Achieving academic promotion: The role of work environment, role conflict, and life balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifty-two faculty at two Canadian universities were interviewed about the impact of work environment, role conflict, and worklife balance on career-related experiences and decisions to apply for promotion to full professor. Faculty described conflicts between their academic responsibilities of teaching, research, and service (including limited time for research despite long work weeks) as well as work-life imbalance. These issues were often gendered; women took slightly longer to achieve the rank of associate professor, accepted tasks of lower reward value, held decreased expectations for promotion, and experienced workplace conflict and bullying more than their male counterparts. Even so, faculty identified colleagues as a valuable career support. Our data lead us to theorize that the decision to apply for academic promotion is informed by a cost-benefit analysis, early career experiences, conformity with academic norms that over-emphasize research productivity, as well as access to career-advancing resources (especially time for research). We recommend that the gendered nature of the academic reward system be re-imagined to promote equality, and provide suggestions as to how to do so.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".