A comprehensive evaluation of faculty members’ emotion regulation and well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature suggests that faculty members experience high levels of job-related stress. Evidence also suggests that the stress inherent in the academic profession undermines faculty members’ personal and professional well-being. Stress invokes a variety of positive and negative emotions which impact faculty cognition, well-being and performance and faculty employ a variety of strategies to cope with stress and regulate their emotions. Although emotion regulation strategies faculty employ also have consequences on well-being and performance, the role of emotion regulation in faculty well-being remains underexplored. This dissertation has aimed to explore this notable research gap in the higher education research literature. The current dissertation is comprised of three separate manuscripts. The first two are comprehensive reviews of the literature on the impact of stress on faculty members’ psychological well-being and the coping and emotion regulation strategies faculty employ to deal with stress and emotions. The third is an empirical study exploring the impact of several emotion regulation strategies on well-being outcomes, the potential impact of gender, years of experience, and stress on emotion regulation strategy use and well-being and the moderating role of these background variables in the association between emotion regulation and well-being, as well as interactions between adaptive and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies in predicting well-being. The sample consisted of 414 faculty members from non-medical disciplines from thirteen English speaking research-intensive universities in Canada. The first manuscript utilized content analysis to review and critically analyze the empirical evidence of the ways in which work-related stress and experiences compromise academics’ psychological well-being. The second manuscript provides a comprehensive and descriptive review of the literature on academics’ coping and emotion management strategies as well as the consequences of these strategies on faculty well-being and productivity. Finally, the third manuscript employed regression analyses to investigate the link of adaptive and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies and stress to well-being outcomes and moderation analyses to provide empirical support for the moderating role of stress and sample characteristics in the link between emotion regulation and well-being as well as the interactions between emotion regulation strategies. Results serve to provide a deeper insight into the impact of stress on faculty well-being and emotion regulation strategy use, the emotion regulation strategies faculty employ and the ways in which emotion regulation strategies shape well-being in post-secondary faculty. Most importantly, the present study contributes the novel finding that stress impacts emotions regulation strategy use and moderates emotion regulation and well-being association. Findings also point to directions for future research as well as organizational initiatives to improve the emotion regulation strategies and the psychological and physical well-being of their faculty members
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".