Socialization at the University: A Qualitative Investigation on the Role of Contextual Dynamics in the Socialization of Academics

Year 2019, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 272 - 301, 15.11.2019

Yaşar Kondakçı , Çiğdem Haser

https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2019.2.3

Cited By: 2

Abstract

This
study investigates the role of content, context and process variables in the
socialization of new faculty members. The study was designed as a
phenomenological study and utilized interview as the data collection technique.
A total number of 40 new faculty members working in 12 different public
universities in Turkey participated in the study. The results of the study
suggest that culture, power dynamics, reward and remuneration systems, social
interaction, role models, organizational trust and trust in top management as
contextual factors; knowledge sharing, networking and participation as process
factors playing role in the socialization of the new faculty members. When the
institutions provide the conditions for context and process factors, the new faculty
members express positive statements about their adaptation to the new work
setting while negative statements are evident in the opposite case. It is
argued that the context and process dynamics are critical in reaching affective
outcomes, which are basic to ensure productive behaviors (e.g., positive
attitudes toward work, high level of motivation, and job involvement) and
eliminating unproductive behaviors(e.g., turnover intentions).

Keywords

Faculty members, socialization, recruitment, higher education, qualitative research

References

• Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: a review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293-315. Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing next generation faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 95-122. Bogler, R., & Kremer-Hayon, L. (1999). The socialization of faculty members to university culture and norms. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23(1), 31-40. Boice, R. (1991). New faculty as teachers. The Journal of Higher Education, 52, 598-614. Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Brooks, F. C. (2010). Toward 'hybridised' faculty development for the twenty-first century: blending online communities of practice and face-to-face- meetings in instructional and professional support programmes. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(3), 261-170. Clark, B.R. (2000). Collegial entrepreneurialism in proactive universities: Lessons from Europe. Change, 32 (1), 10-19 Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organizational members. Academy of Management Review, 6, 309-318. Gaff, J. G. (2002). Disconnect between graduate education & faculty realities. Liberal Education, 88(3), 6-14. Hessler, K. (2006). Recruitment and retention of novice faculty. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(5), 150-154. Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764-791. Jex, S. M., & Britt, T.W. (2008). Organizational psychology: a scientist-practitioner approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray, J. P. (2008). New faculty members' perception of the academic work life Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17(1/2), 107-128. Newland, M. C., Newland, J.R., Steele, D.J., Lough, D.R., & McCurdy, F.A. (2003). Experience with a program of faculty development. Medical Teacher, 25(2), 207-209. Padilla, L. E. (2008). How Mexican faculty been trained? A national perspective and a case study. Higher Education, 56, 167-183. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics? Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Tang, L. T., & Chamberlain, M. (2003). Effects of rank, tenure, length of service, and institution on faculty attitudes toward research and teaching: The case of regional state universities. Journal of Education for Business, 103-110. Tierney, W.G.,& Rhoads, R.A. (1994). Enhancing promotion, tenure, and beyond: Faculty socialization as a cultural process (No. ED368321): ERIC Digest Report. Trowler, P., & Knight, P. T. (2000). Coming to know in higher education: theorising faculty entry to new work contexts. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(1), 27-42. Van Maanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization. Organizational Dynamics 7 (1), 18-36. Van Maanen, J., & Schein E.G. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.