Faculty salary equity in the College of Arts and Sciences at a regional mid-western university: an exploratory study.

Chowdhury, Mohammad I. ; Alshare, Khaled A. ; Slocombe, Thomas E. 等

INTRODUCTION

It is probably safe to say that few people decide to pursue an academic career because they want to earn a large salary. Most of them probably know that professors' salaries are modest, but they are willing to accept modest pay in exchange for an extraordinary opportunity to learn, create, and teach--activities that can be profoundly gratifying. Even among idealistic professors, however, money is important, not only in the absolute sense but also in comparison with other professors' salaries.

According to Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory, large salaries are necessary to avoid dissatisfaction (Schwalbe 2010). Like people employed in other jobs, professors are unhappy if they believe their salaries are unfair. Everything else being equal, men and women believe they should receive the same salary; professors with higher academic rank expect higher pay; persons with doctoral degrees expect more pay than people with lesser degrees; and those with more experience expect higher pay. Research has suggested that if employees believe they are paid unfairly, their morale and performance are likely to suffer (Schwalbe 2010; Vecchio, 1982).

The purpose of the present study is to explore factors that might impact faculty salaries in the College of Arts and Sciences at a public regional university in the mid-western United States. Additionally, it examines the current state of faculty salary equity issues such as gender equity, faculty-rank equity, doctoral-degree equity, and equity related to years of service. More specifically, the following research questions were formulated:

RQ1: What are the variables that influence faculty salaries?

RQ2: Are there significant differences in salaries between male and female faculty?

The paper is organized as follows: the first section presents a brief review of the literature to provide some background perspectives. The next section presents the research methods which includes sample and data collection and variables and statistical techniques. The third section reports the data analysis. In the fourth section, the results are presented. Finally, a discussion of the conclusions and future research are provided.

BACKGROUND PERSPECTIVES

Faculty salaries at colleges and universities have been the subject of continuing research for many years. This research has considered the effects of gender, faculty rank, years of experience, salary compression, and salary inversion. Salary compression is said to occur when junior professors receive salaries that are nearly as large as their senior colleagues. Salary inversion occurs when salaries paid to junior faculty members are larger than salaries paid to their senior colleagues. Colleges and universities have been said to be particularly strong advocates of avoiding inappropriate discrimination in human resource management, including salaries (Parkhouse, 1993). However, several studies have indicated there is room for improvement. For example, Ashraf (1996) found that between 1969 and 1989, faculty women were disadvantaged by wage discrimination, and this discrimination was increasing toward the end of this period. In 1999, Wagner concluded this wage disparity still existed. Faculty salaries have received regular attention in Academe, the bulletin of the American Association of University Professors. Its "Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, 2004-05" (2005, p. 1) says, "Overall, considering all full-time faculty at all types of institutions, women earn about 80 percent of what men earn."

Bellas (1992) suggested that although salary inequity studies show that women as faculty, on average, earn less than men within the same academic fields, but some part of the wage gap results from discrimination against individual women. Bellas (1994) study examined three factors for variation in faculty salaries of which one was the cultural devaluation of women and women's work besides labor market conditions and the characteristics of individual faculty and their work. Hampton et al (2000) found that female faculty salaries were more aligned with the salaries in the market, offsetting the salary benefit of male faculty. Fowler et al (2004) examined the situation of women faculty in MIT and what might help them in moving forward toward the goal of parity in compensation.

Faculty salary inequity related to seniority--salary compression and salary inversion-- was a focus of research by Brown and Woodbury (1998) that included data from a Big Ten university. Jennings and McLaughlin (1997) explained faculty salary compression as a situation in which junior faculty salaries are very close to the salaries of senior faculty and in some instances actually exceeded the salaries paid to faculty members with higher qualifications and greater experience. Gomez-Meija and Balkin (1987) recognized pay compression in business schools, its causes and consequences along with recommendations to alleviate the dissatisfaction from pay compression between entry level salaries and stagnant salaries for longer term high ranking employees. Bereman and Lengnick-Hall (1994) recognized salary compression in business schools as an important cause of feelings of pay inequity among faculty members. They also found varying degrees of salary compression across different business disciplines. Similarly, Moore, Newman, and Turnbull (1998) found that compression among economics faculty existed at nine state universities. Pfeffer and Langton (1993) found that salary compression and inversion had a negative effect on the work satisfaction, collaboration, and productivity of faculty members.

RESEARCH METHODS

Sample and Data Collection

The salary data and other relevant data were publicly available because the college is part of a public state-sponsored university and faculty salaries were published along with salaries for all the other state government employees. The sample included the 127 full-time faculty members of the College of Arts and Sciences. A few faculty members were excluded because of unique circumstances that caused them to be inappropriate for comparisons: Faculty members on phased retirement were excluded because they were working part time and had salaries based upon different criteria and the Chair of the Nursing Department was excluded because the salary for that position was paid by the local county hospital according to different parameters. The faculty salaries were based on a 9-month academic year. The salaries of administrators with 12month contracts were adjusted to a 9-month basis.

Variables and Statistical Techniques

SPSS statistical software was used to compute frequencies, means, and percentages. The Analysis-of-covariance (ANCOVA) model represented by equation (1) was used to study the salary equity among faculty members. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method was used to estimate the parameters of the model. For each faculty member, the following variables were used: salary, years of service to the university, academic degree (Ph.D. or master's degree), gender (male or female), professorial rank (full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or instructor), and academic department (art, biology, communication, English, mathematics, modern languages, music, nursing, physical science, social science, and sociology/anthropology).

[Y.sub.i] = [[beta].sub.0] + [[beta].sub.1] D+ [[beta].sub.2] G+ [[beta].sub.3] [R.sub.1] + [[beta].sub.4] [R.sub.2] + [[beta].sub.5] [R.sub.3] + [[beta].sub.6] [X.sub.i] + [[beta].sub.7] A+ [[beta].sub.8] B +[[beta].sub.9] C + [[beta].sub.10] E + [[beta].sub.11] M + [[beta].sub.12] ML + [[beta].sub.13] Mu+ [[beta].sub.14] N + [[beta].sub.15] PS + [[beta].sub.16] Soc + [[epsilon].sub.i] (1)

where [Y.sub.i] = annual salary of the ith individual.

D = 1 for an individual with a terminal degree (Ph.D./DBA/EDD/DMA/DM)

= 0 otherwise

G = 1 for a male faculty member

= 0 otherwise

[R.sub.1] = 1 for a full professor

= 0 otherwise

[R.sub.2] = 1 for an associate professor

= 0 otherwise

[R.sub.3] = 1 for an assistant professor

= 0 otherwise

[R.sub.1], [R.sub.2], and [R.sub.3] all equal zero for an instructor.

[X.sub.i] = years of service in the College of Arts and Sciences

A = 1 for a member of the Art Department

= 0 otherwise

B = 1 for a member of the Biology Department

= 0 otherwise

C = 1 for a member of the Communications Department

= 0 otherwise

E = 1 for a member of the English Department

= 0 otherwise

M = 1 for a member of the Mathematics Department

= 0 otherwise

ML = 1 for a member of the Modern Language Department

= 0 otherwise

Mu = 1 for a member of the Music Department

= 0 otherwise

Nu = 1 for a member of the Nursing Department

= 0 otherwise

PS = 1 for a member of the Physical Science Department

= 0 otherwise

Soc = 1 for a member of the Social Science Department

= 0 otherwise

A, B, C, E, M, ML, Mu, Nu, PS, and Soc are all equal to zero for a member of the Sociology and Anthropology Department (SocA).

[[epsilon].sub.i] = error term

The coefficient [[beta].sub.0] indicated the intercept for the average initial base salary of a female instructor with a Masters degree in the field of sociology and anthropology. Other things being equal, the coefficient [[beta].sub.1] represents the effect of a terminal degree on average salary. Similarly, other things being equal, the coefficient [[beta].sub.2] represents the average effect of gender on salary. The null hypothesis that there are no inequities in salary between male and female faculty members was represented by [[beta].sub.2] equal to zero. The model was used to test whether the salary functions for male and female faculty members had different intercepts.

The impact of ranks was tested using the coefficients [[beta].sub.3], [[beta].sub.4] and [[beta].sub.5]. The coefficient [[beta].sub.3] was associated with the full professor rank; [[beta].sub.4] was associated with the associate professor's rank; and [[beta].sub.5] was associated with the instructor rank. The impact of the number of years of service on salary level was tested using the coefficient [[beta].sub.6]. It was assumed that the relationship between mean salary and years of experience was the same for both sexes. The impact multipliers [[beta].sub.7], [[beta].sub.8], [[beta].sub.9], [[beta].sub.10], [[beta].sub.11], [[beta].sub.12], [[beta].sub.13], [[beta].sub.14], [[beta].sub.15] and [[beta].sub.16] were used to examine the influence of art, biology, communications, English, mathematics, modern languages, music, nursing, physical science, and social science.

One hundred seventy-six possible combinations of degree, gender, rank, service, and field can be derived from Equation 1. For example, a female instructor in sociology and anthropology with masters degree was be represented by:

[Y.sub.i] = [[beta].sub.0] + [[beta].sub.6] [X.sub.i] + [[epsilon].sub.i] (2)

And a male associate-professor in biology with a Ph.D. was represented by:

[Y.sub.i] = [[beta].sub.0] + [[beta].sub.1] + [[beta].sub.2] + [[beta].sub.4] [R.sub.2] + [[beta].sub.5] [X.sub.i] + [[beta].sub.8] B + [[epsilon].sub.i] (3)

DATA ANALYSIS

The sample included 84 men (66% of the sample) and 43 (34%) women, with salaries ranging from $26,522 to $81,082; the mean salary for the sample was $49,953, and the standard deviation was $9,446. The average salary of male faculty members was $51,821 with a standard deviation of $9525; for female faculty members, the average salary was $46,303 with a standard deviation of $8233. The characteristics of faculty members in terms of gender, terminal degree, and ranks are presented in Table 1.

Regarding academic credentials and faculty rank, the sample included 95 people with doctorates (75% of the sample) and 32 people (25%) whose highest degree was a master's degree. The rank of full professor was held by 24% of the sample, while 38% were associate professors, 32% were assistant professors, and 6% were instructors. The Art Department included 9 faculty members (7% of the sample); 13 (10%) were in Biology, 15 (12%) in Communication, 14 (11%) in English, 14 (11%) in Mathematics, 5 (4%) in Modern Languages, 13 (10%) in Music, 7 (5.5%) in Nursing, 16 (13%) in Physical Science, 14 (11%) in Social Science, and 7 (5.5%) in Sociology and Anthropology.

The mean length of service to the university was 12.5 years with a standard deviation of 9.66 years. The median number of years of service was 9.5 years. The service years ranged from less than 1 year to 45 years. Out of the 127 faculty members, 2 had more than 40 years of service, 7 had between 30 to 40 years of service, 12 had between 20 to 30 years of service, 43 had between 10 to 20 years of service, and 64 had served for more than 1 year but less than 10 years.

RESULTS

The results of the analysis of covariance model are presented in Tables 2 and 3. The variables in the model explained 79% of the variation in salaries. The parameter estimates, their corresponding standard errors, and t-statistics are presented in Table 3. The impact of multipliers relating to ranks and years of service were statistically significant at 5 percent level. The terminal degrees, and academic fields such as music were statistically significant. The impact of multiplier associated with terminal degree was significant at the p < 0.1 level. The coefficients associated with full, associate, and assistant professorship were relatively highly significant. The F value was significant and it indicated that the regression model did explain a significant proportion of the variation in salaries, i.e., the overall model was statistically significant.

The estimated average of the difference in salaries between males and females was only $386, and that number was statistically insignificant. This insignificant difference suggests that there was no salary inequity between males and females at this institution. On average, a female assistant professor without a doctoral degree is estimated to earn $40,248. With other variables held constant, a doctoral degree (Ph.D., DBA, Ed. D., or J.D.) increased a faculty member's salary by $2,747.

When an assistant professor was promoted to the rank of associate professor, the average increase in salary was $7,162 ($13,940-$6,778). This increase of $7,162 does not reflect a one time raise in salary in a year only because, in general, it takes several years to get promoted from an assistant professor rank to an associate professor rank. Each yearly increase (cost of living/inflation adjustment) combined with any merit pay increases over these years increases the salary of an assistant professor before he/she becomes an associate professor. Therefore, a significant portion of this raise of $7,162 accrues over a period of time. The same is the case when an associate professor gets promoted to the full professor rank. The promotion from associate professor to full professor was accompanied by a salary increase of $9,100 ($23,040-$13,940).

Based on the data, the average salaries of the full professor, compared to those salaries of associate and assistant professor, was higher approximately by $10,000 and $20,000, respectively. Additionally, the years of service was positively related to the salary as the regression results revealed. The above findings indicated that salary compression or inversion did not exist in the School of Arts and Sciences.

Eight pair-wise comparison tests of no difference in mean salaries between males and females were done. The results of those tests are presented in Table 4. The tests were based on gender (male and female), terminal degree (PhD and Masters), ranks (Full Professor, Associate professor, Assistant Professor, and Instructor), and length of service. The tests indicated no significant difference in salaries between males and females with Master's degree or full professorship or associate professorship or assistant professorship or instructorship. The difference in mean salaries between males and females with doctoral degrees was statistically significant. Salary difference due to gender based on length of service was statistically significant. Even though the pair-wise difference in mean salaries between males and females for the College of Arts and Sciences was significant, the regression model presented in Table 3 did not indicate that significant difference in salaries for men and women. The significant difference in salaries between men and women was due to rank, length of service, and doctoral degree. The corresponding degrees of association (correlation) between salaries and ranks, length of service, and doctoral degree were 0.855, 0.573, and 0.288, respectively. As shown in Table 5, the difference in salaries between men and women stemmed from the length of service in the departments of Art, English, Physical Science, and Social Science. The mean salaries of faculty members based on gender and discipline is presented in Table 5.

CONCLUSIONS

This study examined variables that affect faculty salaries in the College of Arts and Sciences at a Midwestern university. The results indicated that rank, doctoral degree, and years of service made a significant difference in salaries. The study found that the incremental impact of full-professorship was the highest, followed by associate professorship, assistant professorship, doctoral degree, and years of service. This study found no significant differences in salaries based on gender, inversion, or compression in salaries between men and women. The results of this exploratory study could be interpreted to suggest that some progress has been achieved in seeking salary equity between men and women, when rank, possession of a terminal degree and years of service are taken into account.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Even though the study had limitations such as using a sample from one university and using cross-sectional data, the findings of this study provide some opportunities for future research. For example, one possible future study could be including more public and private universities in the analysis. Another plausible future research project could be a comparison among different colleges within and across universities over a period of time.

REFERENCES

Ashraf, J. (1996). The influence of gender on faculty salaries in the United States, 1969-89. Applied Economics, 28, 857-858.

Bellas, M. L. (1992). The Effects of marital Status and wives' Employment on the Salaries of Faculty Men: The (House) wife Bonus, Gender and Society, 6, 609-22.

Bellas, M. L. (1994). Comparable worth in academia: The effects on faculty salaries of the sex composition and labor-market conditions of academic disciplines. American Sociological Review, 59 (6): 807.

Bereman, N. A., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1994). Pay compression at public universities: The business school experience. Public Personnel Management, 23, 469-480.

Brown, B. W., & Woodbury, S. A. (1998). Seniority, external labor markets, and faculty pay. Upjohn Institute Staff Working Paper 95-37. Retrieved October 5, 2005 from http://www.upjohn.org/publications/wp/95-37.pdf

Fowler, G., Arens, K., Gilbert, L.A., & Payne, S. M. (Fall 2004). Graphic Stories: Representing the Status of Female Faculty. Feminist Studies, College Park, 30 ( 3): 689-701.

Gomez-Meija, L.R., & Balkin, D.R. (1987). Pay Compression in Business Schools: Causes and consequences. Compensation and Benefits Review, 19(5): 43-55.

Hampton, M., Oyster, C., Pena L., Rodgers, P., & Tillman, J. (Nov/Dec 2000). Gender Inequality in Faculty Pay. Compensation and Benefits Review, 32 (6): 54-59.

Jennings, K. M., Jr., & McLaughlin, F. S. (Fall 1997). Measuring and correcting inversion in faculty salaries at public universities. Public Personnel Management, 26, 345-357.

Moore, W. J., Newman, R. J., & Turnbull, G. (1998). Do academic salaries decline with seniority? Journal of Labor Economics, 16, 352-366.

Parkhouse, G. C. (May 1993). So you want to teach in college? Across the Board, 30 (4): 11.

Pfeffer, J., & Langton, N. (1993). The effect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively: Evidence from college and university faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 382-407.

Schwalbe, K. (2010). Information Technology Project Management. Course Technology, Boston, MA. USA.

The bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (March/April 2005). Annual report on the economic status of the profession. [Special issue]. Academe, 91(2).

Vecchio, R. P. (1982). Predicting worker performance in inequitable settings. Academy of Management Review, 7, 103-110.

Wagner, D. K. (1999). Faculty salaries are up 3.6%, double the rate of inflation. Chronicle of Higher Education, A-16. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com

About the Authors:

Mohammad I. Chowdhury is a Professor in the Department of Business Administration and Education at Emporia State University. He teaches business statistics and quantitative methods. His areas of interest include decision sciences, econometrics, and economics.

Khaled Alshare is a Professor of Information Systems at Emporia State University. His teaching interests include database systems, system analysis and design, project management, MIS, and programming languages. His research interests include management information systems, systems development, end-user computing, cross-cultural studies, distance education, and data envelopment analysis (DEA).

Thomas E. Slocombe is an Associate professor in the Department of Business Administration and Education at Emporia State University. He teaches Organizational Behavior, Personnel /HR management, and Behavioral Aspect of Management.

Mohammad I. Chowdhury

Khaled A. Alshare

Thomas E. Slocombe

Emporia State University

Table 1
Faculty Member Characteristics in the College of Arts and Sciences

 Gender Highest Degree

Academic Department Male Female Doctorate Masters

Art (A) 7 2 2 7
Biology (B) 12 1 12 1
Communications 7 8 6 9
English (E) 7 7 10 4
Mathematics (M) 12 2 11 3
Modern Languages 3 2 5 0
(ML)
Music (Mu) 9 4 11 2
Nursing (Nu) 0 7 2 5
Physical Science (PS) 14 2 16 0
Social science (Soc) 8 6 14 0
Sociology and 5 2 6 1
Anthropology (Soca)
Total 84 43 95 32

 Ranks

 Full Associate Assist.
Academic Department Professor Prof. Prof.

Art (A) 3 1 5
Biology (B) 5 4 4
Communications 5 5 3
English (E) 4 5 2
Mathematics (M) 4 5 4
Modern Languages 0 2 3
(ML)
Music (Mu) 2 7 3
Nursing (Nu) 0 1 6
Physical Science (PS) 3 11 2
Social science (Soc) 4 3 7
Sociology and 0 4 2
Anthropology (Soca)
Total 30 48 41

Table 2
Analysis of Variance

 Sum of
Source DF Squares Mean Squares F value Significance

Model 16 8.86E+09 553728478.33 25.54 0.00
Error 110 2.38E+09 21674167.20
Total 126 1.12E+10

Model Summary

 Standard
 Adjusted Error of the D-W
R R Square R Square Estimate Statistic

0.888 0.788 0.757 4655.55 2.25

Table 3
Regression Analysis

 Prob >
 Parameter Standard T for Ho: [absolute
Variable DF Estimate Error Parameter = 0 value of T]

intercept 1 33470 2350 14.24 0.00
Gender 1 386.17 1042.99 0.37 0.712
Degree 1 2747.30 1464.18 1.87 0.063
R1 1 23040.35 2502.67 9.20 0.00
R2 1 13940.70 2212.02 6.30 0.00
R3 1 6778.56 2207.39 3.07 0.003
Years 1 136.04 56.37 2.41 0.017
A 1 2396.66 2320.93 1.03 0.30
B 1 -413.65 1782.43 -0.232 0.817
C 1 1589.19 1909.08 0.832 0.407
E 1 -1121.79 1810.80 -0.619 0.537
M 1 526.83 1749.86 0.301 0.764
ML 1 -3692.70 2441.72 -1.512 0.133
Mu 1 -3422.78 1767.51 -1.936 0.055
Nu 1 4025.54 2544.89 1.582 0.117
Sosc 1 -2466.57 1791.10 -1.377 0.171
Soca 1 -2426.73 2138.12 -1.135 0.259

Table 4
Test Results of the Null Hypothesis: No Difference between
Mean Salaries (Male Versus Female)

 Mean Number of
 Sex Salaries Variance observations

Gender Male (M) 51821 90726605 84
 Female (F) 46303 67794495 43

PhD degree M 53027 81668606 68
 F 47739 69817194 27

Masters degree M 46697 1.03E+08 16
 F 43879 58829617 16

Full professor M 61904 44141856 26
 F 62252.3 19638679 4

Associate Professor M 51194 24489208 34
 F 52248 1.37E+08 14

Assistant Professor M 43241 10196536 20
 F 42875 11768913 21

Years of Service M 14.52 101.77 84
 F 8.58 56.96 43

 P-value
 Critical S:
 Sex Z/t Value Significant

Gender Male (M) 3.38 1.96 0.0007 (S)
 Female (F)

PhD degree M 2.71 1.675 0.0089 (S)
 F

Masters degree M 0.887 1.701 0.38
 F

Full professor M -0.135 2.01 0.897
 F

Associate Professor M -0.566 1.96 0.571
 F

Assistant Professor M 0.353 1.685 0.726
 F

Years of Service M 3.73 1.96 0.0002 (S)
 F

Table 5
Mean Salaries of Faculty Members by Department and Highest Degree

 Mean Years of
 Mean Salary Service

Department Male Female Male Female

All Departments 51821 46303 14.52 8.58
Art 53310 44672 14.14 4
Biology 53015 53314 14 9
Communication 55644 48927 15.71 14.37
English 55588 42192 21.85 5.43
Mathematics 50160 64718 16.67 16
Modern Language 38780 46176 6.25 7.5
Music 42070 47911 10.33 9.75
Nursing NA 47210 NA 8.28
Physical Science 54479 44611 16 2
Social Science 52468 42700 13.12 5.67
Sociology & Anthropology 48403 36138 10.2 8.5

 Highest Degree (Mean Salary)

 Master's Doctorate

Department Male Female Male Female

All Departments 46697 43879 53027 47739
Art 54623 46344 45430 43000
Biology 44918 NA 53751 53314
Communication 47517 49665 66481 47698
English 35480 35578 58939 47154
Mathematics 37648 NA 54331 64718
Modern Language NA NA 38780 46167
Music 36000 41149 47328 50166
Nursing NA 44848 NA 53113
Physical Science NA NA 54479 44611
Social Science NA NA 52468 42700
Sociology & Anthropology NA 35277 48403 37000