Concerns, Attitudes, and Abilities of Early-Career Geography Faculty

Abstract

Professional experiences during graduate school through the first few years of an academic appointment shape patterns of work and social behavior that prefigure the long-term success of new faculty members, including prospects for tenure and promotion. We explore these experiences through interviews and surveys with a sample of early-career faculty in postsecondary American geography. Our analysis reveals that teaching is the primary source of anxiety among new professors, many of whom begin their first academic positions with little or no preparation in learning theory, course design, or pedagogy. Many new faculty members struggle to maintain healthy personal and family lives, while adjusting to unfamiliar norms of their new institutions. New professors benefit from support offered by their department chairpersons and from working in collegial environments. Among women, we found a greater sense of self-doubt about their scholarly abilities and futures despite having records comparable in accomplishment to their male peers. Many women cope with this sense of marginalization by forming supportive mentoring relationships with other women faculty on campus and through disciplinary specialty groups. Networking with colleagues on campus and at academic conferences enhances the job performance and satisfaction of all faculty members irrespective of gender. Our findings underscore the importance of examining the social, professional, and disciplinary contexts of higher education to acquire a broader understanding of faculty development. This knowledge can help departments prepare new faculty for successful and satisfying academic careers.

Key Words:

• early-career faculty
• geography in higher education
• faculty development

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Craig Anderson for researching recent doctoral recipients in geography and for collating the results of the Web survey as well as Andreas von der Dunk for putting the Web survey online. We would also like to thank Sue Dunham, Anita Howard, and all the participants in the GFDA workshops for their interviews and responses to the survey. Jan Monk and Mick Healey provided useful advice in the development of this research project as well as comments on the first draft of this report. The comments provided by three anonymous reviewers were also very helpful in preparing this report for publication. Funding for this research comes from the National Science Foundation's Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement National Dissemination Program under grant DUE-0089434.

Notes

*significant at α=0.05

**significant at α=0.01.

*significant at α=0.05

**significant at α=0.01.

*significant at α=0.05

**significant at α=0.01.

*significant at α=0.05

**significant at α=0.01.

*significant at α=0.05

**significant at α=0.01.

*significant at α=0.05; **significant at α=0.01.

*significant at α=0.05

**significant at α=0.01.

*significant at α=0.05

**significant at α=0.01.

*significant at α=0.05

**significant at α=0.01.

*significant at α=0.05

**significant at α=0.01.

*significant at α=0.01.

*significant at α=0.05.

*significant at α=0.05.