Developing the Faculty Research Emotions Questionnaire: Examining Emotion Origins, Outcomes, and Differences Across Diverse Groups

• In Event: Emotions: A Consequential Reality to the Work of Teachers and Professors

Abstract

Framework and Objectives: University faculty experience a multitude of emotions that have powerful implications for their teaching and research success (Author, 2016; Hagenauer et al., 2016; Kordts-Freudinger, 2017). A shortcoming of past faculty emotion studies has been the use of single-item measures with limited reliability and validity. Researchers have previously developed and validated multi-item emotion scales for university (Pekrun et al., 2011) and K-12 students (Lichtenfeld et al., 2012) as well as schoolteachers (Frenzel et al., 2016), but not for faculty members. We aimed to examine the reliability and factorial validity of newly created multi-item scales measuring faculty members’ emotions for research. We furthermore examined individual differences in research emotions based on faculty demographic characteristics. Beyond faculty gender and rank, we tested lesser studied diversity factors of international and under-represented minority (URM) status. Finally, in line with the Control-Value Theory of Emotions (Pekrun, 2006), we investigated relations between faculty emotions and proposed antecedents of perceived control and value, as well research success as an outcome.

Method: In Fall 2021, 611 STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) faculty members from 10 USA R2 Doctoral Universities completed an online survey (sample profile in Table 1). The Research Emotions Questionnaire (REQ) contained multi-item scales measuring seven emotions (see Appendix) commonly experienced by faculty: enjoyment, pride, relief, anxiety, frustration, boredom, and disappointment (Author, 2019). The four-item emotion measures captured dimensions of valence (positive/negative) and activation (activating/deactivating), and examined the multi-componential structure of the emotions assessed (affective, cognitive, motivational, physiological; Pekrun et al., 2005). Additional measures included perceived control, value, and success pertaining to research activities (activity, publications, grants, overall) and Web of Science bibliometric data (publication, citation counts).

Results: The emotion scales showed good reliability (>.70) and normality (Table 2, Figure 1). Faculty reported higher levels of positive than negative emotions for research. Confirmatory factor analysis (Table 3) supported the scales’ structural validity: (1) acceptable goodness of fit, (2) superior fit than a competing model, and (3) high indicator loadings (AVEs>.50). Emotion intercorrelations (Table 4) were as expected with positive and negative emotions related according to valence; however, some correlations were notably high raising discriminant validity concerns. Evidence of external validity included positive emotions positively relating and negative emotions negatively relating to control, value, and success (Table 5). Structural equation models (Figure 2) found control and value appraisals positively predicted positive emotions and negatively predicted negative emotions. Positive emotions positively predicted success, whereas negative emotions negatively predicted success controlling for career age, research percent on contract, job satisfaction, and stress. Group difference tests showed women reported more anxiety and disappointment, URM faculty reported more anxiety, with full professors reported the most adaptive emotions (Table 6). International faculty consistently reported more positive and less negative research emotions than domestic faculty.

Significance: Findings showed the emotion scales to be reliable and valid, and a useful resource for researchers examining how faculty emotions correspond with research activities per existing theoretical models (e.g., Pekrun, 2006). These results will also inform university administrators developing faculty development initiatives for improving research motivation and performance.

Authors

• Robert H. Stupnisky, University of North Dakota
  Presenting Author

• Muhammad Salahuddin, University of North Dakota
  Non-Presenting Author

• Nathan C. Hall, McGill University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Vincent Lariviere, University of Montréal
  Non-Presenting Author

• Reinhard Pekrun, University of Essex
  Non-Presenting Author