Epistemic Exclusion of Women Faculty and Faculty of Color: Understanding Scholar(ly) Devaluation as a Predictor of Turnover Intentions
Faculty diversity has received increased attention from researchers and institutions of higher education, yet faculty demographics have not changed substantially for many underrepresented groups. Several barriers to the retention of women and faculty of color have been offered, including a lack of b...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of higher education (Columbus) 2022-01, Vol.93 (1), p.31-55 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 55 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 31 |
container_title | The Journal of higher education (Columbus) |
container_volume | 93 |
creator | Settles, Isis H. Jones, Martinque K. Buchanan, NiCole T. Brassel, Sheila T. |
description | Faculty diversity has received increased attention from researchers and institutions of higher education, yet faculty demographics have not changed substantially for many underrepresented groups. Several barriers to the retention of women and faculty of color have been offered, including a lack of belonging, discrimination, social exclusion, and tokenism. Epistemic exclusion, scholarly marginalization rooted in disciplinary and identity-based biases, is theorized to act as another barrier to the retention of these faculty. The present study examines the effect of scholarly devaluation, a primary component of epistemic exclusion, on faculty workplace outcomes using data from 1,341 tenure-track faculty from a predominantly White, research-intensive institution. We found that women and underrepresented faculty of color reported higher perceptions of scholarly devaluation. Further, scholarly devaluation was associated with higher intentions to leave the university and this relationship was mediated by lower job satisfaction and poorer perceptions of the workplace climate. Notably, the negative consequences of perceiving scholarly devaluation were found for all faculty, not just women and faculty of color. We discuss the implications of these findings for retaining marginalized faculty and for institutions of higher education more broadly. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/00221546.2021.1914494 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2615863001</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1327000</ericid><sourcerecordid>2615863001</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-5c9eab4862b3a93c12d8026d8ff3d92d65f2da392b6624f105b8f5202e40e3603</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKJDEUhoOMYI_6CEJgNs6i2tytcjVDT3tDUFBxGdK5OJHqpCdJOfYL-NymaHXp2eTAfznhA-AAoylGLTpCiBDMmZgSRPAUd5ixjm2BCea0bZhg6BuYjJ5mNO2A7zk_oToY8wl4na98LnbpNZy_6H7IPgYYHXyISxvgqdJDX9ZQBfO5V3EW-5hO4H0wNuVSRR8e4a3-G3uVDvv1T_jHPqt-UGUsUxkqeJOs8brENMbvhhTis03wIhQbRlPeA9tO9dnuv7-74P50fjc7b66uzy5mv68aTQUqDdedVQvWCrKgqqMaE9MiIkzrHDUdMYI7YhTtyEIIwhxGfNE6XrFYhmxtoLvgx6Z3leK_weYin2L9TT0picC8FbRyqS6-cekUc07WyVXyS5XWEiM5IpcfyOWIXL4jr7mDTc4mrz8z80tMyXEFXvVfG90HF9NS_Y-pN7KodcXpkgraZ0m_PvEGUZWR9Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2615863001</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Epistemic Exclusion of Women Faculty and Faculty of Color: Understanding Scholar(ly) Devaluation as a Predictor of Turnover Intentions</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Settles, Isis H. ; Jones, Martinque K. ; Buchanan, NiCole T. ; Brassel, Sheila T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Settles, Isis H. ; Jones, Martinque K. ; Buchanan, NiCole T. ; Brassel, Sheila T.</creatorcontrib><description>Faculty diversity has received increased attention from researchers and institutions of higher education, yet faculty demographics have not changed substantially for many underrepresented groups. Several barriers to the retention of women and faculty of color have been offered, including a lack of belonging, discrimination, social exclusion, and tokenism. Epistemic exclusion, scholarly marginalization rooted in disciplinary and identity-based biases, is theorized to act as another barrier to the retention of these faculty. The present study examines the effect of scholarly devaluation, a primary component of epistemic exclusion, on faculty workplace outcomes using data from 1,341 tenure-track faculty from a predominantly White, research-intensive institution. We found that women and underrepresented faculty of color reported higher perceptions of scholarly devaluation. Further, scholarly devaluation was associated with higher intentions to leave the university and this relationship was mediated by lower job satisfaction and poorer perceptions of the workplace climate. Notably, the negative consequences of perceiving scholarly devaluation were found for all faculty, not just women and faculty of color. We discuss the implications of these findings for retaining marginalized faculty and for institutions of higher education more broadly.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-1546</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-4640</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2021.1914494</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Columbus: Routledge</publisher><subject>Academic tenure ; Barriers ; College Faculty ; Color ; Credibility ; Demography ; Discrimination ; Disproportionate Representation ; diversity ; Diversity (Faculty) ; Epistemic exclusion ; Epistemology ; faculty of color ; gender ; Gender Bias ; Gender Differences ; Higher education ; Institutions ; Intention ; Job Satisfaction ; Labor Turnover ; Marginality ; Minority Group Teachers ; Racial Bias ; Racial Differences ; scholarly devaluation ; Social Attitudes ; Social exclusion ; Social Influences ; Teacher Attitudes ; Teacher Persistence ; Teaching Conditions ; Tokenism ; turnover ; White Teachers ; Women ; Women Faculty ; Workplaces</subject><ispartof>The Journal of higher education (Columbus), 2022-01, Vol.93 (1), p.31-55</ispartof><rights>2021 The Ohio State University 2021</rights><rights>2021 The Ohio State University</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-5c9eab4862b3a93c12d8026d8ff3d92d65f2da392b6624f105b8f5202e40e3603</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-5c9eab4862b3a93c12d8026d8ff3d92d65f2da392b6624f105b8f5202e40e3603</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5015-7231 ; 0000-0003-1683-1717 ; 0000-0002-6406-237X ; 0000-0001-9288-5245</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,33773</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1327000$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Settles, Isis H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Martinque K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchanan, NiCole T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brassel, Sheila T.</creatorcontrib><title>Epistemic Exclusion of Women Faculty and Faculty of Color: Understanding Scholar(ly) Devaluation as a Predictor of Turnover Intentions</title><title>The Journal of higher education (Columbus)</title><description>Faculty diversity has received increased attention from researchers and institutions of higher education, yet faculty demographics have not changed substantially for many underrepresented groups. Several barriers to the retention of women and faculty of color have been offered, including a lack of belonging, discrimination, social exclusion, and tokenism. Epistemic exclusion, scholarly marginalization rooted in disciplinary and identity-based biases, is theorized to act as another barrier to the retention of these faculty. The present study examines the effect of scholarly devaluation, a primary component of epistemic exclusion, on faculty workplace outcomes using data from 1,341 tenure-track faculty from a predominantly White, research-intensive institution. We found that women and underrepresented faculty of color reported higher perceptions of scholarly devaluation. Further, scholarly devaluation was associated with higher intentions to leave the university and this relationship was mediated by lower job satisfaction and poorer perceptions of the workplace climate. Notably, the negative consequences of perceiving scholarly devaluation were found for all faculty, not just women and faculty of color. We discuss the implications of these findings for retaining marginalized faculty and for institutions of higher education more broadly.</description><subject>Academic tenure</subject><subject>Barriers</subject><subject>College Faculty</subject><subject>Color</subject><subject>Credibility</subject><subject>Demography</subject><subject>Discrimination</subject><subject>Disproportionate Representation</subject><subject>diversity</subject><subject>Diversity (Faculty)</subject><subject>Epistemic exclusion</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>faculty of color</subject><subject>gender</subject><subject>Gender Bias</subject><subject>Gender Differences</subject><subject>Higher education</subject><subject>Institutions</subject><subject>Intention</subject><subject>Job Satisfaction</subject><subject>Labor Turnover</subject><subject>Marginality</subject><subject>Minority Group Teachers</subject><subject>Racial Bias</subject><subject>Racial Differences</subject><subject>scholarly devaluation</subject><subject>Social Attitudes</subject><subject>Social exclusion</subject><subject>Social Influences</subject><subject>Teacher Attitudes</subject><subject>Teacher Persistence</subject><subject>Teaching Conditions</subject><subject>Tokenism</subject><subject>turnover</subject><subject>White Teachers</subject><subject>Women</subject><subject>Women Faculty</subject><subject>Workplaces</subject><issn>0022-1546</issn><issn>1538-4640</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtKJDEUhoOMYI_6CEJgNs6i2tytcjVDT3tDUFBxGdK5OJHqpCdJOfYL-NymaHXp2eTAfznhA-AAoylGLTpCiBDMmZgSRPAUd5ixjm2BCea0bZhg6BuYjJ5mNO2A7zk_oToY8wl4na98LnbpNZy_6H7IPgYYHXyISxvgqdJDX9ZQBfO5V3EW-5hO4H0wNuVSRR8e4a3-G3uVDvv1T_jHPqt-UGUsUxkqeJOs8brENMbvhhTis03wIhQbRlPeA9tO9dnuv7-74P50fjc7b66uzy5mv68aTQUqDdedVQvWCrKgqqMaE9MiIkzrHDUdMYI7YhTtyEIIwhxGfNE6XrFYhmxtoLvgx6Z3leK_weYin2L9TT0picC8FbRyqS6-cekUc07WyVXyS5XWEiM5IpcfyOWIXL4jr7mDTc4mrz8z80tMyXEFXvVfG90HF9NS_Y-pN7KodcXpkgraZ0m_PvEGUZWR9Q</recordid><startdate>20220102</startdate><enddate>20220102</enddate><creator>Settles, Isis H.</creator><creator>Jones, Martinque K.</creator><creator>Buchanan, NiCole T.</creator><creator>Brassel, Sheila T.</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5015-7231</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1683-1717</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6406-237X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9288-5245</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220102</creationdate><title>Epistemic Exclusion of Women Faculty and Faculty of Color: Understanding Scholar(ly) Devaluation as a Predictor of Turnover Intentions</title><author>Settles, Isis H. ; Jones, Martinque K. ; Buchanan, NiCole T. ; Brassel, Sheila T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-5c9eab4862b3a93c12d8026d8ff3d92d65f2da392b6624f105b8f5202e40e3603</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Academic tenure</topic><topic>Barriers</topic><topic>College Faculty</topic><topic>Color</topic><topic>Credibility</topic><topic>Demography</topic><topic>Discrimination</topic><topic>Disproportionate Representation</topic><topic>diversity</topic><topic>Diversity (Faculty)</topic><topic>Epistemic exclusion</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>faculty of color</topic><topic>gender</topic><topic>Gender Bias</topic><topic>Gender Differences</topic><topic>Higher education</topic><topic>Institutions</topic><topic>Intention</topic><topic>Job Satisfaction</topic><topic>Labor Turnover</topic><topic>Marginality</topic><topic>Minority Group Teachers</topic><topic>Racial Bias</topic><topic>Racial Differences</topic><topic>scholarly devaluation</topic><topic>Social Attitudes</topic><topic>Social exclusion</topic><topic>Social Influences</topic><topic>Teacher Attitudes</topic><topic>Teacher Persistence</topic><topic>Teaching Conditions</topic><topic>Tokenism</topic><topic>turnover</topic><topic>White Teachers</topic><topic>Women</topic><topic>Women Faculty</topic><topic>Workplaces</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Settles, Isis H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jones, Martinque K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchanan, NiCole T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brassel, Sheila T.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>The Journal of higher education (Columbus)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Settles, Isis H.</au><au>Jones, Martinque K.</au><au>Buchanan, NiCole T.</au><au>Brassel, Sheila T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1327000</ericid><atitle>Epistemic Exclusion of Women Faculty and Faculty of Color: Understanding Scholar(ly) Devaluation as a Predictor of Turnover Intentions</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of higher education (Columbus)</jtitle><date>2022-01-02</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>93</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>31</spage><epage>55</epage><pages>31-55</pages><issn>0022-1546</issn><eissn>1538-4640</eissn><abstract>Faculty diversity has received increased attention from researchers and institutions of higher education, yet faculty demographics have not changed substantially for many underrepresented groups. Several barriers to the retention of women and faculty of color have been offered, including a lack of belonging, discrimination, social exclusion, and tokenism. Epistemic exclusion, scholarly marginalization rooted in disciplinary and identity-based biases, is theorized to act as another barrier to the retention of these faculty. The present study examines the effect of scholarly devaluation, a primary component of epistemic exclusion, on faculty workplace outcomes using data from 1,341 tenure-track faculty from a predominantly White, research-intensive institution. We found that women and underrepresented faculty of color reported higher perceptions of scholarly devaluation. Further, scholarly devaluation was associated with higher intentions to leave the university and this relationship was mediated by lower job satisfaction and poorer perceptions of the workplace climate. Notably, the negative consequences of perceiving scholarly devaluation were found for all faculty, not just women and faculty of color. We discuss the implications of these findings for retaining marginalized faculty and for institutions of higher education more broadly.</abstract><cop>Columbus</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/00221546.2021.1914494</doi><tpages>25</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5015-7231</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1683-1717</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6406-237X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9288-5245</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-1546 |
ispartof | The Journal of higher education (Columbus), 2022-01, Vol.93 (1), p.31-55 |
issn | 0022-1546 1538-4640 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2615863001 |
source | Sociological Abstracts; EBSCOhost Education Source |
subjects | Academic tenure Barriers College Faculty Color Credibility Demography Discrimination Disproportionate Representation diversity Diversity (Faculty) Epistemic exclusion Epistemology faculty of color gender Gender Bias Gender Differences Higher education Institutions Intention Job Satisfaction Labor Turnover Marginality Minority Group Teachers Racial Bias Racial Differences scholarly devaluation Social Attitudes Social exclusion Social Influences Teacher Attitudes Teacher Persistence Teaching Conditions Tokenism turnover White Teachers Women Women Faculty Workplaces |
title | Epistemic Exclusion of Women Faculty and Faculty of Color: Understanding Scholar(ly) Devaluation as a Predictor of Turnover Intentions |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T01%3A29%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Epistemic%20Exclusion%20of%20Women%20Faculty%20and%20Faculty%20of%20Color:%20Understanding%20Scholar(ly)%20Devaluation%20as%20a%20Predictor%20of%20Turnover%20Intentions&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20higher%20education%20(Columbus)&rft.au=Settles,%20Isis%20H.&rft.date=2022-01-02&rft.volume=93&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=31&rft.epage=55&rft.pages=31-55&rft.issn=0022-1546&rft.eissn=1538-4640&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/00221546.2021.1914494&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2615863001%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2615863001&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1327000&rfr_iscdi=true |