Role exit or transition? Continuity and change for retired faculty at a liberal arts Midwestern University

ABSTRACT

Using the theory of continuity, and based on quantitative and qualitative data collected from an online survey and one-on-one interviews from a nonrandom sample of retired faculty, this exploratory study examines guiding considerations for transition to retirement at a mid-sized University in the Midwest. Abolition of mandatory retirement requirements in higher education institutions since the early 1990s has put the senior faculty at the helm of deciding when to retire. Findings indicate that the post-retirement period is part of a life-time continuum – both during the “contemplation period” when respondents plan their retirement, and when most share with ease their final decision to retire with colleagues and administrators. Furthermore, transition to retirement for most is a non-traumatic experience, with involvement in diverse activities including working in their areas of expertise (“bridge employment”). However, respondents’ overall expressed sentiment was to have limited post-retirement contact and involvement with the University and campus-related activities, including serving as mentors for junior faculty or students. For some, heavy teaching loads was the reason for their reluctance to contribute to campus life (the “burnout” factor). But their lack of enthusiasm to reconnect with the institution may also be an indication of the presence of an implicit, yet unresolved conflict between some retired faculty and the administration.

KEYWORDS:

• Faculty retirement
• theory of continuity
• retirement as transition
• higher education institutions

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Here the concept “minority group” is being used in a sociological context, referring to various groups who, regardless of their size (population) and other social features (ethnicity/race, gender, age, etc.) hold few or no positions of power in society.

2. Ironically, the post-COVID-19 reality of teaching and learning has forced the “reluctant/unwilling” faculty to quickly retool themselves in the emergency rush to switch from face-to-face teaching and learning to hybrid and online instruction during the spring semester in 2020.

3. The study was designed and conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but there are indications that facing substantial financial losses, colleges and universities are reconsidering their approach to faculty retirement plans and benefits (Flaherty, 2020).

4. Olson (2009) considers shared governance as “a delicate balance between faculty and staff participation in planning and decision-making processes on one hand, and administrative accountability on the other.”

5. In our case, one may have an ascribed “social placement” based on her/his gender status; or an achieved one based on academic status – both socially-created concepts.

6. See also Silver and Williams (2016) for a qualitative study of faculty’s reluctance to retire.

7. According to TWA, “person-environment fit” is defined as the degree to which individual and environmental characteristics match.

8. A percentage of those who retired before the age 65 is higher than the national average, as according to a 2013 survey conducted among faculty between the ages of 49 and 67, “nearly 75% said they planned to retire after age 65” (Hicken, 2013).

9. Based on an average cost of living index of 100 for the U.S., that for Iowa in 2017 was 90 (Open Data Network, 2017).

10. On the link between retirement and mental health problems, see for example, Vordzorgbe et al. (2018).

11. On this issue, Strage and Merdinger (2014, p. 68) report that a faculty member at San Jose State University expressed her regrets on “having divulged her plans to retire as soon as she did,” citing the subtle ways by which she was shunned by her colleagues, leaving her with the feeling that she was “sitting on the sidelines, out of the loop.”

12. See footnote 10.

13. For this question, responses were based on a Likert scale that included “strongly agree/agree” and “strongly disagree/disagree” response categories, respectively (on a 1–5 scale).

14. The list was adopted from Faculty retirement survey executive summary (2016), Marquette University.

15. On this issue, several comments alluded to both academic programs and a previous administration’s promises to add urgently needed facilities – promises that were never materialized.