To stay or not to stay: retention of Asian internationalfaculty in STEM fields

Janet H. Lawrence • Sergio Celis • Hee Sun Kim • Sarah Ketchen Lipson •

Ximeng Tong

Published online: 4 August 2013� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract The present study identifies characteristics of individuals and work settings that

influence Asian international faculty members’ intentions to continue their employment in

US research universities. Given the demand for researchers in science, technology, engi-

neering and mathematics fields (STEM), the higher rate of turnover among untenured

faculty, and the replacement costs associated with turnover in STEM, the sample is limited

to assistant professors employed in these areas. Multinomial regression analyses are

conducted to identify variables that ‘‘pull’’ and ‘‘push’’ uncertain faculty toward intentions

stay and leave their current institutions. The results suggest that faculty who are more

satisfied with time available for research and those who express stronger organizational

commitment are more likely to say they will stay. Those dissatisfied with the fairness of

work evaluations and believe tenure decisions are not merit-based, are more likely to say

they will leave.

Keywords International faculty � Faculty retention � STEM fields �United States

Introduction

Building human capital through international recruiting is an important strategy for

maintaining and extending university competitiveness (Altbach (2006); Cantwell 2011;

Finkelstein et al. 1998; Van de Bunt-Kokhus 2000). Within the US, supply and demand has

most profoundly influenced faculty hires in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math

J. H. Lawrence (&) � S. Celis � H. S. Kim � S. K. Lipson � X. TongCenter for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, School of Education,University of Michigan, 610 East University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USAe-mail: janlaw@umich.edu

S. Celise-mail: scelis@umich.edu

123

High Educ (2014) 67:511–531DOI 10.1007/s10734-013-9658-0

fields (STEM). Over 71 % of international faculty in the US are employed in natural

science and engineering fields and by doctoral institutions (Lin et al. 2009; Open Doors

2008; Schuster and Finkelstein 2006; Skachkova 2007). Since 1989, temporary visa

holders have accounted for most of the growth in earned doctorates in science and engi-

neering. In 2009, 83 % of the doctorates awarded to temporary visa holders were in STEM,

while 61 % of US citizens and permanent residents earned doctorates in these disciplines

(NSF 2010). Between 1999 and 2009, students originating from China, India, and South

Korea accounted for nearly half of the doctorates in science and engineering. In 2004,

about 33 % of full time tenure track faculty in STEM were foreign born and 43 % of these

faculty were Asian (NCES 2006).

A large segment of early career international faculty in the US are undecided about their

future employment plans (Kim et al. 2011c). Furthermore, the time leading up to the tenure

decision is a period of critical risk in the retention of all STEM faculty (Kaminski and

Geisler 2012). Half of those appointed in STEM depart within about eleven years of their

initial appointments—at substantial cost to their universities. It can take up to ten years for

an institution to recoup the economic losses and significant disruptions in research and

teaching programs that result when a faculty member decides to leave campus (Kaminski

and Geisler 2012). Yet, scant research focuses on issues related to the retention of inter-

national STEM faculty (Corley and Sabharwal 2007; Ehrenberg et al. 2003; Kim et al.

2011c; Lin et al. 2009). The present study seeks to address this gap by developing a more

nuanced understanding of the individual and workplace factors that shape voluntary

departure intentions among untenured Asian STEM faculty and providing valuable

information about changes in campus policies and practices that might reduce turnover.

Conceptual framework

The growing presence and significant contributions of international faculty have generated

interest in these scholars and their experiences at US colleges and universities. Researchers

have described their socio-demographic characteristics and work roles (Lin et al. 2009;

Schuster and Finkelstein 2006; Skachkova 2007); examined their productivity (Corley and

Sabharwal 2007; Kim et al. 2011a; Lin and Gao 2010; Mamiseishvilli 2010; Mamise-

ishvilli and Rosser 2010; Webber 2012); and assessed their work satisfaction (Lin et al.

2009; Mamiseishvilli 2010; Manrique and Manrique 1999; Seifert and Umbach 2008). The

collective findings indicate that compared to US citizens, a larger proportion of non-citizen

faculty are in tenure-track positions, have not yet been granted tenure (Lin et al. 2009), and

spend more time on research and less time on teaching (Corley and Sabharwal 2007;

Skachkova 2007). Although international faculty are often more productive in research

than their US counterparts (Mamiseishvilli and Rosser 2010; Kim et al. 2011a; Webber

2012), they report discrimination in the workplace (Manrique and Manrique 1999),

including exclusion from research networks (Skachkova 2007). They are also dissatisfied

with their collegial interactions (Thomas and Johnson 2004), resources, compensation, and

professional autonomy (Wells et al. 2007). Comparisons of foreign- and US- born faculty

working in STEM show the former group to be less satisfied with technological resources,

organizational decision-making, teaching support, workload, salary, benefits, opportunities

for advancement, intellectual challenges, and job security (Lin et al. 2009; Corley and

Sabharwal 2007). However, despite their apparent dissatisfaction with faculty life, little is

known about the career plans of international faculty, in particular their intentions to stay

or voluntarily separate from their current institutions.

512 High Educ (2014) 67:511–531

123

Two recent investigations of faculty mobility in the US (Kim et al. 2011b, c) compared

the turnover intentions of citizen and non-citizen faculty. Drawing on the Survey of

Doctoral Recipients (SDR) data, the first study found foreign-born non-naturalized citizens

who are tenured are likely to stay while those who are highly productive in research and

have held appointments for shorter periods of time are likely to leave academe and move to

industry. A follow-up inquiry utilized data from the Collaborative on Academic Careers in

Higher Education (COACHE) survey to further examine factors that shape departure

intentions. The results suggest that international faculty as a group are less certain of their

future plans and less likely than US faculty to remain on their campuses after achieving

tenure (Kim et al. 2011c). The strongest predictors of intentions to leave are overall

satisfaction with workplace conditions and institutional control. However, these studies

group faculty from several countries into one category (non-citizen) and neither study

identifies factors that distinguish between foreign-born faculty with clear and unclear plans

to remain with their current institutions, move to another campus, or pursue non-academic

positions.

In contrast to the scant attention given to turnover among international faculty, research

on the retention of US faculty is robust. In STEM, the estimated start up costs associated

with replacing a departing faculty member at research universities range from about

$300,000 for junior to over $700,000 for senior professors (Ehrenberg et al. 2003). Due in

part to these costs and the disruptions in curricula and research programs related to

turnover, the literature on voluntary departure intentions among US faculty is growing

(e.g., Daly and Dee 2006; Johnsrud and Rosser 2002; Kaminski; Manger and Eikeland

1990; Rosser 2004; Ryan et al. 2012; Smart 1990; Zhou and Volkwein 2004).

Intentions are important antecedents to employees’ voluntary turnover behavior and

explanations abound regarding how intentions form (Bluedorn 1982; Holtom et al. 2008;

Mueller and Price 1990; Tett and Meyer 1993). A line of inquiry that informs research on

faculty (e.g., Daly and Dee 2006; Matier 1990) draws on March and Simon’s theory of

organizational equilibrium (March and Simon 1958). These investigations focus on the

balance between the perceived ease of leaving and the desirability of leaving, identifying

factors internal (e.g., workplace facilities, salaries, institutional reputation) and external to

an organization that influence employees’ intentions to pursue new opportunities (Flowers

and Hughes 1973; Trevor 2001). Factors in the external environment that might foster

intentions to leave are both non-work related (e.g., family, community) and work-related

(e.g., opportunities for advancement). When ease of movement is high (e.g., offers of

employment have been extended) and the benefits of leaving exceed those of staying,

balance is presumably disrupted and a person will decide to leave. Frequently, aspects of

the workplace that individuals find to be dissatisfying are referred to as organizational

factors that ‘‘push’’ employees to depart, e.g., unsatisfying jobs create work-related stress

that people want to separate from. Features that induce people to stay are called ‘‘pull’’

factors, e.g., valued collegial relations make continued employment attractive (Griffeth and

Hom 1988; Koslowsky et al. 1988). Of course, influences external to an organization can

also affect the balance and ‘‘pull’’ an individual to change jobs (e.g., greater compensation,

better geographic location) or ‘‘push’’ an individual to stay (e.g., schools for children are

not as strong in the alternative community).

Another branch of scholarship that informs higher education inquiries into faculty

turnover builds on cognitive theories of motivation that assume individual expectations

influence the rational decision-making processes that culminate in behavioral intentions

(House et al. 1974; Steers et al. 2004). Vroom’s early (1964) application of expectancy

theory to workplace behavior has had a pervasive effect on voluntary turnover research.

High Educ (2014) 67:511–531 513

123

His model assumes that individuals are goal directed and undertake activities they believe

will result in the attainment of outcomes and rewards that they personally value. Vroom

proposes that people rationally evaluate work-related behaviors and engage in those that

they think they can complete successfully (expectancies), find attractive (affective orien-

tation), and believe lead to the attainment of valued outcomes (utility). Researchers have

expanded Vroom’s model, identifying individual and contextual factors that influence

expectancies, affective orientations, and utility estimates (Griffeth and Hom 1988; Hom

and Griffeth 1995; Shore et al. 1990; Somers 1995). Inquiries show, for example, that

expectancies are influenced by individuals’ socio-demographic backgrounds, skills, and

abilities as well as job characteristics such as role clarity, performance feedback, and

organizational climate (Abelson 1993; Mowday and Colwell 2003; Mitchell 1997; Pfeffer

and Davis-Blake 1992). Studies also indicate that workplace climate and structural features

of jobs (e.g., autonomy, pay, workload, credibility of reward systems, collegiality) impact

individuals’ affective orientations toward work role performance (e.g., job satisfaction)

(Currivan 1999; Dailey and Kirk 1992; Lee and Mowday 1987; Martin 1979; Mueller and

Price 1990; Porter and Lawler 1968).

Inquiries framed by expectancy theory often incorporate job satisfaction and organi-

zational commitment as key antecedents to voluntarily turnover intentions (Holtom et al.

2008). In their seminal work, Porter and Steers (1973) proposed that new employees hold

expectations about the structural features of their roles (e.g., degree of autonomy, clarity),

value certain features more than others (e.g., pay, peer support), and are aware of alter-

native employment opportunities in the external environment. When expectations and

values are not met, work role attraction declines (i.e., level of job satisfaction diminishes)

and individuals develop intentions to leave conditioned by their perceptions of employ-

ment options. Later, Mowday et al. (1982) and Price and Mueller (1986) introduced

organizational commitment and found it was both a more stable and stronger predictor of

voluntary turnover intentions than job satisfaction. Organizational commitment is an

individual’s sense of attachment to his or her place of employment (Meyer and Allen

1997). Although job satisfaction and organizational commitment are modeled as mediating

variables between the structural aspects of jobs and turnover intentions, researchers find

they do not always have the same effect (Currivan 1999). Studies show that changes in

working conditions lead to rapid shifts in job satisfaction whereas changes in organiza-

tional commitment happen gradually (Currivan 1999; Holtom et al. 2008). Consequently, a

person may be dissatisfied with their job and committed to their place of employment.

Citing findings that indicate individuals maintain their organizational commitment despite

job dissatisfaction, Scholl (1981) argues that commitment may be a ‘‘stabilizing force that

acts to maintain behavioral direction when expectancy/equity conditions are not met and

do not function’’ (page 593). He explains that decisions to leave that are motivated by job

dissatisfaction derive from a cost/benefit analysis, whereas commitment is normative and

membership is maintained out of adherence to a particular set of norms and/or a sense of

obligation to reciprocate for organizational support received. In contrast, Kramer (1974)

and (Eisenberger et al. 1990) argue that continuance behavior results from cost/benefit

analyses of the instrumental investments people have in their places of employment. They

conclude that individuals with longer tenure figure they will not realize a return on their

contributions (e.g., finances, lab development) unless they stay with an organization.

Studies of voluntary departure among faculty commonly model job satisfaction as a

predictor of turnover intentions. However, definitions of the construct vary. Some scholars

argue that satisfaction encompasses all aspects of work life and is best represented by

holistic indicators (Hagedorn 1996; Olsen and Near 1994). Others distinguish among

514 High Educ (2014) 67:511–531

123

different aspects of satisfaction along three dimensions: (1) organizational—resources,

leadership, collegial interactions, workload, and campus climate; (2) salaries and bene-

fits—services such as housing, childcare, healthcare, and salary; and (3) professional

development—mentoring, opportunities for advancement, performance reviews, and

autonomy (August and Waltman 2004; Hagedorn 1996; Johnsrud and Heck 1998; Johnsrud

and Rosser 2002; Rosser 2004; Smart 1990; Weimer 1985). Notwithstanding the varied

definitions, dissatisfaction with the following features of faculty work life is consistently

correlated with an intention to leave: workload, the tenure process, job autonomy, relations

with department chairs and colleagues, and compensation.

Faculty members regularly highlight workload as a source of job-related stress (Barnes

et al. 1998; Finkelstein et al. 1998; Olsen 1993). Non-tenured tenure track faculty in

research-intensive universities are particularly dissatisfied with teaching and service

assignments that detract from time available to conduct the research required for tenure

(Youn and Price 2009). Accompanying their concerns about workload are apprehensions

associated with the tenure process. In fact, discontent with the tenure process is among the

most frequently cited reasons for leaving campus prior to the tenure decision (Ambrose

et al. 2005). Dissatisfying aspects of the tenure process include: lack of transparency and

clarity (O’Meara 2002; Youn and Price 2009), unfair standards (Jackson 2004), incon-

sistent application of the process across candidates (Bronstein and Farnsworth 1998), a

lack of or ineffective mentoring (Austin and Rice 1998), limited opportunities for pro-

fessional and personal relationships with colleagues (Olsen and Sorcinelli 1992), and

irregular and inadequate performance feedback (Austin and Rice 1998). Job autonomy—a

sense of control over one’s program of research and teaching—is important to faculty at all

stages of their careers (Austin and Rice 1998). However, a recent study (Lawrence et al. in

press) indicates that dissatisfaction with professional autonomy is particularly distressing

to pre-tenure faculty in the sciences. Insufficient resources (Youn and Price 2009), lack of

collegiality (Manger and Eikeland 1990; Olsen and Sorcinelli 1992), poor compensation

(Matier 1990; Zhou and Volkwein 2004) and fragile relations with department chairs

(Ambrose et al. 2005) are also problematic during the probationary period leading up to the

tenure decision.

As regards organizational commitment, Daly and Dee (2006) found faculty members’

sense of psychological and instrumental attachment to a university (Neumann and Finaly-

Neumann 1990) has a stronger effect than job satisfaction on turnover intentions. Campus

commitment mediates the effects of background and workplace factors, reduces turnover

intentions, and constitutes a vector that attracts, or ‘‘pulls’’, individuals toward an institution.

The literature on turnover among untenured faculty further suggests that socio-demo-

graphic characteristics influence their decision-making. Women, members of underrepre-

sented groups, and those who are unmarried are more likely to leave their campuses prior

to the tenure decision, (Jayakumar et al. 2009; O’Meara 2002; Xu 2008; Zhou and Vol-

kwein 2004). Lawrence et al. (in press) found that several workplace factors that mediate

the effects of socio-demographic characteristics on perceptions of tenure review fairness

closely approximate those that result in departure intentions among early career faculty.

Among international faculty, being untenured and employed in academe for a short time

are key predictors of turnover intentions (Kim et al. 2011b).

In sum, research on voluntary departure among university faculty suggests their

intentions to leave or remain with a particular university are influenced by their skills,

values, workplace expectancies, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment along

with structural aspects of their roles. These intentions are also tempered by faculty

assessments of employment opportunities on other campuses or outside academe. Drawing

High Educ (2014) 67:511–531 515

123

on this body of work, the present study inquires into the voluntary turnover intentions of a

particular group of international faculty, untenured Asian faculty in STEM fields, during a

phase of their careers when the risk of departure is high (Kaminski and Geisler 2012).

While we recognize the importance of factors outside a university that shape intentions, we

focus on aspects of individuals’ work lives that their employing universities might ame-

liorate and thereby enhance retention. Furthermore, given the preponderance of interna-

tional faculty with uncertain career plans, we attend to those individuals who are undecided

and identify characteristics of the workplace that constitute influences that pull them

towards an intention to remain and push them towards an intention to leave.

The overall goal of the present study is to identify those factors that differentiate pre-

tenure Asian STEM faculty who are uncertain about their future employment from their

counterparts with clear intentions to continue or voluntarily stop working on their current

campuses. The questions that guide our analysis are:

• What socio-demographic characteristics predispose untenured STEM faculty members

to express intentions to leave and stay?

• Do perceptions of and satisfaction with particular features of their work settings and

organizational commitment influence Asian international STEM faculty turnover

intentions?

Methods

Data and sample

We employ survey data collected between 2005 and 2009 by the Collaborative on Aca-

demic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) based at the Harvard Graduate School of

Education. In response to hiring and turnover costs and persistent challenges in diversi-

fying the academy, the COACHE survey was designed to assess untenured faculty job

satisfaction and experiences in several areas deemed critical to their success and retention

(COACHE 2008). The survey instrument gathers faculty background information and

faculty perceptions of and satisfaction with their work place. The 2005–2009 COACHE

surveys were administered to more than 15,000 faculty members at a wide array of col-

leges and universities throughout the US

For the purpose of this study, we limit our sample to 347 faculty who self-report their

race as Asian and indicate they are not US citizens,1 hold tenure track appointments but are

untenured, and are employed full time in STEM fields at Carnegie Research Universities—

Very High Research Activity (http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions).

We concentrate on this subgroup because the highest proportion of international faculty in

STEM come to the US from Asia (Wells et al. 2007; Xu 2008) and are employed by this

subset of research universities (Open Doors 2008). Limiting our analyses in this way

1 We utilized responses to two survey items to select our sample. One item asked respondents, ‘‘What isyour race?’’ and presented them with a list of possible groups. We included those respondents who selectedthe Asian, Asian-American, Asian-Canadian, or Pacific Islander option that defined this group as: ‘‘A personhaving origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, or the Indiansubcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, Guam, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, thePhilippine Islands, and Samoa.’’ A second item asked respondents to indicate if they were US citizens, non-US citizens, or (decline to answer. We included only individuals who identified themselves as Asian, Asian-American, Asian-Canadian, or Pacific Islander and non-US citizens.

516 High Educ (2014) 67:511–531

123

responds to calls for more fine grained exploration into the concerns of particular national

groups (Wells et al. 2007; Xu 2008) and also minimizes variations in the international job

market that exert markedly different influences based on academic discipline and insti-

tutional type (Kim et al. 2011b). Furthermore, the literature suggests pre- and post-tenure

faculty face different pressures (e.g., Webber 2012) and that turnover is highest within the

former faculty subgroup (Kim et al. 2011a; Kaminskin and Geisler 2012).

Measures

Our outcome variable is faculty intentions to remain with their current universities or to

voluntarily seek other employment. The COACHE survey asks respondents the following

question: ‘‘Assuming you achieve tenure, how long do you plan to remain at your insti-

tution?’’ The response categories are: ‘‘For the rest of my career’’, ‘‘For the foreseeable

future’’, ‘‘No more than 5 years after earning tenure’’, ‘‘I haven’t thought that far ahead’’,

‘‘Not applicable’’, and ‘‘Decline to answer’’. We include in our analysis only those indi-

viduals who selected one of the first four options recoded as follows: (1) those who intend

to stay at their present institutions for the foreseeable future or for rest of their careers

(faculty who intend to stay), (2) those who intend to stay for no more than 5 years after

earning tenure (faculty who intend to leave), and (3) those who haven’t thought that far

ahead (uncertain faculty).

We assess the impact of four constructs that previous research indicates have an impact

on faculty intentions to leave or remain at their current campus: individual socio-demo-

graphic characteristics, workplace factors, job satisfaction, and organizational commit-

ment. The socio-demographic variables include attributes that shape perceptions of the

workplace and job satisfaction: gender (e.g., August and Waltman 2004; Johnsrud and

Rosser 2002), marital status (e.g., O’Meara and Campbell 2011), and years at the insti-

tution (Lawrence et al. in press). Workplace factors account for features that are partic-

ularly salient to pre-tenure and international faculty and that prior investigations suggest

may ‘‘push’’ them toward a decision to leave campus. Respondents’ perceptions of the

consistency of messages they receive from their senior colleagues about tenure require-

ments and their beliefs about whether or not decisions are based on performance (e.g.,

Ambrose et al. 2005). Our job satisfaction measures take into account structural features of

faculty roles that are particularly important to early career and international academics:

time available to conduct research (e.g., Youn and Price 2009), the fairness of supervisors’

work performance (e.g., Bronstein and Farnsworth 1998), compensation (e.g., Zhou and

Volkwein 2004), job autonomy (e.g., Austin and Rice 1998), resources for teaching and

research (e.g., Youn and Price 2009), and departmental collegiality (e.g., August and

Waltman 2004; Olsen and Sorcinelli 1992). The first three variables are proxied by

responses to single survey items whereas autonomy, resources and collegiality are repre-

sented by multiple item composite measures that were developed through a series of

exploratory principle component factor analyses. We created scales for each of the multi-

item variables by calculating the mean value of the items comprising each factor. Faculty

members’ organizational commitment is represented by responses to a single item indi-

cating the strength of agreement with the following statement: ‘‘If I could do it over, I

would again choose to work at this institution’’. This measure is frequently used to capture

faculty members’ psychological and instrumental attachments to their campuses.

(‘‘Appendix 1’’ includes variable definitions).

High Educ (2014) 67:511–531 517

123

Limitations

Constraints that follow from our sampling and from our measures must be acknowledged.

While our sample includes faculty from one specific geographic region, the experiences of

those from different nations likely vary and as others have noted, using citizenship as an

indicator of international status is not optimal (Kim et al. 2011b). By limiting our sample to

faculty from the STEM fields that work at research intensive universities, we can learn

more about a group that campuses seek to retain while controlling for key climate and

resource factors. The latter decision constrains the kinds of statistical analyses we are able

to conduct because the sample size is small and we can only generalize to this faculty

subgroup. However, our sample size of Asian faculty is sufficient for the models estimated

in this study Long (1997).

The item used to create our outcome variable asks respondents about their intentions to

stay where they are, assuming they achieve tenure. Consequently, faculty responses reflect

both what they think their chances of achieving tenure are and how long they think they

will remain with a university. It is important to recognize that most faculty retention

studies do not add the tenure qualifier and use only the intention to remain at their current

institution as the outcome. In addition, the survey did not gather data on individual pro-

ductivity or distribution of effort, two factors that may influence faculty estimates of their

chances of gaining tenure, nor did it collect information on faculty members’ perceptions

of positions available within their fields or job offers received, critical factors that may

affect estimates of their chances of obtaining another position within or outside academe.

Analysis

Since our dependent variable is nominal and has three possible outcomes (uncertainty,

intend to stay, and intend to leave), we use multinomial logistic regression (Long 1997) to

identify socio-demographic characteristics and work conditions that differentiate unde-

cided faculty from those who plan to stay after achieving tenure and those who plan to

leave. In total, we estimate three multinomial regression models. The first includes indi-

vidual socio-demographic characteristics and workplace factors. The second model adds

the job satisfaction variables, and the full model adds the organizational commitment

measure. To illustrate better the effects of variables on faculty intentions, we also report

odds ratios and predicted probabilities for ones that were significant in the multinomial

logistic regressions. For this analysis, we use listwise deletion of missing values to obtain

comparable estimators across outcomes (Long and Freese 2005), reducing our sample to

203 usable cases.

Results

The greatest portions of the sample are uncertain (n = 132) or intend to stay (n = 131) and

the smallest intends to leave (n = 23). Most are male (76 %) and married (89 %), with no

significant differences across the three intention subgroups. However, there are differences

in terms of time spent at their current institutions and those who intend to leave have been

with their universities for longer periods (mean = 3.61 years) than uncertain faculty

(mean = 2.46) and those who intend to stay (mean = 2.87). Comparisons of workplace

perceptions and job satisfaction indicate differences by reported intentions. On average,

faculty who say they will stay have more positive workplace perceptions, greater work

518 High Educ (2014) 67:511–531

123

satisfaction and organizational commitment than uncertain faculty and faculty who say

they will leave. (Descriptive statistics for the total sample are shown in Table 1).

The likelihood-ratio tests indicate that the full multinomial regression model best fits the

data (lr Chi squared = 108.10, p \ 0.001). The results for the full model are displayed in

Table 2. The two columns capture differences between faculty respondents who have

developed intentions and those who are uncertain (‘‘haven’t thought that far ahead’’). In our

discussion of results, we assume variables that differentiate between uncertain faculty and

those who plan to leave constitute factors that may ‘‘push’’ individuals in the latter group

toward departure intentions. Variables that distinguish uncertain faculty from faculty who

plan to stay constitute factors that may ‘‘pull’’ them toward continuance intentions. A

significant variable in the Intend to Leave column increases the odds a person plans to leave

relative to those who are undecided. A significant variable in the Intend to Stay column

increases the odds a person will remain relative to those who are undecided. (Pairwise

correlations among all variables used in our analyses are provided in ‘‘Appendix 2’’).

Years at the institution is the only socio-demographic characteristic that differentiates

uncertain faculty from those who intend to stay and leave. The results suggest those who

have been employed for longer periods of time have developed clear intentions to either

stay (b = 0.57, p \ 0.05) or leave (b = 0.30, p \ 0.05).

Beliefs about and satisfaction with campus policies, practices and resources appear to

either ‘‘push’’ faculty toward turnover intentions or ‘‘pull’’ them toward continuance

intentions. Faculty members who do not think tenure reviews are based on performance

(b = -1.25, p \ 0.05) and who perceive their supervisors evaluate their work unfairly

Table 1 Descriptive statistics by faculty intentions

Intendto leave

Uncertainfaculty

Intendto stay

All faculty

Individual characteristics

Gender (1 = female) 0.26 (0.45) 0.23 (0.42) 0.24 (0.43) 0.24 (0.43)

Married (1 = yes) 0.78 (0.42) 0.89 (0.31) 0.94 (0.24) 0.89 (0.31)

Years working at institution*** 3.61 (1.70) 2.46 (1.38) 2.87 (1.43) 2.73 (1.49)

Work place perceptions

Consistency of tenure messages*** 2.44 (1.50) 3.29 (1.22) 3.69 (1.16) 3.40 (1.26)

Merit-based decisions*** 2.59 (1.40) 3.87 (0.99) 4.31 (0.85) 3.94 (1.09)

Work satisfaction

Autonomy*** 3.55 (0.99) 4.07 (0.67) 4.33 (0.58) 4.09 (0.72)

Resources*** 2.86 (1.07) 3.53 (0.78) 3.91 (0.69) 3.59 (0.83)

Time to conduct research*** 2.83 (1.34) 3.43 (1.11) 3.93 (0.93) 3.62 (1.08)

Compensation*** 2.22 (1.04) 3.12 (1.10) 3.67 (0.95) 3.23 (1.13)

Evaluation fairness*** 2.28 (1.32) 3.84 (0.92) 4.31 (0.78) 3.88 (1.05)

Collegiality*** 2.68 (1.23) 3.42 (0.99) 3.75 (0.99) 3.48 (1.04)

Organizational commitment*** 2.68 (1.09) 3.67 (1.00) 4.39 (0.76) 3.87 (1.04)

Observations 23 132 131 347

This table summarizes the means and standard deviations (in parenthesis) of independent variables byfaculty intentions to stay and the entire sample

* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01, *** p \ 0.001. Asterisks indicate there is at least one statistically significantdifference among the three group means (Intend to leave, Uncertain faculty, Intend to stay) as determined byan overall ANOVA test

High Educ (2014) 67:511–531 519

123

(b = -1.32, p \ 0.01) are more likely to report they intend to leave. With each unit

decline in perceptions that tenure reviews are based on performance, a faculty member is

71 % more likely to report turnover intentions than uncertain intentions, holding all other

variables constant. Similarly, for each unit of decrease in satisfaction with evaluation

fairness, a faculty member is 73 % more likely to report intentions to leave than to be

uncertain. Individuals who are satisfied with their time to conduct research (b = 0.41,

p \ 0.05) say they are more likely than their undecided counterparts to stay. The odds of

reporting continuance intentions compared to being undecided are 1.52 times greater for

each unit of increase in faculty satisfaction with their time for research.

Organizational commitment or sense of attachment to a campus constitutes a strong

‘‘pull’’ to remain among this group of Asian STEM faculty. Respondents who perceive a

personal fit with their campuses (b = 0.73, p \ 0.01) are more likely to express intentions

to remain at their university. Compared to those who are undecided, the odds of a faculty

member reporting intentions to stay are 2.08 times greater for each unit of increase in

faculty agreement with the statement ‘‘If I could do it over, I would again choose to work at

this institution again.’’

To better understand the effects of the five significant variables identified in the mul-

tinomial regressions, we calculated the predicted impact of each one on the intentions of

Table 2 Multinomial regression—international Asian faculty intention to stay at the institution (n = 203)

Intend to leave versusuncertain faculty

Intend to stay versusuncertain faculty

B SE Oddsratio

B SE Oddsratio

Constant 2.40 2.22 -6.65** 1.52

Individual characteristics

Female -1.97 1.33 0.14 0.08 0.43 1.08

Married -2.43 1.30 0.09 0.20 0.60 1.21

Years at institution 0.57* 0.29 1.77 0.30* 0.12 1.35

Work place perceptions

Consistency of tenuremessages

0.35 0.54 1.41 -0.19 0.18 0.83

Merit-based decisions -1.25* 0.54 0.29 0.22 0.24 1.25

Work satisfaction

Autonomy 1.25 0.76 3.49 -0.20 0.34 0.81

Resources 1.40 0.63 1.15 -0.03 0.34 0.97

Time to conduct research -0.01 0.41 0.99 0.41* 0.19 1.52

Collegiality -0.13 0.44 0.88 -0.19 0.22 0.83

Compensation -0.39 0.44 0.68 0.29 0.19 1.34

Evaluation fairness -1.32** 0.47 0.27 0.39 0.25 1.48

Organizational commitment -0.04 0.54 0.96 0.73** 0.25 2.08

Log likelihood -133.26 -133.26 -133.26 -133.26

Df 24 24 24 24

LR Chi square 108.10*** 108.10*** 108.10*** 108.10***

* p \ 0.05, ** p \ 0.01, *** p \ 0.001

520 High Educ (2014) 67:511–531

123

our sampled faculty while holding constant the other explanatory variables at specific

values (for binary variables) or at their respective means (for continuous and ordinal

variables). The results clearly show that strong concerns about whether or not tenure

decisions are based primarily on performance contribute greatly to faculty intentions to

leave (p̂ ¼ 42 %). Similarly, strong dissatisfaction with how supervisors evaluate their

work ‘‘pushed’’ Asian international STEM faculty toward turnover intentions (p̂ ¼ 50 %).

On the other hand, strong satisfaction with their time to conduct research ‘‘pulled’’ indi-

viduals towards intentions to stay (p̂ ¼ 50 %). Furthermore, among those who agree

strongly with the statement, ‘‘If I could do it over, I would again choose to work at this

institution again’’, 66 % intend to stay. The results are displayed in Table 3.

Discussion

The growing percentage of non-citizens who earn doctoral degrees and then remain in the US

(Freeman 2006; Sana 2010), changes in immigration laws (Lowell 2001; Sana 2010), and the

desire of universities to diversify faculty perspectives all contribute to the growth in the

number of foreign-born faculty within the US professoriate (Schuster and Finkelstein 2006).

At the same time, globalization processes, such as the ranking of institutions (Bartell 2003;

Johnson 2006) and the rising number of research universities throughout the world promote

competition for highly skilled individuals (Altbach and Balan 2007). In STEM, especially,

the escalating costs associated with faculty recruitment and turnover prompt concerns about

retaining international scholars and heighten researchers’ interest in the career experiences

that foster turnover intentions among foreign-born faculty. Our study contributes in several

ways to this line of inquiry. We focus specifically on individuals born in Asian countries, the

largest segment of international faculty in STEM. We center attention on pre-tenure faculty, a

phase in academic careers when the rate of departure is high. Given the percentage of

untenured international faculty who are undecided about their career plans, we explicitly

consider the work place perspectives of this group and how they differ from those of col-

leagues who have developed clear intentions. Finally, by focusing on campus conditions that

may ‘‘push’’ individuals toward intentions to seek alternative employment, we are able to

identify policies and practices that might be altered to make a campus more attractive and

increase the chances international faculty will be retained.

As is the case in previous studies of US and international faculty (Johnsrud and Rossier

2002; Kim et al. 2011a; Smart 1990), Asian STEM faculty who report intentions to leave

are, in general, less satisfied with their work environments and less committed to their

campuses. They express the least satisfaction with their professional autonomy, time for

research (Austin and Rice 1998), collegiality with senior faculty (Norman et al. 2006;

Sorcinelli 1992), and resources (Youn and Price 2009). In our sample, individuals who

perceive their supervisors evaluate their work fairly as well as those who express the

greatest sense of attachment to their campuses and satisfaction with their compensation

intend to stay (Daly and Dee 2006; O’Meara 2002).

In keeping with what others have found (Kim et al. 2011a), a large segment of our

sample of Asian international faculty were uncertain about whether or not they would

remain with their university after gaining tenure. Although the results of this study are

preliminary, they suggest that compared to those who have formulated intentions, faculty

in the uncertain group are still assessing the fit between their expectations and actual work

place conditions. For example, whereas those who intend to leave express strong dissat-

isfaction with evaluations of their work, among those who are uncertain satisfaction with

High Educ (2014) 67:511–531 521

123

these evaluations ranges from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. This finding fits with

previous research in non-academic settings (Holtom et al. 2008) that indicate intentions

form as individuals accumulate more positive or negative experiences. However, the

findings also suggest that beliefs about and satisfaction with particular structural aspects of

jobs and workplace climate can lead to different intentions. For example, being dissatisfied

with personnel reviews increased the chances of leaving relative to being undecided

whereas satisfaction with practices related to time for research increased the odds of

staying relative to being undecided. Consistent with previous research (Daly and Dee

2006) individuals’ organizational commitment was the strongest predictor of their inten-

tions to remain at their current university. In the following sections, we highlight select

implications of these results for practice and research.

Table 3 Predicted probability (p̂) of faculty intentions by years at the institution, perceptions of merit-based decisions, satisfaction with time to conduct research and with evaluation fairness, and organizationalcommitment

Intend to leave Uncertain faculty Intend to Stay

Years at institution

1 year 0.00 0.27 0.72

4 years 0.02 0.43 0.54

7 years 0.07 0.23 0.70

Merit-based decisions

Strongly disagree 0.42 0.39 0.18

Somewhat disagree 0.17 0.53 0.30

Neither agree nor disagree 0.05 0.55 0.40

Somewhat agree 0.01 0.52 0.46

Strongly agree 0.00 0.47 0.52

Time to conduct research

Very dissatisfied 0.02 0.76 0.22

Dissatisfied 0.02 0.68 0.30

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0.02 0.59 0.40

Satisfied 0.01 0.49 0.50

Very satisfied 0.01 0.39 0.60

Evaluation fairness

Very dissatisfied 0.50 0.39 0.11

Dissatisfied 0.19 0.57 0.24

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0.05 0.59 0.36

Satisfied 0.01 0.52 0.47

Very satisfied 0.00 0.43 0.57

Organizational Commitment

Strongly disagree 0.03 0.88 0.09

Somewhat disagree 0.02 0.80 0.18

Neither agree nor disagree 0.02 0.67 0.30

Somewhat agree 0.01 0.51 0.48

Strongly agree 0.01 0.33 0.66

These values reflect faculty with the following characteristics: Male faculty, married, with 2.81 yearsworking at the institution (except when the predictor is years at the institution). Other regressors heldconstant at their respective means

522 High Educ (2014) 67:511–531

123

Implications for research

The findings support Kaminski and Geisler’s (2012) proposition that there is a critical

period between the third and fourth years of appointment when intentions to leave may

take shape. Respondents in our sample who say they plan to leave have been with their

institutions about three and one half years; on average, those who intend to stay have held

appointments for slightly less than three years. In keeping with previous research on

voluntary turnover (Jayakumar et al. 2009; Johnsrud and Rosser 2002), pre-tenure faculty

who were dissatisfied with aspects of their work environments that we expected would be

salient within this group were more likely to express intentions to leave compared to those

who were undecided. Individuals who reported intentions to leave were particularly con-

cerned about the fairness of supervisors’ job performance evaluations, whether or not

tenure decisions are merit-based, and time available for research. Those who were inclined

to voluntarily leave their campuses were typically in their third to fourth year of

appointment and the timing of data collection may have coincided with major reviews of

their performance (among US pre-tenure tenure track faculty these reviews usually occur at

the midpoint of the seven-year probationary period). Mobley (1982) elaborates the steps

that comprise the decision-making process that culminates in intentions to voluntarily

leave one’s current employment. He suggests that the process consists of a series of steps in

which job dissatisfaction leads to thoughts about quitting and a cost benefit analysis of

searching for a job. These steps are followed by comparisons of job options with present

employment and an intention to stay or quit. It could well be that supervisor reviews of

their work and perceptions of the tenure review process trigger particular withdrawal

cognitions (e.g., job dissatisfaction, estimated utility of departure) and plans to leave a

campus. Mobley’s work highlights the need for longitudinal studies of international faculty

to identify their concerns at different points in their careers, to find out if certain structural

features of their roles and aspects of workplace climate are particularly critical at different

career stages, and to see if these findings hold across subgroups of international faculty. In

the present study, for example, we would have liked to know if those who intend to leave

are actively seeking alternative positions and if they have received offers.

Among the variables that ‘‘pulled’’ faculty toward intentions to stay, organizational

commitment was particularly strong. Studies conducted in non-academic settings suggest

that organizational commitment develops over time (Currivan 1999) and can be a stabilizing

force when workplace expectations are not met (Scholl 1981). Our results tend to mirror these

findings. Asian STEM faculty who reported continuance intentions were more likely than

undecided faculty to have been on campus longer and although they expressed dissatisfaction

with select aspects of their jobs, they were more likely believe strongly that they would still

choose to work where they are. However, the regression results also support the more utili-

tarian interpretation (Eisenberger et al. 1990) that inertia occurs when people realize that they

need to remain in order to realize a return on their investments. For example, individuals may

decide that they need to stay with their current university in order to realize returns on the

investments they have made in their research (e.g., building a research team and lab

resources). Alternatively, intentions to remain may reflect a desire to reciprocate (Scholl

1981)—to give back to an organization that invested in them by providing resources to

support their research or, perhaps, by helping them become US citizens. Future researchers

should inquire further into how organizational commitment forms among international

faculty and moderates the impact of work place perceptions and socio-demographic char-

acteristics on their turnover intentions. Identifying the antecedents of organizational com-

mitment, such as the nature of their instrumental and social exchanges (Cohen 2007) with

High Educ (2014) 67:511–531 523

123

administrators on their campuses, would add to our understanding of the psychosocial pro-

cesses that shape international faculty plans to remain with their universities. In light of

previous research findings, we would postulate organizational commitment to be fostered by

trust in administrators, instrumental support for their work, and congruence of perceived

institutional and personal values around research (Lawrence et al. 2012).

Finally, given the limitations of our dataset, our analysis did not account for external

factors that individuals consider when developing their intentions. In light of the high

demand for individuals with STEM expertise, investigations that build on our study results

should take into account the employment opportunities faculty have both outside academe,

but within the US, and in their countries of origin. Matier’s (1990) research on faculty

turnover found, for example, that actual departure was most likely when job offers had

been made to an individual and the advantages of staying outweighed those associated with

leaving. National policy changes outside the US that are designed to recruit graduates

home constitute an important ‘‘pull’’ factor that deserves further attention. Since the early

1990s, the Korean government has been running the so-called ‘Brain Pool’ program aimed

at enabling local universities and government sponsored research institutes to hire overseas

talent (mostly Korean scientists and engineers) for short periods (Kim 2010). Although

these positions are temporary, many scientists and engineers have used the opportunity to

become acquainted with the Korean academy or research institutes and ultimately consider

permanent positions. In addition, the Korean government continues its efforts to support

organizations abroad to serve as important information channels that help Korean scientists

and engineers evaluate employment opportunities in country and enable Korean industry

and academia to keep track and recruit experts in science and engineering (Song 1997).

Over the past two decades China, too, has implemented a number of national-level

policies and programs to attract and retain overseas Chinese scholars (Cao 2008). Most of

these ambitious recruitment initiatives target tenured Chinese faculty who work in STEM

or STEM-related fields at internationally prestigious research universities (Cao 2008;

Zweig 2006), providing competitive salaries and special research support to encourage

candidates to go back to China. A few programs even allow scholars who hold tenured

professorships abroad to work in China part-time to maximize benefits from both positions

(Cao 2008). Inquiries indicate that these programs and policies have triggered interest

among Chinese academics in the US and other countries to return to China (Zweig 2006).

A key question, then, is how do opportunities fostered by such national policies and

practices affect the decision-making processes of international faculty.

However, studies should also attend to non-work related factors that influence inten-

tions. Research on international graduate students’ decisions (Lee and Kim 2010) suggests

that along with professional opportunities, early career faculty may assign weight to

familial responsibilities, social status, and patriotism—that these factors might ‘‘pull’’ them

towards home. It is also important to consider experiences in the communities surrounding

campuses that might ‘‘push’’ them to pursue other employment, for example how inter-

actions with immigration offices might contribute to faculty beliefs about distributive

justice in their work settings such as the equity of personnel decision-making.

Due in part, perhaps, to the composition of our sample, socio-demographic character-

istics did not emerge as key predictors of turnover intentions. Furthermore, the data set did

not include performance measures that are important, such as Webber’s (2012) finding that

faculty who seek other opportunities within academia may likely be those who are highly

productive in research. Studies in the future should account for this factor and others such

as the institutions from which international faculty graduate.

524 High Educ (2014) 67:511–531

123

Implications for practice

Prior studies of turnover intentions among international faculty have compared those who

intend to leave and stay and have not considered the perspectives of undecided faculty

(Kim et al. 2011b, c). Our comparisons of these two groups with undecided faculty

highlight policy and practice issues that campuses might ameliorate and reduce turnover.

The findings of the present study underscore the importance of perceived discrimination in

the workplace among international faculty (Manrique and Manrique 1999) and a need for

enhanced mentoring of junior colleagues within this group. Individuals who intend to leave

are significantly more negative than those who plan to stay in their beliefs about the

fairness of supervisors’ evaluations of their work and the extent to which tenure decisions

are merit-based. These results are in keeping with inquires indicating that pre-tenure

faculty are dissatisfied with the quality of performance feedback they receive (Lawrence

et al. in press) and that those who believe the tenure review is unfair decide to leave prior

to being reviewed (Ambrose et al. 2005). We suggest that institutional researchers work

with administrators to develop a better understanding of why these perceived inequities are

particularly salient at this time in the probationary period. In particular, they might identify

the reference groups consulted by international faculty as they cognitively construct their

understanding of the tenure process and learn if perceptions of performance review fairness

reflect cultural and linguistic differences between respondents and their supervisors. The

findings can be used to enhance mentoring of junior faculty by identifying and correcting

misunderstandings and help supervisors clearly communicate role expectations and per-

formance standards to international faculty. Meetings between administrators and groups

of junior tenure track faculty to elucidate the tenure review and decision criteria could also

be informed by these data and conducted in a way that permits individuals to pose

questions they may be uncomfortable asking in other contexts (e.g., annual reviews) and

helps ensure consistency in mentoring.

Although the impact on indecisive faculty was not as strong as perceived inequities in

personnel practices, satisfaction with the time available for research increased the attrac-

tiveness of remaining on campus. Given the difficulties associated with setting up labo-

ratories and gaining funding for research (Jackson 2004), it comes as no surprise that those

who express an intention to continue their current employment are also more pleased with

the resources at hand and colleagues with whom they might collaborate. There is a tenuous

balance that must be struck between offering sufficient time to establish promising research

programs and maintaining a reasonably long probationary period. Administrators and

policy advisory groups (e.g., American Council on Education) that have recommended

lengthening the probationary period understand this dilemma. While we do not have a

solution, our findings with regard to the effects of organizational commitment suggest that

faculty who believe their campuses recognize these challenges and provide them with

adequate time to develop resources may feel a kind of bond with the institution that

increases the odds they will remain on campus after gaining tenure. Furthermore, given

previous findings indicating international faculty believe they are excluded from research

networks (Skachkova 2007), department chairs should also monitor collaborations and find

ways to facilitate cooperation on the development of proposals.

Appendix 1

See Table 4.

High Educ (2014) 67:511–531 525

123

Appendix 2

See Table 5.

Table 4 Variable definitions

Variables Definitions

Individual characteristics

Gender 1 = female; 0 = male

Marital status 1 = married or partnered; 0 = single

Years at institution The number of years faculty had been working

in the institution; ranging from 0 to 7

Work place perceptions

Consistency of tenure messagesa A single-item measure reflects respondents’ agreement with the following

statement: ‘‘I have received consistent messages from senior colleagues about

the requirements for tenure’’

Merit-based decisionsa A single-item measure reflects respondents’ agreement with the following

statement: ‘‘In my opinion, tenure decisions are made primarily on

performance-based criteria rather than on non-performance’’

Work satisfaction

Time to conduct researchb A single-item measure reflects respondents satisfaction with the amount of time

they have to conduct research/produce creative work

Compensationb A single-item measure reflects respondents satisfaction with their compensation

(salary and benefits)

Evaluation fairnessb A single-item measure reflects respondents satisfaction with the fairness with

which immediate supervisor evaluates their work

Autonomyb,c

(Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.716)

A three-item measure reflects respondents’ overall satisfaction with the

autonomy in teaching and research. Specific items include:

(1) The degree of influence respondents have over the courses they teach (factor

score = 0.752)

(2) The discretion respondents have over the content of the courses they teach

(factor score = 0.762)

(3) The influence respondents have over the focus of their research/creative work

(factor score = 0.458)

Resourcesb c

(Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.803)

A four-item measure reflects respondents’ overall satisfaction with the resources

for teaching and research. Specific items include:

(1) the quality of facilities such as office, labs, and classrooms (factor

score = 0.652)

(2) the quality of research services (factor score = 0.778)

(3) the quality of teaching services (factor score = 0.694)

(4) the intellectual vitality of the senior colleagues in the department (factor

score = 0.657)

Collegialityb,c

(Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.884)

A three-item measure reflects respondents’ overall satisfaction with the

collegiality. Specific items include:

(1) The opportunities respondents have to collaborate with senior faculty (factor

score = 0.844)

(2) The amount of professional interaction respondents have with senior

colleagues in their department (factor score = 0.918)

(3) The amount of personal interaction respondents have with senior colleagues

in their department (factor score = 0.738)

Organizational commitmenta A single item indicating the strength of agreement with the following statement

‘‘If I could do it over, I would again choose to work at this institution’’

a Scale ranging from 1 ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 ‘‘strongly agree’’b Scale ranging from 1 ‘‘very dissatisfied’’ to 5 ‘‘very satisfied’’c Exploratory principle component factor analyses with varimax rotation were conducted. The scales for multi-item

variables were created by computing the mean value of the items comprising each factor

526 High Educ (2014) 67:511–531

123

Ta

ble

5P

airw

ise

corr

elat

ions

among

var

iable

sa

Mar

ried

Gen

der

(fem

ale)

Yea

rsat

inst

ituti

on

Consi

sten

t

mes

sages

Mer

it-

bas

ed

dec

isio

ns

Auto

nom

yR

esourc

esT

ime

to

rese

arch

Coll

e-

gia

lity

Com

pen

-

sati

on

Eval

.

fair

nes

s

Org

an.

com

mit

.

Uncl

ear

Inte

nt.

leav

e

Inte

nt.

stay

Mar

ried

1.0

0

Gen

der

(fem

ale)

-0.1

2*

1.0

0

Yea

rsat

inst

ituti

on

0.0

8-

0.0

11.0

0

Consi

sten

t

mes

sages

-0.0

1-

0.0

30.0

41.0

0

Mer

it-b

ased

dec

isio

ns

-0.0

2-

0.0

4-

0.1

2*

0.5

5***

1.0

0

Auto

nom

y0.1

7**

-0.0

2-

0.0

50.2

4***

0.4

5***

1.0

0

Res

ourc

es0.1

4*

-0.0

4-

0.1

4*

0.3

7***

0.4

7***

0.4

6***

1.0

0

Tim

eto

rese

arch

0.1

0-

0.0

9-

0.0

30.2

3***

0.2

8***

0.4

5***

0.3

8***

1.0

0

Coll

egia

lity

0.0

3-

0.1

1-

0.1

2*

0.3

3***

0.4

0***

0.3

7***

0.6

1***

0.3

3***

1.0

0

Com

pen

-

sati

on

0.0

2-

0.0

8-

0.2

0***

0.1

6**

0.3

8***

0.4

1***

0.4

7***

0.3

1***

0.3

4***

1.0

0

Eval

uat

ion

fair

nes

s

0.0

2-

0.0

7-

0.1

5*

0.3

6***

0.5

3***

0.5

1***

0.5

1***

0.1

9**

0.4

7***

0.4

2***

1.0

0

Org

an.

com

mit

.0.1

0-

0.0

1-

0.1

8**

0.4

1***

0.4

8***

0.4

0***

0.5

9***

0.3

3***

0.5

5***

0.4

8***

0.5

5***

1.0

0

Uncl

ear

-0.0

4-

0.0

2-

0.1

8**

-0.0

8-

0.0

8-

0.1

0-

0.1

3*

-0.1

5*

-0.0

8-

0.1

5*

-0.1

0-

0.2

3***

1.0

0

Inte

nti

on

to

leav

e

-0.1

2*

0.0

20.1

8**

-0.2

3***

-0.3

8***

-0.2

6***

-0.3

0***

-0.2

1***

-0.2

4***

-0.2

9***

-0.4

5***

-0.3

5***

-0.2

7***

1.0

0

Inte

nti

on

to

leav

e

0.1

10.0

10.0

80.2

1**

0.2

9***

0.2

5***

0.3

0***

0.2

7***

0.2

1***

0.3

1***

0.3

3***

0.4

2***

-0.8

5***

-0.2

7***

1.0

0***

aW

ete

sted

the

sever

ity

of

mult

icoll

inea

rity

by

esti

mat

ing

two

OL

Sre

gre

ssio

ns

wit

hth

edic

hoto

mous

var

iable

sin

tenti

on

tost

ayan

din

tenti

on

tole

ave

asdep

enden

tvar

iable

s.N

oex

pla

nat

ory

var

iable

had

aV

IFgre

ater

than

5,

indic

atin

gno

mult

icoll

inea

rity

issu

es

*p\

0.0

5,

**

p\

0.0

1,

***

p\

0.0

01

High Educ (2014) 67:511–531 527

123

References

Abelson, M. A. (1993). Turnover cultures. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 11,339–376.

Altbach, P. G. (2006). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. The NEA 2006Almanac of Higher Education. Washington, DC: NEA, 27–36.

Altbach, P., & Balan, J. (2007). World class worldwide: Transforming research universities in Asia andLatin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ambrose, S., Huston, T., & Norman, M. (2005). A qualitative method for assessing faculty satisfaction.Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 803–830.

August, L., & Waltman, J. (2004). Culture, climate and contribution: Career satisfaction among femalefaculty. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 177–192.

Austin, A., & Rice, E. (1998). Making tenure viable: Listening to early career faculty. The AmericanBehavioral Scientist, 41(5), 736–754.

Barnes, L., Agago, M., & Coombs, W. (1998). Effects of job-related stress on faculty intention to leaveacademia. Research in Higher Education, 39(4), 457–469.

Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. HigherEducation, 45(1), 43–70.

Bluedorn, A. (1982). The theories of turnover: Causes, effects, and meaning. In S. Bacharach (Ed.),Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 75–128). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Bronstein, P., & Farnsworth, L. (1998). Gender differences in faculty experiences of interpersonal climateand processes for advancement. Research in Higher Education, 39(5), 557–585.

Cantwell, B. (2011). Transnational mobility and international academic employment: gatekeeping in anacademic competition arena. Minerva, 49(4), 425–445.

Cao, C. (2008). China’s brain drain at the high end: why government policies have failed to attract first-rateacademics to return. Asian Population Studies, 4(3), 331–345.

Cohen, A. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization of organizationalcommitment. Human Resource Management Review, 17(3), 336–354.

Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education [COACHE]. (2008). COACHE highlights report2008. Cambridge: MA.

Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2007). Foreign born academic scientists and engineers: Producing more andgetting less than their US-born peers? Research in Higher Education, 48(8), 909–940.

Currivan, D. B. (1999). The causal order of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in models ofemployee turnover. Human Resource Management Review, 9(4), 495–524.

Dailey, R., & Kirk, D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction andintent to turnover. Human Relations, 45(3), 305–317.

Daly, C., & Dee, J. (2006). Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public universities. TheJournal of Higher Education, 77(5), 776–803.

Ehrenberg, R. G., Rizzo, M. R., & Jackson, G. H. (2003). Who bears the growing cost of science atuniversities? Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, Working Paper 35.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employeediligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59.

Finkelstein, M. J., Seal, R. K., & Schuster, J. H. (1998). The new academic generation: A profession intransformation. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press.

Flowers, V. S., & Hughes, C. L. (1973). Why employees stay. Harvard Business Review, 4, 49–60.Freeman, R. (2006). Does globalization of the scientific/engineering workforce threaten US economic

leadership? Innovation Policy and the Economy, 6(6), 123–157.Griffeth, R., & Hom, P. (1988). A comparison of different conceptualizations of perceived alternatives in

turnover research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(2), 103–111.Hagedorn, L. S. (1996). Wage equity and female faculty job satisfaction: The role of wage differentials in a

job satisfaction causal model. Research in Higher Education, 37, 569–598.Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T., & Lee, T. (2008). Turnover and retention research: A glance at the past, a closer

review of the present and a venture into the future. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1),231–274.

Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.House, R., Shapiro, H. J., & Wahba, M. (1974). Expectancy theory as a predictor of work behavior and

attitude: A re-evaluation of empirical evidence. Decision Sciences, 5(3), 481–506.Jackson, J. (2004). The story is not in the numbers: Academic socialization and diversifying the faculty.

Feminist Formations, 16(1), 172–185.

528 High Educ (2014) 67:511–531

123

Jayakumar, U., Howard, T., Allen, W., & Han, J. (2009). Racial privilege in the professoriate: An explo-ration of campus climate, retention, and satisfaction. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(5), 538–640.

Johnson, J.M. (2006). International mobility of doctoral recipients from US Universities. Presented at theCouncil of Graduate Schools Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.

Johnsrud, L. K., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Faculty worklife: Establishing benchmarks across groups. TheJournal of Higher Education, 39(5), 539–555.

Johnsrud, L., & Rosser, V. (2002). Faculty members’ morale and their intention to leave: A multilevelexplanation. Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 518–542.

Kaminski, D., & Geisler, C. (2012). Survival analysis of faculty retention in science and engineering bygender. Science, 335, 864–866.

Kim, S. (2010). From brain drain to brain competition: Changing opportunities and the career patterns ofUS-trained Korean academics. In American universities in a global market (pp. 335–369). Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Kim, D., Wolf-Wendel, L., & Twombly, S. (2011a). International faculty: Experiences of academic life andproductivity in US universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(6), 720–747.

Kim, D., Wolf-Wendel, L., & Twombly, S. (2011b). Longitudinal study of foreign-born faculty mobility. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Kim, D., Wolf-Wendel, L., & Twombly, S. (2011c). Similarities and differences in mobility for US andNon-US citizen faculty: Exploring the underlying motivations for why they leave. Presented at theAnnual Conference of the Association for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, Charlotte,North Carolina.

Koslowsky, M., Kluger, A. N., & Yinon, Y. (1988). Predicting behavior: Combining intention withinvestment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 102–106.

Kramer, M. (1974). Reality shock: Why nurses are leaving nursing. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby.Lawrence, J., Celis, S., & Ott, M. (in press). Is the tenure process fair: What faculty think. The Journal of

Higher Education.Lawrence, J., Ott, M., & Bell, A. (2012). Faculty organizational commitment and citizenship. Research in

Higher Education, 53(3), 325–352.Lee, J. J., & Kim, D. (2010). Brain gain or brain circulation? US doctoral recipients returning to South

Korea. Higher Education, 59(5), 627–643.Lee, T., & Mowday, R. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical investigation of Steers

and Mowday’s model of turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 30(4), 721–743.Lin, Z., & Gao, Y. (2010). A comparative study of refereed journal articles published by native and foreign-

born faculty in the US US-China. Education Review, 7(8), 78–86.Lin, Z., Pearce, R., & Wang, W. (2009). Imported talents: demographic characteristics, achievement and job

satisfaction of foreign born full time faculty in four-year American colleges. Higher Education, 57,703–721.

Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE.

Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2005). Regression models for categorical outcomes using stata (2nd ed.). CollegeStation, TX: Stata Press.

Lowell, B. L. (2001). Skilled temporary and permanent immigrants in the US. Population Research andPolicy Review, 20, 33–58.

Mamiseishvilli, K., & Rosser, V. (2010). International and citizen faculty in the United States: An exam-ination of their productivity at research universities. Research in Higher Education, 51, 88–107.

Mamiseishvilli, K. (2010). Foreign-born women faculty work roles and productivity at research universitiesin the United States. Higher Education, 60, 139–156.

Manger, T., & Eikeland, O. (1990). Factors predicting staff’s intentions to leave the university. HigherEducation, 19(3), 281–291.

Manrique, C. G., & Manrique, G. G. (1999). The multicultural or immigrant faculty in American society.Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Martin, T. (1979). A contextual model of employee turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal,

22(2), 313–324.Matier, M. W. (1990). Retaining faculty: A tale of two campuses. Research in Higher Education, 31, 39–60.Meyer, J. P., & Allen, J. N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative

commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–51.

High Educ (2014) 67:511–531 529

123

Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts. Research in Orga-nizational Behavior, 19, 57–94.

Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences and control. Reading: Addison Wesley.Mowday, R. T., & Colwell, K. A. (2003). Employee reactions to unfair outcomes in the workplace: The

contributions of Adams’ equity theory to understanding work motivation (pp. 65-82). In L. W. Porter,G. A. Bigley, & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (7th ed.). Irwin/McGraw-Hill: BurrRidge, IL.

Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organization linkages. New York: Academic Press.Mueller, C., & Price, J. (1990). Economic, psychological, and sociological determinants of voluntary

turnover. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(3), 321–336.National Center for Education Statistics (2006, May). 2004 National study of postsecondary faculty

(NSOPF:04) Retrieved July 17, 2011, from NCES website http://nces.ed.gov.National Science Foundation (December, 2010). Doctorate recipients from US Universities: 2009.

Arlington, VA. NSF11-306. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11306/theme1.cfm#2.Neumann, Y., & Finaly-Neumann, E. (1990). The reward-support framework and faculty commitment to

their university. Research in Higher Education, 31(1), 75–97.Norman, M., Ambrose, S., & Huston, T. (2006). Assessing and addressing faculty morale: Cultivating

consciousness, empathy, and empowerment. The Review of Higher Education, 29(3), 347–379.O’Meara, K. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. The Review of

Higher Education, 26(1), 57–80.O’Meara, K., & Campbell, C. (2011). Faculty sense of agency in decisions about work and family. The

Review of Higher Education, 54(3), 447–476.Olsen, D. (1993). Work satisfaction and stress in the first and third year of academic appointment. Journal of

Higher Education, 64, 453–471.Olsen, D., & Near, J. P. (1994). Role conflict and faculty satisfaction. The Review of Higher Education,

17(2), 179–195.Olsen, D., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (1992). The pretenure years: A longitudinal perspective. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, 50, 15–25.Open Doors (2008). Institute for International Education. Retrieved October10, 2012, from http://opendoors.

iienetwork.org/.Pfeffer, J., & Davis-Blake, D. (1992). Salary dispersion, location in the salary distribution, and turnover

among college administrators. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45, 753–763.Porter, L., & Lawler, E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood: Dorsey.Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and

absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151–176.Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield: Pitman.Rice, E. R., & Austin, A. E. (1988). Faculty morale: What exemplary colleges do right. Change, 20(3),

51–58.Rosser, V. (2004). Faculty members’ intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction.

Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 285–309.Rothblum, E. D. (1988). Leaving the ivory tower: Factors contributing to women’s voluntary resignation

from academia. Frontiers, 10(2), 14–17.Ryan, J. F., Healy, R., & Sullivan, J. (2012). Oh, won’t you stay? Predictors of faculty intent to leave a

public research university. Higher Education, 63, 421–437.Sana, M. (2010). Immigrants and natives in US science and engineering occupations, 1994–2006.

Demography, 47(3), 801–820.Schminke, M., Ambrose, M., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). The effect of organizational structure on perceptions

of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 294–304.Scholl, R. (1981). Differentiating organizational commitment from expectancy as a motivating force.

Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 589–599.Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and

careers. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Seifert, T., & Umbach, P. (2008). The effects of faculty demographic characteristics and disciplinary context

on dimensions of job satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 49, 357–381.Shore, L. M., Newton, L. A., & Thornton, G. C. (1990). Job and organizational attitudes in relation to

employee behavioral intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 57–67.Skachkova, P. (2007). Academic careers of immigrant women professors in the US. Higher Education, 53,

697–738.Smart, J. C. (1990). A causal model of faculty turnover intentions. Research in Higher Education, 31(5),

405–424.

530 High Educ (2014) 67:511–531

123

Somers, M. J. (1995). Organizational commitment, turnover, and absenteeism: An examination of direct andinteraction effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 49–58.

Song, H. (1997). From brain drain to reverse brain drain. Three decades of Korean experience. ScienceTechnology and Society, 2(2), 317–345.

Sorcinelli, M. D. (1992). New and junior faculty stress: Research and responses. New Directions forTeaching and Learning, 50, 27–40.

Steel, R., & Ovalle, N. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship betweenbehavioral intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 673–686.

Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). Introduction to special topic forum: The future ofwork motivation theory. The Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379–387.

Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1974). Motivation and work behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Tett, R., & Meyer, J. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover:

Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259–294.Thomas, J. M., & Johnson, B. J. (2004). Perspectives of international faculty members: Their experiences

and stories. Education and Society, 22(3), 47–64.Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the

prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 621–638.Van De Bunt-Kokhus, S. (2000). Going places: Social and legal aspects of international faculty mobility.

Higher Education in Europe, 25(1), 47–55.Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.Webber, K. L. (2012). Research productivity of foreign- and US-born faculty: differences by time on task.

Higher Education, 64, 709–729.Weimer, W. (1985). Why do faculty members leave a university? Research in Higher Education, 23,

270–278.Wells, R., Seifert, T., Park, S., Reed, E., & Umbach, P. D. (2007). Job satisfaction of international faculty in

US higher education. Journal of the Professoriate, 2(1), 5–32.Xu, Y. (2008). Faculty turnover: Discipline-specific attention is warranted. Research in Higher Education,

49(1), 40–61.Youn, T., & Price, T. (2009). Learning from the experience of others: The evolution of faculty tenure and

promotion rules in comprehensive institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(2), 204–237.Zhou, Y., & Volkwein, J. (2004). Examining the influences on faculty departure intentions: A comparison of

tenured versus nontenured faculty at research universities using NSOPF-99. Research in HigherEducation, 45(2), 139–176.

Zweig, D. (2006). Competing for talent: China’s strategies to reverse the brain drain. International LabourReview, 145(1–2), 65–90.

High Educ (2014) 67:511–531 531

123