VIII. Climate

Sources of Stress (Q 34)
Click to view snapshot results of (Q 34)

The survey also asked faculty to report the extent to which a series of specific work and personal factors had been a source of stress for them over the past two years.

Among the 17 items included in this question, faculty reported that high self-expectations were the leading source of stress (49% reported this as an extensive source of stress). Institutional procedures and “red tape” and research or publishing demands were also top sources of stress. (See Tables 29  and 30)

table 29

 

Differences by School

Because several of the 17 items do not pertain to all faculty (i.e., interactions with Purdue’s Animal Care and Use Committee, child care, after-school care, and care of an elderly parent), the numbers are too small to analyze by school. Analyses of the remaining 13 factors are included below.

 

table 30

Click on image to view larger.
Close image window to return.

Agriculture faculty did not report more extensive stress for any of the remaining items compared to the averages across the schools.

CFS faculty were more likely than average to say that their teaching load (32% vs. an average of 21%) and interactions with Purdue’s Committee on the Use of Human Research Subjects (33% vs. an average of 16%) were extensive sources of stress. They were less likely than average to report that committee work (9% vs. an average of 24%) and managing household responsibilities (9% vs. an average of 20%) caused extensive stress.

In the case of Education faculty, they were more likely than average to report that committee work (51% vs. an average of 24%) was an extensive source of stress and less likely to say that their teaching load (9% vs. an average of 21%), managing household responsibilities (7% vs. an average of 20%), and colleagues’ lack of understanding of their family responsibilities (0% vs. an average of 8%) were extensive sources of stress.

Engineering faculty only reported that their high self-expectations were more often an extensive source of stress compared to the faculty average (57% vs. 49% on average).

Faculty from the Health Sciences were more likely than average to find their teaching load (42% vs. an average of 21%) and the tenure/promotion process (38% vs. an average of 30%) to cause extensive stress. On the other hand, they found interactions with Purdue’s Committee on the Use of Human Research Subjects to cause less extensive stress than average (4% vs. an average of 16%).

Liberal Arts faculty did not report more or less extensive stress for any items compared to the averages across the schools.

Faculty from the Libraries, on the other hand, found committee work (55% vs. an average of 24%), institutional procedures and “red tape” (48% vs. an average of 38%), and being part of a dual-career couple (55% vs. an average of 25%) to cause more extensive stress than average. They found the tenure/promotion process (17% vs. an average of 30%) and their teaching load (6% vs. an average of 21%) to be less stressful than average.

Management faculty found their teaching load to bring more extensive stress than average (38% vs. 21%), but they deemed their committee work (7% vs. an average of 24%) and institutional procedures and “red tape” (28% vs. an average of 38%) to be less stressful than average.

Those in Technology reported that their teaching load (32% vs. an average of 21%), keeping up with information/computer technology (22% vs. an average of 13%), and the tenure/promotion process (42% vs. an average of 30%) brought on more extensive stress than average. However, they reported that high self-expectations (39% vs. an average of 49%) and being part of a dual-career couple (14% vs. an average of 25%) caused less extensive stress than average.

Finally, Veterinary Medicine faculty found institutional procedures and “red tape” (62% vs. an average of 38%) and interactions with Purdue’s Animal Care and Use Committee (28% vs. an average of 11%) to bring more extensive stress than average, while research or publishing demands (26% vs. an average of 37%) caused less extensive stress than average.

Differences by Rank

Overall, a number of work and personal factors caused more stress for assistant professors than for associate and full professors. Specifically, higher percentages of assistant professors found research or publishing demands (66% vs. 35% of associate and 22% of full professors), high self-expectations (64% vs. 50% of associate and 39% of full professors), the tenure/promotion process (52% vs. 32% of associate and 11% of full professors), managing household responsibilities (29% vs. 21% of associate and 13% of full professors), child care (22% vs. 15% of associate and 10% of full professors), and being part of a dual career couple (37% vs. 26% of associate and 17% of full professors), to be more common sources of extensive stress than did faculty at the other two ranks.

More associate professors found committee work to bring on extensive stress (30%) than did assistant (18%) or full professors (22%). For their part, professors reported that keeping up with information/computer technology more often caused extensive stress (16% found this to be true) than did assistant (8%) or associate professors (12%).

Differences by Gender

Where males and females answered differently, in almost every case females reported experiencing more extensive stress than did males. Specifically, females reported higher levels of stress due to research or publishing demands (45% vs. 34%), committee work (31% vs. 21%), interactions with Purdue’s Animal Care and Use Committee (15% vs. 10%), the tenure/promotion process (37% vs. 26%), discrimination (17% vs. 4%), managing household responsibilities (27% vs. 17%), colleagues’ lack of understanding of their family responsibilities (13% vs. 6%), child care (25% vs. 12%), after school care (27% vs. 7%), elderly care (23% vs. 11%), and being part of a dual-career couple (36% vs. 21%). Males, on the other hand, were more likely to report that interactions with Purdue’s Committee on the Use of Human Research Subjects was a source of extensive stress (18% vs. 13%).

Differences by Race

Underrepresented minorities were the most likely to report extensive stress from the following work-related factors: research or publishing demands (50% vs. 39% of Asian Americans and 38% of Caucasians), high self-expectations (65% vs. 45% of Asian Americans and 49% of Caucasians), and the tenure and promotion process (45% vs. 31% of Asian Americans and 30% of Caucasians). They were also the most likely to report that discrimination caused them extensive stress (18% vs. 14% of Asian Americans and 7% of Caucasians).

Asian Americans were more likely than underrepresented minorities or Caucasians to report extensive stress related to personal issues: child care (27% vs. 14% and 15% respectively), being part of a dual-career couple (31% vs. 27% and 25% respectively), and household responsibilities (30% vs. 20% for the other two groups). Caucasians were the most likely to report extensive stress from committee work (25% vs. 10% of Asian Americans and 18% of underrepresented minorities) and institutional procedures and “red tape” (39% vs. 31% of Asian Americans and 23% of underrepresented minorities).