Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

The Higher-Ed Organizational-Scholar Tension: How Scholarship Compatibility and the Alignment of Organizational and Faculty Skills, Values and Support Affects Scholar's Performance and Well-Being

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Scholars and institutions alike are concerned with academic productivity. Scholars not only further knowledge in their professional fields, they also bring visibility and prestige to themselves and their institutions, which in turn attracts research grants and more qualified faculty and graduate students. Many studies have been done on scholar productivity, and many of them focus on individual factors such as gender, marital status, and individual psychological characteristics. Also, a few studies are concerned about scholars' well-being. We propose a causal model that considers the compatibility of the scholarship dimensions valued by scholars and institutions and their academic alignment with actual institutional recognition and support. We test our causal model with data from a survey of 803 faculty participants. Our findings shed light on how the above academic factors affect not just academic productivity but also a scholar's well-being. Importantly, we show that academic alignment plays a crucial mediating role when predicting productivity and well-being. These results have important implications for university administrators who develop, and faculty who work under, policies designed to foster professional development and scholarship.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 68

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives

        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

        Interest in the problem of method biases has a long history in the behavioral sciences. Despite this, a comprehensive summary of the potential sources of method biases and how to control for them does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which method biases influence behavioral research results, identify potential sources of method biases, discuss the cognitive processes through which method biases influence responses to measures, evaluate the many different procedural and statistical techniques that can be used to control method biases, and provide recommendations for how to select appropriate procedural and statistical remedies for different types of research settings.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error

            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            1Latin American Studies Association (LASA) Pittsburgh, PA, USA
            2Business Administration, Carlow University Pittsburgh, PA, USA
            3Information Systems, Brigham Young University Provo, UT, USA
            4Organization, Behavior and Leadership, Antioch University Yellow Springs, OH, USA
            Author notes

            Edited by: Badri Bajaj, Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, India

            Reviewed by: Alessandra Tognazzo, University of Padua, Italy; Alexander Pundt, University of Mannheim, Germany

            *Correspondence: James Gaskin james.gaskin@ 123456byu.edu

            This article was submitted to Organizational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

            Contributors
            Journal
            Front Psychol
            Front Psychol
            Front. Psychol.
            Frontiers in Psychology
            Frontiers Media S.A.
            1664-1078
            13 April 2017
            2017
            : 8
            5390011 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00450
            Copyright © 2017 Pereyra-Rojas, Mu, Gaskin and Lingham.

            This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

            Counts
            Figures: 2, Tables: 6, Equations: 1, References: 69, Pages: 17, Words: 12218
            Categories
            Psychology
            Original Research

            Comments

            Comment on this article