Distributive Justice in Higher Education: Perceptions of Administrators

Autor/inn/en	Fitzgerald, Shawn M.; Mahony, Daniel; Crawford, Fashaad; Hnat, Hope Bradley
Titel	Distributive Justice in Higher Education: Perceptions of Administrators
Quelle	In: Innovative Higher Education, 39 (2014) 5, S.401-415 (15 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0742-5627
DOI	10.1007/s10755-014-9287-2
Schlagwörter	Higher Education; Administrator Attitudes; Educational Resources; Decision Making; Justice; Compensation (Remuneration); Teacher Effectiveness; Academic Achievement; Productivity; Financial Support; Evaluation Criteria; Classification; Institutional Characteristics; Tenure; Deans; Department Heads; Research Universities; Administrative Principles + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Bildungsmittel; Decision-making; Entscheidungsfindung; Gerechtigkeit; Abfindung; Kompensation; Lohnausgleich; Effectiveness of teaching; Instructional effectiveness; Lehrerleistung; Unterrichtserfolg; Schulleistung; Produktivität; Finanzielle Förderung; Classification system; Klassifikation; Klassifikationssystem; Amtszeit; Beschäftigungsdauer; Dean; Dekan; Forschungseinrichtung
Abstract	For the study we report here we used the theoretical framework of organizational justice to examine academic administrator's perceptions of resource distribution decisions. We asked deans, school directors, and department chairs in one midwestern state about their perceptions of the fairness and likelihood of use of various distribution principles in scenarios involving distributions of compensation to faculty and resources to schools/departments. Differences based on Carnegie classification and current position were examined. Overall, we found that participants perceived compensating faculty members and allocating resources to departments based on the quality of teaching and impact on students was most fair, but they believed factors such as research productivity and funding secured were more likely to be used. While there were no differences based on current position, there were differences based on Carnegie classification with the research universities indicating greater preference for and likelihood of using research principles and non-research institutions indicating greater likelihood of using equality. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: service-ny@springer.com; Web site: http://www.springerlink.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10