetings of special interest groups within the college. Survey participants were provided a letter of informed consent that explained the purpose and use of the survey,

PAGE 68

68 and the steps taken to insure the anonymity and privacy of the participant. Letters of informed consent were included in and distributed with the survey electronically through the online survey tool SurveyMonkey.com. Participants were required to read the form and acknowledge their consent before access to th e survey was permitted. Participant consents were collected and retained by SurveyMonkey, thus maintaining the anonymity and privacy of the survey participants. Tasks and Materials Items from the updated 2007 version of the ADEA Survey on Dental School Fa culty Perceptions of the Academic Work Environment were used for this research project. The original 2001 surv ey contained a combination of seventy -five quantitative and qualitative items designed to measure dental faculty experiences and perceptions of wo rkplace environment. The survey was developed based on a review of the literature dedicated to perceptions of academic work environment and career development ( Nesbitt et al., 2003). Researchers conducted a pilot survey with five male and five female dental faculty f or clarity and brevity (Nesbitt et al., 2003). Chi square tests were used to detect differences in answer frequencies between male and female respondents (Nesbitt et al., 2003). The updated 2007 version of the ADEA survey was designed to incl ude primarily quantitative items that measure the same categories of variables as the 2001 version of the survey. Sources for the survey included the Harvard Graduate School of Education Faculty Job Satisfaction Survey and an online survey used by the Uni versity of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio to gather information regarding career enhancement needs of faculty (Trotman, Haden, Hendricson, 2007). A sample of forty UTHSCSA faculty members participated in a pilot test of the survey in January 2 007,

PAGE 69

69 and modifications were made based on the results of the pilot test (Trotman et al., 2007). No test of reliability was reported for the survey instrument. The 2007 survey was distributed to faculty at fifty -six U.S. and Canadian dental schools via th e Internet during th e time period February to April 2007. Results of the survey were published in the Journal of Dental Education in 2008. Responses to the survey were received from forty -nine American dental schools and included 1,748 full -time and part time faculty (17 percent of all U.S. dental school faculty) (Haden et al., 2008). As with the 2001 ADEA Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment Survey, the the researchers suggested that dental school leaders use these findings to assess thei r individual dental schools work environment and to plan changes as needed (Haden et al., 2008, p. 530). The survey for this research project utilized items from the 2007 ADEA Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment Survey. The items from the 2007 ADEA survey were classified and sectioned according to the categories of demographics, day -to day activities, professional development support and resources, the dental school environment, and job satisfaction. The classification and arrangement of survey items fit with Hagedorns Conceptual Framework of mediators, triggers, and job satisfaction. The survey was created, distributed, and analy zed using SurveyMonkey.com. The survey was encrypted to ensure security and confidentiality of results. Survey part icipants were identified by a number and no participants were identified by name. Participants were directed to read each question on the survey and to click on the answer that most appropriately reflected their perceptions of the academic work

PAGE 70

70 environment. The survey contained approximately 100 items and took approximately thirty minutes to complete. Operational Definition of Variables According to Tuckman (1999), the independent variable is the factor that is measured, manipulated, or selected by the experimenter to determine its relationship to an observed phenomenon (p. 93). The independent variable operat es either within a person or within his or her environment to affect behavior (Tuckman, 1999, p. 93). T he dependent variable is the factor that is observed and measured to determine the effect of the independent variable ( Tuckman, 1999, p. 93). The dependent variable of this study was overall faculty job satisfaction. The observed phenomenon or the independent predictor variable of this stud y was faculty perceptions of the academic workplace environment. Predictor variables are based on the motivators and hygienes, demographics, and environmental conditions factors from Hagedorns Conceptual Framework of Faculty Job Satisfaction The motivators and hygienes predictor variables measured included achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement, and salary. Demographic predictor variables included gender, institutional type, and academic discipline. Environmental predictor variables included collegial relationships, satisfaction with student quality or relationships, satisfaction with administrative decisions, and perception of institutional climate or culture (Hagedorn, 2000). Moderator variables were based on fa ctors from Hagedorns model and termed triggers. These factors included life events or changes in life stage, family -related or personal circumstances, rank or tenure, perceived justice, mood or emotional state, or a transfer to a new institution (Haged orn, 2000).

PAGE 71

71 In addition, the moderator variables for this study were evident in the stratification parameters of the population sample and could represent potential sources of error in the survey outcome. The strata found within the study population were defined by the levels of academic appointment held by the study participants. Survey participants included tenured associate and full professors with academic/research or clinical track appointments, tenure track assistant professors with academic/researc h or clinical track appointments, and non-tenure track professors with clinical track appointments and holding titles including assistant professor, assistant in dentistry, associate in dentistry, or senior associate in dentistry. In addit ion, some surve y participants he ld administrative positions, with varying administrative and teaching responsibilities. The level of academic appointment held by an individual and/or the position held by an individual may influence that individuals perception of the ac ademic work environment, thus providing an alternate explanation of outcome. Instrument of Me asure: Reliability and Validity The instrument of measure for this research project was a survey. According to Alreck and Settle (2004), the purpose of a survey i s to influence or persuade an audience, to modify a product or service, or to understand or predict behavior. The purpose of the Dental School Faculty Perceptions of the Academic Work Environment Survey was to collect data regarding faculty perceptions of the academic work environment and to use the data to understand the factors which contribute to career satisfaction of dental faculty in American dental schools. The data will be used to persuade college administrators to formulate and facilitate the nec essary academic work environment changes that would contribute to overall faculty career satisfaction. Improvements in the academic work environment will contribute to the institutions ability

PAGE 72

72 to recruit and retain dental faculty, thus addressing the cur rent and projected dental faculty shortage. Limitations of the survey method include sampling size, response rate, interviewer bias, authenticity of responses, and the soci al desirability factor. A large sampling size and high response rate increases the validity of the survey results. The target population for this survey was relatively small (168 full -time faculty) and the response rate was also small (57 respondents). In addition, inauthentic responses may be generated by re spondents desiring to answ er the survey in a manner that is deemed to be so cially acceptable or pleasing to the researcher thus lowering the validity of the survey results. The sample population for this s tudy was the population of full -time academicians at A Southeastern Univers ity, College of Dentistry in the fall semester of 2008. Sampling of the full time faculty replicated the sampling population of the original and revised ADEA Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment surveys. Survey ing a homogenous sample of fu ll-time faculty contributed to the validity and reliability of the study by avoiding population sampling bias. In addition, the anonymity and privacy provided by the online survey format helped to inhibit social desirability bias and interviewer bias (Dil lman, 2007). Data Collection The survey wa s sent via SurveyMonkey.com to168 full-time Southeastern University, College of Dentistry (main campus ) faculty and administrator s on October 27, 2008. Six survey emails were bounced by the potential respondents email servers rendering the survey inaccessible to those six faculty. A reminder letter was sent to 123 non-respondents on November 6, 2008. A final reminder letter was sent to 108 non-

PAGE 73

73 respondents on November 18, 2009. Access to the survey was closed on December 2, 2008 and a thank you letter sent to the 64 faculty and administrators who responded t o the survey. Fifty eight survey returns included complete responses and six survey returns we re partially answered. One respondent opted out of the survey after initially agreeing to complete the survey. A total of fifty -seven completed surveys were returned for a response rate of 34 percent Methodology Frequencies of response on survey items were calculated regarding perceptions of the workplace environme nt and culture, perceptions of professional development availability and resources, and overall job satisfaction. A chi square test for independence was used to determine significant differences in the expected and observed survey response frequenc ies of dental faculty about their perceptions of the workplace environment and overall job satisfaction with regard to gender and various professional attributes. The chi square test wa s used to show the significance between two nominal variables (Tuckman, 1999) In this study, the independent nominal variable included gender; p rofessional attributes included tenure status, academic degree, faculty rank, focus of job position, salary, number of years in academic dentistry at SEUCD number of total years in academic dentistry regardless of institution, and a history of successful mentorship by a senior academic colleague. The dep endent nominal variable included faculty perceptions of the workplace environment and culture, perceptions of professional development availability and resources, and faculty job satisfaction. The levels of the independent variable of gender include d male dental faculty and female dental faculty. The levels of the independent variable of tenure included

PAGE 74

74 tenured, tenure accruing, and non-t enureaccruing faculty appointments. The levels of the independent variable of academic degree included the single degrees D.M.D., D.D.S., M.D., Ph.D., M.S., B.S., or a combination of degrees such as D.M.D., Ph.D.; D.M.D., M.D.; D.D.S., Ph.D.; D.D.S., M.D .; or M.S., B.S. The levels of the independent variable of academic rank included professor emeritus, full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, assistant or associate in dentistry, and research assistant or associate in dentistry. The levels of the independent variable focus of job position included primarily teaching, primarily research, primarily administration, primarily patient care services, or a dual focus on teaching and research, teaching and administration, teaching and patient car e/services, administration and research, research and patient care/services, or administration and patient care/services. The levels of the independent variable of annual salary included less than $75,000, $75,000 to less than $100,000, $100,000 to less th an $125,000, $125,000 to less than $150,000, and $150,000 or more. The levels of the independent variable of number of years empl oyed in academic dentistry at SEUCD included categories of 1 to 5 years, 6 to 10 years, 11 to 20 years, and more than 20 years The levels of the independent variable of total number of years employed in academic dentistry, regardless of the institution include d 1 to 5 years, 6 to 10 years, 11 to 15 years, 15 to 25 years, 26 to 30 years, and more than 30 years. The levels of th e independent variable regarding a history of successful mentoring by a senior ac ademic colleague who helped in the protgs professional development include d a report of having been

PAGE 75

75 effectively mentored and a report of not having been effectively mentored by a senior academic colleague. The levels of the dependent variable of perceptions of workplace environment and culture included perceptions of faculty inclusion, collaboration and support, networking, academic resources, professional environment, and academic climate. The levels of the dependent variable perception of professional development availability and resources include d annual evaluation, goal setting, career growth planning, clarity of and access to promotion and tenure guidelines and assist ance, professional development workshops and assistance in teaching, research, and grant and/or curriculum vitae writing, professional development workshops regarding scientific topics related to dentistry and research, annual faculty development provided by the academic institution, availability and quality of in-service programs, funding for travel and professional meetings, funding for continuing education, protected time for professional development, availability of formal mentoring programs, opportunit ies for collaboration availability of orientation programs for new faculty, adequacy of the physical work environment, adequacy of institutional resources to support academic endeavors, and adequacy of institutional resources to support research endeavors The levels of the dependent variable of faculty job satisfaction included satisfaction with salary, benefits, the assigned academic department, college administration, the dental institution, and the overall life balance of each faculty person. Cross -ta bulation of survey data was used to indicate the relationship between the categories of nominal data for each of the independent and dependent variables. The tot al number of cases (n -size) should be sufficient and the number of vari able

PAGE 76

76 categories limited to allow expected cell frequencies to be at or above the required mi nimum of five per cell (Alreck & Settle, 2004). For this study which included a small population of survey respondents, the variable categories were adjusted to provide adequate cell fr equencies. Each hypothesis was tested at significance level of .05 (95 percent confidence level). A logistic regression statistical analysis was performed to compare the independent variables of gender and professional attributes as predictor variables to the binary dependent response variables regarding perceptions of workplace environment and overall faculty job satisfaction as outcome variables. Logistic regression is a variation of the multiple regression analysis which measures the degree and direc tion of the influence of independent (predictor) variables on the dependent (c riterion) variables. (Alreck & Settle, 2004; Tuckman, 1999). Whereas a multiple regression analysis determines the independent variables that best predict the dependent variable s, the logistic regression analysis results in an odds ratio indicating the probability of an independent variable predicting a dependent outcome variable (XLMiner Online Help, Intro duction to Logistic Regression). The logistic regression analysis was us ed to estimate the probability (expressed in an odds ratio) that gender, tenure status, academic degree, faculty rank, focus of job position, salary, number of years in academic dentistry at SEUCD, total number of years in academic dentistry regardless of institution, and history of successful mentoring by a senior academic colleague would predict the response of faculty regarding perceptions of workplace environment and culture, perceptions of professional development

PAGE 77

77 availability and resources, and overal l faculty job satisfaction. The statistical tool SAS was used to analyze the data.

PAGE 78

78 Figure 31. Hagedorns Conceptual Framework of Job Satisfaction Model.

PAGE 79

79 Figure 32. Coopers Southeastern University College of Dentistry Model of Predictors of Wor kplace Environment and Job Satisfaction

PAGE 80

80 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction In this chapter, the results for each of the research questions are presented. This study addressed the following research questions: Questions that will be add ressed in this study are: Research Question 1. What are the significant faculty perceptions of availability of professional development at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? Research Question 2. What among gender and professional attributes (i.e., tenure status, academic degree, rank, job position, salary, number of years in academic dentistry at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry total number of years in academic dentistry, history of mentoring experiences) best predict facult y perceptions of the availability of professional development at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? Research Question 3. What are the significant faculty perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors at A Southeastern University College of Dentistry ? Research Question 4. What among gender and professional attributes (i.e., tenure status, academic degree, rank, job position, salary, number of years in academic dentistry at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry total n umber of years in academic dentistry, history of mentoring experiences) best predict faculty perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? Research Question 5. What is the relationship of g ender, professional attributes, perceptions of availability of professional development, and perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors with overall faculty job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? Research Question 6. What are the best predictors of faculty job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? Perceptions and job satisfaction were measured in the following individual categories: (1 ) Perceptions of the dental school environment. (2 ) Perce ptions of professional support and resources. (3 ) Satisfactio n with day -to -day activities as a dental school faculty member.

PAGE 81

81 (4 ) Satisfaction with professional development support and resources. (5 ) Satisfaction with the dental school as a place to work and overall job satisfaction. In addition, informational personal and professional data were collected from each dental faculty survey participant regarding: (1 ) Gender (2 ) Academic Degree(s) (3 ) Academic Rank (4 ) Main Focus of Current Academic Appointment (5 ) Tenure Status or Eli gibility (6 ) Salary (7 ) Number of Years in Current Faculty Appointment (8 ) Number of Years in Academic Dentistry (9 ) Previous Mentoring Experience (as a mentee or protg) Sample Description { Table 41. Demographics} The survey was sent via SurveyMonkey to 168 A Sout heastern University, College of Dentistry faculty and administrators on October 27, 200 8. A total of fifty -seven completed surveys were returned for a response rate of 34 percent Of the fifty -seven total respondents, thirty indicated their gender as male (54 percent ) and twenty six indicated their gender as female (46 percent ). One respondent did not indicate a gender. Twelve respondents indicated that they held combined D M D /D D S. and Ph. D or M D academic degrees (21 percent ). Thirty eight respon dents indicated that they held either a D M D /D D S. degree or a Ph. D academic degree (67 percent ). Seven respondents indicated that their highest academic degree was either a Master of Science Degree (M S. degree) or a Bachelor of Science Degree (B S. degree) (12 percent ). Seventeen respondents indicated a ranking of Professor Emeritus or Full Professor (30 percent ), thirty respondents indicated a ranking of Associate or Assistant

PAGE 82

82 Professor (53 percent ), and ten respondents indicated a ranking of O th er (18 percent ). No delineation was made between academic or clinical ranking. The category other included the ranking of Assistant or Associate in Dentistry, and Research Assistant or Associate in Dentistry. Twenty four respondents reported holding tenure (44 percent ), nine respondents stated that they were tenure -track faculty (17 percent ), and twenty one re spondents indicated that they held non tenure track positions (39 percent ). Three respondents did not indicate tenure status. Additional demogr aphic information was collected regarding the focus of the respondents academic appointment, information regarding salary and compensation, total years of employment at SEUCD total years of employment in academic dentistry, and history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague. Respondents were asked for information regarding the main focus of their academic employment, and whether or not it is a primary or dual focus appointment. Thirty -six respondents reported a primary focus in academic/c linical teaching, research, patient care/services, or administration (67 percent ). Eighteen respondents reported a dual focus appointment which includes a combination of teaching and research, teaching and administration, teaching and patient care/servic es, administration and research, research and patient care/services, or administration and pat ient care/services. Three respondents did not indicate the focus of their academic appointment (33 percent ). Eleven respondents reported an annual salary of $75,000 or less (20 percent ), fourteen respondents reported an annual salary of $76,000 to $100,000 (25 percent ), ten respondents reported an annual salary of $101,001 to $125,000 (18 percent ), nine respondents reported an annual salary of $126,001 to $150,000 (16 percent ), and

PAGE 83

83 twelve respondents reported an annual salary of $151,001 or more (21 percent ). One respondent did not report salary and compensation data. Respondents were asked to report the total number of years employed in academic dentistry at SEU CD. Categories of five year increments were used to indicate number of years of employment. The categories of 11 -15 years, and 16-20 years were combined to produce a viable number of respondents in the given category. Twenty -two respondents reported les s than 15 years employment (39 percent ), seventeen respondents reported 6-10 years employment (30 percent ), nine respondents reported 1120 years employment (16 percent ), and eight respondents reported more than 20 years employment (14 percent ). One resp ondent did not report number of years emplo yed at SEUCD Respondents were asked to report the total number of years employed in academic dentistry, regardless of academic institution. The categories including 1620 years and 21-25 years were combined to produce a viable number of respondents in t he given category. Eleven respondents reported 15 total years employment (19 percent ), eight respondents reported 610 total years employment (14 percent ), twelve respondents reported 1115 total years employmen t (21 percent ), twelve respondents reported 16 -25 total years employment (21 percent ), six respondents reported 26 -30 total years employment (11 percent ), and eight respondents reported more than 30 total years employment (14 percent ) in academic dentistry Respondents were asked to report if, at some point in their academic career, either now or previously, a more senior faculty member effectively served as their mentor and helped their professional development. Thirty -four respondents reported

PAGE 84

84 having been effectively mentored by a senior faculty member (62 percent ) and twenty one reported having received no effective mentoring from a senior faculty member (38 percent ). Two respondents did not indicate an answer to the mentoring experience question. Resul ts I n this chapter the analysis of the survey results is presented by each research question. Research Question 1. What are the significant faculty perceptions of availability of professional development at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? A chi square analysis resulted in the following significant findings: As shown in Table 4 2, a significant difference was shown between male and female faculty regarding availability of funding for travel related to professional development. Females rep orted that they received travel funds to attend professional meetings (65.38 percent n = 27) more often than males (37.93 percent n = 32) significant at p = .042. Also significant differences were shown due to degree. For example, those faculty with a B. S. or M S degree reported receiving yearly written performance evaluation (100 percent n = 12) more often than those with combined doctoral (92.86 percent n = 12) or single doctoral (88.57 percent n = 38) degrees, significant at p = 010 (s ee Table 4 3). Professional assistance to enhance teaching skills was reported more often by those with combined doctoral degrees (85.71 percent n = 12 ) and by those with B S or M S degrees (85.71 percent n = 12) than by those with a single doctoral degree (50.0 percent n = 38), significant at p = .030 (s ee Table 43)

PAGE 85

85 Faculty with a B S. or M .S. degree reported the availability of school wide annual faculty development day (100 percent n = 12) more often than the combined doctoral (71.43 percent n = 12) or single doctoral (45.71 percent n = 38) degree faculty, significant at p = .011 (s ee Table 4 -3). The availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speakers and consultants was reported more often by fa culty with a B S. or M S degree (100 percent n = 12) compared to faculty with combined doctoral degrees (78.57 percent n = 12) or single doctoral degrees (51.43 percent n = 38), signi ficant at p = .021 (s ee Table 4 3). The availability of a formal mentoring program for new faculty, regardless of academic rank was reported more often by faculty with a B S. or M S degree (57.14 percent n = 12) compared with combined doctoral (50 percent n = 12) or single doctoral (20 percent n = 38) degrees, signifi cant at p = .035 (s ee Table 43). With respect to rank, Professor Emeritus and Professors reported that they received mid -tenure review and feedback (75 percent n = 16) more often than those at other ranks including Associate and Assistant Professors (55.0 percent n = 32) and faculty classified as O ther (33.33 percent n = 12), significant at p = .04 (s ee Table 4 4). Professor Emeritus and Professors reported that promotion and tenure process workshops are routinely conducted (68.75 percent n = 16) more often than those at other ranks including Associate and Assistant Professors (31.58 percent n = 32) and faculty classified as other (19.05 percent n = 12), significant at p = .007 (s ee Table 4 4).

PAGE 86

86 Professor Emeritus and Pro fessors reported an av ailability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowships (62.50 percent n = 16) more often than Associate and Assistant Professors (25 percent n = 32) and faculty classified as O ther (23.81 percent n = 12), significant at p = .025 (s ee Tabl e 44). Associate and Assistant Pro fessors reported availability of an orientation program for first year faculty (84.21 percent n = 32) more often than Professor Emeritus and Professors (75 percent n = 16) and faculty classified as O ther (47.62 percent n = 12), significant at p = .036 (see Table 4 -4). N o significant differences occurred among dental faculty in their perceptions of the availability of profe ssional development with regard to career focus (s ee Table 4 -5). Significant differences were rep orted regarding perceptions of availability of professional development by tenure accruing status. Tenure track faculty reported availability of professional assistance to enhance teaching skills (79.17 percent n = 9) more often than tenured faculty (77. 78 percent n = 24) and non-tenure track faculty (45.0 percent n = 21), si gnificant at p = .042 (s ee Table 4-6). Tenure -track faculty reported that promotion and tenure process workshops are routinely conducted (65.22 percent n = 9) more often than tenur ed faculty (22.22 percent n = 24) and non-tenure track faculty (10.05 percent n = 21), significant at p = .004 (s ee Table 4 6). Tenure-track faculty also reported the availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowships (58.33 p ercent n = 9) more often than tenured faculty (11.11 percent n = 24) and non-tenure track faculty (23.81 percent n = 21), significant at p = .012 (s ee Table 4 6).

PAGE 87

87 With respect to salary, significant differences were reported regarding yearly meetings wi th the department chairperson. Faculty earning $151,000 or more annual salary reported yearly meetings with their department chairperson (100 percent n = 12) more often than faculty earning $75,000 or less annual salary (54.55 percent n = 11), $76,000 t o $100,000 (92.86 percent n = 14), $101,000 to $125,000 (80.0 percent n = 10), or $126,000 to $150,000 (88.89 percent n = 9), significant at p = .034 (s ee Table 4 7). Faculty earning $151,000 or more annual salary also reported developing career growt h plans with their department chairperson (75.0 percent n = 12) more often than faculty earning $75,000 or less annual salary (36.36 percent n = 11), $76,000 to $100,000 (23.08 percent n = 14), $101,000 to $125,000 (20.0 percent n = 10), or $126,000 to $150,000 (66.67 percent n = 9), significant at p = .023 (s ee Table 4 7). Faculty earning $126,000 to $150,000 annual salary reported receiving mid-tenure progress review and feedback (88.89 percent n = 9) more often that faculty earning $75,000 or less annual salary (18.18 percent n = 11), $76,000 to $100,000 (42.86 percent n = 14), $101,000 to $125,000 (40.0 percent n = 10), or $151,000 or more (83.33 percent n = 12), significant at p = .003 (s ee Table 4 7). Faculty earning $151,000 or more annual s alary reported availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowships (75.0 percent n = 12) more often than faculty earning $75,000 or less annual salary (18.18 percent n = 11), $76,000 to $100,000 (7.14 percent n = 1 4), $101,000 to $125 ,000 (40.0 percent n = 10), or $126,000 to $150,000 (44.44 percent n = 9), significant at p = .004 (s ee Table 4 7).

PAGE 88

88 Significant differences were reported regarding number of years of employment at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry Faculty employed more than twenty years reported development of career growth plans with their department chairperson (50 percent n = 8) more than faculty employed five years or less (42.86 percent n = 22), 6 to10 years (47.06 percent n = 17), and 11 to 20 ye ars (44.44 percent n = 9), significant at p = .010 (See Table 4 8 ). Faculty employed more than twenty years at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry (75.0 percent n = 8) reported availability of an orientation program for first year faculty mor e than faculty employed five years or less (68.18 percent n = 22), 6 to 10 years (68.75 percent n = 17), and 11 to 20 years (66.67 percent n = 9), significant at p = .010 (s ee Table 4 8). N o significant differences occurred among dental faculty in their perceptions of the availability of profe ssional development with regard to years e mployed in academic dentistry (s ee Table 49). With respect to having received effective mentoring experience by senior academic colleagues and perceptions of availability o f professional development, significant differences were reported. Faculty who stated they were not effectively mentored reported developing career growth plans with their department chairperson (55.88 percent n = 21) more than faculty who stated they were effectively mentored (27.27 percent n = 34), significant at p = .035 (s ee Table 4 10). Faculty who said that they were not effectively mentored reported availability of professional assistance to enhance teaching skills (75.76 percent n = 21) more than effectively mentored faculty (47.83 percent n = 34), significant at p = .032 (s ee Table 4 10).

PAGE 89

89 Faculty who said that they were not effectively mentored reported availability of professional assistance to enhance research skills (66.67 percent n = 21) more than effectively mentored faculty (39.13 percent n = 34), significant at p = .041 (s ee Table 4 10). Faculty who said that they were not effectively mentored reported availability of professional assistance to enhance grant, manuscript, and CV w riting skills (58.82 percent n = 21) more than effectively mentored faculty (26.09 percent n = 34), significant at p = .015 (s ee Table 4 -10). Faculty who said that they were not effectively mentored reported availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speakers and consultants (79.41 percent n = 21) more than effectively mentored faculty (43.48 percent n = 34), significant at p = .005 (s ee Table 410). Faculty who said that they were not effectively mentored r eported that the college provides regularly scheduled faculty in -service programs on new scientific developments (61.76 percent n = 21) more than effectively mentored faculty (30.43 percent n = 34), significant at p = .020 (s ee Table 410). Research Question 2. What among gender and professional attributes (i.e., tenure status, academic degree, rank, job position, salary, number of years in academic dentistry at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry total number of years in academic dentistry history of mentoring experiences) best predict faculty perceptions of the availability of professional development at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? A logistical regression analysis resulted in the following significant findings: Salary was found to be significantly related to career planning (annual goal setting and planning of professional enrichment activities). Those with a lower income were less likely to have career planning (Odds Ratio for Salary Group 2 with an income of

PAGE 90

90 $76,000 to $100,000 versus Salary Group 5 with an income of $151,000 or greater = 0.057, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.006, 0.508)]; Odds Ratio for Salary Group 3 with an income of $101,000 to $125,000 versus Salary Group 5 with an income of $151,000 or greater = 0.082, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.009, 0.753)]) Salary was found to be significantly related to mid-tenure progress review by Promotion and Tenure Committee. Those with a lower income were less likely to have a progress review (Odds Rati o for Salary Group 1 with an income less than or equal to $75,000 versus Salary Group 5 with an income of $151,000 or greater = 0.036, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.003, 0.484)]; Odds Ratio for Salary Gr oup 2 with an income of $76,000 to $100,000 vs Salary Group 5 with an income of $151,000 or greater = 0.078, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.007, 0.828)]; Odds Ratio for Salary Gro up 3 with an income of $101,000 to $125,000 versus Salary Group 5 with an income of $151,000 or greater = 0.063, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.005, 0.760)]). A history of effective mentoring by senior faculty was found to be significantly related to the perception of availability of professional assistance (workshops, consultation, mentoring by experienced invest igators) to enhance research skills. Those with no history of effective mentoring were less likely to have research assistance (Odds Ratio for No Mentoring History versus Mentoring History = 0.273, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.080, 0.931)]). A his tory of effective mentoring by senior faculty was found to be significantly related to the perception of availability of professional assistance to enhance writing skills (grants, manuscripts, CVs). Those with no history of effective mentoring were less

PAGE 91

91 l ikely to have writing assistance (Odds Ratio for No Mentoring History versus Mentoring History = 0.278, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.079, 0.973)]). Salary was found to be significantly related to the perception of routinely conducted promotion and tenure workshops. Those with a lower income were less likely to have routinely conducted tenure workshops (Odds Ratio for Salary Group 1 with an income less than or equal to $75,000 versus Salary Group 5 with an income of $151,000 or greater = 0.036, 95 p ercent Confidence Interval = [(0.003, 0.484)]; Odds Ratio for Salary Gr oup 2 with an income of $76,000 to $100,000 versus Salary Group 5 with an income of $151,000 or greater = 0.057, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.006, 0.508)]). A history of effecti ve mentoring by senior faculty was found to be significantly related to the perception of the dental school routinely providing speakers and consultants to conduct faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills. Those with no history of eff ective mentoring were less likely to perceive that the dental school conducts routine development on oral health topics and clinical skills (Odds Ratio = 0.233, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.067, 0.818)]). Salary was found to be significantly related to the perception of availability of funding support for sabbaticals and fellowships. Those with a lower income were less likely to have sabbatical and fellowship funding support (Odds Ratio for Salary Group 1 with an income less than or equal to $75,000 versus Salary Group 5 with an income of $151,000 or greater = 0.082, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.009, 0.753)]; Odds Ratio for Salary Gr oup 2 with an income of $76,000 to $100,000 versus Salary Group 5

PAGE 92

92 with an income of $151,000 or greater = 0.02 4, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.002, 0.313)]). Research Question 3. What are the significant faculty perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? A chi square analysis resulted in t he following significant findings: As shown in Table 4 11, a significant difference occurred between male and female faculty regarding perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors. Female faculty reported that faculty relations with student s can be characterized as us against them (19.23 percent n = 27) more than male faculty (0.00 percent n = 32), significant at p = .017 (s ee Table 4 -11 ). N o significant differences occurred among dental faculty in their perceptions of dental school cult ure and environment with respect to academic degree or degrees (s ee Table 4 12). With respect to rank, associate and assistant professors reported that faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them (10.0 percent n = 32) more than professor emeritus or full professors (6.25 percent n = 16) or faculty classified as other (9.52 percent n = 12), significant at p = .010 (s ee Table 4 13). Faculty, who have a dual career focus report ed having a sense of belonging in their depar tment and being part of a team (83.33 percent n = 18) more than faculty with a single career focus (55.56 percent n = 44), significant at p = .044 (s ee Table 4 14) With respect to tenureaccruing status, tenure -track faculty report having a sense of belonging in their department and being part of a team (83.33 percent n = 9) more than tenured faculty (33.33 percent n = 24) and non-tenure track faculty (61.90 percent n = 22), significant at p = .021 (s ee Table 4-15 ).

PAGE 93

93 In addition, tenure-tr ack faculty report ed faculty colleagues eager to help them with projects (70.83 percent n = 9) more than tenured faculty (22.22 percent n=24) and non-tenure track faculty (61.90 percent n=22), significant at p = .039 (see Table 415) Tenure -track facul ty report ed that their contributions to their department are recognized by their colleagues (66.67 percent n = 9) more than tenured faculty (0.00 percent n = 2 4) and non-tenure track faculty (52.38 percent n = 22), significant at p =.002 (see Table 4-1 5) N o significant differences occurred among dental faculty in their perceptions of dental school culture and env ironment with respect to salary (s ee Table 416). N o significant differences occurred among dental faculty in their perceptions of dental school culture and environment with respect to years of employment at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry (s ee Table 4-17 ). With respect to number of years spent in acad emic dentistry, faculty with 26 to 30 years report ed a departmental expectation of conformity to dress code communication, and public behavior (100.0 percent n = 6), more than faculty with 1 to 5 years (54.55 percent n = 13), 6 to10 years (12.50 percent n = 8), 11 to 15 years (66.67 percent n = 12), 16 to 25 years (41.67 pe rcent n = 13, and those with more than 30 years (25.0 percent n = 8), significant at p = .012 (s ee Table 4-18). Faculty with 11 to 15 years (75.0 percent n = 12) and more than 30 years (75.0 percent n = 8) report ed that their contributions to their dep artments are recognized by their colleagues more than faculty with 1 to 5 years (36.36 percent n = 13), 6 to 10 years (12.50 percent n = 8), 16 to 25 years (58.33 percent n = 13), and 26 to 30 years (33.33 percent n = 6), significant at p = .047 (see T able 4-18).

PAGE 94

94 With respect to mentoring experience and perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors, significant differences were reported. Faculty who said they were effectively mentored, reported enjoying their interaction with their coll eagues (91.18 percent n = 34) more than faculty who said they were not effectively mentored (69.57 percent n = 21), significant at p = .001 (s ee Table 4 19) Faculty who said they were effectively mentored, reported having a sense of belonging in their department and being part of the team (79.41 percent n = 34) more than faculty who said they were not effectively mentored (43.48 percent n = 21), significant at p = .005 (see Table 4 -19) Faculty who said they were effectively mentored reported that fac ulty colleagues were eager to help them with projects (73.53 percent n = 34) more than faculty who said they were not effectively mentored (34.78 percent n = 21), significant at p = .004 (see Table 419) Faculty who said they were not effectively mentor ed reported that faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them (21.74 percent n = 21) more than faculty who said they were effectively mentored (0.00 percent n = 34), significant at p = .008 (see Table 4 19) Faculty who said they were effectively mentored reported that their department chairperson treated them fairly (88.24 percent n = 34) more than faculty who were not effectively mentored (52.17 percent n = 21), signi ficant at p = .002 (see Table 4 -19) Research Question 4. What among gender and professional attributes (i.e., tenure status, academic degree, rank, job position, salary, number of years in academic dentistry at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry total number of years in academic dentistry, histor y of mentoring experiences) best predict faculty perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ?

PAGE 95

95 A logistical regression analysis resulted in the following significant findings: A history of e ffective mentoring by senior faculty was found to be significantly related to the perception of enjoyment of interaction with faculty colleagues. Those without a history of effective mentoring were less likely to enjoy interaction with faculty colleagues (Odds Ratio for No Mentoring History versus Mentoring History = 0.087, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.009, 0.817)]). A history of effective mentoring by senior faculty was found to be significantly related to the perception of faculty colleagues eager to help with projects. Those without a history of effective mentoring were less likely to perceive eagerness of faculty colleagues to help with projects (Odds Ratio for No Mentoring History versus Mentoring History = 0.112, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.030, 0.425)]). Focus of job position was found to be significantly related to the perception of fair treatment by chairpersons. Those with a single focus (teaching only, research only, administration only) were less likely to perceive fair treatment than those with a dual focus (any combination of teaching, research, administration) (Odds Ratio = 0.090, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.008, 0.986)]). A history of effective mentoring by senior faculty was found to be significantly related to the perception of fair treatment by chairpersons. Those without a history of effective mentoring were less likely to perceive fair treatment by chairpersons (Odds Ratio = 0.045, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [( 0.007, 0.285)]). Research Question 5. What is the relationship of gender, professional attributes, perceptions of availability of professional development, and perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors with overall faculty job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ?

PAGE 96

96 A chi square analysis resulted in the following significant findings regarding the relationship of gender and professional attributes with overall faculty job satisfaction and faculty satisfaction with the balance of their life: Faculty with a s ingle career focus reported overall satisfaction with the balance of their life (86.11 percent n = 36) compared with faculty with a dual career focus (55.56 percent n = 18), signifi cant at p = .02 (see Table 4-20) N o significant difference was noted be tween single and dual career focus faculty with regard to overall job satisfaction (see Table 420) Faculty with a history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague reported overall job satisfaction (79.41 percent n = 34) compared with facult y reporting no history of effective mentoring (26.09 percent n = 23), significant at p = .0001 (see Table 4 20) In addition, there is a trend toward significance regarding faculty with a history of effective mentoring and overall faculty satisfaction wi th the balance of their life (82.35 percent n = 34) compared with faculty reporting no history of effective mentoring (60.87 percent n = 23), significant at p = .071 (see Table 420) A chi square analysis resulted in the following significant findings regarding the perceptions of availability of professional development with overall faculty job satisfaction and faculty satisfaction with the balance of their life: Faculty reporting the development of career growth plans report ed overall faculty job satis faction (84.00 percent n = 25) compared with faculty reporting no development of career growth plans (38.71 percent n = 31), significant at p = .0006 (see Table 420) In addition, faculty reporting the development of career growth plans report ed overal l

PAGE 97

97 satisfaction with the balance of their life (88.00 percent n = 25) compared with faculty reporting no development of career growth plans (64.52 percent n = 31), significant at p = .044 (see Table 4 20) Faculty reporting midtenure review and feedback report ed overall satisfaction with the balance of their life (86.67 percent n = 30) compared with faculty who did not report mid -tenure review and feedback (59.26 percent n = 27), significant at p = .0189 (see Table 4 20) Faculty who perceive d the availability of assistance to enhance teaching skills report ed overall job satisfaction (72.22 percent n = 36) compared with faculty who did not perceive the availability of assistance to enhance teaching skills (30.00 percent n = 20), significant at p = .0 02 (see Table 4-20) In addition, faculty who perceive d the availability of assistance to enhance research skills report ed overall job satisfaction (77.42 percent n = 31) compared with faculty who did not perceive the availability of assistance to enhanc e research skills (36.00 percent n = 25) significant at p = 002 (see Table 420). Faculty who perceive d the availability of assistance to enhance writing skills report ed overall job satisfaction (76.92 percent n = 26) compared with faculty who did not perceive the availability of assistance to enhance writing skills (41.94 percent n = 31), significant at p = .007 (see Table 420) Faculty who perceive d the availability of promot ion and tenure workshops reported overall job satisfaction (76.19 percent n = 21) compared with faculty who did not perceive the availability of promotion and tenure workshops (48.57 percent n = 35), significant at p = .042 (see Table 4 -20)

PAGE 98

98 Faculty who perceive d the availability of routine faculty development report ed overall job satisfaction (72.97 percent n = 37) compared with faculty who did not perceive the availability of routine faculty development (30.00 percent n = 20), significant at p = .002 (see Table 4 -20) Facul ty who perceived the availability of in-service sci entific development presentations and workshops report ed overall job satisfaction (82.14 percent n = 28) compared with faculty who did not perceive the availability of in-service scientific development (34.48 percent n = 29), significant at p = .0003 (se e Table 420) Faculty who perceive d the availability of orientation workshops for first year faculty report ed overall job satisfaction (71.05 percent n= 38) compared with faculty who did not perceive the availability of first year faculty orientation work shops (33.33 percent n = 18), significant at p = .0074 (see Table 420) A chi square analysis resulted in the following significant findings regarding the perceptions of academic environment and culture with overall faculty job satisfaction and faculty s atisfaction with the balance of their life: Faculty who enjoy ed colleague interactions report ed overall job satisfaction (65.96 percent n = 37) compared with faculty who did not enjoy colleague interactions (20.00 percent n = 20), significant at p = .0122 (see Table 4 -20) ). In addition, faculty who enjoy ed colleague interactions report ed satisfaction with the balance of their life (80.85 percent n = 37) compared with faculty who did not enjoy colleague interaction (40.00 percent n = 20), significant at p = .0148 (see Table 4 -20) Faculty who perceive d that they have a comfortable niche within their department report ed overall job satisfaction (72.97 percent n = 37) compared with faculty who did

PAGE 99

99 not perceive a comfortable departmental niche (30.00 perce nt n = 20), significant at p = .0017 (see Table 4 -20) In addition, faculty who perceived a comfortable departmental niche report ed satisfaction with the balance of their life (83.78 percent n = 37) compared with faculty who did not report a com fortable departmental niche (55.00 percent n = 20), signifi cant at p = .019 (see Table 420) Faculty who perceive d that faculty colleagues are eager to help with projects report ed overall job satisfaction (81.82 percent n = 33) compared with faculty who did not perceive colleague eagerness to help with projects (25.00 percent n = 24), significant at p = .00001 (see Table 4 -20 ). Faculty who perceive d that there are departmental expectations regarding professional decorum report ed satisfaction with the balance of their life (89.29 percent n = 28) compared with faculty who did not perceive that there are departmental expectations regarding professional decorum (58.62 percent n = 29), significant at p = .009 (see Table 4 20) Faculty who had a posit ive perception of their relationships with students report ed overall job satisfaction (63.46 percent n = 52) compared with faculty who had a negative perception (described as us against them) of their relationships with students (0.00 percent n = 5) s ignificant at p = .01 (see Table 4 -20) Faculty who perceive d that they are treated fairly by their department chairperson report ed overall job satisfaction (73.81 percent n = 42) compared with faculty who perceive d that they are not treated fairly by t heir department chairperson (13.33 percent n = 15), significant at p = .00004 (see Table 420)

PAGE 100

100 Faculty who perceive d that their contributions are recognized by their colleagues report ed overall job satisfaction (75.86 percent n = 29) compared with facul ty who did not perceive that their contributions are recognized by their colleagues (39.29 percent n = 28), significant at p = .0051 (see Table 420) Faculty who perceive d that the physical appearance of the dental school makes a good impression report e d overall job satisfaction (82.35 percent n = 17) compared with faculty who did not perceive that the physical appearance of the dental school makes a good impression (74.50 percent n = 40), significant at p = .015 (see Table 420) Faculty who perceive d that the overall culture of the dental school is characterized by openness to new ideas report ed overall job satisfaction (90.48 percent n = 21) compared with faculty who did not perceive the overall college culture to be open to new ideas (38.89 percent n = 36), significant at p = .0001 (see Table 4-20) Faculty who perceive d that the decision-making process at the dental school is reasonable report ed overall job satisfaction (91.67 percent n = 24) compared with faculty who did not perceive that the de cision making process is reasonable (33.33 percent n = 33), significant at p = .00001 (see Table 420) Faculty who report ed satisfaction with dental school diversity report ed overall job satisfaction (74.19 percent n = 3 1) compared with faculty who were not satisfied with dental school diversity (38.46 percent n = 26), significant at p = .0065 (see Table 420) Research Question 6. What are the best predictors of faculty job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry ? A logical reg ression analysis was conducted to determine the best predictors of overall faculty job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry and the

PAGE 101

101 best predictors of overall faculty satisfaction with the balance of their life. The logical reg ression resulted in the following significant findings: N o significant variables were found that best predicted overal l faculty job satisfaction at SEUCD. Departmental expectations of professional decorum was found to be the only significant variable that best predicted faculty satisfaction with the overall balance of their life (Odds Ratio = 0.059, 95 percent Confidence Interval = [(0.005, 0.719)]).

PAGE 102

102 Table 4 1. Demographic data GENDER: n = % M ale 32 54.2% Female 27 45.8% Total Respondents 59 EDUCATION/DEGREES: DMD/DDS 26 44.8% DMD/DDS + Ph D or MD 12 20.6% PhD 12 20.7% Bachelor, Master, or Other Degree 12 13.8% RANK: Academic Professor/Professor Emeritus 16 29.1% Academic Associate Professor 13 23.6% Academic Assistant Professor 8 14.5% 37 Clinic al Professor 1 1.8% Clinical Associate Professor 3 5.5% Clinical Assistant Professor 7 12.7% Associate in Dentistry /Research Associate 7 12.8% 14 TENURE STATUS: Tenured Academic(23)/Clinical(1) 24 43.6% Tenure T rack Academic(7)/Clinical(2) 9 16.3% Non -Tenure Track(22)/Other(2) 24 40.0% SALARY: < $75,000 13 22.1% $76,000 -$100,000 14 23.7% $101,000125,000 11 18.6% $126,000$150,000 9 15.3% > $150,000 1 2 20.4% JOB FOCUS: Single Focus: Teaching 14 24.6% Research 15 26.3% Administration 7 12.3% Patient Care _3_ 5.3% 39

PAGE 103

103 Table 4 1. Continued Double Focus: n = % Teaching Research 5 8.8% Teaching Patient Care 7 12.3% Teaching Administration 3 5.3% Research Administration 1 1.8% Patient Care Administration 2 3.5% Othe r _5_ 18 YEARS EMPLOYED @ SEUCD : 0 -5 25 42.4% 6 -10 17 28.8% 1120 9 15.3% 21+ 8 13.6% TOTAL YEARS IN ACADEMIC DENTISTRY: 1 5 13 21.7% 6 10 8 13.3% 11 15 12 20.0% 16 25 13 21.7% 26 30 6 10.0 % 31+ 8 13.3% HISTORY OF EFFECTIVE MENTORING: Yes 34 59.6% No 21 26.8% Not Applicable 2 3.5%

PAGE 104

104 Table 4 2. Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Gender Males N = 32 Females N = 27 p value Meet with Dept. C hair yearly 80.00 % 88.46 % 0.4808 Receive yearly written performance evaluation 90.00 % 92.31 % 1.0000 Develop career growth plans with Dept. Chair 46.67 % 40.00 % 0.6196 Receive mid tenure progress review and feedback 60.00 % 42.31 % 0.1864 Professional assi stance to enhance teaching skills is available 65.38 % 62.07 % 0.7986 Professional assistance to enhance research skills is available 53.33 % 56.00 % 0.8432 Professional assistance to enhance grant, manuscript, CV writing skills is available 46.67 % 42.31 % 0. 7435 Promotion and Tenure process workshops are routinely conducted 44.83 % 26.92 % 0.1682 Availability of school wide annual faculty development day 50.00 % 69.23 % 0.1446 Availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skill s by speakers and consultants 60.00 % 69.23 % 0.4722 School provides regularly scheduled faculty in service programs on new scientific developments 43.33 % 53.85 % 0.4323 Availability of travel funds to support faculty attendance at professional meetings 37 .93 % 65.38 % 0.0420 Availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowships 43.33 % 26.92 % 0.2012 Dedicated weekly time reserved for my professional development 30.00 % 50.00 % 0.1341 Availability of formal mentoring program for junior, untenured faculty 46.67 % 40.00 % 0.6196 Availability of formal mentoring program for new faculty, regardless of academic rank 33.33 % 30.77 % 0.8376 Availability of orientation program for first year faculty 66.67 % 72.00 % 0.6700

PAGE 105

105 Table 4 3. Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Degree DMD/DDS with PhD/MD/MS N = 12 DMD or DDS or PhD N = 38 MS or BS N = 12 p value Meet with Dept. Chair yearly 92.86 % 77.14 % 100.00 % 0.2625 Receive yearly written performance evaluation 92.86 % 88.57 % 100.00 % 0.0100 Develop career growth plans with Dept. Chair 50.00 % 41.18 % 57.14 % 0.7895 Receive mid tenure progress review and feedback 50.00 % 57.14 % 42.86 % 0.7907 Professional assistance to enhance teaching skills is available 85.71 % 50.00 % 85.71 % 0.0295 P rofessional assistance to enhance research skills is available 69.23 % 48.57 % 71.43 % 0.4002 Professional assistance to enhance grant, manuscript, CV writing skills is available 57.14 % 40.00 % 57.14 % 0.4542 Promotion and Tenure process workshops are routine ly conducted 50.00 % 35.29 % 14.29 % 0.2788 Availability of school wide annual faculty development day 71.43 % 45.71 % 100.00 % 0.0108 Availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speakers and consultants 78.57 % 51 .43 % 100.00 % 0.0213 School provides regularly scheduled faculty in -service programs on new scientific developments 50.00 % 42.86 % 71.43 % 0.3930 Availability of travel funds to support faculty attendance at professional meetings 50.00 % 44.12 % 71.43 % 0.464 5 Availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowships 57.14 % 28.57 % 14.29 % 0.1085 Dedicated weekly time reserved for my professional development 23.08 % 44.12 % 57.14 % 0.3101 Availability of formal mentoring program for junior, untenured faculty 64.29 % 37.14 % 33.33 % 0.2073 Availability of formal mentoring program for new faculty, regardless of academic rank 50.00 % 20.00 % 57.14 % 0.0350 Availability of orientation program for first year faculty 71.4 3% 64.71 % 71.43 % 0.9165

PAGE 106

106 Table 4 4. Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Rank Professor Emeritus/Professor N = 17 Associate/Assi s tant Professor N = 31 Other N = 12 p value Meet with Dept. Chair yearly 93.75 % 90.0 0% 71. 43% 0.1607 Receive yearly written performance ev aluation 100.00 % 95.00 % 80.95 % 0.1752 Develop career growth plans with Dept. Chair 56.25 % 47.37 % 33.33 % 0.3649 Receive mid tenure progress review and feedback 75.00 % 55.00 % 33.33 % 0.0409 Professional assistance to enhance teaching skills is available 7 5.00 % 70.00 % 50.00 % 0.2390 Professional assistance to enhance research skills is available 62.50 % 57.89 % 47.62 % 0.6413 Professional assistance to enhance grant, manuscript, CV writing skills is available 50.00 % 55.00 % 33.33 % 0.3480 Promotion and Tenure process workshops are routinely conducted 68.75 % 31.58 % 19.05 % 0.0067 Availability of school wide annual faculty development day 75.00 % 50.00 % 57.14 % 0.3020 Availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speake rs and consultants 75.00 % 70.00 % 52.38 % 0.3027 School provides regularly scheduled faculty in service programs on new scientific developments 50.00 % 50.00 % 47.62 % 0.9851 Availability of travel funds to support faculty attendance at professional meetings 46.67 % 35.00 % 66.67 % 0.1225 Availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowships 62.50 % 25.00 % 23.81 % 0.0254 Dedicated weekly time reserved for my professional development 26.67 % 31.58 % 57.14 % 0.1198 Availability of formal mentoring p rogram for junior, untenured faculty 62.50 % 45.00 % 25.00 % 0.0757 Availability of formal mentoring program for new faculty, regardless of academic rank 31.25 % 30.00 % 33.33 % 0.9735 Availability of orientation program for first year faculty 75.00 % 84.21 % 47.62 % 0.0360

PAGE 107

107 Table 4 5. Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Career Focus Dual Focus N = 18 Single Focus N =39 p value Meet with Dept. Chair yearly 80.56 % 88.89 % 0.7011 Receive yearly written performance evaluation 88.89 % 94 .44 % 0.6546 Develop career growth plans with Dept. Chair 42.86 % 44.44 % 0.9121 Receive mid tenure progress review and feedback 52.78 % 50.00 % 0.8473 Professional assistance to enhance teaching skills is available 57.14 % 77.78 % 0.1379 Professional assista nce to enhance research skills is available 51.43 % 66.67 % 0.2891 Professional assistance to enhance grant, manuscript, CV writing skills is available 41.67 % 50.00 % 0.5613 Promotion and Tenure process workshops are routinely conducted 37.14 % 33.33 % 0.7842 Availability of school wide annual faculty development day 55.56 % 66.67 % 0.4334 Availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speakers and consultants 61.11 % 66.67 % 0.6902 School provides regularly scheduled faculty in service programs on new scientific developments 50.00 % 50.00 % 1.0000 Availability of travel funds to support faculty attendance at professional meetings 42.86 % 61.11 % 0.2081 Availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowship s 33.33 % 33.33 % 1.0000 Dedicated weekly time reserved for my professional development 37.14 % 52.94 % 0.2794 Availability of formal mentoring program for junior, untenured faculty 44.44 % 35.29 % 0.5280 Availability of formal mentoring program for new facul ty, regardless of academic rank 27.78 % 38.89 % 0.4073 Availability of orientation program for first year faculty 65.71 % 66.67 % 0.9447

PAGE 108

108 Table 4 6. Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Tenure -Accruing Status Tenured N = 24 Tenure Tra ck N = 9 Non tenured N = 24 p value Meet with Dept. Chair yearly 100 .00% 91.67 % 71.43 % 0.0833 Receive yearly written performance evaluation 88.89 % 100 .00% 85.71 % 0.1580 Develop career growth plans with Dept. Chair 37.50 % 54.17 % 42.86 % 0.7031 Receive m id tenure progress review and feedback 44.44 % 70.83 % 38.10 % 0.0739 Professional assistance to enhance teaching skills is available 77.78 % 79.17 % 45.00 % 0.0419 Professional assistance to enhance research skills is available 62.50 % 66.67 % 47.62 % 0.4212 Professional assistance to enhance grant, manuscript, CV writing skills is available 66.67 % 54.17 % 33.33 % 0.1973 Promotion and Tenure process workshops are routinely conducted 22.22 % 65.22 % 19.05 % 0.0038 Availability of school wide annual faculty development day 55.56 % 66.67 % 52.38 % 0.6041 Availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speakers and consultants 77.78 % 75.00 % 52.38 % 0.2041 School provides regularly scheduled faculty in -service programs on new sci entific developments 33.33 % 58.33 % 47.62 % 0.4485 Availability of travel funds to support faculty attendance at professional meetings 33.33 % 43.48 % 66.67 % 0.1713 Availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowships 11.11% 58.33 % 23.81 % 0 .0120 Dedicated weekly time reserved for my professional development 12.50 % 34.78 % 57.14 % 0.0685 Availability of formal mentoring program for junior, untenured faculty 55.56 % 58.33 % 23.81 % 0.0511 Availability of formal mentoring program for new faculty regardless of academic rank 22.22 % 37.50 % 33.33 % 0.7091 Availability of orientation program for first year faculty 77.78 % 79.17 % 60.00 % 0.3375

PAGE 109

109 Table 4 7. Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Salary < $75 K N = 13 $76 < 100 K N = 14 $101 < 125 K N = 11 $126 < 150 K N = 9 $151 or more N = 12 p value Meet with Dept. Chair yearly 54.55 % 92.86 % 80.00 % 88.89 % 100.00 % 0.0336 Receive yearly written performance evaluation 72.73 % 92.86 % 90.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 0.1810 Develop c areer growth plans with Dept. Chair 36.36 % 23.08 % 20.00 % 66.67 % 75.00 % 0.0234 Receive mid tenure progress review and feedback 18.18 % 42.86 % 40.00 % 88.89 % 83.33% 0.0029 Professional assistance to enhance teaching skills is available 40.00 % 50.00 % 60.00 % 77.78 % 91.67 % 0.0712 Professional assistance to enhance research skills is available 36.36 % 38.46 % 60.00 % 77.78 % 66.67% 0.2469 Professional assistance to enhance grant, manuscript, CV writing skills is available 27.27 % 50.00 % 30.00 % 77.78 % 50.00 % 0.1838 Promotion and Tenure process workshops are routinely conducted 9.09 % 15.38 % 30.00 % 55.56 % 83.33 % 0.0673 Availability of school wide annual faculty development day 63.64 % 28.57 % 70.00 % 77.78 % 75.00 % 0.0848 Availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speakers and consultants 63.64 % 57.14 % 40.00 % 77.78 % 91.67 % 0.1031 School provides regularly scheduled faculty in service programs on new scientific developments 54.55 % 35.71 % 40.00 % 44.44 % 75.00 % 0.3145 Availab ility of travel funds to support faculty attendance at professional meetings 45.45 % 42.86 % 60.00 % 66.67 % 36.36 % 0.6744 Availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowships 18.18 % 7.14 % 40.00 % 44.44 % 75.00 % 0.0037 Dedicated weekly time reserved for my professional development 36.36 % 46.15 % 50.00 % 33.33 % 36.36 % 0.9355 Availability of formal mentoring program for junior, untenured faculty 20.00 % 35.71 % 30.00 % 77.78 % 58.33% 0.0741 Availability of formal mentoring program for new faculty, regardless of academic rank 27.27 % 21.43 % 30.00 % 66.67 % 25.00 % 0.2376 Availability of orientation program for first year faculty 36.36 % 84.62 % 70.00 % 66.67 % 75.00 % 0.1651

PAGE 110

110 Table 4 8. Perceptions of Availability of Professional Developm ent by Years of Em ployment at SE U C D 0 5 years N = 25 6 10 years N = 17 11 20 years N = 9 more than 20 N = 8 p value Meet with Dept. Chair yearly 81.82 % 76.47 % 100.00 % 87.50 % 0.5656 Receive yearly written performance evaluation 81.82 % 94.12 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 0.4450 Develop career growth plans with Dept. Chair 42.86 % 47.06 % 44.44 % 50.00 % 0.0100 Receive mid tenure progress review and feedback 59.09 % 35.29 % 66.67 % 62.50% 0.3480 Professional assistance to enhance teaching skills is available 61.90 % 64.71 % 44.44 % 87.50 % 0.3663 Professional assistance to enhance research skills is available 52.38 % 64.71 % 33.33 % 75.00 % 0.3296 Professional assistance to enhance grant, manuscript, CV writing skills is available 50.00 % 47.06 % 22.22 % 62.50 % 0.4193 Promotion and Tenure pro cess workshops are routinely conducted 27.27 % 29.41 % 55.56 % 71.43 % 0.1168 Availability of school wide annual faculty development day 59.09 % 70.59 % 55.56 % 37.50 % 0.4758 Availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speakers and consultants 59.09 % 76.47 % 44.44 % 75.00 % 0.3853 School provides regularly scheduled faculty in -service programs on new scientific developments 45.45 % 47.06 % 44.44 % 62.50 % 0.8928 Availability of travel funds to support faculty attendance a t professional meetings 45.45 % 52.94 % 62.50 % 37.50 % 0.7859 Availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowships 27.27 % 35.29 % 44.44 % 50.00 % 0.6274 Dedicated weekly time reserved for my professional development 52.38 % 41.18 % 22.22 % 28.57 % 0.4373 Availability of formal mentoring program for junior, untenured faculty 54.55 % 23.53 % 44.44 % 50.00 % 0.2598 Availability of formal mentoring program for new faculty, regardless of academic rank 40.91 % 23.53 % 22.22 % 37.50 % 0.6395 Availability of o rientation program for first year faculty 68.18 % 68.75 % 66.67 % 75.00 % 0.0100

PAGE 111

111 Table 4 9. Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Years of Employment in Academic Dentistry 1 5 years N = 13 6 10 years N = 8 11 15 years N = 12 16 25 years N = 13 26 30 years N = 6 more than 30 N = 8 p value Meet with Dept. Chair yearly 81.82 % 62.50 % 91.67 % 75.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 0.3085 Receive yearly written performance evaluation 81.82 % 75.00 % 91.67% 100.00 % 100.00 % 100.00 % 0.2899 Develop career growth plans with Dept. Chair 18.18 % 37.50 % 63.64 % 41.67% 66.67 % 50.00 % 0.2936 Receive mid tenure progress review and feedback 45.45 % 50.00 % 58.33 % 58.33 % 50.00 % 50.00 % 0.9888 Professional assistance to enhance teaching skills is available 45.45 % 57.14 % 66.67 % 75.00 % 83.33 % 62.50 % 0.6747 Professional assistance to enhance research skills is available 30.00 % 50.00 % 66.67 % 66.67 % 66.67 % 50.00 % 0.5247 Professional assistance to enhance grant, manuscript, CV writing skills is available 36.36 % 12.50 % 58.33 % 58.33 % 50.00 % 50.00 % 0.3466 Promotion and Tenure process workshops are routinely conducted 9.09 % 12.50% 50.00 % 45.45 % 50.00 % 62.50 % 0.0754 Availability of school wide annual faculty development day 45.45 % 75.00 % 66.67 % 50.00 % 50.00 % 75.00 % 0.6612 Avail ability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speakers and consultants 36.36 % 87.50 % 66.67 % 58.33 % 66.67 % 87.50% 0.1944 School provides regularly scheduled faculty inservice programs on new scientific developments 2 7.27 % 50.00 % 50.00 % 50.00 % 66.67 % 62.50 % 0.6609 Availability of travel funds to support faculty attendance at professional meetings 54.55 % 25.00 % 50.00 % 58.33 % 50.00 % t 57.14 % 0.7814 Availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowships 9 .09 % 12.50 % 58.33 % 50.00 % 33.33 % 37.50 % 0.0975 Dedicated weekly time reserved for my professional development 60.00 % 37.50 % 41.67 % 27.27 % 33.33 % 37.50% 0.8028 Availability of formal mentoring program for junior, untenured faculty 60.00 % 25.00 % 41.67 % 58. 33 % 0.00 % 50.00 % 0.1470 Availability of formal mentoring program for new faculty, regardless of academic rank 27.27 % 25.00 % 33.33 % 50.00 % 0.00 % 37.50 % 0.4424 Availability of orientation program for first year faculty 45.45 % 57.14 % 83.33 % 75.00 % 66.67 % 75.00 % 0.4887

PAGE 112

112 Table 4 10. Perceptions of Availability of Professional Development by Mentoring Experience by Others Effectively Mentored N = 34 Not Effectively M entored N = 21 p value Meet with Dept. Chair yearly 78.26 % 88.24 % 0.4614 Receive yearly wri tten performance evaluation 91.30 % 91.18 % 1.0000 Develop career growth plans with Dept. Chair 27.27 % 55.88 % 0.0354 Receive mid tenure progress review and feedback 43.48 % 58.82 % 0.2550 Professional assistance to enhance teaching skills is available 47.83 % 75.76 % 0.0319 Professional assistance to enhance research skills is available 39.13 % 66.67 % 0.0414 Professional assistance to enhance grant, manuscript, CV writing skills is available 26.09 % 58.82% 0.0149 Promotion and Tenure process workshops are routinely conducted 26.09 % 45.45 % 0.1408 Availability of school wide annual faculty development day 60.87 % 58.82 % 0.8772 Availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speakers and consultants 43.48 % 79.41 % 0.0 053 School provides regularly scheduled faculty inservice programs on new scientific developments 30.43 % 61.76 % 0.0203 Availability of travel funds to support faculty attendance at professional meetings 50.00 % 50.00 % 1.0000 Availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and fellowships 30.43 % 38.24 % 0.5449 Dedicated weekly time reserved for my professional development 34.78 % 43.75 % 0.5031 Availability of formal mentoring program for junior, untenured faculty 34.78 % 48.48 % 0.3080 Availabilit y of formal mentoring program for new faculty, regardless of academic rank 26.09 % 35.29 % 0.4632 Availability of orientation program for first year faculty 54.55 % 76.47 % 0.0862

PAGE 113

113 Table 4 11. Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Gender Males N = 32 Females N = 27 p value Overall, I enjoy my interaction with my colleagues 83.33 % 80.77 % 1.0000 I have a sense of belonging in my department and being part of the team 70.00 % 57.96 % 0.3377 Faculty colleagues eager to help me with projects 60.00 % 53.85 % 0.6426 There is a departmental expectation of conformity to dress code, communication, and public behavior 46.67 % 50.00 % 0.8034 Faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them 0.00 % 19.23 % 0.0172 My dep artment chairperson treats me fairly when compared to other faculty 76.67 % 73.08 % 0.7570 My contributions to the department are recognized by my colleagues 53.33 % 46.15% 0.5920 Overall physical appearance of my dental school makes a good impression,; it has a modern design with attractive public spaces, and is well maintained 30.00% 30.77 % 0.9502 The overall culture of the dental school is characterized by openness to new ideas 40.00 % 30.77 % 0.4722 The decisionmaking process in the school about issues that affect the whole faculty is reasonable 36.67 % 46.15 % 0.4717 I am satisfied with the diversity of the dental school faculty including age, gender, race/ethnicity 53.33 % 57.69 % 0.7435

PAGE 114

114 Table 4 12. Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Academic Degree DMD/DDS with PhD/MD/MS N = 12 DMD or DDS or PhD N = 38 MS or BS N = 12 p value Overall, I enjoy my interaction with my colleagues 78.57 % 85.71 % 71.43 % 0.0697 I have a sense of belonging in my department and being part of the team 64.29 % 68.57 % 57.14 % 0.8443 Faculty colleagues eager to help me with projects 64.29 % 62.86 % 28.57 % 0.2522 There is a departmental expectation of conformity to dress code, communication, and public behavior 57.14% 51.43% 28.57 % 0.5447 Faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them 0.00 % 14.29 percent 0.00 % 0.2891 My department chairperson treats me fairly when compared to other faculty 78.57 % 74.29 % 57.14% 0.5560 My contributions to the department are recognized by my colleagues 57.14 % 48.57 % 57.14 % 0.8602 Overall physical appearance of my dental school makes a good impression,; it has a modern design with attractive public spaces, and is well maintained 50.00 % 22.86 % 28.57 % 0.2235 The overall culture of the dent al school is characterized by openness to new ideas 50.00 % 31.43 % 42.86 % 0.4790 The decisionmaking process in the school about issues that affect the whole faculty is reasonable 50.00 % 34.29 % 71.43 % 0.1583 I am satisfied with the diversity of the dental school faculty including age, gender, race/ethnicity 71.43 % 45.71 % 57.14 % 0.2618

PAGE 115

11 5 Table 4 13. Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Rank Professor Emeritus/Professor N = 17 Associate/Assitant Professor N = 31 Other N = 7 p value Overall, I enjoy my interaction with my colleagues 87.50 % 85.00 % 76.19 % 0.7474 I have a sense of belonging in my department and being part of the team 81.25 % 65.00 % 52.38 % 0.1899 Faculty colleagues eager to help me with projects 68.75 % 45.00 % 61.90 % 0.3204 There is a departmental expectation of conformity to dress code, communication, and public behavior 43.75 % 45.00 % 57.14% 0.6501 Faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them 6.25 % 10.00 % 9.52 % 0.0100 My department chairperson treats me fairly when compared to other faculty 75.00 % 80.00 % 66.67 % 0.6191 My contributions to the department are recognized by my colleagues 68.75 % 35.00 % 52.38 % 0.1299 Overall physical appearance of my dental school makes a good impressi on,; it has a modern design with attractive public spaces, and is well maintained 25.00 % 40.00 % 23.81 % 0.4652 The overall culture of the dental school is characterized by openness to new ideas 43.75 % 35.00 % 33.33 % 0.7912 The decisionmaking process in t he school about issues that affect the whole faculty is reasonable 43.75 % 40.00 % 42.86 % 0.9709 I am satisfied with the diversity of the dental school faculty including age, gender, race/ethnicity 31.25 % 60.00% 66.67 % 0.0828

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 14. Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Career Focus Dual Focus N = 18 Single Focus N = 39 p value Overall, I enjoy my interaction with my colleagues 77.78 % 86.11 % 0.4610 I have a sense of belonging in my department and being part of the te am 83.33 % 55.56 % 0.0439 Faculty colleagues eager to help me with projects 66.67 % 55.56 % 0.4334 There is a departmental expectation of conformity to dress code, communication, and public behavior 55.56 % 47.22 % 0.5637 Faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them 11.11 % 8.33 % 1.0000 My department chairperson treats me fairly when compared to other faculty 77.78 % 69.44 % 0.5192 My contributions to the department are recognized by my colleagues 66.67 % 44.44 % 0.1234 Overall phys ical appearance of my dental school makes a good impression,; it has a modern design with attractive public spaces, and is well maintained 27.78 % 27.78 % 1.0000 The overall culture of the dental school is characterized by openness to new ideas 38.89 % 33.33 % 0.6870 The decisionmaking process in the school about issues that affect the whole faculty is reasonable 50.00 % 36.11 % 0.3275 I am satisfied with the diversity of the dental school faculty including age, gender, race/ethnicity 61.11 % 47.22 % 0.3356

PAGE 117

117 Table 4 15. Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Tenure -Accruing Status Tenured N = 24 Tenure Track N = 9 Non tenured N = 24 p value Overall, I enjoy my interaction with my colleagues 66.67 % 91.67 % 90.48 % 0.1546 I have a sense of belonging in my department and being part of the team 33.33 % 83.33 % 61.90 % 0.0211 Faculty colleagues eager to help me with projects 22.22 % 70.83 % 61.90 % 0.0387 There is a departmental expectation of conformity to dress code, communication, and public behavior 22.22 % 50.00 % 52.38 % 0.3178 Faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them 11.11 % 4.17 percent 14.29 % 0.4636 My department chairperson treats me fairly when compared to other faculty 66.67 % 83.33% 76.19 % 0.515 1 My contributions to the department are recognized by my colleagues 0.00 % 66.67 % 52.38 % 0.0017 Overall physical appearance of my dental school makes a good impression,; it has a modern design with attractive public spaces, and is wellmaintained 44.44 % 29.17 % 28.57% 0.6560 The overall culture of the dental school is characterized by openness to new ideas 22.22 % 45.83 % 33.33 % 0.4134 The decisionmaking process in the school about issues that affect the whole faculty is reasonable 44.44 % 45.83 % 38.10 % 0.8653 I am satisfied with the diversity of the dental school faculty including age, gender, race/ethnicity 66.67 % 41.67 % 61.90 % 0.2974

PAGE 118

118 Table 4 16. Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Salary < $75 K N = 13 $76 < 100 K N = 14 $101 < 125 K N = 11 $126 < 150 K N = 9 $151 or more N = 12 p value Overall, I enjoy my interaction with my colleagues 72.73 % 85.71 % 70.00% 88.89 % 91.67 % 0.6252 I have a sense of belonging in my department and being part of the team 54.55 % 57.14% 50.00 % 77.78 % 83.33 % 0.3845 Faculty colleagues eager to help me with projects 63.64 % 42.86 % 40.00 % 66.67 % 75.00 % 0.3620 There is a departmental expectation of conformity to dress code, communication, and public behavior 63.64 % 28.57 % 50.00 % 66.67 % 41.67 % 0.3446 Faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them 0.00 % 14.29 % 20.00 % 11.11 % 0.00 % 0.3565 My department chairperson treats me fairly when compared to other faculty 63.64 % 71.43 % 70.00 % 77.78 % 83.33 % 0.8706 My contr ibutions to the department are recognized by my colleagues 45.45 % 35.71 % 40.00 % 66.67% 66.67 % 0.4105 Overall physical appearance of my dental school makes a good impression,; it has a modern design with attractive public spaces, and is well maintained 18.18 % 35.71 % 40.00 % 22.22% 33.33 % 0.8149 The overall culture of the dental school is characterized by openness to new ideas 36.36 % 28.57 % 40.00 % 22.22 % 58.33 % 0.5026 The decisionmaking process in the school about issues that affect the whole faculty is r easonable 45.45 % 35.71 % 50.00 % 22.22 % 58.33 % 0.5290 I am satisfied with the diversity of the dental school faculty including age, gender, race/ethnicity 63.64 % 42.86 % 80.00 % 44.44 % 41.67 % 0.3127

PAGE 119

119 Table 4 17. Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and En vironmental Factors by Years of Em ployment at SEU -C D 0 5 years N = 25 6 10 years N = 17 11 20 years N = 9 more than 20 n = 8 p value Overall, I enjoy my interaction with my colleagues 72.73 % 88.24 % 88.89 % 100.00 % 0.3594 I have a sense of belongin g in my department and being part of the team 45.45 % 70.59 % 77.78 % 87.50 % 0.1287 Faculty colleagues eager to help me with projects 45.45 % 70.59 % 66.67 % 62.50% 0.4504 There is a departmental expectation of conformity to dress code, communication, and publ ic behavior 45.45 % 47.06 % 66.67 % 37.50 % 0.6974 Faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them 13.64 % 5.88 % 11.11 % 0.00 % 0.7862 My department chairperson treats me fairly when compared to other faculty 72.73 % 70.59 % 66.67 % 100.0 0 % 0.3540 My contributions to the department are recognized by my colleagues 40.91 % 47.06 % 55.56 % 75.00 % 0.4297 Overall physical appearance of my dental school makes a good impression,; it has a modern design with attractive public spaces, and is well m aintained 31.82 % 17.65 % 44.44 % 37.50 % 0.4710 The overall culture of the dental school is characterized by openness to new ideas 22.73 % 29.41 % 55.56 % 62.50 % 0.1272 The decisionmaking process in the school about issues that affect the whole faculty is reasonable 40.91 % 35.29 % 44.44 % 50.00 % 0.8714 I am satisfied with the diversity of the dental school faculty including age, gender, race/ethnicity 68.18 % 47.06 % 44.44 % 37.50 % 0.3656

PAGE 120

120 Table 4 18. Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Fact ors by Years of Employment in Academic Dentistry 1 5 years N = 13 6 10 years N = 8 11 15 years N = 12 16 25 years N = 13 26 30 years N = 6 more than 30 n = 8 p value Overall, I enjoy my interaction with my colleagues 54.55% 87.50 % 91.67 % 75.00 % 10 0.00 % 100.00 % 0.0964 I have a sense of belonging in my department and being part of the team 36.36 % 50.00 % 66.67 % 83.33 % 83.33 % 75.00 % 0.2026 Faculty colleagues eager to help me with projects 27.27 % 62.50% 75.00 % 50.00 % 83.33 % 62.50 % 0.1916 There is a d epartmental expectation of conformity to dress code, communication, and public behavior 54.55 % 12.50 % 66.67 % 41.67 % 100.00 % 25.00 % 0.0117 Faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them 18.18 % 12.50 % 16.67% 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.4 887 My department chairperson treats me fairly when compared to other faculty 63.64 % 75.00 % 75.00 % 66.67 % 83.33 % 87.50 % 0.8900 My contributions to the department are recognized by my colleagues 36.36 % 12.50 % 75.00% 58.33 % 33.33 % 75.00 % 0.0470 Overall p hysical appearance of my dental school makes a good impression,; it has a modern design with attractive public spaces, and is well maintained 27.27 % 37.50 % 16.67% 33.33 % 50.00 % 25.00% 0.7754 The overall culture of the dental school is characterized by op enness to new ideas 27.27 % 25.00 % 33.33 % 41.67 % 50.00 % 50.00 % 0.8475 The decisionmaking process in the school about issues that affect the whole faculty is reasonable 27.27 % 62.50 % 41.67 % 41.67 % 33.33 % 50.00 % 0.7615 I am satisfied with the diversity of the dental school faculty including age, gender, race/ethnicity 63.64 % 75.00 % 58.33 % 33.33 % 66.67 % 37.50 % 0.4252

PAGE 121

121 Table 4 19. Perceptions of Dental School Cultural and Environmental Factors by Mentoring Experience by Others Effectively M entored N = 34 Not Effectively M entored N = 21 p value Overall, I enjoy my interaction with my colleagues 91.18 % 69.57 % 0.0007 I have a sense of belonging in my department and being part of the team 79.41 % 43.48 % 0.0053 Faculty colleagues eager to help me with proj ects 73.53 % 34.78 % 0.0037 There is a departmental expectation of conformity to dress code, communication, and public behavior 55.88 % 39.13 % 0.2145 Faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them 0.00 % 21.74 % 0.0080 My departm ent chairperson treats me fairly when compared to other faculty 88.24 % 52.17 % 0.0024 My contributions to the department are recognized by my colleagues 58.82 % 39.13 % 0.1445 Overall physical appearance of my dental school makes a good impression; it has a modern design with attractive public spaces, and is well maintained 35.29 % 21.74 % 0.2724 The overall culture of the dental school is characterized by openness to new ideas 44.12 % 26.09 % 0.1662 The decisionmaking process in the school about issues that affect the whole faculty is reasonable 50.00% 30.43 % 0.1422 I am satisfied with the diversity of the dental school faculty including age, gender, race/ethnicity 58.82 % 47.83 % 0.4135

PAGE 122

122 Table 4 20. Relationship of Gender and Professional Attributes and Perceptions of Workplace Environment with Overall Faculty Job Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Balance of Life Satisfaction with SEUCD ( % ) p value Sat isfaction with balance of life ( % ) p value Overall 57.89 % NA 73.68 % NA Gender Male (N = 3 2) Female (N = 27) 56.67% 57.69 % 0.9384 65.38% 80.00 % 0.2180 Degree BS/MS (N = 12) Single doctoral (N = 38) Combined doctoral (N = 12) 57.14% 57.14% 64.29% 0.9230 85.71% 74.29% 71.73% 0.9070 Rank Other (N = 7) Assistant/Associate (N = 31) Full/Emeritus (N = 17) 61.90% 55.00% 56.25 % 0.8936 76.19% 65.00% 81.25 % 0.5173 Career Focus Single (N = 39) Dual (N = 18) 58.33% 55.56 % 0.8457 86.11% 55.56 % 0.0199 Tenure Accruing Non ten ure track (N = 24) Tenure track (N 9) Tenured (N = 24) 57.14% 62.50% 55.56% 0.9073 85.71% 74.29% 71.43% 0.9070 Salary $75 K or less (N = 13) $76$100,000 (N = 14) $101,000$125,000 (N = 11) $126,000$150,000 (N = 9) $151,000 or greater (N = 12) 72.73% 50.00% 30.00% 44.44% 83.33% 0.0813 81.82% 64.29% 70.00% 77.78% 75.00% 0.9077

PAGE 123

123 Table 4 20. Continued Years employed at SEUCD 5 years or les s (N = 25) 6 10 years (N = 17) 1120 years (N = 9) 21 or more year s (N = 8) 54.55% 64.71% 44.44% 62.50% 0.8005 59.09% 82.35% 88.89% 75.00% 0.3005 Satisfaction with SEUCD ( % ) p value Sat isfaction with balance of life ( % ) p value Years in academic dentistry 1 -5 years (N = 13) 6 -10 years (N = 8) 11 -15 years (N = 12) 16 -25 years (N = 13) 26 -30 years (N = 6) 31+ years (N = 8) 45.45 % 75.00 % 66.67 % 41.67 % 83.33 % 50.00 % 0 .4415 54.55 % 87.50 % 75.00 % 75.00 % 83.33 % 75.00 % 0.7568 History of effective mentorship No (N = 21) Yes (N = 34) 26.09 % 79.41 % 0.0001 60.87 % 82.35 % 0.0708 Meet with department chairperson yearly No /DK (N = 9 ) Yes (N = 48) 33.00 % 62.50 % 0.1461 66.67 % 75.00 % 0.6851 Receive yearly written evaluations from department chairperson No /DK (N = 5 ) Yes (n = 52) 60.00 % 57.6 9% 1.000 60.00 % 75.00 % 0.5990 Develop career growth plans No /DK (N = 29 ) Yes (N = 25) 38.71 % 84.0 0% 0.0006 64.52 % 88.00 % 0.0436 Receive mid tenure review and feedback No /DK (N = 18 ) Yes (N = 30) 51.85 % 63.33 % 0.3810 59.26 % 86.67 % 0.0189

PAGE 124

124 Table 4 20. Continued Assistance to enhance teaching skills No /DK (N =17 Yes (N = 36) 30.00 % 72.22 % 0.0022 60.00 % 80.56 % 0.0960 Assistance to enhance research skills No /DK (N = 21) Yes (N = 31) 36.00 % 77.42 % 0.0017 64.00 % 83.87 % 0.0878 Assistance to enhance writing skills No /DK (N = 27) Yes ( N = 26) 41.94 % 76.92 % 0.0077 70.97 % 76.9 2% 0.6110 Satisfaction with SEUCD ( % ) p value Sat isfaction with balance of life ( % ) p value T & P workshops No /DK (N = 32) Yes (N = 21) 48.57 % 76.1 9% 0.0420 68.57 % 80.95 % 0.3111 Annual faculty d evelopment day No /DK (N = 22) Yes (N = 34) 47.83 % 64.71 % 0.2054 65.22% 79.4 1% 0.2325 Availability of routine faculty development No /DK (N = 18) Yes (N = 37) 30.00 % 72.97 % 0.0017 70.00 % 75.68 % 0.6423 In service scientific devel opment No /DK (N = 27) Yes (N = 28) 34.48 % 82.14 % 0.0003 68.97 % 78.57 % 0.4103 Availability of travel funds No /DK (N = 27) Yes (N = 28) 53.57 % 46.88 % 0.6000 75.00 % 71.43 % 0.7628 Funding to support sabbaticals and fellowships No /DK (N = 32) Yes (N = 20) 48.65 % 75.00 % 0.0545 67.57 % 85.00 % 0.1537 Dedicated weekly time for professional development No /DK (N = 29) Yes (N = 22) 54.55% 63.64 % 0.5031 72.73 % 81.82 % 0.4369

PAGE 125

125 Table 4 20. Continued Availab ility of formal mentoring program for junior faculty No /DK (N = 30) Yes (N = 24) 50.00 % 66.67 % 0.2123 71.88 % 75.00% 0.7938 Availability of formal mentoring program for new faculty No /DK (N = 38) Yes (N = 18) 51.28 % 72.22 % 0.1366 71.79 % 77.78 % 0.6335 Satisfaction with SEUCD ( % ) p value Sat isfaction with balance of life ( % ) p value Availability of orientation for first year faculty No /DK (N = 18) Yes (N = 38) 33.33 % 71.05 % 0.0074 72.22% 73.68 % 1.0000 Satisfaction with SEUCD ( % ) p value Sat isfaction with balance of life ( % ) p value Enjoy colleague interactions No /Neutral (N = 10) Yes (N = 47) 20.00 % 65.96 % 0.0122 40.00 % 80.85 % 0.0148 Comfortable niche in department No /Neutral ( N = 20) Yes (N = 37) 30.00 % 72.97 % 0.0017 55.00 % 83.78 % 0.0185* Faculty colleagues eager to help with projects No /Neutral (N = 23) Yes (N = 33) 25.00 % 81.82 % 0.00001 62.50 % 81.82 % 0.1019 Department expectation of professional decorum No /Neutral (N = 27) Yes (N = 28) 48.28 % 67.86 % 0.1344 58.62 % 89.29 % 0.0086

PAGE 126

126 Table 4 20. Continued Faculty and student relationship is us vs. them No /Neutral (N = 50) Yes (N = 5) 63.46 % 0.00 % 0.0102 75.00 % 6 0.00 % 0.5990 Fair treatment by department chairperson No /Neutral (N = 14) Yes (N = 42) 13.33 % 73.81 % 0.00004 66.67 % 76.19 % 0.5070 Contributions recognized by colleagues No /Neutral (N = 27) Yes (N = 29) 39.29 % 75.86 % 0.00 51 64.29 % 82.76 % 0.1133 Satisfaction with SEUCD ( % ) p value Sat isfaction with balance of life ( % ) p value Physical appearance of dental school makes good impression No /Neutral (N = 40) Yes (N = 17) 47.50 % 82.35 % 0.0147 67.50 % 88.24 % 0.1871 Overall culture of dental school is characterized by openness to new ideas No /Neutral (N = 36) Yes (N = 21) 38.89 % 90.48 % 0.0001 66.67 % 85.71 % 0.1151 Decision making process is reasonable No /Neutral (N = 33) Yes (N = 24) 33.33 % 91.67 % 0.00001 69.70 % 79.17 % 0.4227 Satisfaction with dental school diversity No /Neutral (N = 26) Yes (N = 31) 38.46% 74.19 % 0.0065 69.23 % 77.42 % 0.4843

PAGE 127

127 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND CONCLUSI ON Introduction A discussion of the response analysis to the Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry Survey will be presented in this chapter. The results of this survey will be compared to the results of the nationwide 2007 American Dental Education Association Quality of Dental Faculty Work -Life Survey. Results of the survey will be examined in terms of Hagedorns Conceptual Framework of Job Satisfaction. Implications of the SEUCD survey results with regard to the rec ruitment, development, and retention of faculty at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry will be presented In addition, recommendations for future research regarding faculty perceptions of academic environment will be outlined and included in t his chapter. Summary of the Findings M ultiple statistically significant faculty perceptions were found regarding the availability of professional development opportunities and resources at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry T he results of th e research analysis showed t wo professional attributes, salary level and faculty history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague, that best predict faculty perceptions of the availability of professional development opportunities and resource s at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry In addition, the results of the research analysis showed two professional attributes that best predict faculty perceptions of the academ ic culture and environment at SEUCD The predictive attributes found to be significant include a faculty history of

PAGE 128

128 effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague and the focus of the faculty job position. Discussion of Significant Findings Perceptions of Faculty Development (RQ1, RQ2) Research Question 1 addressed significant faculty perceptions of availability of professional development at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry Research Question 2 addressed significant gender and professional attributes that best predict faculty perceptions of the avail ability of professional development at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry Results of a chi square analysis indicated more female faculty reported receiving travel funds for professional meetings (65.38 percent n = 27) compared with male facu lty (37.93 percent n = 32). However, a logistic regression analysis did not find gender to be a significant predictor of availability of travel funding for professional development. The results of the chi square analysis could be related to the populati on of female faculty who ans wered this survey item. Tenure-seeking faculty who are conducting and presenting research may be more likely to seek travel funding for profession al development. If more tenure -seeking female faculty responded to this survey i tem than male faculty respondents, it could have resulted in the significant chi square analysis. Faculty holding a Bachelors degree or a Masters degree reported receiving yearly written performance evaluations (100 percent n = 12) compared with faculty holding combined doctoral degrees such as a D.M.D., Ph.D. (92.86 percent n = 12) or a single doctoral degree such as a D.M.D. only, or a Ph.D. only (88.57 percent n = 38). The lack of a terminal degree may indicate that faculty holding a B.S. degree or an M.S.

PAGE 129

129 degree are more likely to require a yearly evaluation than those faculty with a terminal (doctoral) degree, and thus explain the results of the chi square analysis. Faculty holding combined doctoral degrees (85.71 percent n = 12) along with facul ty holding a Bachelors degree or a Masters degree (85.71 percent n = 12) reported availability of professional assistance to enhance teaching skills compared with faculty holding a single doctoral degree (50.0 percent n = 38). A possible explanation f or this result is that faculty holding combined doctoral degrees may be more likely to be course directors and teach in the classroom as opposed to single doctoral degree faculty who may be more likely to teach in the clinic. In addition, faculty with Ma sters degrees are more likely to be lecturers as well, and thus teach in the classroom. Faculty who are required to teach didactic material may be more likely to seek out and be aware of the availability of professional assistance to enhance teaching ski lls. Faculty hold ing a Bachelors degree or a Masters degree reported the availability of school wide annual faculty development day (100.0 percent n = 12) compared with faculty who hold combined doctoral degrees (71.43 percent n = 12) or single doctoral degrees (45.71 percent n = 38). In addition, faculty who hold a Bachelors degree or a Masters degree reported the availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speakers and consultants (100.0 percent n = 12 ) compared with faculty holding combined doctoral degrees (78.5 percent n = 12) or single doctoral degrees (51.43 percent n = 38). F aculty holding a single doctoral degree indicated a greater lack of awareness of the availability of professional assistance to enhance teaching skills, as well as the availability of annual and routine faculty development opportunities provided by the College of Dentistry. These findings indicated the need

PAGE 130

130 for a process to ensure that all faculty are made aware of informat ion regarding the availability of resources and opportunities for teaching assistance and faculty development. Information regarding faculty development opportunities, educational resources, and teaching assistanc e must be disseminated to motivate faculty and engage their participation. Faculty holding a Bachelors degree or a Masters degree reported the availability of a formal mentoring program for new faculty, regardless of academic rank, (57.14 percent n = 12) compared with faculty holding combined d octoral degrees (50.0 percent n = 12) or faculty holding a single doctoral degree (20.0 percent n = 38). An explanation for this result may be that new faculty holding less than a doctoral degree in a graduate institution would tend to seek out mentorin g for career growth. All three groups reported a relatively low level of awareness regarding the availability of formal mentoring programs available to new faculty. This low level of awareness may be explained by the fact that many respondents of this survey are longterm faculty at the College of Dentistry and are thus unaware of the existence of a formal mentoring program fo r new faculty. However, the results also indicate an overall lack of awareness of a formal new faculty mentoring program in the College of Dentistry The college should inform junior and senior faculty rega rding the availability of formal and informal mentoring opportunities, and actively promote faculty participation as either a mentor or protg. Faculty ranked as professor emerit us or full professor reported receiving mid tenure review and feedback (70.0 percent n = 16) compared with faculty ranked as associate professor or assistant professor (55.0 percent n = 32) or faculty ranked as

PAGE 131

131 other (33.33 percent n = 12). Faculty r anked as other are typically classified as assistant in or associate in which is usually a non-tenure accruing rank, thus explaining the low percentage of faculty receiving midtenure review and feedback. However, it is interesting to note th at asso ciate professors who had gone through the tenure process, and assistant professors who are likely in the tenure process, report ed a low percentage mid-tenure review and feedback. This finding may indicate either a lack of awareness of the mid tenure review process or a lack of availability of a mid tenure review process, both of which could be detrimental to the tenure and promotion of faculty. In addition, faculty ranked as professor emeritus or full professor reported that promotion and tenure workshops are routinely conducted (68.75 percent n = 16) compared with associate professors or assistant professors (31.58 percent n = 32) or faculty ranked as other (19.05 percent n = 12). The results indicated that associate and assistant professors either l ack an awareness of the availability of promotion and tenure workshops, or that no promotion and tenure workshops are available, both of which could be detrimental to the tenure and promotion of faculty. A 2006 survey by the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) indicated that the acquisition of tenure is one of six factors which independently predict overall job satisfaction. Therefore, the availability and awareness of promotion and tenure workshops at the College of Dentistry w ould contribute to overall job satisfaction for dental faculty. Faculty ranked as professor emeritus or full professor reported availability of funding to support faculty sabbaticals and/or fellowships (62.50 percent n = 16)

PAGE 132

132 compared with faculty ranked a s associate professors or assistant professors (25.0 percent n = 32) or faculty ranked as other (23.81 percent n = 12). This finding is consistent with the fact that faculty ranked as other may not be eligible for sabbaticals and/or fellowships. In addition, assistant professors are typically early in their academic career and tenure -seeking, and therefore not likely to be seeking funding for a sabbatical or fellowship. Faculty ranked as associate professor or assistant professor reported the availability of an orientation program for first year faculty (84.21 percent n = 32) compared with faculty ranked as professor emeritus or full professor (75.0 percent n = 16, or faculty ranked as other (47.62 percent n = 12). The College of Dentistry and the University of Florida have orientation programs for new faculty and these results showed a greater awareness of this fact among those who are in the tenure accruing ranks. However, all faculty should be aware of the availability of orientation progr ams for first year faculty as they are required to attend such programs upon being hired by the University. Tenure -track faculty reported the availability of professional assistance to enhance teaching skills (79.17 percent n = 9) compared with tenured fa culty (77.78 percent n = 24) and non -tenure-track faculty (45.0 percent n = 21). Non-tenure -track faculty appear to be significantly less aware of professional assistance to enhance teaching skills. This may be explained b y the fact that some non -tenure -track faculty may hold a position that does not require teaching. However, all dental faculty should be fully informed regarding the availability of teaching resources.

PAGE 133

133 Tenure -track faculty reported the availability of funding to support faculty sabbat icals and fellowships (58.33 percent n = 9) compared with tenured faculty (11.11 percent n = 24) and non-tenured faculty (23.81 percent n = 21). In an earlier analysis, only 25 percent of associate and assistant professors reported awareness of availab ility of funding for sabbaticals and fellowships. Tenured faculty are more likely to be eligible for sabbaticals and fellowships, and should be made aware of the availability of such funding by the college A chi square analysis indicated that faculty earning $151,000 or more annual salary reported annual meetings with their department chair (100.0 percent n = 12) compared with faculty earning $75,000 or less annual salary (54.55 percent n = 11), $76,000 to $100,000 (92.86 percent n = 14), $101,000 to $1 25,000 (80.0 percent n = 10), or $126,000 to $150,000 (88.89 percent n = 9). The results indicate d that a little more than half of faculty who earn the lowest salaries meet with their department chairperson annually as opposed to 80 percent to 100 perce nt of faculty in the higher salary ranges. However, a logis tic regression analysis did not find salary to be a significant predictor of yearly meetings between faculty and department chairpersons. A chi square analysis and a logistic regression analysis i ndicated that salary is a significant factor in four aspects of perceptions of professional development support and resources. For example, faculty who reported lower incomes were less likely to perceive the availability of opportunities for professional development, or to perceive the availability of support and/or resources for faculty development. A chi square analysis indicated that faculty earning $151,000 or more annual salary reported developing career growth plans with their department chairperson (75.0

PAGE 134

134 percent n = 12) compared with faculty earning $75,000 or less (36.36 percent n = 11), $76,000 to $100,000 (23.08 percent n = 14), $101,000 to $125,000 (20.0 percent n = 10), or $126,000 to $150,000 (66.67 percent n = 9) annual salary. Results of a logistic regression analysis indicated that faculty who reported a lower annual salary were less likely to report the development of career growth plans, including annual goal setting and planning of professional enrichment activities, with their depart ment chairperson than those who reported a higher annual salary. Those faculty earning $76,000 to $100,000 annual salary were less likely to experience career planning than faculty earning $151,000 or more annual salary. In addition, those faculty earning $101,000 to $125,000 annual salary were less likely to experience career planning than faculty earning $151,000 a year or more annual salary. Salary was not found to be significantly related to career planning for those faculty reporting an annual incom e of $75,000 or less or an annual income of $126,000 to $150,000. Salary was significantly related to the perception of availability of a mid-tenure progress review by the Promotion and Tenure Commi ttee. Faculty earning $126,000 to $150,000 annual salary report ed the availability of mid -tenure progress review and feedback (88.89 percent n = 9) compared with faculty earning $75,000 or less (18.18 percent n = 9), $76,000 to $100,000 (42.86 percent n = 14), $101,000 to $125,000 (40.0 percent n = 10), or $151,000 or more (83.33 percent n = 12) annual salary. Results of a logistic regression analysis indicated that faculty reporting lower annual salaries were less likely to have a mid-tenure progress review than faculty reporting higher annual salaries. Fa culty earning $75,000 or less annual salary were less likely to report having a midtenure progress review than faculty earning $151,000

PAGE 135

135 or greater annual salary. In addition, faculty earning $76,000 to $100,000 annual salary were less likely to report ha ving a mid -tenure progress review than faculty earning $150,000 or greater per year, and faculty earning $101,000 to $125,000 annual salary were less likely to report having a mid -tenure progress review than faculty earning $151,000 or greater per year. S alary significantly related to midtenure progress review for faculty reporting an annual income of $126,000 to $150,000. Salary was significantly related to the perception of routinely conducted promotion and tenure workshops. Results of a chi square analysis indicate d that faculty earning $151,000 or more annual salary report ed promotion and tenure workshops are routinely conducted (83.33 percent n = 12) compared with faculty earning $75,000 or less (9.09 percent n = 11), $76,000 to $100,000 (15.38 per cent n = 14), $101,000 to $125,000 (30.0 percent n = 10) or $126,000 to $150,000 (55.56 percent n = 9) annual salary. Results of a logistic regression analysis indicated that faculty in the two groups reporting lowest annual salaries were less likely t o have routinely conducted promotion and tenure workshops than those faculty reporting higher annual salaries. Those faculty earning $75,000 or less annual salary were less likely to have routinely conducted promotion and tenure workshops than those facul ty earning $151,000 or greater per year, and those faculty earning $76,000 to $100,000 annual salary were less likely to have routinely conducted promotion and tenure workshops that those faculty earning $151,000 or greater per year. Salary was not signif icantly related to availability of routinely conducted promotion and tenure workshops for faculty reporting an annual income of $101,000 to $125,000, or for faculty reporting an annual income of $126,000 to $150,000.

PAGE 136

136 As salary levels rise with the acquisit ion of tenure, it would seem that faculty classified in the lower income brackets would be pursuing tenure and promotion, and therefore have more awareness of and access to tenure workshops and mid-tenure reviews. The results of this survey indicated other wise. Studies by August and Waltman (2004) and the COACHE Survey (2006) indicated that the acquisition of tenure is predictive of global satisfaction for faculty in higher education. Access to and clarity of information regarding the tenure and promotion process is a necessary and important contributing variable to overall job satisfaction for junior faculty. Salary was significantly related to faculty perception of availability of funding support for sabbaticals and fellowships. Faculty earning $151,000 or more annual salary report ed availability of funding support for sabbaticals and fellowships (75.0 percent n = 12) compared with faculty earning $75,000 or less (18.18 percent n = 11), $76,000 to $100,000 (7.14 percent n = 14), $101,000 to $125,000 ( 40.0 percent n = 10), or $126,000 to $150,000 (44.44 percent n = 9) annual salary. Results of a logistic regression analysis indicated that faculty in the two groups reporting lowest annual salaries were less likely to report having funding su pport for sabbaticals and fellowships than those faculty reporting higher annual salaries. Those faculty earning $75,000 or less annual salary were less likely to have funding support for sabbaticals and fellowships than faculty earning $151,000 or greate r annual salary, and those faculty earning $76,000 to $100,000 annual salary were less likely to have funding support for sabbaticals and fellowships than faculty earning $151,000 or greater annual salary. These results may be due to the fact that faculty with lower salaries are newer faculty, and are therefore not eligible for sabbatical or fellowship funding. Salary

PAGE 137

137 was not significantly related to availability of funding support for sabbaticals and fellowships for faculty reporting an annual income of $101,000 to $125,000, or for faculty reporting an annual income of $126,000 to $150,000. A chi square analysis revealed two significant findings regarding the total number of years employed as faculty at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry and perception of availability of professional development opportunities and resources. Faculty empl oyed 20 or more years at SEUCD reported the development of career growth plans with their department chairperson (50.0 percent n = 8) compared with faculty emp loyed 5 years or less (42.86 percent n = 22), 6 to 10 years (47.06 percent n = 17), or 11 to 20 years (44.44 percent n = 9). In addition, faculty employed 20 or more years at SEUCD reported the availability of an orientation program for first year facuty (75.0 percent n = 8) compared with faculty employed 5 years or less (68.18 percent n = 22), 6 to 10 years (68.75 percent n = 17, or 11 to 20 years (66.67 percent n = 9). Results of a logical regression analysis did not find number of years of employment to be a significant predictor of the development of career growth plans. Results of a chi square analysis indicate d that a history of effective mentoring by senior academic colleagues was a significant factor in several aspects of perceptions of prof essional development support and resources. Results of a logistic regression analysis indicate d that in three significant aspec ts faculty who reported no history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague were less likely to perceive the availability of opportunities for professional development, or to perceive the availability of support and/or resources for faculty development.

PAGE 138

138 Results of a chi square analysis indicate d that faculty who report ed no effective mentoring by a senior academic coll eague reported developing career growth plans with their department chairperson (55.88 percent n = 21) compared with faculty who were effectively mentored (27.27 percent n = 34). However, results of a logistic regression analysis did not find a history of effective mentoring to be a significant predictor of development of career growth plans with the department chairperson. Results of a chi square analysis indicate d that faculty who report ed no effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague report ed availability of professional assistance to enhance teaching skills (75.76 percent n = 21) compared with faculty who report ed being effectively mentored (47.83 percent n = 34). However, results of a logistic regression analysis did not find history of ef fective mentoring to be a significant predictor of perception of availability of professional assistance to enhance teaching skills. Results of a chi square analysis indicate d that faculty who report ed no effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague report ed availability of professional assistance to enhance research skills (66.67 percent n = 21) compared with faculty who report being effectively mentored (39.13 percent n = 34). Results of a logical regression analysis indicated that a history of e ffective mentoring was found to be significantly related to faculty perceptions of availability of professional assistance (workshops, consultation, mentoring by experienced investigators) to enhance research skills. Faculty reporting no history of effect ive mentoring by a senior academic colleague were less likely to report having research assistance than faculty who reported having been successfully mentored.

PAGE 139

139 Results of a chi square analysis indicate d that faculty who report ed no effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague (58.82 percent n = 21) reported the availability of professional assistance to enhance grant, manuscript, and curriculum vitae writing skills compared with faculty who report ed being effectively mentored (26.09 percent n = 34). Results of a logical regression analysis indicated that a history of effective mentoring by senior academic colleagues was found to be significantly related to the perception of availability of professional assistance to enhance writing skills (grants, m anuscripts, curriculum vitae). Faculty reporting no history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague were less likely to report having writing assistance than faculty who reported having been successfully mentored. Results of a chi square analysis indicate that faculty who report no effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague reported availability of routine faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills by speakers and consultants (79.41 percent n = 21) compared with ef fectively mentored faculty (43.48 percent n = 34). Results of a logical regression analysis indicate that a history of effective mentoring by senior academic colleagues was significantly related to the perception of the dental school routinely providing s peakers and consultants to conduct faculty development on oral health topics and clinical skills. Faculty reporting no history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague were less likely to report that their dental school routinely provided speakers and consultants for faculty development than faculty who reported having been successfully mentored. Results of a chi square analysis indicate d that faculty who report ed no effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague report ed that the college provides regularly

PAGE 140

140 scheduled faculty in-service programs on new scientific developments (61.76 percent n = 21) compared with effectively mentored faculty (30.43 percent n = 34). However, results of a logical regression analysis did not find a history o f effective mentoring to be a significant predictor of faculty perception of the availability of regularly scheduled inservice programs. The results indicated that nonmentored faculty tend to not seek available college resources to assist with research a nd writing skills, to seek faculty development opportunit ies provided by the college, or to seek guidance regarding career growth from their department chairperson. Faculty who are not effectively mentored tend to rely on outside resources for development enrichment, advice, and planning compared with faculty who were effectively mentored. Studies by Cranton (1994), Robinson & Bean, (1998) and many others indicated that mentoring supports professiona l development and retention of high-caliber faculty. T he college should consider implementation of a formal mentoring program for junior faculty and for faculty who have not had the opportunity to be effectively mentored. Availability of a formal mentoring program would promote faculty job satisfaction, and would contribute to the development and retention of dental faculty. Perceptions of Workplace Environment and Culture (RQ3, RQ4) Research Question 3 addressed the significant faculty perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors at A Southeas tern University, College of Dentistry Research Question 4 addressed significant gender and professional attributes that best predict faculty perceptions of workplace cultural and environmental factors at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry

PAGE 141

141 R esults of a chi square analysis indicated female faculty report ed faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them (19.23 percent n = 27) compared with male faculty (0.0 percent n = 32). However, results of a logical regression analysis did not find gender to be a significant predictor of perception of faculty relations with students. Results of a chi square analysis indicated faculty ranked as assistant or associate professors report ed faculty relations with students can be char acterized as us against them (10.0 percent n = 32) compared with faculty ranked professor emeritus or full professor (6.25 percent n = 16) or faculty ranked as other (9.52 percent n = 12). However, results of a logical regression analysis did not f ind faculty rank to be a significant predictor of perception of faculty relations with students. Results of a chi square analysis indic ated tenure track -faculty report ed having a sense of belonging in their department and being part of a team (83.33 percent n = 9) compared with tenured faculty (33.33 percent n = 24) and non-tenure track faculty (61.90 percent n = 22). O nly a third of tenured faculty report ed a sense of departmental belonging and team spirit when compared to tenured-track and nontenure -track faculty. However, the results of a logical regression analysis did not find tenure status to be a significant predictor of faculty sense of departmental belonging and team inclusion. Results of a chi square analysis indicated tenure -track faculty re port ed colleagues eager to help with projects (70.83 percent n = 9) compared with tenured faculty (22.22 percent n = 24) or non-tenure -track faculty (61.90 percent n = 22). T he percentage of tenured faculty answering affirmatively to this item appears to be significantly lower

PAGE 142

142 compared with percentages of tenure track and nontenure-track faculty. However, results of a logical regression analysis did not find tenure status to be a significant predictor of colleague eagerness to help with projects. Resu lts of a chi s quare analysis indicated tenure -track faculty reported that their contributions are recognized by their colleagues (66.67 percent n = 9) compared with tenured faculty (0.0 percent n = 24) or non-tenure track faculty (52.38 percent n = 22). Again, t here appears to be a major difference in perceptions of contribution recognition between tenured f aculty and tenure-track and non -tenure track faculty. However, results of a logical regression analysis did not find tenure status to be a signific ant predictor of faculty perceptions regarding recognition of workplace contributions. Results of a chi square analysis indicated that faculty with 26 to 30 total years of employment in academic dentistry, regardless of ins titution reported a departmental expectation of conformity to dress code, communication, and public behavior (100.0 percent n = 6) compared with faculty with 1 to 5 years (54.55 percent n = 13), 6 to 10 years (12.50 percent n = 8), 11 to 15 years (66.67 percent n = 12), 16 to 25 years (41.67 percent n = 13), or more than 30 years (25.0 percent n = 8). However, results of a logical regression analysis did not find total years in academic dentistry to be a significant predictor of faculty perceptions of departmental expectations. Resu lts of a chi square analysis indicated that faculty with 11 to 15 years of employment in academic dentistry, regardless of institution (75.0 percent n = 12), and faculty with more than 30 years (75.0 percent n = 8) report ed that their contributions to the ir department are recognized by their colleagu es compared with faculty with 1 to 5 years (36.36 percent n = 13), 6 to 10 years (12.50 percent n = 8), 16 to 25 years

PAGE 143

143 (58.33 percent n = 13), or 26 to 30 years (33.33 percent n = 6). However, a logical re gression analysis did not find total years in academic dentistry to be a significant predictor of faculty perceptions regarding recognition of workplace contributions. A history of effective mentoring by senior academic colleagues was a significant factor in three a spects of faculty perceptions of academic culture and environment. In all three significant aspects, faculty who reported no history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague were less likely to report the perception of positive interactions with their academic colleagues. Results of a chi square analysis indicated faculty who were effectively mentored by a senior academic colleague reported enjoying their interactions with their colleagues (91.18 percent n = 34) compared with faculty who were not effectively mentored (69.57 percent n = 21). A history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague was significantly related to the perception of enjoyment of interaction with faculty colleagues. Results of a logical regr ession analysis indicated that faculty reporting no history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague were less likely to enjoy their interactions with faculty colleagues than those faculty reporting a history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague Results of a chi square analysis indicated faculty who were effectively mentored by a senior academic colleague reported having a sense of belonging in their department and being part of the team (79.41 percent n = 34) compared with f aculty who were not effectively mentored (43.48 percent n = 21). However, results of a logical regression analysis did not find effective mentoring to be a significant predictor of faculty sense of belonging and team inclusion.

PAGE 144

144 A history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague was significantly related to the perception of faculty colleagues being eager to help with projects or research. Results of a chi square analysis indicated faculty who were effectively mentored by a senior academic colleague report ed that faculty colleagues were eager to help them with projects (73.53 percent n = 34) compared with faculty who were not effectively mentored (34.78 percent n = 21). Results of a logical regression analysis indicated that faculty reporti ng no history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague were less likely to perceive eagerness of faculty colleagues to help with projects or research than faculty reporting a history of effective mentoring. Results of a chi square analysis ind icated faculty who were not effectively mentored reported that faculty relations with students can be characterized as us against them (21.74 percent n = 21) compared with faculty who were effectively mentored (0.0 percent n = 34). However, results of a logistic regression analysis did not find history of effective mentoring to be a significant predictor of faculty relations with students. Results of a chi square analysis indicated faculty who were effectively mentored by a senior academic colleague r eported that their department chairperson treated them fairly (88.24 percent n = 34) compared with faculty who were not effectively mentored (52.17 percent n = 21). A history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague was significantly relate d to the perception of fair treatment by the department chairperson. Faculty reporting no history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague were less likely to perceive fair treatment by their department chairperson than those faculty reporting a history of effective mentoring.

PAGE 145

145 Faculty history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague is the one variable that repeatedly appears as significant regarding perceptions of workplace environment and culture. The logic al regression analysi s indicated that faculty enjoyment of positive interactions with colleagues and perception s of a collegial team spirit were significa ntly higher for faculty who had been effectively mentored. Des Jarlais (1995) stated that faculty perceptions of the workplace climate, including interactions with colleagues) affect faculty morale more than structural factors do. In addition, faculty perceptions of fair treatment by department chairpersons is greater for effectively mentored individuals. Hagedorn (2000) st ated that perceptions of fairness and high levels of justice within the institution are important variables contributing to overall career satisfaction. A chi square analysis indicated faculty with a dual career focus report having a sense of belonging in their department (83.33 percent n = 18) compared with faculty with a single career focus (55.56 percent n = 44). However, results of a logical regression analysis did not find career focus to be a significant predictor of a sense of belonging to the department. The focus of the faculty job position was significantly related to the perception of fair treatment by the department chairperson. Results of a logical regression analysis indicate d that faculty with a single job focus (teaching only, research o nly, administration only) were les s likely to perceive that they were treated fairly by department chairpersons than faculty with a dual job focus (teaching and research, teaching and administration, research and administration).

PAGE 146

146 Relationship of Gender, Pr ofessional Attributes, and Perceptions of Academic Environment with Overall Job Satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry (RQ5) Results of a chi square analysis indicated that faculty with a single career focus (teaching, research, ad ministration) report ed overall satisfaction with the balance of their life (86.11 percent n = 36) compared with dual career focus (teaching and research, teaching and administration, research and administration, teaching and patient care, research and pat ient care) faculty (55.56 percent n = 18). However, results of a logical regression analysis indicated career focus was not significantly related to overall job satisfaction at the College of Dentistry. The findings indicated a dual career focus may be a source of negative stress affecting the wider spectrum of total life balance while remaining a neutral stressor with no effect on job satisfaction. Results of a chi square analysis indicated that a history of mentoring by a senior academic colleague was a significant factor in relation to overall faculty job satisfaction and satisfaction with life balance. Faculty reporting a history of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague reported overall job satisfaction (79.41 percent n = 34) compared w ith faculty reporting no history of effective mentoring (26.09 percent n = 23). In addition, a trend arose toward significance regarding overall satisfaction with life balance for faculty reporting a history of effective mentoring (82.35 percent n = 34) compared with faculty reporting no history of effective mentoring (60.87 percent n = 23). The significance of the effective mentoring attribute, with regard to personal and professional life satisfaction is an important result of this study and has implications for future college policy regarding the nurturing and development of dental faculty.

PAGE 147

147 Results of a chi square analysis indicated that annual development of faculty career growth plans with a department chairperson affects faculty job satisfaction and overall satisfaction with life balance. Faculty reporting development of career growth plans report ed overall job satisfaction (84.00 percent n = 25) compared with faculty who do not report development of career growth plans (38.71 perc ent n = 31). In addition, faculty reporting career growth plan development report ed overall satisfaction with life balance (88.00 percent n = 25) compared with faculty who do not report career growth plan development (64.52 percent n = 31). In a separ ate chi square analysis, faculty reporting a midtenure review and feedback report ed overall satisfaction with the balance of their life (86.67 percent n = 30) compared with faculty reporting no midtenure review and feedback (59.26 percent n = 27). The results indicated that the clarity, focus, and purposeful direction of an annually renewable career growth and development plan, as well as the availability of mid -tenure progress review and feedback, are positive contributions to faculty personal and prof essional life satisfaction. The development of administrative procedures to provide faculty career growth plans, as well as mid tenure review and feedback sessions, should be included in future college policy regarding faculty development. Results of a ch i square analysis indicated that faculty perception of availability of assistance to enhance teaching skills, research skills, and writing skills is significant for overall job satisfaction. Faculty reporting availability of teaching assistance report ed o verall job satisfaction (72.22 percent n = 36) compared with faculty reporting no availability of teaching assistance (30.00 percent n = 20). Faculty reporting availability of research assistance report ed overall job satisfaction (77.42 percent n = 31)

PAGE 148

148 compared with faculty reporting no availability of research assistance (36.00 percent n = 25). Faculty reporting availability of writing assistance report ed overall job satisfaction (76.92 percent n = 26) compared with faculty reporting no availabil ity of writing assistance (41.94 percent n = 31). While the analysis did not indicate significance for overall satisfa ction with life balance, it did indicate that the availability of assistance to enhance teaching, research, and writing skills reduces t he stress associated with the acquisition and practice of such skills throughout the teaching career, thus contributing to overall job satisfaction. Results of a chi square analysis indicate d that the availability of faculty development workshops, in-servi ce presentations, and orientation sessions is significant for overall faculty job satisfaction. Faculty reporting the availability of orientation workshops for first year faculty report ed overall job satisfaction (71.05 percent n = 38) compared with faculty reporting no availability of orientation workshops (33.33 percent n = 18). In addition, faculty reporting availability of promotion and tenure workshops report ed overall job satisfaction (76.19 percent n = 21) compared with faculty reporting no availability of promotion and tenure workshops (48.57 percent n = 35). Faculty reporting availability of routine faculty development report ed overall job satisfaction (72.97 percent n = 37) compared with faculty reporting no availability of routine faculty development (30.00 percent n = 20). In addition, faculty reporting availability of in-service scientific development presentation and workshops report ed overall job satisfaction (82.14 percent n = 28) compared with faculty reporting no availability of in -service scientific development presentations and workshops (34.48 percent n = 29).

PAGE 149

149 While the analysis did not indicate significance for overall satisfaction with life balance, it did indicate that the availability of routine faculty development workshops, inservice presentations, and orient ation sessions contributed significantly to the acquisition of knowledge and skills necessary for academic success, including tenure and promotion, thus contributing to overall job satisfaction. This research indicated that the overall perception of availability of faculty development opportunities and resources is a significant variable contributing to overall faculty job satisfaction. The provision of opportunities for faculty development and the resources to support such development are important factors for the college to consider when planning for the recruitment, development, promotion, and retention of dental faculty. Results of a chi square an alysis showed several variables regarding perceptions of aca demic environment and culture that are significant in relation to overall faculty job satisfaction and satisfaction with life balance. The variables are comparable to the mediator variables described by Hagedorn as contributing to faculty job satisfaction, and described as motivators and hygienes and environmental conditions (2000). Two variables including faculty who enjoy interactions with their colleagues and faculty who report that they have a comfortable niche within their department were signi ficant for both job satisfaction and satisfaction with life balance. H agedorn described these variables as environmental conditions (2000). Faculty who enjoy colleague interactions report ed overall job satisfaction (65.96 percent n = 37) compared with faculty who do not enjoy colleague interaction (20.00 percent n = 20). Faculty who enjoy colleague interaction report ed satisfaction with the balance of their life (80.85 percent n = 37) compared with faculty who do not enjoy

PAGE 150

150 colleague interaction (40 p ercent n = 20). In addition, faculty who perceive d that they have a comfortable niche within their department report ed overall job satisfaction (72.97 percent n = 37) compared with faculty who do not perceive that they have a comfortable departmental ni che (30.00 percent n = 20). Faculty who perceive d a comfortable departmental niche also report ed overall satisfaction with life balance (83.78 percent n = 37) compared with faculty who do not report a comfortable departmental niche (55.00 percent n = 2 0). Results of a chi square analysis also indicated that faculty who perceived that their colleagues are eager to help them with their projects report ed overall job satisfaction (81.82 percent n = 33) compared with faculty who do not perceive that colleagues are eager to help them with their projects (25.00 percent n = 24). These results indicated that a sense of collegiality and inclusion is important to overall job satisfaction, and, in many cases, satisfaction with l ife balance. Out of fifty seven in dividuals responding to three items regarding faculty collegiality and inclusion, 35 percent responded negatively to the items regarding colleague interaction and departmental niche, and 42 percent responded negatively to the item regarding colleague eager ness to assist with projects. Therefore, approximately 34 percent to 42 percent of faculty report ed experiencing some sense of disenfranchisement with their colleagues and their department. Addressing issues of faculty collegiality and inclusion is warr anted when formulating college policies for the recruitment, development, promotion, and retention of dental faculty. Results of a chi square analysis indicated that faculty perceptions of interpersonal relationships with students and administration affect overall job satisfaction. Faculty

PAGE 151

151 who have a positive perception of their relationships with students report ed overall job satisfaction (63.46 percent n = 52) compared with faculty who have a negative perception (described as us against them) o f their relationships with students (0.00 percent n = 5). Survey results indicated several additional significant variables consistent with the environmental conditions variables described in Hagedorn s framework of faculty job satisfaction (2000). R esults of a chi square analysis indicated that faculty who perceive d the overall culture of the dental school to be open to new ideas report ed overall job satisfaction (90.48 percent n = 21) compared with faculty who do not perceive the college culture to be open (38.89 percent n = 36). Results of a chi square analysis indicated that faculty who perceive d the overall decisionmaking process at the dental school is reasonable report ed overall job satisfaction (91.67 percent n = 24) compared with faculty who do not perceive that the decision making process is reasonable (33.33 percent n = 33). Results of a chi square analysis indicated that faculty who perceive d departmental expectations regarding professional decorum (dress, conduct, methods of in teraction) report ed satisfaction with the balance of their life (89.29 percent n = 28) compared with faculty who do not perceive that there are departmental expectations regarding professional decorum (58.62 percent n = 29). In addition, faculty who perc eived that they are treated fairly by their department chairperson reported overall job satisfaction (73.81 percent, n = 42) compared with faculty who perceive that they are not treated fairly (13.33 percent, n = 15).

PAGE 152

152 Results of a chi square analysis indic ated that faculty who are satisfied with the dental school diversity reported overall job satisfaction (74.19 percent, n = 31) compared with faculty who are not satisfied with the diversity of the college (38.46 percent, n = 26). The results also indicated that faculty perceptions of diversity at the college are split almost evenly between satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and this is an issue for the college to explore. Results of a chi square analysis indicated that faculty who perceived the physical app earance of the dental school makes a good impression reported overall job satisfaction (82.35 percent, n = 17) compared with faculty who do not perceive that the physical appearance of the dental school makes a good impression (74.50 percent, n = 40). T he results indicated that a significant propor tion of faculty perceived the dental college facilities to be less than esthetically pleasing. Survey results indicated that faculty recognition was a significant variable with regard to job satisfaction, co nsistent with the motivators and hygienes variables described in Hagedorn s framework of faculty job satisfaction (2000). Results of a chi square analysis indicated that faculty who perceived that their contributions to the department and to the school are recognized by their colleagues report overall job satisfaction (75.86 percent, n = 29) compared with faculty who did not perceive that their contributions are recognized (39.29 percent, n = 28). The results also indicated that faculty were divided in their perceptions regarding recognition of their contributions by colleagues, and this is an issue for the college to explore.

PAGE 153

153 Best Predictors of Faculty Job Satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry (RQ6) A logical regression analysi s was conducted to determine the best predictors of overall faculty job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry In addition, a logical regression analysis was conducted to determine the best predictors of overall faculty satisfact ion with the balance of factors in their lives including work, family, leisure, and health. Results of a logical regression analysis showed no significant variables that best predicted overall faculty job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry Results of a logical regression analysis indicated that departmental expectations of professional decorum was found to be the only significant variable that best predicted faculty satisfaction with the overall balance of their life. This f inding may be explained by the fact that expectations of professional behavior eliminates ambiguity and ensuing stress, thereby creating a sense of order and contributi ng to overall satisfaction with life balance. Comparison of SEUCD Study with ADEA 2007 N ationwide Study A comparison of the findings from the 2007 American Dental Education Association nationwide Quality of Dental Faculty Work Life Survey with A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment Survey indicate s similarities in the results of the surveys. Faculty responses in both s urveys showed significant deficiencies related to variables in the category of professional development, and particularly variables related to mentoring. A review of the ADEA 2007 survey summarizes the findings succinctly.

PAGE 154

154 Analysis of data indicates that a number of basic professional development activities, especially those associated with new faculty, including mentoring, new faculty orientation, and career growth planning, are not available or not done, or respondents did not know about the existence of these activities (Haden, et al. 2008 p. 523) Comparison of the Findings: Professional Development and Mentoring A comparison of results regarding effectiv e mentoring by a sen ior academic colleague indicated that 59 percent of respondents to the ADEA survey report ed that they have been effectively mentored compared with 37 percent of faculty responding to the SEUCD survey. Results of the ADEA 2007 survey indicated that only 25 percent of faculty perceived the availability of a formal mentoring program for untenured faculty at their college, and only 20 percent indicated availability of a formal mentoring program for faculty who are new to the college, regardless of rank. These findings are similar to the findings of the SEUCD survey regarding perceptions of availability of formal mentoring programs for untenured faculty (43 percent ), and for first year faculty regardless of tenure (32 percent ). The results indicated that formalized mentoring programs are either nonexistent or are not adequately advertised, thereby precluding faculty participation. The ADEA and SEUCD survey results indicated a need for formalized mentoring programs for faculty. Results of the SEUCD survey indicate that faculty who are effectively mentored report a greater sense of inclusion and collegiality, constructive relationships with students, overall job satisfaction, and overall satisfaction with the balance of their life. The mul tiple benefits of effective mentoring and the lack of formal mentoring programs for dental faculty are significant findings of this research, and are issue s that must be addressed by dental schools nationwide.

PAGE 155

155 Results of the ADEA survey indicated faculty d issatisfaction with professional development and career guidance, with only 25 percent of faculty indicating that their institution provides adequate support and resources for professional development. (Haden et al, 2008). The survey indicated that 45 per cent o f faculty responded negatively not available, not done, or I do not know to items regarding faculty development variables including annual goal setting with department chairperson, development of career growth plans, and planning of profession al enrichment activities. Similar SEUCD survey results for developmental activities related to tenure and promotion indicated that faculty did not perceive the existence of, or access to, such activities. The survey indicated that the level of satisfaction with professional development support and resources was lower than for any of the other envi ro nmental variables measured by the survey. The results indicated that only 25 percent of faculty report ed that their academic institution provides adequate sup port, resources, and financing for p rofessional development. Tenured associate professors indicated greater dissatisfaction than other ranked groups regarding perceptions of professional development, department chairperson assistance, and supportive resour ces for research, while professors reported the highest levels of satisfaction for all professional development variables. Tenured associate professors also indicate d higher levels of dissatisfaction with perceptions of collegiality, inclusion, and collab oration with other faculty. The SEUCD survey indicated that 84 percent of faculty met with their department chairperson yearly, 91 percent report ed yearly evaluations with their department chairperson, and 45 percent develop ed yearly career growth plans with their department

PAGE 156

156 chairperson. Results of the ADEA survey indicate d that good mentoring experience was reported as being provided by pro active department chairpersons, and this seems to be the case with SEUCD chairpersons (Haden et al., 2008). Conversely, only 64 percent of SEUCD faculty report ed availability of teaching assistance, 55 percent report ed availability of research assistance, and 46 percent report ed availability of assistance with grant and manuscript writing. More can be done to i ncrease awareness and availability of assistance for teaching, research, and writing skills at the college. The SEUCD survey indicated that opportunities for professional development are provided by the college but that not all groups are equally aware of such opportunities. Faculty with combined doctoral degrees (79 percent ) and Bachelor or Masters degrees (100 percent ) report ed the availability of faculty development compared with faculty with single doctoral degrees (51 percent ). In addition, 60 perce nt of faculty report ed an annual school wide faculty development day, 65 percent report ed routine faculty development opportunities, and 49 percent report ed routine in-service presentations and workshops. Results of the SEUCD survey indicated that facul ty who perceived availability of professional development report ed higher levels of job satisfact ion compared with faculty who did not perceive availability of professional development. The college should encourage faculty participation in developmental acti vities through school wide promotional efforts and by providing incentives for participation in developmental opportunities. Results of the ADEA 2007 survey indicated that 60 percent of faculty reported orientation programs for first year faculty are not a vailable at their college. Ho wever,

PAGE 157

157 the SEUCD survey indicated that 68 percent of faculty report ed availability of orientation programs, thus indicating greater awareness of first year faculty orientation sessions. A review of the ADEA survey indicated sh owed a lack of availability of promotion and tenure workshops, as well as mid-tenure review and feedback. In addition, reviewers comparing the two studies stated that minimal progress has been made to clarify the faculty evaluation process or to assist i n understanding expectations associated with promotion and tenure (Trotman et al. 2007 p. 720). Results of the SEUCD study indicate d similar results. Only 32 percent of ass istant and associate professors and 19 percent of faculty classified as other i ndicated availability of promotion and tenure workshops. In addition, only 55 percent of assistant and associate professors and 33 percent of faculty classified as other indicated availability of mid-tenure review and feedback. Assistant professors an d faculty classified as other represent the faculty who would most likely be eligible for tenure and promotion, therefore a lack of awareness regarding the availability of workshops and reviews serves as a significant roadblock to acquisition of tenure and promotion. Results of the ADEA survey indicated that clarity of promotion and tenure guidelines is a significant factor relevant to faculty job satisfaction and overall balance of life. In addition, the SEUCD survey results indicated that mid -tenure review and feedback is significantly related to perceptions of faculty satisfaction with balance of life. T he college should provide promotion and tenure workshops, as well as mid -tenure review and feedback for tenure-track faculty. Comparison of the Findings: C ulture of the School Comparison of survey results regarding perceptions of school c ulture showed similarities between the ADEA and SEUCD survey findings. The SEUCD faculty

PAGE 158

158 indicate d that they enjoy their interactions with their colleagues (82 percent ) compared with ADEA faculty (87 percent ). The SEUCD faculty indicate d that they have a comfortable niche in their department (65 percent ) compared with ADEA faculty (75 percent ). The SEUCD faculty report ed that their department chairperson treats them f airly (74 percent) compared with ADEA faculty (67 percent ). The SEUCD faculty indicated constructive student -faculty relationships (91 percent ) compared with ADEA faculty (70 percent ). The SEUCD faculty indicated that they did not believe that the overal l appearance of their dental school makes a good impression (30 percent ) compared with ADEA faculty (25 percent ). Both the SEUCD and ADEA surveys indicated that overall, full professors report ed higher levels of satisfaction compared with associate profes sors. The ADEA survey indicated associate professors reported higher levels of disagreement in terms of statements such as chairperson treats me fairly, colleagues eager to help, overall culture characterized by openness to new ideas, reasonableness of d ecision making process in the school about issues that face the whole faculty, and diversity of the dent al school faculty The SEUCD surv ey also showed higher levels of dissatisfaction among associate professors regarding a sense of belonging and feeling part of the team, colleague willingness to help with projects, and recognition of contributions by colleagues. Comparison of survey results regarding perceptions of school culture also showed differences between the ADEA and SEUCD survey results. The SEUC D faculty agreed that the overall culture of the dental school is characterized by openness to new ideas (90 percent) compared with ADEA faculty (70 percent ). The SEUCD faculty agreed with

PAGE 159

159 reasonableness of the decision -making process (42 percent ) compare d with ADEA faculty (64 percent ). Regarding diversity, the ADEA survey indicated that 43 percent of male faculty and 34 percent of female faculty agree with the level of diversity at their institu tion. The SEUCD survey indicated that 53 percent of male f aculty and 58 percent of female faculty agree with the level of diversity at their institution. In addition, the SEUCD survey results indicated that gender differences in perceptions of workplace culture were not an issue at the college as mentioned in th e ADEA 2007 survey. Comparison of the Findings: Job Satisfaction and Life Balance Satisfaction Significant similarities arose between results of the ADEA and SEUCD surveys regarding perceptions of the dental school as a place to work. The SEUCD faculty re ported satisfaction with their benefits package (70 percent ) compared with ADEA faculty (73 percent ). The SEUCD faculty reported satisfaction with their total compensation package (32 percent ) compared with ADEA faculty (38 percent ). The SEUCD faculty re ported satisfaction with central administrations concern about the work environment for in the trenches faculty (29 percent ) compared with ADEA faculty (50 percent ). The SEUCD faculty reported satisfaction with their department, all things considered ( 74 percent ) compared with ADEA faculty (73 percent ). The SEUCD faculty reported that their dental school is an excellent or good place to work (58 percent ) compared with ADEA faculty (62 percent ). The SEUCD faculty reported satisfaction with the overall balance of work and other aspects of their life (74 percent ) compared with ADEA faculty (71 percent ). Male faculty reported greater satisfaction with the balance of their life compared with female faculty. The SEUCD male faculty reported satisfaction wit h overall life balance (80 percent ) compared with female faculty (65

PAGE 160

160 percent ). Similar findings were reported for ADEA faculty, males reporting satisfaction with overall life balance (76 percent ) compared with female faculty (62 percent ). Comparison of the Findings: SEUCD Survey and Hagedorns Conceptual Framework of Faculty Job Satisfaction The SEUCD Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment Survey results coincide with Hagedorns conceptual framework of factors which influence faculty job satis faction. The SEUCD survey results indicate d that the various mediators and triggers described in Hagedorns model (collegiality, college culture and environment, recognition, advancement and tenure) are comparable to the perceptual variables measured in th e SEUCD survey instrument (professional development, college culture and environment, collegiality and mentoring, recognition, advancement and tenure). Faculty perceptions of overall job and life balance satisfaction evolve over time in response to the continuous evolution and recombination of motivators and hygienes, demographic factors, environmental conditions, and triggers described in Hagedorns model. Evolving perceptions of workplace environmental variables result in fluctuating perceptions of facul ty job satisfaction over time, measured along a continuum of benchmarks from job disengagement to job acceptance or tolerance to job appreciation and work engagement. The SEUCD Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment Survey is a snapshot in time of the College of Dentistry. Over time, the composition of this snapshot will continue to evolve. The administration of the college has the power to constructively guide that evolution toward positive growth and change, and particularly in terms of faculty job satisfaction. By continually monitoring the pulse of the faculty regarding the factors which lead to job satisfaction, and by responding to those issues with policy

PAGE 161

161 changes that address faculty needs, the college can address issues of recruitment, dev elopment, promotion, and retention of its academic workforce. In doing so, A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry will address the nationwide issue of dental faculty shortages and serve as a model for other American academic dental institutions a ddressing faculty shortages within their own colleges. Implications of the Study: A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry The results of the Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry Surv ey showed no significant variables that best predict overall job satisfaction at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry The results are most likely due to the fact that the survey population and the population of survey respondents were small. However, the research showed four workplace environmental variables that should be considered when formulating policy changes to foster greater faculty job satisfaction, including 1) faculty development opportunities, 2) promotion and tenure processes, 3) formal mentoring programs, and 4) cultivation of future faculty from student ranks. A search of A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry w ebsite shows opportunities for faculty development in teaching, research, writing, and scientific subject matt er. Programs such as the Deans Research Series and the Annual Faculty Development Day provide opportunities for faculty to attend scientific and educational presentations. The college also provides a variety of scientific and educational faculty develop ment opportunities during mid -term and semester break s Individual academic departments within the College of Dentistry bring in speakers and consultants on a weekly basis and at no cost to faculty. The Continuing Education Department provides reduced ra tes for faculty participation in courses offered by that department. Recently,

PAGE 162

162 the College of Dentistry, in conjunction with faculty from the University of Florida, College of Education, created and presently provides classes and workshops to enhance teac hing skills for dental faculty. Faculty Enhancement Opportunity Awards are available to faculty who are interested in learning new subject matter or participating in development opportunities that will enhance their teaching and/or research initiatives. On a national level, the American Dental Education Association provides workshops for faculty development in teaching, research, and leadership skills. The SEUCD research survey indicates that the problem is not a lack of availability of faculty development, but a lack of awareness of developmental opportunities. In addition, faculty report ed a lack of necessary support for participation in developmental opportunities which are available, including funding for travel and attendance at meetings. Faculty als o indicated a lack of awareness or availability of sabbatical leave time and/or fellowship opportunities for faculty development. This finding reflects a general trend that is substantiated by several nationwide studies of dental faculty regarding availability of faculty dev elopment opportunities (Trotman et al 2007). T he College of Dentistry must investigate ways to increase faculty awareness of faculty development opportunities and fundi ng. T he college must also investigate ways to engage faculty in developmental opportunities through release time, compensation, and rewards or recognition for participation. A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry should take action to increase faculty awareness of promotion and tenure assistance and development at the col lege. The SEUCD Survey indicated a lack of awareness regarding the availability of resources which would assist faculty in navigating the promotion and tenure process.

PAGE 163

163 As new faculty embark upon academic dent al careers, the college must foster their career growth, thereby increasing their chances for career success and retention in the academic field. In a research article regarding promotion and assessment of tenure requirements at Amer ican dental schools, Pilcher stated that dental schools mus t be cognizant of a hi gh number of dental faculty approaching retirement age, leaving a plethora of unfilled faculty positions in thei r wake. As a result, Pilcher stated that retention of those faculty members entering academic positions becomes even more critical, and tenure and promotion are key components affecting that retention (Pilcher, Kilpatrick, Segars, 2009, 380). In a review of three nationwide studies regarding the promotion of successful academic dental careers and the school work environment, Trotman et al., (2007) stated that the overall dental faculty consensus is that the clarity of the tenure and promotion process, performance standards and expectations, and career planning adv ice is minimally adequate (p. 720). In addition, Trotm an et al. stated that for those on the tenure track, the tenure and promotion process was of major importance but also a source of frustration due to lack of consistent information (2007, p. 719). Th e SEUCD research survey indicated that improvements should be made in the availability and awareness of promotion and tenure workshops and mid-tenure review and feedback sessions for tenure-seeking faculty. The clarity provided by promotion and tenure workshops as well as mid-tenure reviews and feedback wou ld decrease the ambiguity and stress surrounding the process, and would greatly contribute to overall faculty job satisfaction as well as satisfaction with the balance of life and work.

PAGE 164

164 A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry should consider a pro gram designed to mentor outstanding undergraduate dental students and dental residents toward a career in academic dentistry. A review of the research articles showed a call for dental schools to cultivate future faculty from the ranks of its cur rent stud ents. Trotman et al. (2007) stated that dental administrators should foster the recruitment of their colleges brightest dental students, thereby engaging interest in futur e academic dental careers Faculty can play an active part in the cultivation of f uture faculty through positive role modeling of the academic life, and by involving students in research and teaching. The graduate program in the Department of Periodontology at Tufts University is an outstanding example of student recruitment for academi c dental careers. The department facilitates a culture of m entoring in which it develops additional teaching faculty in order to address the problem of faculty shortage and help overcome the recruitment and retention crisis (Hempton, Drakos, Likhari, Hanley, Johnson, Levi, Griffin, 2008, p. 579 ). Thirdyear resident s are paired with first year residents whereby they mentor and assist with or teach clinical skills to the new residents. In addition, second year and thirdyear residents are engaged in t eaching in the pre doctoral clinic and study club. Residents assist and mentor undergraduate dental students, honing their teaching skills and serving as an example for undergraduate students who may also be interested in an academic career. At the time the article was published, the program had been in operation for twelve years, producing nine full -time and one part time dental faculty.

PAGE 165

165 While the SEUCD survey did not address recruitment of dental faculty from stu dent ranks, the college should consider a mentoring program fo r outstanding students to cultivate future dental faculty. The UF Department of Periodontology currently allows residents to teach in the clinics. In addition, the college involves undergraduate dental students in faculty mentored re search and allows outstanding senior students to assist in undergraduate teaching laboratories. Undergraduate dental students also use their teaching skills through their involvement in community service p rojects. T he college should continue to mentor outstanding students toward a career in academic dentistry and to look for new opportunities for student involvement in teaching, research, and service. Trotman et al. (2007) emphasized the importance of modeling positive representations of academic life for students to foster their recruitment into the academic ranks Emphasis on positive role modeling during orientation sessions for new faculty, seminars to spotlight faculty research and clinical activities, and maintaining a positive atmosphere of enthusi asm among faculty and staff are ways that the college can role model academic life for s tudents. A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry should continue to exhibit positive role mo deling of the ac ademic life for its students. The most significant finding from the SEUCD Faculty Perceptions of Academic Environment Survey is the lack of awareness and/or availability of a formal mentoring program for dental faculty. The availability of effective mentoring by a senior academic colleague was a significa nt factor in faculty perceptions of collegiality and inclusion, faculty relations with student, and faculty perceptions of opportunities for development.

PAGE 166

166 Most importantly, the availability of effective mentoring was shown to impact the perception of overall job satisfaction, as well as satisfaction with life balance. However, a significant portion of the faculty responding to the survey indicated that they were unaware of the availability of a formal mentoring program at the College of Dentistry. Mentoring relationships take many forms, including informal arrangements between faculty colleagues, mentor matching programs, and formalized mentoring programs. Research, including the SEUCD Survey, indicates that mentoring contributes to faculty success, as wel l as faculty job satisfaction and satisfaction with the balance of life and work. A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry should therefore review policies regarding formalized mentoring programs, increase faculty awareness of such programs, and encourage faculty to participate in a formalized mentoring process. A review of several recent studies regarding dental faculty work environment indicated that the department chairperson and senior tenured faculty are instrumental in promoting mentoring. Senior tenured faculty serve as role models and guides for junior faculty who are navigating the promotion and tenure process. In addition, department chairpersons serve as advocates for career planning and growth, allowing faculty protected time for resear ch and providing feedback on faculty progress toward tenure (Trotman et al. 2007). A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry should encourage department chairpersons and senior faculty to participate in formalized mentoring programs for junior facu lty with the goal of increasing faculty success, job and life balance satisfaction, and retention.

PAGE 167

167 In an article regarding mentoring of dental faculty, Hempton et al. (2008) stated that successful academic institutions encourage and support mentoring relationships by insti tutionalizing the process (p. 581). In addition, Hempton et al. stated the empowerment of the mentee, which results from the evolution in the relationship, leads to the transmission o f the professional legacy (p. 581). The dental f aculty should therefore have availability to and awareness of a formal or structured match mentoring program within the College of Dentistry. Perhaps the importance of the academic institution in regard to mentoring is b est summed up by Trotman et al. (200 7) regarding recommendations for enhancing the dental school environment. T he author s emphasized that the outcome of success is different for each faculty member who teaches in higher education. They stated that it is the responsibility of the chairperso ns and deans to create an environment for success that is specific to the faculty member, and this specificity should entail a process whereby a faculty member (whether newly hired, mid -career, or senior) is moved successfully through th e ranks of promotion in a environment that is motivating, with supportive and c hallenging student interactions, collegial interactions among faculty, excitement and passion in research endeavors, expectations of fair and balanced compensation practices, and adequate time f or family (p. 725) Recommendations for Future Research Due to the length and complexity of the Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry Survey instrument, the section of the survey on Faculty Satisfaction with Day to Day Activities was not analyzed. T he section on Faculty Satisfaction with Day to Day Activities should be analyzed and reported to create a more thorough picture of the complex interaction between faculty attributes and the perceptions of workplace variables which contribu te to job and life satisfaction and faculty retention at A Southeastern University, College of

PAGE 168

168 Dentistry In addition, a complete analysis of the survey would allow a more thorough comparison of the findings with Hagedorns Conceptual Framework of Job Satisfaction. Research should be conducted at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry to collect information regarding specific faculty needs in terms of faculty devel opment, promotion and tenure, and mentoring. The results of such research may be used for the creation and implementation of faculty development and mentoring programs that meet the needs of dental faculty, particularly those who are seeking tenure and pr omotion at the College of Dentistry. In addition, a survey regarding faculty perceptions of workplace environment should be conducted every five years at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry to collect current and relevant data regarding workpla ce environmental issues affecting faculty job and life satisfaction. An ongoing assessment and constructive adjustment of the academic workplace environment with regard to factors affecting faculty job satisfaction will contribute to the recruitment, development, promotion, and retention of a successful academic workforce at the college. In turn, the job satisfaction strategies and policies formulated by A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry will address current and future faculty shortages, and serve as a model for academic dental institutions nationwide. Conclusion Results of the Dental Faculty Perceptions of Workplace Environment and Job Satisfaction Survey at A Southeastern University, College of Dentistry indicated that the college has been proactive in addressing workplace environment issues. T he college must continue to monitor the academic environment and be responsive to the needs of

PAGE 169

169 the current faculty workforce. In doing so, the college will demonstrate significant efforts towa rd promoting and retaining valued faculty, and recruiting outstanding dental academicians to the institution. In addition, the college must prepare for the future by cultivating faculty from the ranks of its current students and former graduates. A vibr ant Southeastern University, College of Dentistry faculty workforce will play an influential role in the successful recruitment and development of facult y to serve in academic dentistry.

PAGE 170

170 Table 5 1. SEUCD Research: Confirmation or Refutation of Key Theories THEORIST and RESEARCHERS KEY THEORIES and RESEARCH SEUCD SURVEY RESULTS CONFIRM/REFUTE KEY THEORIES and RESEARCH Arnold & Peterson, 1998 Gender structures influence perceptions of the work environment There were no significant findi ngs regarding the influence of gender structures on perceptions of workplace environment REFUTED Hagedorn, 2000 Perception of institutional culture and climate based on interacting variables (triggers and mediators) which influence career satisfaction Sur vey indicated that interacting variables of academic culture, climate, and professional development affect overall career satisfaction CONFIRMED Hagedorn, 2000 Career satisfaction is experienced on a continuum from disengagement to tolerance to active eng agement and appreciation of an individuals work USECD Survey indicated faculty career satisfaction fluctuated throughout the career of the faculty with tenured faculty reporting less overall satisfaction with perceptions of collegiality, recognition, or p ositive interactions with colleagues CONFIRMED

PAGE 171

171 Table 5 1. Continued Hagedorn, 2000 Stress levels are a predictor for career satisfaction at all life stages SEUCD Survey indicated that faculty with a dual -focus career report less job satisfaction that faculty with a single -foc us career, and this could be due to the stress related to a dual -focus academic career CONFIRMED Hagedorn, 2000 Career satisfaction increases with advanced life stages SEUCD Survey indicated that overall, tenured faculty tend to be less satisfied with per ceptions of collegiality and academic environment, however, no significant predictors of overall job satisfaction were found regarding tenured (advanced life stages) faculty REFUTED

PAGE 172

172 Table 5 1. Continued Hagedorn, 1994; Hagedorn, 1996 Indicators most highly predictable for car eer satisfaction include the work itself, tenure and rank, equitable salary, job stress, collegial relationships with students and administration, quality of students, institutional climate and culture, perceived support, the person environment fit Factors most highly predictable for career satisfaction include perceptions of academic climate and culture, opportunities for career development, institutional support, collegial relationships with students and administration. Tenure, rank, salary, stress were not found to be significant factors predictive of career satisfaction CONFIRMED REFUTED Hagedorn, 2000 Perceptions of high levels of institutional justice are predictable for higher levels of career satisfaction Fair treatment contributes to faculty career satisfaction CONFIRMED August and Whitman, 2004 Mentoring is an important component to overall career satisfaction History of effective mentoring was found to be a significant factor in relation to overall career satisfaction CONFIRMED

PAGE 173

173 Table 5 1. Continued Bo yer et al., 1994 Experienced faculty would choose an academic career if given the opportunity to choose again This item was not included in the USECD Survey NOT SURVEYED Robertson and Bean, 1998 Collegial relationships positively influence career satisfac tion Enjoyment of interactions with colleagues contributes to overall career satisfaction CONFIRMED Johnrud and Des Jarlais, 1994 Level of career satisfaction higher when faculty perceive that they are valued and recognized by their peers/institution Facu lty perceptions of recognition and appreciation for contributions to the department and/or school contribute to overall career satisfaction CONFIRMED Rice and Austin, 1988 Faculty morale is highest when faculty perceive opportunities for shared governance and influence in decision making process Reasonableness of the decision making process contributes to overall career satisfaction CONFIRMED Johnsrud and Heck, 1994 The presence of a strong faculty relationship with the department chairperson directly inf luences success and retention of faculty Faculty with a strong relationship with the department chairperson reported greater availability of professional development resources which contributed to faculty success and retention CONFIRMED

PAGE 174

174 Table 5 1. Continued Boyer et al., 1994 Faculty feel demoralized due to a perceived loss of influence in decision making and.or policy formation Faculty reported greater career satisfaction when they perceived reasonableness of the decision making process and shared governance CONFIRMED Boyer et al., 1994; Johnsrud and Heck, 1998; Bowen and Schuster, 1986 Lack of confidence in institutional support, salary issues, poor working conditions negatively effect facultys perceived quality of life SEUCD Survey indicated no significant predictive fact ors regarding lack of confidence in academic culture and climate, and institutional support, and perceived quality of life REFUTED Des Jarlais, 1995; Johnsrud and Rosser, 2002; Mattier, 1990; Smart, 1990 Perceptions of workplace climate and quality affect faculty morale, career satisfaction, and the decision to remain in academia SEUCD Survey indicated that perceptions of workplace climate and culture are significant predictors of overall career and life balance satisfaction, and thus related to recruitmen t and retention of faculty CONFIRMED Zinn, 1997 Faculty perception of control over issues that influence supports and barriers to career development has a positive effect on job satisfaction Faculty who perceived access to resources and opportunities for career development reported higher levels of overall career satisfaction CONFIRMED

PAGE 175

175 Table 5 1. Continued Robertson and Bean, 1998 Social networking, workplace relationships, peer support, and mentoring are important factors for recruitment and retention of faculty Collegiality and a history of effective mentoring contributes to overall career satisfaction and life balance satisfaction, and is a highly significant factor relating to recruitment and retention of faculty CONFIRMED Hagedorn, 1996 Different environmental factors determine female and male faculty career satisfaction There were no significant differences in predictive factors for career satisfaction between male and female faculty at USECD REFUTED COACHE Survey, 2006 Six factors independently predicted global satisfa ction for faculty including collegiality, nature of the work, tenure, work family, policy effectiveness, compensation Collegiality, tenure policies, faculty development, and fairness of policies contribute to overall career satisfaction CONFIRMED

PAGE 176

176 Table 5 1. Continued August a nd Waltman, 2004 Career satisfaction differs as a function of tenure status Tenure status was not found to be a significant predictor of overall career satisfaction at USECD although tenured faculty tended to report greater overall dissatisfaction with per ceptions of academic climate and culture REFUTED August and Waltman, 2004 Environmental variables including department climate, quality of student relationships, a supportive relationship with department chairperson, level of influence with department, eq uitable salaries, and a history of effective mentoring are the most significant predictors of career satisfaction Enjoyment of interactions with colleagues, comfortable departmental niche, collegiality, interpersonal relationships with students and adminis trators, reasonableness of overall decision making process are significant predictors for faculty career satisfaction CONFIRMED

PAGE 177

177 APPENDIX A IRB DOCUMENTATION

PAGE 178

178

PAGE 179

179

PAGE 180

180

PAGE 181

181 APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENTATION

PAGE 182

182

PAGE 183

183

PAGE 184

184

PAGE 185

185

PAGE 186

186

PAGE 187

187 APPENDIX C LETTERS TO PARTICIIPANTS

PAGE 188

188

PAGE 189

189

PAGE 190

190 APPENDIX D SURVEY

PAGE 191

191

PAGE 192

192

PAGE 193

193

PAGE 194

194

PAGE 195

195

PAGE 196

196

PAGE 197

197

PAGE 198

198

PAGE 199

199

PAGE 200

200

PAGE 201

201

PAGE 202

202

PAGE 203

203

PAGE 204

204

PAGE 205

205

PAGE 206

206 LIST OF REFERENCES Aisenb erg N, Harrington M. Women of academe: o utsiders in the sacred grov e Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press ,1988 Alreck PL, Settle R B. The survey research handbook ( 3rd ed.) New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin 2004 Alstete J. Benchmarking in higher e ducation: adopting best practices to i mprove q uality ASHE-ERIC Hig her Education Report No. 955. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1995 American Association of Dental Schools. Future of dental sch ool faculty: report of the pres idents task force. Washington D C. American Association of Dental Schools 1999 American Dental Education Association. ADEA Position Statement and Resolutions Regarding Equity and Diversity, 2003. Retrieved on September 24, 2004 from http://www.adea.org/about_adea/governance/ACAEPToolkit/ Documents/2009 percent 20position percent 20papers.pdf American Dental Education Association. Policy, Core Values, and Mission Statement, 2007. Retrieved on October 16, 2008 from http://www.adea.org/ced/Commitment_to_Diversity.html American Dental Education Association ADEA Policy Statements 2008 (As revised and approved by the 2008 ADEA House of Delegate s). Retrieved on July 30, 2009 from http://www.adea.org/about_adea/governance/ ACAEPToolkit/Documents/2009 percent 20policy percent 20statements.pdf American Dental Education Association. ADEA Bylaws 2009 Retrieved on July 30, 2009 from http://www.adea.org/about_adea/governance /ACAEPToolkit/Docume nts/2009 percent 20bylaws.pdf Anderson, RT, Ramey P. An exploration of attributes present in a mentor/protg relationship in nursing education administration. In: Welch, L.B. (ed.), Women in Higher Education: Changes and Challenges, Praeger, New York 19 90. Arnold GL, Peterson MW. The I nfluence of Gender Structures on Perceptions of Workplace Culture and Climate. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC # ED 422 821) AIR 1998 Annual Forum Paper, 28 p.; Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Ass ociation for Institutional Research (38th, Minneapolis, MN. May 1720, 1998). Astin H. (1991). Citation classics: Womens and mens perceptions of their contributions to science. In: Zuckerman, H. Cole, J.R., and Bruer, J.T. (eds), The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1991 pp. 5770.

PAGE 207

207 August L Waltman J Culture, climate, and contribution: career satisfaction among female f aculty. Research in Higher Educat ion, 2004. Vol. 45, No. 2, 17791. Austin AE, Rice R E. Making tenure viable: l istening to early career faculty. American Behavioral Scientist 1998; 41(5):73654. Bain O, Cummings W. Institutional barriers to the career advancement of academic women. Comparative Education 2000; 44(4): 493514. Barnes LLB A gago MO, Coombs W T. Effects of job -related stress on faculty intention to leave academia. Research in Higher Education 1998; 39:457-69. Bentley RJ Blackburn R. Two decades of gains for female faculty? Teachers College Record 1992; 93(4): 697709. Boice R. Early turning points in professorial careers of women and minorities. In: Gainen, J., and Boice, R. (eds.), Building a Diverse Faculty New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 53, Jossey -Bass, San Francisco, 1993 Bowen HR, Schuster J H. American Professors: A national resource i mperiled. Oxford: Oxford University Press ,1986 Boyer E L. Scholarship Reconsidered: priorities of the professorate Princeton, New Jersey: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,1990 Boyer EL, Altback PG, Wh ite law M J. The academic profession: an international p erspective. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1994. Caffarella RS Zinn LF. Professional development for faculty: a conceptual framework of barriers and s upports. Innov ati ve Higher Education, 1999, 23( 4 ):24154. Chmar JE, Weaver RG Valachovic R W. Dental sc hool vacant budgeted faculty pos itions: academic y ear 200405. J ournal of Dent al Educ ation 2006;70(2) : 188-98. Collaborative On Academic Careers in Higher Education ( COACHE) Survey, Harvard University Graduate School of Education, 2006. PDF version available by request: coache@gse.harvard.edu Cranton P. Self -directed and transformational instructional development source. Journal of Higher Education 1994; 65, 724-26. Cullen DL, Luna G. Wom en mentoring women in academe: a ddressing the gender gap in higher education. Gender and Education 1993; 5(2):125-37.

PAGE 208

208 Des Jarla is C D. Determinants of faculty morale in an Amer ican publi c research university: g ender differences within and between academic departments. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1995 Dillman D A. Mail and internet s urve ys: the tailored design method, 2nd Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: Jo hn Wiley Co., Publisher, 2007. Edgerton R. The reexamination of faculty priorities. Change 1993; 25(4): 10 -25. Fox MF. (1991). Gender, environmental milieu, and productivity in science. In: Zucke rman H, Cole JR, Bruer J T. (eds.), The Outer Circle: Women in the Sc ientific Community New York: W.W. Nor ton and Co., 1991, pp. 188204. Gmelch WH Lovrich NP, Wilke P K. Sources of stress in academe: a national perspective. Research in Higher Education 1984; 20:477-90. Gmelch WH Wilke PK, Lovrich N P. Dimensions of stre ss amo ng university faculty: f actor analytic results from a national study. Research in Higher Education 1986; 24:26686. Haden NK, Beemsterboer PL, Weaver RG, Valachovic R W. Dental school faculty shortages increase: an update on future dental school fa cu lty. Journal of Dental Education 2000; 64(9) :657-73 Haden NK, Hendricson W, Ranney RR, Vargas A, Cardenas L, Rose W Ross R F unk E. The quality of dental faculty work -life: report on the 2007 dental school faculty work environment s urvey. Journal of Dental Education 2008; 72(5):51431. Haden NK, Weaver RG, Valachovic R W. Meeting the demand for future dental school faculty: trends, challenges, and respons es. Journal of Dental Education 2002; 66(9): 110212. Hagedorn L S. Retirement proximitys role in th e prediction of job satisfaction in academe. Research i n Higher Education, 1994; 35(6):71128. Hagedorn L S. Wage e quity and f emale faculty job satisfaction: the role of wage differentials in a job satisfaction causal m odel. Research in Higher Education 1 996; 37(5) :569-98. Hagedorn L S. Conceptualizing f aculty job satisfaction: components, theories, and o utcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000, no.105, 5 -20. Jossey -Bass Publishers. Hagedorn L S. Gender differences in faculty productivity, satisfaction, and salary: what really separates us? Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC # ED 464 548), 2001, 8 p.

PAGE 209

209 H all RM, Sandler B R. Academic mentoring for women students and f aculty: a new look at an old way to get ahead Project on the Stat us and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges, Washington DC 1983. Harper EP, Baldwin RG, Gansneder BG, Chronister J L. Full -time women faculty o ff the tenure track: p rofile and practice. Review of Higher Education 2001; 24(3): 237-57. Hemp ton TJ, Drakos D, Likhari V, Hanley JB, Johnson L, Levi P Griffin T J. Strategi es for developing a culture of mentoring in postdoctoral p eriodontology. Journal of Dental Education 2008; 72(5):577-84. Johnsrud LK. Maintaining morale: a guide to assessing t he morale of m id -level administrators and f aculty. Washington, DC: College and University Personnel Association 1996 Johnsrud LK Atwater C D. Scaffolding the ivory tower: b uilding supports for new faculty to the academy. CUPA Journal 1993; 44(1): 1 14. Johnsrud LK, Des Jarlais C D. Barriers to the retention and t enure of women and minorities: t he case of a universitys faculty. Review of Higher Education 1994; 17:3353 53. Johnsrud LK, Heck R H. ( 1994). A universitys faculty: predicting those who will sta y and those who leave. Journal for Higher Education Management 1994; 10(1):71-84. Johnsrud, LK Heck R H. Faculty worklife: e stablishing benchmarks across groups. Journal of Higher Education 1998; 39(5):53955. Johnsrud LK, Rosser V J. Faculty members mor ale and their intention to leave: a multilevel e xplanation. Journal of Higher Educ ation 2002; 73(4):51842. Johnsrud LK, Wunsch M. Ju nior and senior faculty women: c ommonalities and differences in perceptions of academic life. Psychological Reports 1991; 69:879 -86. Leslie D M. (ed.) The Growing Use of Part -Time Faculty: Understanding Causes and Effects (Vol. 104), Jossey -Bass, San Francisco : Jossey -Bass, 1998. Manger, D K. (1999). The graying professoriate. Chronicle of Higher Education 1999; v46 n2 pA18-A 19 Matier M W. Retaining faculty: a tale of two campuses. Research in Higher Education 1990; 31: 3960. Moore KM, Sagaria M A. The situation of women in research universities in the United States : w ithin the inner circles of academic power. In Glazer JS, B ensimon E M

PAGE 210

210 Townsend B K. (eds.), Women in Higher Education: A Feminists Perspective, Ginn Press, Needham Heights, MA., 1993, pp. 227-40. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine of the Nati onal Academies. Beyond bias and barriers: fulfilling the potential of women in a cademic science and engineering. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007, Executive Summary, Retrieved on June 23, 2008 from http://www.nap.edu/catalogue/11741.html National Education Association, (2005). Florida Salary Surveys (2004-2005). Retrieved on April 26, 2007 from http://www.nea.org/home/35310.htm National Education Ass ociation Research Center (2006). Women faculty on 9/10 month c ontracts as a percent of total faculty on 9/10 month contracts by institutional type and control, and r ank: 200405 Florida Retrieved on April 26, 2007 from http://www2.nea.org/cgi bin/he/sakarues2.cgi Nesbitt PE, Inglehart MR Si nkford J C. Work environment perceptions of full time dental educators: does g ender m atter? Journal of Dental Education 2003; 67(8): 91624. Nettles MT Per na LW, Bradburn E M. Salary, promotion, and t enure status of minority and women faculty in U.S. colleges and u niversities NCES, Washington DC 2000. Nye G T. Academic discipline, mentoring, and the career commitment of women faculty. doctoral d issertatio n, 1997. Louisiana State University. (Dissertation Abstracts International, 09A:32210 Olsen D, Crawford LA. A five year study of junior faculty expectations about their work. Review of Higher Education 1998 ; 22(1): 3954. Olsen D Maple S, Stage F. Women and minority job satisfaction: p rofessional role interests, professional satisfactions, and institutional fit. Journal of Higher Education 1995; 66(3):26793. Olsen D Sorcinelli M D. The pretenure years: a longitudinal perspective. In: Sorcinelli MD, Aust in A E. (eds.), Developing New and Junior Faculty, New Directions for Teaching and Learning. No. 50, Jossey -Bass, San Francisco, 1992, pp. 15 -25. Oral Health in American. A r epor t of the Surgeon General 2000 Retrieved on May 8, 2004 from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/oralhealth/ Park S M. Re search, teaching, and service: w hy shouldnt womens work count? In Ropers -Huilman, B. (ed.), Women in Higher Education: A Feminist Perspective (2nd Ed.), Pearson Custom Publishing, Boston, 2000, pp. 285 -308.

PAGE 211

211 Parson LA San ds RG, and Duane J. The campus climate for women faculty at a public university. Initiatives 1991; 54(1): 1927. P erna L. Sex di fferences in faculty salaries: a cohort analysi s. Review of Higher Education 2001; 21(4):315-42. Pilcher ES Kilpatric k AO, Segars J. An assessment of promotion and t enure requirements at dental s chools. Journal of Dental Education 2009; 73(3):375 -82. Rausch DK, Ortiz BP, D outhitt RA, Reed L L. The ac ademic revolving door: w hy do women get caught? CUPA Journal 1989; 40(1): 1 -16. Rice ER, Austin A E. Faculty morale: w hat exemplary colleges do right. Change 1988; 20(2):518. Riger S, Stokes J Raja S, and Sullivan M. Measuring perceptions of the work env ironment for female faculty. Review of Higher Education 1997; 21(1): 6378. Robertson LJ, Bean J P. Women faculty in family and consumer sciences: influences on job s atisfaction. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 1998; 167(1) : 167193. Ross K Presidential Inaugural Speech to the American Dental Association House of Delegates 2006 Retrieved on August 23, 2007 from http://www.ada.org Rothblum E D. Leaving the ivory tower: f actors contributing to womens voluntary resignation from academia. Frontiers 1988; 10(2): 14 -17. Sandler BR, Hall R M. The campus climate revisited: chilly for w omen faculty, administrators, and graduate s tudents Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges Washington, DC 1986. Seldin LW. The Future of Dentistry. Journal of the American Dental Association, 2001; 132(12)1 667. Smart J C. A causal model of faculty turnover intentions. Research in Higher Education 1990; 31:405-24. Sonnert, G, Holton G. Gender differences in science c areers: the project access study. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press 1995 State Board of Governors. Sta te University System of Florida, 2005. Retrieved on September 28, 2006 from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/profiles/2101/ T ack MW, Patitu C L. Faculty job satisfaction: w omen and minorities in peril (EDO HE -92 -4), ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Washington DC 1992.

PAGE 212

212 Tijdens KG. Gendered structures in o rganiz ations. gender and organizations changing p erspectives: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings (pp. 153169). Amersterdam: VU University Press 1994 Trotman CA Haden NK, Hendricson W. Does the dental school work environment p romote successful academic c areers? Journal of Dental Education 2007; 71(6):71325. Trower C A. Reluctantly, your faculty. Trusteeship 2000; 8(4): 8 12. Tuckma n B W. Conducting educational r esearch. 5th Edition. Florence, Kentucky, Wad sworth Publishing, 1999 Twale DJ Jeli nek S M. Proteges and mentors: mentoring experiences of women student affairs p rofessionals. NASPA Journal 1996; 33(3) :20317. Waltm an, J.A. Mentoring and academic success for women faculty members at research u niversities. Doctoral Dis sertation, University of Michigan, 2001 (Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI: 3001063) Weaver RG, Chmar JE, Haden NK, Valachovic R W. Annual ADEA survey of dental school seniors: 2004 g raduating c lass. Journal of Dental Education 2005; 69(5) : 595613. Weaver RG, Haden NK Valach ovic R W. Annual ADEA survey of dental school seniors: 2001 graduating c lass. Journal of Dental Education 2001 a; 66(10) :120922. Weaver RG, Haden NK, Valachovic R W. Dental school vacant budgeted faculty positions: academic y ea r 200020 01. Journal of Dental Education 2001 b ; 65(11) : 1291 1302. Weaver RG, Chmar JE, Haden NK, Valachovic R W. Dental school vacant budgeted faculty positions: a cadem ic y ear 2003-200 4. Journal of Dental Education 2005 a ; 69(2) : 296-305. Weav er RG, Chmar J E, Haden NK Valach ovik,R W. Annual ADEA s urvey of dental school s eniors: 2004 graduating class. Journal of Dental Education 2005 b ; 68(4) : 595613. XLMiner Online Help Introduction to logistic regressione xample 2009 Retrieved on August 16, 2009 from http://www.resample.com/xlminer/help/Lreg/lreg_intro.htm Zerhouni EA Director, National Institutes of Health. Response to p osition paper: beyond bias and barriers: fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering, 2007. Retrieved on March 6, 2008 from http://info.adea.org/BDE/Printall.aspx

PAGE 213

213 Zinn LF. Supports and b arriers to teacher leadership: r eports of teach er leaders. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado, 1997.

PAGE 214

214 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sharon Cooper was born and raised in Louisville, Kentucky She is a registered dental hygienist and has been involved in academic dentistr y since 1981. Sharon graduated from the University of Louisville with a Certificate in Dental H ygiene in 1975, and a Bachelor of Science degree in Dental Sciences in 1979. She worked as a dental hygienist for five years in a private practice setting befo re leaving to pursue a career in academic dentistry. Armed with an educational grant from the Kellogg Foundation, Sharon entered the University of Kentucky where she earned a Master of Science d egree in Allied Health Education, Curriculum and Instruction. Upon graduation, Sharon took a teaching position with Santa Fe Community College, Dental Programs in Gainesville, Florida. During her eighteen years at Santa Fe, Sharon taught many clinical, preclinical, and didacti c courses, served as the academic coo rdinator for the dental hygiene program, and served as an advisor for the Santa Fe Community College chapter of the Student American Dental Hygiene Association. In 1990, Sharon returned to school to pursue a degr ee in psychology, graduating in 1993 with a Master of Science degree in Mental Health Counseling from Nova University Afterward, she taught courses in general psychology and health psychology for the Social Sciences Department at Santa Fe Community College. In 1997, Sharon was accepted into the doctoral program in Higher Education Administration at the University of Florida. In 1999, Sharon was hired by the University of Florida, College of Dentistry as faculty and to serve as Director of the Oral Health Maintenance Clinic. Sharon continues in that capacity today where she also serves as the Coordinator of Preventive Dentistry. She teaches pre-clinical, clinical, and didactic courses at the College of

PAGE 215

215 Dentistry and also participates in the c olleges Continuing Education Program as an instructor. She continues to serve as an adjunct faculty at Santa Fe College, teaching oral pathology, embryology and histology to dental hygiene students. In addition, she serves on the Santa Fe College Dental Programs Advisory Board. Sharon lives in Gainesvil le, and is mom to her children, Lane, Lindsay, and Logan. She is also the caregiver for her father, Arthur, who now lives with her