Higher education is becoming more competitive. This changing zeitgeist within academia characterized by focus on global rankings and becoming more market-driven pushes universities to demand more from the faculty. In effect, this increases what is asked of faculty members, from rapid institution of new degree programs, to increasing research output and extension services, without necessarily increasing their resources to meet these demands. Increasing demands in faculty functions (i.e., teaching, research, service) have been found to be associated with burnout (Dinibutun et al., 2020; Sabagh et al., 2018), especially during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Taylor & Frechette, 2022).
The pandemic exposed a lot of cracks in our system. In the midst of quickly shifting to remote modalities of teaching, research, and public service; accommodating demands from both students and administration; and, negotiating with the salience of sickness and death during the time of COVID-19, many faculty members struggled to stay afloat. It dawned on us that while there have been systems in place to take care of student wellbeing, those measures intended for faculty wellbeing were left wanting. For instance, while students have guidance services specialists, faculty members, especially in small constituent units, had to look for professionals outside the university to address their mental health concerns.
Without a doubt, there is a need to address faculty wellbeing issues in the University. A place to start would be to first examine how we understand wellbeing, which is often narrowly appreciated. Wellbeing encompasses being happy, healthy, and satisfied with life, which are influenced by both individual and environmental factors. It includes having a sense of meaning and a sense of connection, and the ability to manage stress. However, a lot of us talk about wellbeing as exclusively within the domain of the individual. This becomes a problem when we exclusively assign wellbeing within the province of the individual鈥攁nd delegate them to be solely responsible for it鈥攁nd remove any accountability from their environment. We usually talk about wellbeing in the University as something that is just in the mind, and that being happy and satisfied with your life is just a matter of perspective regardless of context. In fact, context plays a crucial role in wellbeing.
In the university context, five predictors have been identified to promote faculty wellbeing (Larson et al., 2019). One is chairperson support, which includes the manner of decision-making, how the chair sets priorities, how these priorities are being communicated to the faculty, how the chair evaluates their work, and how work is rewarded. Another is administration support (e.g., university president, chancellor, vice-chancellors, deans). Support for research and instruction, which may include institutional support (e.g., ease in procurement processes, ample research dissemination grants, timely release of research funds) and instrumental support (e.g., attention to staffing patterns, availability of safe and comfortable classrooms, clerical support) also impacts faculty wellbeing. In addition, departmental support and feedback processes are also vital to wellbeing. These include student evaluation mechanisms; evaluation standards; feedback and recognition on teaching, research, and public service work; and how the university, through its departments, supports work-life balance. Finally, support for promotion and tenure, which includes clarity of criteria and standards of evaluation, and the faculty member鈥檚 sense of upward mobility and professional growth within the university, also predicts faculty wellbeing.
These predictors point to a supportive university environment as a requirement for the promotion of faculty wellbeing. Decades of research on supportive behaviours (e.g., Cutrona, 1990; Rini & Dunkel Schetter, 2010) have prescribed that effective support needs to be responsiveness. Supportive behaviors need to address the recipient鈥檚 need for these behaviors to be effective. Help and support provided should match the quantity and quality of help needed. This also implies that not every action that is intended to support is actually supportive. A supportive university environment, then, is that which provides the faculty the resources to deal or cope with the challenges that they face, particularly those which are occupational in nature. At the very least, the university should not add to the demands of the job without providing resources to deal with these demands. Increasing job demands without the corresponding increase or improvement in job resources may lead to burnout (Mudrak et al., 2018).
These aforementioned factors may directly impact faculty wellbeing, but they may also influence core psychological needs of volitional autonomy, perceived competence, and perceived relatedness (Larson et al., 2019). What this means is that the university environment should be supportive of academic freedom, and should be protective of the safety of faculty members to think and act independently, and voice out (dissenting) opinions without fear of harassment or retribution (i.e., volitional autonomy). The university environment should be empowering and should promote a sense of control and mastery of their academic environment (i.e., perceived competence). The university environment should foster a sense of belongingness and collegiality (i.e., perceived relatedness). The satisfaction of these core psychological needs were found to predict wellbeing of faculty in higher education.
Wellbeing is also often discussed in relation to quality of life (QoL). To address faculty wellbeing, there may be a need to look into the different factors that contribute to QoL. These factors are adequate and fair compensation (e.g., sufficient income, income commensurate to amount and quality of work), safe and healthy working conditions (e.g., reasonable working hours in physically and psychologically safe environments), opportunities for continued growth and security (e.g., career development, faculty promotion, security of tenure), constitutionalism in the work organisation (e.g., academic freedom, right to due process), the social relevance in work life (e.g., the social relevance of teaching in the university), overall life space (e.g., reasonable work schedules, easy commute to work, availability of decent faculty housing), social integration and cohesiveness (e.g., having a sense of community, egalitarianism in the university), and human progress capabilities (e.g., being able to use skills and knowledge at work, having a sense of autonomy) (Mirkamali & Thani, 2011). Some of these factors overlap with the faculty wellbeing predictors presented earlier. However, these QoL factors highlight the unique importance of economic dimensions of wellbeing and the overall living conditions of faculty members as integral components of quality of life vis-a虁-vis wellbeing.
We also refer to the concept of kaginhawaan to represent wellbeing (Samaco-Zamora & Fernandez, 2016). Dimensions of kaginhawaan include financial independence, psycho-emotional wellbeing, and spirituality. In many Visayan languages, ginhawa (the root word of kaginhawaan) is synonymous with breath, and having the time and space to breathe provides relief. Does the University provide enough opportunity for its faculty to breathe?
The faculty is the lifeblood of the university. As such, it should make the wellbeing of its faculty resources a priority. The literature already provides a good starting point from which deeper conversations with corresponding actions may germinate. With 抖阴探探鈥檚 鈥渃ommitment to the freedom and welfare of all鈥� (抖阴探探, 2019), the University should start from home and institutionalize measures that protect the freedom and promote the welfare of its constituents, including the faculty. A way to start would be the creation of standing committees that safeguard academic freedom, provide safety and security, facilitate growth and upward mobility, and ensure that the university addresses issues of faculty welfare. It is important that the faculty member must still be at the forefront of taking care of their wellbeing. However, it is imperative that the university provides them with the resources to do this, especially for aspects of wellbeing connected with their functions as faculty members.
In matters concerning wellbeing, the faculty have often been left to fend for themselves. With the increasing demands of life in academia, and the changing discourse on mental health and welfare, the university should not let faculty wellbeing fall between the cracks.
Dr. Johnrev B. Guilaran is a 抖阴探探 Scientist and the Chairperson of the Division of Social Sciences in 抖阴探探 Visayas.
References
Cutrona, C. E. (1990). Stress and social support–In search of optimal matching. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 3鈥�14.
Dinibutun, S. R., Kuzey, C., & Dinc, M. S. (2020). The Effect of Organizational Climate on Faculty Burnout at State and Private Universities: A Comparative Analysis. SAGE Open, 10(4), 215824402097917.
Larson, L. M., Seipel, M. T., Shelley, M. C., Gahn, S. W., Ko, S. Y., Schenkenfelder, M., Rover, D. T., Schmittmann, B., & Heitmann, M. M. (2019). The Academic Environment and Faculty Well-Being: The Role of Psychological Needs. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(1), 167鈥�182.
Mirkamali, S. M., & Thani, F. N. (2011). A Study on the Quality of Work Life (QWL) among faculty members of University of Tehran(UT) and Sharif university of Technology (SUT). Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 179鈥�187.
Mudrak, J., Zabrodska, K., Kveton, P., Jelinek, M., Blatny, M., Solcova, I., & Machovcova, K. (2018). Occupational Well-being Among University Faculty: A Job Demands-Resources Model. Research in Higher Education, 59(3), 325鈥�348.
Rini, C., & Dunkel Schetter, C. (2010). The effectiveness of social support attempts in intimate relationships. In K. Sullivan & J. Davila (Eds.), Support processes in intimate relationships (pp. 26鈥�67). Oxford University Press.
Sabagh, Z., Hall, N. C., & Saroyan, A. (2018). Antecedents, correlates and consequences of faculty burnout. Educational Research, 60(2), 131鈥�156.
Samaco-Zamora, M. C. F., & Fernandez, K. T. G. (2016). A Grounded Theory of Filipino Wellness (Kaginhawaan). Psychological Studies, 61(4), 279鈥�287.
Taylor, D. G., & Frechette, M. (2022). The Impact of Workload, Productivity, and Social Support on Burnout Among Marketing Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Marketing Education, 44(2), 134鈥�148.
抖阴探探. (2019, November 28). 抖阴探探 Statement of the Philosophy of Education and Graduate Attributes. /wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Approved-抖阴探探-Statement-of-Philosophy-of-Education-and-Graduate-Attributes.pdf
This article was originally published in the first issue of 抖阴探探 Kalipunan, Official Publication of the Office of the Faculty Regent of the 抖阴探探.
View and read the 抖阴探探 Kalipunan by clicking this link: .
You may also download a copy from this link:
