Push Factors for Mobility of Asian Female Foreign Faculties in the United States

• In Event: Navigating Power, Protest, and Mobility: Critical Perspectives on Faculty and Academics Roles Globally

Proposal

This study’s purpose was to quantitatively understand the institutional mobility intentions and job satisfaction of Asian Female Foreign Faculties (AFFFs) working in colleges and universities in the United States (U.S.). Considering the diversification of faculties in the U.S., previous studies analyzing foreign faculties in the U.S. focused on men; this can be explained from the macro perspective, which emphasizes Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), where men are dominant. However, this study focused on AFFFs, who comprise a triple minority in terms of race, nationality, and gender. AFFFs live with various forms of prejudice and discrimination in society as well as higher education in the U.S. (Hu & Chen, 2021; Kim, 2020). To the best of the author’s knowledge, no studies have quantitatively clarified AFFFs' institutional mobility intentions and job satisfaction, probably because they form a small proportion of U.S. faculty as .76% in 2004 NSOPF:04. However, they could have a significant impact on the internationalization of universities in their countries of origin, especially because of their first-hand experience with different educational and research environments and research networks, as compared to their colleagues who studied domestically. Although this study’s institutional mobility varies—mobility in academic institutions or industries in and out of the U.S.—it could include return mobility to universities in the country of origin.
Several theories exist on institutional mobility and job satisfaction in universities. According to Hagedorn (2000), faculties’ job satisfaction with their profession can be explained through both mediators and triggers. A complex relationship may exist among mediators, triggers, and satisfaction. According to Lawrence et al. (2014), faculties’ institutional mobility is explained by multiple theories, including the organizational equilibrium theory, expectations theory, and cognitive theory of motivation. In the organizational equilibrium theory, mobility is chosen when the gain from mobility is greater than that from continuing to work. There are gender differences in job satisfaction among faculties. Female faculties are less satisfied than their male counterparts (Tang & Talpade, 1999) owing to their lower wages, which also affect their job retention (Hagedorn, 1996). Literature on female foreign faculties has been gradually increasing. The majority of literature discusses discrimination and oppression but is not necessarily monolithic. Some recent studies have focused on AFFFs. Yoon and Hong (2021) state that because of the overwhelming dominance of white males in U.S. academia, AFFFs experience a strong sense of foreignness, and to avoid standing out from their surroundings, they choose to assimilate.
Based on the above, three research questions (RQs) were established.
Compared to other faculties:
RQ1: Do AFFFs have stronger intentions to move from their current university?
RQ2: Is AFFFs’ job satisfaction low?
RQ3: Is there a difference in the relationship between AFFFs’ institutional mobility intentions and job satisfaction?

The data used in this study were obtained during October 2022 from COACHE (2011 to the present), based at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (Mathews et al., 2019). COACHE was founded in 2003 to assess faculties’ job satisfaction, and experiences critical to their retention, and later transformed into a research-practice partnership. The survey instrument gathers faculties’ background information and their workplace perceptions from 2012–2020. To see the characteristics in AFFFs, four other groups were established based on classifications by race (Asian/Caucasian), gender (male/female), and nationality (foreign/U.S. citizens). When comparing AFFFs to other groups in relation to RQ1 and RQ2, this study looked at differences between groups using analysis of variance and multiple comparisons by Bonferroni. When looking at the relationship between satisfaction and institutional mobility intentions in RQ3, it looked at whether differences in satisfaction depended on the category of institutional mobility intentions (uncertain or the period until institutional mobility). These differences were then compared across groups.
The results showed that AFFFs’ uncertain intentions of mobility were related to their lower job satisfaction in terms of adjustment, such as a sense of belonging to their departments. This uncertainty was, however, common to all foreign faculties, including Asian males. It also reveals that AFFFs’ dissatisfaction with their interactions and invisible career mobility intentions could be because of being a minority compared to their colleagues with different demographics. The situation of dissatisfaction with career uncertainties comprises AFFFs’ working characteristics, where uncertain intentions could be assumed to be self-regulated from the stronger mobility intentions shown by white U.S. citizen faculties. Although institutional mobility is explained by various theories, such as organizational equilibrium or push-pull, based on the gains of staying or going, race may be a differentiating factor. Mobility intentions are influenced not only by satisfaction but also labor market racial preferences. Additionally, the findings indicate the complex situation of relationships among satisfaction, mediators like demographics, and triggers such as mobility; they also confirm well-known results like higher mobility intentions with dissatisfaction. However, considering the mediators, such as demographic categories, white male U.S. citizen faculties have the highest satisfaction and mobility intentions compared to faculties in other categories, especially AFFFs. It shows the possibility of different relationships among these factors, with the simple model being applied “within” but not “between” categories.
This study recommends that future studies should explicitly examine selection bias, stress, and networks beyond the current workplace related to mobility and satisfaction, as well as make more detailed inferences on push factors based on other backgrounds and AFFFs. While its analyses do not directly lead to an understanding of the factors that push AFFFs to return to their countries of origin because of many uncertainties, it provides valuable insights into the factors that push AFFFs to institutional mobility.
The potential policy implication is to recommend recognizing, by demography, different patterns of the relationship between satisfaction and mobility, such as self-refrained mobility with dissatisfaction about working conditions. Thereafter, considering the diversification of faculties in the U.S. and potential international network of academia, faculties’ satisfaction should be improved. A suggested alternative is providing better working environments that will include not only the enhancement of education and research time spent but also more personal and professional interactions and a sense of belonging.

Author

• Maki Kato, Nagoya University