| |
Voluntary,
Non-Retirement Faculty Attrition Analysis of STEM
Departments at Marshall University
An evaluation of faculty
attrition was one aspect of the MU-ADVANCE Program’s
institutional self-study.
Over the last four
years, 50% of STEM faculty who left the university
(36 faculty in all) did so through retirement; 39%
left voluntarily; and 11% were not reappointed
(Table 1). During this time period, 5 women and 9
men from STEM departments voluntarily resigned. The
percentage of women among faculty leaving STEM
departments was 36%, exceeding the percent
population of female faculty (24%) for this time
period. This represents an average attrition rate of
6.23% per year (6.57% for women and 6.09% for men).
In
addition, all of the female faculty who elected to
leave Marshall were from two of the four STEM
colleges.
The attrition level for
STEM faculty relative to the number of new hires was
35%, while this value was only 22% for all MU
faculty since 2003 (Table 2). Also, 85% of the
voluntary attrition from the STEM departments was
among non-tenured professors. Their number of years
at Marshall averaged 1.33 (1.25 years for men and
1.5 years for women); therefore, pre-tenure faculty
who choose to leave Marshall primarily make their
decisions within the first 1-2 years.
This trend indicates the
importance of new faculty support during their
transition into academic careers.
A 2006 study by L.
August of The Center for the Education of Women at
the University of Michigan, entitled “Attrition
Among Female Tenure-Track Faculty”, reports that the
attrition rate for women was significantly greater
than that for men, and notes that the rate of
attrition drops with higher rank. The Michigan study
concludes that: “Retention is an outcome that
results from the institution’s ability to retain
valued faculty in conjunction with the valued
faculty member’s desire to remain in the
institution. Attrition is the outcome when this
intersection does not occur - either because the
individual wishes to leave or the institution is
unable to induce them to stay.” In the 2004 study
(Zhou and Volkwein), “Examining the Influences on
Faculty Departure Intentions”, non-tenured faculty
were reported to be more concerned with job
security, autonomy, and institutional effectiveness
than with their compensation. For non-tenured
faculty, workload (especially teaching and service
assignments) was a primary factor influencing job
satisfaction and intention to leave. Therefore to
facilitate retention, it is important for MU-ADVANCE
and Marshall to continue developing and implementing
programs to support faculty development and
networking for junior faculty.
MU-ADVANCE Climate
Survey question 26 asked the significance of several
factors that might influence why faculty leave the
university (Table 3). From the 90 respondents, there
were no significant differences between the
responses collected from female and male STEM
faculty, nor were there many differences when the
data was analyzed by rank (Table 4).
All faculty respondents
within all ranks listed salary considerations, heavy
teaching demands, isolation/lack of departmental
support, and time pressures as factors important in
their consideration to potentially leave the
university. While not significantly different, women
ranked heavy teaching, isolation/lack of
departmental support, and time pressures as more
relevant than their male colleagues.
Isolation is a common
problem throughout colleges and universities.
In fact,
according to
Beyond Bias and Barriers,
professional isolation is the third most common
reason for faculty attrition by both female and male
faculty.
This study demonstrates that:
-
The first
few years prove critical among new faculty
members as to whether or not they will remain at
Marshall.
-
Women at
Marshall appear to be leaving STEM disciplines
at a higher rate than men.
-
Exit interviews of
faculty who choose to leave would be valuable in
determining the causes of attrition.
In particular, these
interviews might raise issues about the hiring
process, promises made to new faculty, and how
well expectations among new faculty matched
reality.
-
Faculty networking and
support are vital to evading isolation, while
retaining junior faculty at Marshall.
References:
-
August L. (2006) Attrition
Among Female Tenure-Track Faculty. Paper
presented at:
Association for
Institutional Research, Chicago, IL
-
Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women
in Academic Science and Engineering, National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of
Engineering, and Institute of Medicine
(2007) Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the
Potential of Women in Academic Science and
Engineering. National Academies Press, p. 98
-
Zhou Y. and J.F. Volkwein
(2004)
Examining the Influences on
Faculty
Departure Intentions: A Comparison of Tenured
Versus Nontenured Faculty at Research
Universities UsingNSOPF-99.
Research in Higher Education
45 (2) March 2004
|
Table 1.
Voluntary non-retirement,
retirement/death, and termination attrition
of STEM faculty at Marshall, by gender. Data
is from academic years 2003/04-2006/07 for
all departments within the College of
Science, the College of Information
Technology and Engineering, the Biomedical
Science Departments within the School of
Medicine, and STEM-designated departments
within the College of Liberal Arts
(Anthropology/Sociology, Criminal Justice,
Geography, and Psychology).
|
|
|
Voluntary
|
Retirement/ Death
|
Non-Reappointment
|
|
|
Women
|
Men
|
Women
|
Men
|
Women
|
Men
|
|
AY
2003/04
|
-1
|
-1
|
0
|
-6
|
0
|
-1
|
|
AY
2004/05
|
-1
|
-1
|
-1
|
-5
|
-1
|
0
|
|
AY
2005/06
|
-1
|
-5
|
0
|
-2
|
0
|
-1
|
|
AY
2006/07
|
-2
|
-2
|
-1
|
-3
|
-1
|
0
|
|
Total
|
-5
|
-9
|
-2
|
-16
|
-2
|
-2
|
|
Source: Marshall
University Institutional Research, 2007
|
|
Table
2. Voluntary non-retirement, and termination
attrition of MU faculty hired between 2003
and 2006.
|
|
Year of hire
|
New probationary and tenured hires
|
New STEM hires
|
Faculty leaving the university
|
% attrition MU
|
STEM faculty leaving MU
|
% MU faculty
attrition
represented
by STEM
faculty
|
|
2003
|
20
|
10 (50%)
|
7
|
35%
|
2
|
29%
|
|
2004
|
25
|
8 (32%)
|
7
|
28%
|
2
|
29%
|
|
2005
|
28
|
8 (29%)
|
6
|
21%
|
2
|
33%
|
|
2006
|
35
|
10 (29%)
|
3
|
9%
|
2
|
67%
|
|
Total
|
108
|
36 (33%)
|
23
|
22%
|
8
|
35%
|
|
Table 3. Climate Survey
results, by gender, of STEM faculty, for
question 26: If you ever expect to leave MU,
how significant will the following factors
be in your decision?
P-values
compare differences between responses from
male and female faculty. N = 90.
|
|
|
Women
|
Men
|
P-value
|
|
e) salary considerations.
|
4.07
|
4.15
|
0.77
|
|
f) heavy teaching demands.
|
3.77
|
3.47
|
0.34
|
|
g) other time pressures.
|
3.32
|
3.07
|
0.42
|
|
h) isolation/lack of
departmental support.
|
3.04
|
2.87
|
0.63
|
|
c) changes in job
opportunities for spouse/ partner.
|
2.56
|
2.48
|
0.84
|
|
b) increases in
child/parental care responsibilities.
|
2.50
|
2.05
|
0.22
|
|
d) instance of
discrimination in the workplace.
|
2.42
|
2.04
|
0.22
|
|
a) increases in household
responsibilities.
|
2.04
|
1.94
|
0.78
|
|
Table 4. Climate Survey
results, by rank, of STEM faculty for
question 26: If you ever expect to leave MU,
how significant will the following factors
be in your decision?
** indicates a difference
of P
< 0.05 compared to the responses of the
assistant professors. *indicates a
difference of
P
< 0.1 compared to the responses of the
assistant professors. N = 90.
|
|
|
Assistant
|
Associate
|
Full
|
|
e) salary considerations.
|
4.24
|
4.40
|
3.76
|
|
f) heavy teaching demands.
|
3.72
|
3.90
|
3.12
|
|
g) other time pressures.
|
3.42
|
3.42
|
2.77*
|
|
h) isolation/lack of
departmental support.
|
2.83
|
3.22
|
2.78
|
|
c) changes in job
opportunities for spouse/partner.
|
2.57
|
2.58
|
2.36
|
|
d) instance of
discrimination in the workplace.
|
2.36
|
2.44
|
1.81*
|
|
b) increases in
child/parental care responsibilities.
|
2.35
|
1.85
|
2.12
|
|
a) increases in household
responsibilities.
|
2.35
|
1.44**
|
1.87
|
MU-ADVANCE Home
|
|