Faculty Salary Inequality in U.S. Business Schools: A Mixed Methods Analysis

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195367
Title:
Faculty Salary Inequality in U.S. Business Schools: A Mixed Methods Analysis
Author:
Callie, Trina M.
Issue Date:
2006
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
Through a mixed methods approach, this study provides a greater understanding of salary inequality in U.S. business schools and how it changed between 1998 to 2004. The quantitative research examines full-time faculty using individual-level salary data from both a constant sample of 307 institutions and a larger 2004 sample of 464 schools, allowing for in-depth examination of inequality including within institutions. The qualitative research used interviews with business school deans to uncover decisions that, in the aggregate, can impact faculty salary inequality.Quantitative analysis of faculty salary utilized descriptive statistics as well as several inequality measures, along with regression analyses, to reveal the level and structure of inequality and the contributions of within-institution and between-institution inequality. Salary inequality increased between 1998 and 2004. However, contrary to previous research, salary inequality isn't attributed to superstar salaries; the growth in salary inequality is attributable to negative real growth in the lower tail of the salary distribution. Analysis between institutions reveals that the highest paying 10% of institutions are pulling away, increasing stratification between the most prestigious institutions and the others. Although private school faculty earn more than their public counterparts, salary inequality among faculty at public institutions increased more rapidly. Institutional characteristics including Carnegie classification, MBA ranking, degrees offered, accreditation, faculty size, tuition and fees, state appropriations per student and endowment per student contribute to differences in salary inequality between institutions. Within institutions, unionization and higher MBA ranking correspond to lower salary inequality; whereas research/doctoral, public institutions, and larger faculty size correspond to more salary inequality. Differences also exist in the inequality source: upper tail or lower tail.While the primary interview theme is the rule of the market, deans do make individual decisions based on their own competitive marketplace. The qualitative inquiry revealed four decision categories that can affect salary inequality, including: hiring strategies, environmental influences--colleges and fields, compensation challenges and market response strategies, all which may collectively increase or decrease faculty salary inequality. Interview analysis revealed additional questions that need to be answered using quantitative data, from changes in faculty composition, to compression/inversion, and salary inequality differences across fields.
Type:
text; Electronic Dissertation
Keywords:
faculty salary inequality business schools
Degree Name:
PhD
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
Higher Education; Graduate College
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Advisor:
Cheslock, John J.
Committee Chair:
Cheslock, John J.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoENen_US
dc.titleFaculty Salary Inequality in U.S. Business Schools: A Mixed Methods Analysisen_US
dc.creatorCallie, Trina M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCallie, Trina M.en_US
dc.date.issued2006en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractThrough a mixed methods approach, this study provides a greater understanding of salary inequality in U.S. business schools and how it changed between 1998 to 2004. The quantitative research examines full-time faculty using individual-level salary data from both a constant sample of 307 institutions and a larger 2004 sample of 464 schools, allowing for in-depth examination of inequality including within institutions. The qualitative research used interviews with business school deans to uncover decisions that, in the aggregate, can impact faculty salary inequality.Quantitative analysis of faculty salary utilized descriptive statistics as well as several inequality measures, along with regression analyses, to reveal the level and structure of inequality and the contributions of within-institution and between-institution inequality. Salary inequality increased between 1998 and 2004. However, contrary to previous research, salary inequality isn't attributed to superstar salaries; the growth in salary inequality is attributable to negative real growth in the lower tail of the salary distribution. Analysis between institutions reveals that the highest paying 10% of institutions are pulling away, increasing stratification between the most prestigious institutions and the others. Although private school faculty earn more than their public counterparts, salary inequality among faculty at public institutions increased more rapidly. Institutional characteristics including Carnegie classification, MBA ranking, degrees offered, accreditation, faculty size, tuition and fees, state appropriations per student and endowment per student contribute to differences in salary inequality between institutions. Within institutions, unionization and higher MBA ranking correspond to lower salary inequality; whereas research/doctoral, public institutions, and larger faculty size correspond to more salary inequality. Differences also exist in the inequality source: upper tail or lower tail.While the primary interview theme is the rule of the market, deans do make individual decisions based on their own competitive marketplace. The qualitative inquiry revealed four decision categories that can affect salary inequality, including: hiring strategies, environmental influences--colleges and fields, compensation challenges and market response strategies, all which may collectively increase or decrease faculty salary inequality. Interview analysis revealed additional questions that need to be answered using quantitative data, from changes in faculty composition, to compression/inversion, and salary inequality differences across fields.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeElectronic Dissertationen_US
dc.subjectfaculty salary inequality business schoolsen_US
thesis.degree.namePhDen_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineHigher Educationen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.advisorCheslock, John J.en_US
dc.contributor.chairCheslock, John J.en_US
dc.contributor.committeememberRhoades, Garyen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberLee, Jenny J.en_US
dc.identifier.proquest1818en_US
dc.identifier.oclc659747575en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.