研究型大学教职员工的还价:谁能得到,谁不能,以及产生还价的因素是什么?

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Higher Education Pub Date : 2024-05-07 DOI:10.1007/s10734-024-01234-w
Damani K. White-Lewis, KerryAnn O’Meara, Kiernan Mathews, Nicholas Havey
{"title":"研究型大学教职员工的还价:谁能得到,谁不能,以及产生还价的因素是什么?","authors":"Damani K. White-Lewis, KerryAnn O’Meara, Kiernan Mathews, Nicholas Havey","doi":"10.1007/s10734-024-01234-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In US higher education, faculty members may receive an outside offer of employment from an external organization, and then receive a corresponding counteroffer from their current institution. Counteroffers are written contracts made to individuals — either prematurely in anticipation of an outside offer, but most often after an outside offer — that outline improved salary, benefits, and/or other employment conditions with the hopes of retaining them. Though the norm of the “retention offer” is pervasive in the academy, in practice it can be much more nebulous, inefficient, discretionary, and inequitable. Few studies, however, empirically examine this process. In this study, we analyze quantitative institutional and survey data collected from 650 faculty by the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) to explore whether certain populations of faculty are more likely to receive counteroffers, and why. We found that women and racially minoritized scholars were less likely to receive counteroffers, and identified other factors that impact reception of counteroffers like faculty members’ desire to leave and their notification of leadership. We conclude by situating findings within extant research and offering implications for future research on counteroffers and their practice in faculty retention.</p>","PeriodicalId":48383,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Counteroffers for faculty at research universities: who gets them, who doesn’t, and what factors produce them?\",\"authors\":\"Damani K. White-Lewis, KerryAnn O’Meara, Kiernan Mathews, Nicholas Havey\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10734-024-01234-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In US higher education, faculty members may receive an outside offer of employment from an external organization, and then receive a corresponding counteroffer from their current institution. Counteroffers are written contracts made to individuals — either prematurely in anticipation of an outside offer, but most often after an outside offer — that outline improved salary, benefits, and/or other employment conditions with the hopes of retaining them. Though the norm of the “retention offer” is pervasive in the academy, in practice it can be much more nebulous, inefficient, discretionary, and inequitable. Few studies, however, empirically examine this process. In this study, we analyze quantitative institutional and survey data collected from 650 faculty by the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) to explore whether certain populations of faculty are more likely to receive counteroffers, and why. We found that women and racially minoritized scholars were less likely to receive counteroffers, and identified other factors that impact reception of counteroffers like faculty members’ desire to leave and their notification of leadership. We conclude by situating findings within extant research and offering implications for future research on counteroffers and their practice in faculty retention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48383,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Higher Education\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01234-w\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01234-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国高等教育中,教职员工可能会收到外部机构的聘用通知,然后又会收到现任机构的相应还聘通知。还价是指为挽留教职员工而与教职员工签订的书面合同,合同内容包括工资、福利和/或其他聘用条件的改善。虽然 "留用提议 "的规范在学术界普遍存在,但在实践中,它可能更加模糊、低效、随意和不公平。然而,很少有研究对这一过程进行实证研究。在本研究中,我们分析了高等教育学术职业合作组织(COACHE)从 650 名教职员工中收集的定量机构和调查数据,以探讨某些教职员工群体是否更有可能收到还聘通知,以及原因何在。我们发现,女性和少数种族学者收到还聘通知的可能性较低,并发现了影响还聘通知接收的其他因素,如教职员工的离职意愿和领导通知。最后,我们将研究结果与现有研究结合起来,并为今后研究还价及其在留住教职员工方面的实践提供启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Counteroffers for faculty at research universities: who gets them, who doesn’t, and what factors produce them?

In US higher education, faculty members may receive an outside offer of employment from an external organization, and then receive a corresponding counteroffer from their current institution. Counteroffers are written contracts made to individuals — either prematurely in anticipation of an outside offer, but most often after an outside offer — that outline improved salary, benefits, and/or other employment conditions with the hopes of retaining them. Though the norm of the “retention offer” is pervasive in the academy, in practice it can be much more nebulous, inefficient, discretionary, and inequitable. Few studies, however, empirically examine this process. In this study, we analyze quantitative institutional and survey data collected from 650 faculty by the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) to explore whether certain populations of faculty are more likely to receive counteroffers, and why. We found that women and racially minoritized scholars were less likely to receive counteroffers, and identified other factors that impact reception of counteroffers like faculty members’ desire to leave and their notification of leadership. We conclude by situating findings within extant research and offering implications for future research on counteroffers and their practice in faculty retention.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Higher Education
Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
12.00%
发文量
160
期刊介绍: Higher Education is recognised as the leading international journal of Higher Education studies, publishing twelve separate numbers each year. Since its establishment in 1972, Higher Education has followed educational developments throughout the world in universities, polytechnics, colleges, and vocational and education institutions. It has actively endeavoured to report on developments in both public and private Higher Education sectors. Contributions have come from leading scholars from different countries while articles have tackled the problems of teachers as well as students, and of planners as well as administrators. While each Higher Education system has its own distinctive features, common problems and issues are shared internationally by researchers, teachers and institutional leaders. Higher Education offers opportunities for exchange of research results, experience and insights, and provides a forum for ongoing discussion between experts. Higher Education publishes authoritative overview articles, comparative studies and analyses of particular problems or issues. All contributions are peer reviewed.
期刊最新文献
“Writing for English-medium publication is a journey to nowhere — no route and no tools”: Russian academics’ perceptions of the existing publication support The enigma of collegiality: collegiality frames and institutional logics in US higher education Navigating public goods: Chilean public universities and their transformative role in Latin America Exploring perceptions of public good(s), government, and global contributions in Japanese higher education: a phenomenographic approach The importance of international and national publications for promotion and the impact of recruitment policies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1