Career authenticity in academia: examining the role of antecedents across gender and academic rank

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model for explaining career authenticity.

Table 1. Sample characteristics (N = 398).

	Men	Women	Total
Age^a (chronological); M (SD) Range	43.58 (9.48) 29–65	40.89 (8.16) 25–65	42.04 (8.83) 25–65
Academic age^b (years since PhD); M (SD)	11.39 (8.33)	9.55 (7.25)	10.33 (7.77)
Hierarchical level N (%)
Postdoc	50 (30.1%)	79 (34.1%)	129 (32.4%)
Assistant professor	55 (33.1%)	88 (37.9%)	143 (35.9%)
Associate professor	61 (36.7%)	65 (28.0%)	126 (31.7%)
Academic Discipline N (%)
Medical field	106 (63.9%)	158 (68.1%)	264 (66.3%)
Economics and business management	25 (15.1%)	29 (12.5%)	54 (13.6%)
Social sciences	18 (10.8%)	28 (12.1%)	46 (11,6%)
Other (i.e. law and humanities)	17 (10.2%)	17 (7.3%)	34 (8.5%)

^a N = 19 (4.8%) participants did not indicate their year of birth.

^b N = 19 (4.8%) did not indicate their year of obtaining PhD.

Table 2. CA, AVE and correlation matrix.

	Variables	CA	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1	Career authenticity	.75	.51	1
2	Networking behaviour	.74	.52	.143**	1
3	Managerial support	.88	.66	.251**	.056	1
4	Justice in promotion practices	.87	.58	.369**	-.068	.496**	1
5	Positive shocks (N = 5)	NA	NA	.310**	.309**	.234**	.131**	1
6	Negative shocks (N = 5)	NA	NA	-.288**	.111*	-.340**	-.450**	-.059	1
7	Gender (M = ref)	NA	NA	-.093	.087	-.022	-.152**	.046	.115*	1
8	Rank_D1 (assist.) (postdoc = ref.)	NA	NA	-.064	.030	.002	-.003	.019	-.010	.049	1
9	Rank_D2 (assoc.) (postdoc = ref.)	NA	NA	.144**	.084	-.142**	-.005	.159**	.084	-.093	-.510**	1
10	Field_Medical (Other = ref.)	NA	NA	.021	.046	.017	.117*	.047	-.119*	.044	-.109*	-.144**	1
11	Field_Social sciences (Other = ref.)	NA	NA	.039	-.019	-.074	.036	-.090	.040	-.037	.040	.156**	-.556**	1
12	Field_Economics & business management (Other = ref.)	NA	NA	-.040	-.068	.019	-.182**	.064	.132**	.019	.057	-.010	-.507**	-.143**

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

Note. CA = Cronbach’s alpha. AVE = Average Variance Extracted. NA = Not applicable. M = male. R_D1 = Dummy variable with postdoc as reference category (0) and assistant professor as comparison group (1). R_D2 = Dummy variable with postdoc as reference category (0) and associate professor as comparison group (1). F_Medical = dummy variable with other fields as reference category (0) and medical field as comparison group (1). F_Social sciences = dummy variable with other fields as reference category (0) and social sciences as comparison group (1). F_Economics & business management =  dummy variable with other fields as reference category (0) and Economics & business management as comparison group (1).

Table 3. Means for model variables per gender and academic rank.

	Variable	Total M (SD)	Male M (SD)	Female M (SD)	Postdoc^1 M (SD)	Assistant prof.^2 M (SD)	Associate prof.^3 M (SD)
1	Career authenticity	3.64 (.72)	3.74 (.68)	3.60 (.74)	3.58 (.71)^3	3.60 (.73)^3	3.81 (.69)^1^,2
2	Networking behaviour	3.55 (.77)	3.46 (.82)	3.60 (.73)	3.42 (.79)	3.57 (.73)	3.64 (.78)
3	Managerial support	3.34 (.99)	3.39 (.92)	3.35 (1.02)	3.56 (1.00)^3	3.37 (.85)	3.16 (1.06)^1
4	Justice in promotion practices^a	3.03 (.77)	3.13 (.70)	2.89 (.80)	3.00 (.68)	2.99 (.76)	2.99 (.86)
5	Positive shocks	2.02 (.79)	1.98 (.77)	2.05 (.80)	1.82 (.68)^3	2.04 (.78)	2.21 (.84)^1
6	Negative shocks ^Table Footnotea	2.17 (.79)	2.07 (.69)	2.25 (.85)	2.09 (.68)	2.17 (.79)	2.27 (.90)

Notes: Mean’s (M) and Standard Deviation’s (SD). N =  398 (Male: 166; Female: 232; Postdoc: 129; Assistant professor: 143; Associate professor: 126).

^a Indicates that the independent samples t-test shows a significant difference between men and women (p < 0.05).

^1,2,3 Indicates that the Tukey HSD hoc test shows a significant difference of the group mean with that of another group (p < 0.05).

Figure 2. Empirical framework for explaining career authenticity per gender.

Figure 3. Empirical framework for explaining career authenticity per academic rank.

Table

Career authenticity
AUTHENTICITY1	‘I have felt as though I am in charge of my own career.’
AUTHENTICITY2	‘I have been able to pursue work that meets my personal needs and preferences.’
AUTHENTICITY3	‘I have chosen my own career path.’
Networking behaviour
NETWORK1	‘I attempt to network with influential people within my section which could stimulate my career progression.’
NETWORK2	‘I have built a network of friendships in my section.’
NETWORK3	‘I have built a network of influential people within academia for obtaining information about conferences, vacancies, funding calls or other career-related activities.’
NETWORK4	‘I attempt to participate in networks within academia that may boost my professional and personal development.’
Managerial support
SUPPORT1	‘My supervisor informs me about opportunities for training and development.’
SUPPORT2	‘My supervisor encourages me to work towards promotion in academic position.’
SUPPORT3	‘My supervisor offers me opportunities to participate in training and development.’
SUPPORT4	‘My supervisor supports me in utilising opportunities for horizontal mobility (i.e. moving towards a same level position).’
Justice in promotion practicesWhen making decisions about working conditions that affect you, such as pay raises, promotions, research support, or teaching assignments, in your department …
PROMOTION1	‘Standards are applied consistently.’
PROMOTION2	‘Decisions are based on accurate information.’
PROMOTION3	‘I am able to appeal the decision.’
PROMOTION4	‘Decisions are free of bias.’
PROMOTION5	‘I can influence decisions.’
PROMOTION6	‘The decision-making process upholds ethical and moral standards’
PROMOTION7	‘I am able to express my views during the decision making process’

Table

Career shocks in the work setting (experienced in the past 3 years)	Value	N impact^1	% of total
*Covid-19 pandemic	Negative	272	68.3%
*You were awarded an important competitive research grant	Positive	171	43.0%
*A colleague with whom you collaborated closely left the organisation	Negative	153	38.4%
*Being offered formal or informal mentoring	Positive	148	37.2%
*Change of leadership (i.e. new supervisor and/or department head)	Positive	119	29.9%
*Turned down or were discouraged to apply for promotion	Negative	109	27.4%
*Received a pay raise, promotion, or desirable increase in responsibility sooner than expected	Positive	89	22.4%
*Received a job offer from another university or institute	Positive	81	20.4%
*Change of leadership (i.e. new supervisor and/or department head)	Negative	77	19.3%
*Experienced scientific harassment (i.e. stealing data, or making your work invisible)	Negative	74	18.6%
Covid-19 pandemic	Positive	47	11.8%
A colleague with whom you collaborated closely left the organisation	Positive	28	7.0%
Received a job offer from another university or institute	Negative	19	4.8%
Being offered formal or informal mentoring	Negative	8	2.0%
Experienced significant care responsibilities for child(ren) or others (i.e. family members)	Positive	6	1.5%
Received a pay raise, promotion, or desirable increase in responsibility sooner than expected	Negative	4	1.0%
Turned down or were discouraged to apply for promotion	Positive	4	1.0%
Experienced scientific harassment (i.e. stealing data, or making your work invisible)	Positive	3	0.7%

*An asterix indicates that this shock is included in the measurement scale. ¹Impact on career illustrates the total number of answer option 3,4 and 5.