Faculty at Work: Focus on Research, Scholarship, and Service

Within the framework of cognitive motivation theory, selected personal and environmental motivational variables for faculty in eight liberal arts and science departments from community colleges, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive colleges and universities, and research universities were regressed...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Research in higher education 1991-08, Vol.32 (4), p.385-413
Main Authors: Blackburn, Robert T., Bieber, Jeffery P., Lawrence, Janet H., Trautvetter, Lois
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic motivation
Biology
Chemistry
Cognitive Psychology
College Faculty
College instruction
Colleges
Community Colleges
English
Faculty Workload
Higher Education
History
Institutional Research
Mathematics
Motivation research
Outcome variables
Perception
Political Science
Psychology
Research Universities
Scholarship
Scholarship funds
School campuses
Self efficacy
Sociology
Teacher Characteristics
Teacher Motivation
Teacher Role
Universities
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Within the framework of cognitive motivation theory, selected personal and environmental motivational variables for faculty in eight liberal arts and science departments from community colleges, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive colleges and universities, and research universities were regressed against faculty allocation of work effort given to research, scholarship, and service. The data came from a 1988 national survey of faculty. Gender, (sociodemographic), quality of graduate school attended, career age, and rank (career); self-competence and self-efficacy regarding research, scholarship, and service and percent time prefer to give to research, scholarship, and service (self-valuations); and institutional preference, consensus and support, and colleague commitment to research, scholarship, and service (perception of the environment) were entered into regressions. R²s were generally strong (.64 for liberal arts-l institutions) and significant. For all institutional types, self-valuation (self-competence and -efficacy) motivators significantly accounted for the explained variance. Sociodemographic and career variables did not explain appreciable amounts of variance.
ISSN:0361-0365
1573-188X
DOI:10.1007/BF00992183