Educare Feb 2014.indb


EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 6(2) February 2014

169

Minh-Quang Duong is a Lecturer at the Faculty of  Education, University of  Social Sciences and Humanities VNU-HCMC (Vietnam 
National University – Ho Chi Minh City), 10-12 Dinh Tien Hoang Road, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. E-mail: mqduong.
ussh@yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION
Since the late 1950s, a number of  

researchers have theorized about the nature 
of  job satisfaction and developed models 
which attempt to explain differences of  job 
satisfaction (Sseganga & Garrett, 2005). Job 
satisfaction is a major concern of  managers 
in business, executives in industry, and 
teachers and administration in educational 
organization. Although there is no universal 
definition of  the concept (Evans, 1997), most 
of  the definitions that exist in literature have 
a common theme. Different authors have 
different approaches towards defining job 
satisfaction. 

The most used definition of  job satisfaction 
in organizational research is that E.A. Locke 
(1976), who described job satisfaction as 
a pleasurable or positive emotional state 
resulting from the appraisal of  one’s job or job 
experiences and as achieving or facilitating the 
achievement of  one’s job values (cited also in 
Nguni, Sleegers & Denessen, 2006). A more 
definitive describes job satisfaction an attitude 
developed by an individual towards the job and 
job conditions (Luthans, 1994). P.E. Spector 
(1997) refined the definition of  job satisfaction 
to constitute an attitudinal variable that 
measures how a person feels about his or her 
job, including different facets of  the job.

MINH-QUANG DUONG

A Comparison of Factors Influencing 
the Job Satisfaction among Academic 

Members of the University 
of Technology and the University

 of Science in Vietnam

ABSTRACT: Since the late 1950s, a number of  researchers have theorized about the nature of  job satisfaction 
and developed models which attempt to explain differences of  job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is a major concern of  
managers in business, executives in industry, and teachers and administration in educational organization. It is clear 
that very little research on university faculty job satisfaction has come from the developing world like Vietnam. This 
aim of  this study was to determine the specific factors that affected the job satisfaction of  academic members both 
universities. The study used a questionnaire to survey with 141 academic members from two public universities of  Ho 
Chi Minh City in Vietnam which selected as a statistical sample. The study showed that academic members of  two 
universities were only a moderate level of  job satisfaction. However, faculty members in the University of  Technology 
were more satisfied than faculty members in the University of  Science. The present analysis found that no significant 
differences existed job satisfaction of  academic members among the two universities; but, there were significant 
difference between male and female faculty. In addition, male faculty members were generally more satisfied than 
female colleagues. The study also recognized that job satisfaction of  academic members were significantly affected by 
their work time and institutional characteristics. 
KEY WORDS: Job satisfaction, Vietnamese higher education, academic members, work time, institutional 
characteristics, and developing country.



MINH-QUANG DUONG,
A Comparison of  Factors Influencing the Job Satisfaction

170

There is a relationship between job 
satisfaction and very different variables. 
They include life satisfaction (Ho & Au, 2008); 
demographic, job, and personality characteristics 
(Miller, Mire & Kim, 2009; and Telman & 
Unsal, 2004); performance (Luthans, 1994); 
organizational characteristics (Glisson & Durick, 
1988); and leadership, climate, and culture of  
the university (Grunwald & Peterson, 2003; 
Hagedorn, 2000; and Zhou & Volkwein, 2004). 

Several studies of  higher education sector 
are used different factors to measuring 
job satisfaction of  academic members. T. 
Oshagbemi (1997) employed eight scales 
designed to measure satisfaction of  university 
teachers in the United Kingdom, namely: (1) 
teaching, (2) research, (3) administration and 
management, (4) present pay, (5) promotions, 
(6) supervision/supervisor behaviour, (7) 
behavior of  co-workers, and (8) physical 
conditions/working conditions. 

The study of  F. Kusku (2003) measured the 
job satisfaction of  academics in a university 
in Turkey using the seven determinants: 
(1) general satisfaction, (2) management 
satisfaction, (3) colleagues, (4) other working 
group satisfaction, (5) job satisfaction, (6) work 
environment, and (7) salary satisfaction. 

According to K. Sseganga & R.M. Garrett 
(2005), measured the job satisfaction of  
academics of  higher education in Uganda 
using nine general elements of  their work 
comprising: (1) teaching, (2) research, (3) 
governance, (4) remuneration, (5) opportunities 
for promotion, (6) supervision, (7) co-worker’s 
behavior, (8) working environment, and (9) the 
job in general. 

A study of  S.H. Chen et al. (2006) measured 
the job satisfaction of  teachers in a private 
university in China using six satisfaction 
factors, namely: (1) organization vision, (2) 
respect, (3) result feedback and motivation, (4) 
management system, (5) pay and benefits, and 
(6) work environment. 

Although C.J. Cranny, P.C. Smith & 
E.F. Stone (1992) estimated that over 5,000 
articles and dissertations have examined the 
topic of  job satisfaction and it is a continuing 
topic for research. Most of  the research 
that has been conducted in the field of  job 
satisfaction has focused on organizational 

business and industrial setting (Platsidou & 
Diamantopoulou, 2009). 

However, in recent years, a clear increase 
has been observed in the number of  studies 
related to the job satisfaction of  academics 
(Neumann, 1978). Unfortunately, evidence 
from job satisfaction of  academic members in 
higher education of  the developing countries 
is seriously lacking and is a gap which needs 
to be filled (Garrett, 1999; Hean & Garrett, 
2001; Sseganga & Garrett, 2005; and Eyupoglu 
& Saner, 2009). Furthermore, very little 
research has focused on science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematic (Verret, 2012). 

Hence, this study was conducted to explore 
factors influencing the job satisfaction among 
academic members both universities within 
technology and science fields. The present 
study was designed to answer the following 
research questions: (1) What is the general 
level of  job satisfaction of  academic members 
both universities in Vietnam?; (2) Do any 
significant differences exist in the level of  
job satisfaction with regard to discipline 
and gender characteristics?; and (3) How 
are job satisfaction of  academic members 
affected by their work time and institutional 
characteristics?

STUDIES OF JOB SATISFACTION 
AND FACULTY HIGHER EDUCATION

There are several recent studies that 
addressed job satisfaction among academic 
members serving in the higher education 
context. The study of  T. Oshagbemi (1997) 
comprised academics from 23 universities in 
the United Kingdom that teaching, research-
related activities, and several miscellaneous 
dimensions of  the jobs contribute significantly 
to both job satisfaction and dissatisfaction 
of  university academics. For job satisfaction 
among academic staff  from thirteen 
universities in Turkey, H. Saygi, T. Tolon & 
H. Tekogul (2011) found that co-workers and 
promotions were considered more important 
than the pay. The most important factor in job 
satisfaction was co-workers, with working as a 
team and sharing also rated as important. 

In another study, M. Springfield-Scott 
(2000) showed that sex and rank affected 
faculty job satisfaction; while age, race, and 



EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 6(2) February 2014

171

tenure did not affect faculty job satisfaction in 
Piedmont, North Carolina University. In North 
Cyprus, S.Z. Eyupoglu & T. Saner (2009) 
explored that the job facets advancement, 
compensation, co-workers, and variety were 
found to be statistically significant with job 
satisfaction. Beside, this study also explained 
that academic in North Cyprus indicate only a 
moderate level of  overall job satisfaction. 

In their study with academic members of  
ten private universities in Bangladesh, T. Ali 
& I. Akhter (2009) recognized that faculty 
members are overall satisfied with their present 
condition, except the factors like training 
facilities, and some physical facilities and 
distribution of  courses. Further, it has been 
found that there is no significant difference 
between male and female faculty members 
regarding job satisfaction. 

In Asia–Pacific area, regarding the 
relationship between faculty job satisfaction 
and demographic variable of  academics in a 
public higher education in Singapore, E.P. Paul 
& S.K. Phua (2011) indicated that satisfaction 
over interpersonal relationships with students 
and co-workers, the autonomy and flexibility 
that the job offered. Conversely, they 
expressed dissatisfaction over the amount of  
administrative/non-academic work they had to 
shoulder, heavy workload, salary, presence of  
“red tape” and other corporate practices, and 
dealing with disruptive students. Age and job 
position affected the job satisfaction levels of  
the respondents. 

However, variables such as gender, 
academic qualification, length of  employment, 
and marital status showed no significant 
difference. The study of  F. Noordin & K. 
Jusoff  (2009) comprised two hundred and 
thirty-seven of  academics from a public 
university in Malaysia that overall the 
academic staff  of  the university has a moderate 
level of  job satisfaction. In addition, current 
status, marital status, age, and salary appear 
to have significant impact on the respondents’ 
level of  job satisfaction. 

In their research with 173 teaching staff  
from three private universities in Malaysia, 
A.S. Santhapparaj & S.S. Alam (2005) found 
also that pay, promotion, working condition, 
and support of  research have positive and 

significant effect on job satisfaction. On the 
other hand, benefits and support of  teaching 
have negative effect, and female staff  are more 
satisfied than their counterpart. 

Regarding the relationship between 
incentives, rewards, and recognition on 
employee motivation and job satisfaction 
of  two hundred and nineteen of  academic 
member of  Hue University in Vietnam, N.C. 
Nguyen et al. (2013) found that significantly 
positive relationship between reward and 
recognition, satisfaction with supervision and 
the job characteristics, with job satisfaction 
as well as a very positive and significant 
relationship was also observed between job 
satisfaction and personal motivation.

In another study, M. Gautam, K. Mandal 
& R.S. Dalal (2006) surveyed faculty members 
of  Faculty of  Veterinary Sciences and Animal 
Husbandry, Sher-e-Kashmir University of  
Agricultural Sciences and Technology of  
Jammu, India  that  job satisfaction is a 
multidimensional phenomenon with a number 
of  factors operating simultaneously. The 
overall job satisfaction of  the faculty members 
is fair and moderate. Moreover, the younger 
faculty members are more satisfied as 
compared to those with a longer service period 
although the relationship is not linear. 

Again, the study of  R.D. Sharma & J. 
Jyoti (2006 and 2010) comprised one hundred 
and twenty faculty members of  Jammu 
University in India that professors were more 
satisfied than lecturers and job satisfaction 
decline in the middle age. Addition, intrinsic, 
extrinsic, and demographic factors were 
effecting academic staff ’s job satisfaction. 
Unfortunately, very few studies have been 
conducted in the area of  job satisfaction in 
Vietnamese higher education as well as other 
developing countries.

METHOD
Dependent and Independent Variables. 

Job satisfaction has been identified as the 
dependent variable in this study. This study 
measured the job satisfaction of  academics 
of  higher education in Vietnam using six 
satisfaction factors, namely: (1) recreation 
and sport equipment, (2) medical facility, (3) 
in-service teaching training, (4) bonus and 



MINH-QUANG DUONG,
A Comparison of  Factors Influencing the Job Satisfaction

172

welfare, (5) curriculum reform and evaluation, 
and (6) teaching load.

In this study, factor loading and Cronback’s 
alpha coefficient were conducted to assess 
the validity and reliability of  this constructed 
measurement for job satisfaction of  academic 
members (see table 1). According to J.F. Hair 
et al. (2006), the selected criterions are: factor 
loading ≥ 0.6, cumulative explanation ≥ 0.6 (60 
per cent), and instruments used in exploratory 
study have reliability of  0.6 and 0.7 or more 
(cited also in Nunnally, 1978). The Cronbach 
alpha estimated for this study shows acceptable 
level of  0.898. Hence, based on the validation 
of  construct reliability which is concluded that 
research construct of  job satisfaction is reliable.

The independent variables of  this study 
include two blocks. The first block is work 
time per week, including teaching time, 
research time, community service time, and 
private time. The second block is institutional 
factors, including development aim, leadership 
style, campus landscape, and administration 
efficiency.  

Sample. The population for this study 
was comprised of  academic members from 
two public universities of  Ho Chi Minh 
City in Vietnam. They consist of  University 
of  Technology and University of  Science. 
Those universities are member of  Vietnam 
National University of  Ho Chi Minh City 
(VNU-HCMC). A random sample of  141 
questionnaires administered to potential 
subjects selected from the two universities. 
Participants were currently working on 
campus. 

It is notable from table 2 that demographic 
data of  responding academics was wide 
ranging. Of  the 141 respondents, 29% were 
female and 79.4% of  male faculty. Almost 
respondents consisted of  64.5% faculty were 
from 31 to 40 years old. Regarding marital 
status, 67% were single, 73% academics 
were married. In terms of  their academic 
qualification, 36.9% had master’s degrees, and 
51% faculty had attained a doctoral degree. 

Almost 91.5% of  the respondents were 
lecturers and only 0.7% and 7.8% academic 
were associate professor and teaching assistant, 
respectively. The 39% faculty had from 6 to 10 
years, 23.4% had from 11 to 15 years, and only 

8.5% academic members had from 16 or more 
years teaching experience. 

Data Analysis Method. Questionnaire 
survey was used to gather data in this study. 
The participants are weighted on a 4-point 
Likert’s scale to measure job satisfaction 
of  academic members and institutional 
factors which impact job satisfaction (1 = 
very dissatisfaction, 2 = dissatisfaction, 3 = 
satisfaction, and 4 = very satisfaction). For 
work time factors, however, there are used 
working hours per week to measure the 
influence of  job satisfaction of  academic (1 = 
0 hour, 2 = 1 to 5 hours, 3 = 6 to 10 hours, 4 = 
11 to 15 hours, 5 = 16 to 20 hours, 6 = 21 to 25 
hours, and 7 = over 26 hours). 

All data were analyzed using the Statistical 
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 13.0 
software. The statistical methods employed to 
analyze data are included. Descriptive analysis 
is computed to examine the general level of  
job satisfaction of  academic members. The 
analysis of  variance (ANOVA) is enabled to 
examine the difference between job satisfaction 
and discipline, and gender. To study the key 
factors of  work time and institutional factors 
which significantly affect job satisfaction, 
multiple regression analysis is used for this 
study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
First, the Level of Job Satisfaction of 

Academic Members among Different 
Universities. The results of  table 3 display 
Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), 
and ANOVA (Analysis of  Variance) of  job 
satisfaction of  academic members in two 
universities and to answer the first and apart of  
the second research question of  this study. As 
shown in table 3, the M and SD job satisfaction 
level of  the respondents were 2.69 and 
0.82, respectively. This result indicated that 
academic members were only a moderate level 
of  job satisfaction, mirroring the results of  the 
studies by S.Z. Eyupoglu & T. Saner (2009) 
and N. Malik (2011). 

According to S.H. Chen et al. (2006), quality 
in teaching and learning can only enhanced if  
the faculty members are satisfied and content; 
and the health of  an educational institution 
depend on the job satisfaction of  its employees 



EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 6(2) February 2014

173

Table 1:
The Results of  Dependence Variable in this Study

Dimensions of Job Satisfaction Factor Loading Cumulative Explanation Cronbach’s Alpha
Recreation and sport equipment .858

66.630 0.898

Medical facility .854
In-service teaching training .848
Bonus and welfare .812
Curriculum reform and evaluation .804
Teaching load .711

Table 2:
Demographics Data of  the Sample

Characteristics n Percentage (%)
Gender:
Male 112 79.4
Female 29 20.6
Age (Years Old):
Under 30 31 22
31 – 40 91 64.5
Over 40 19 13.5
Marital Status:
Single 67 47.5
Married 73 51.8
Widowed 1 0.7
Academic Qualifi cation:
Bachelor’s Degree 17 12.1
Master’s Degree 52 36.9
Doctoral Degree 72 51.0
Academic Rank:
Teaching Assistant 11 7.8
Lecturer 129 91.5
Associate professor 1 0.7
Length of  Employment (Years):

Less than 1 17 12.1
1 – 5 24 17.0
6 -10 55 39.0
11 – 15 33 23.4
16 or more 12 8.5

(Wood, 1976). Furthermore, job satisfaction 
has serious implications for relations between 
the academics and the management of  the 
higher educational organizations they belong 
to (Eyupoglu & Saner, 2009). Thus, university 
management should invest more resources in 
enhancing the job satisfaction of  academic 
members in designing institutional policies.

For job satisfaction of  academic members 
in two universities, academic members in 
the University of  Technology (M = 2.79, SD 
= 0.89) were more satisfied than academic 
members in the University of  Science (M = 

2.58, SD = 0.73). However, the results of  table 
3 also found that there were no significant 
differences of  academic members’ job 
satisfaction among the two universities (F = 
2.198, p = 0.140 > 0.05).

Second, Job Satisfaction and Gender 
of Academic Members among Different 
Universities. The findings of  table 4 showed 
that a significant difference has been found 
between the level of  job satisfaction of  
male and female academic members in the 
two campus (F = 7.032, p = 0.009 < 0.01), 
mirroring the results of  studies by D.A. 



MINH-QUANG DUONG,
A Comparison of  Factors Influencing the Job Satisfaction

174

Pearson & R.E. Seiler (1983); M. Springfield-
Scott (2000); S. Schulze (2006); N. Malik 
(2011); F. Mehboob, M.A. Sarwar & N.A. 
Bhutto (2012); and M.M. Ghafoor (2012). 
However, male academic members both 
universities are generally more satisfied with 
their job than the female academic members in 
this study, supported by the studies of  T. Bas & 
K. Ardic (2002) and O.E. Olorunsola (2010). 

As shown in table 4, male faculty members 
in the University of  Technology had the 
highest job satisfaction (M = 2.86, SD = 0.43). 
The difference of  job satisfaction among 
female academic members of  the University 
of  Technology (M = 2.26, SD = 0.91) and the 
University of  Science (M = 2.37, SD = 0.55) 
were negligible in general. In addition, female 
academic members both universities were less 
more satisfied than male counterparts. 

Third, Regression between Job Satisfaction 
and Work Time, and Institutional 
Characteristics. The regression model wielded 
rather different explanation power for job 
satisfaction of  academic members among 
the two universities. The results of  table 5 
showed the regression model proposed by 
this study explained 58.7% of  job satisfaction 
of  academic members in the University of  
Technology (R2 = 0.587) and 46.6% of  the 
University of  Science (R2 = 0.466).  

As shown in table 5, job satisfaction of  
academic members in the University of  
Technology had a significant positive effect on 

community service time (β = .346, p < 0.01), 
private time (β = .234, p < 0.05), leadership 
style (β = .436, p < 0.001), and administration 
efficiency (β = .586, p < 0.001); however, job 
satisfaction of  academic members had negative 
effect on teaching time (β = -.269, p < 0.05), 
and development aim of  university (β = -.428, 
p < 0.001). Both private time (β = -.417, p < 
0.001) and development aim of  university 
(β = -.287, p < 0.05) had significant negative 
effect on job satisfaction of  academics at the 
University of  Science.

According to N. Hensel (1991), the average 
professor in higher education sectors works 
approximately 55 hours per week; and when 
added to home duties, it can grow 70 hours. 
There had no significant impact teaching, 
community service (Bameka, 1996) and 
research (Sseganga & Garrett, 2005) on job 
satisfaction academics. Research, teaching, 
and service are different dimensions of  faculty 
work that often compete for faculty members’ 
time and commitment and are in conflict with 
one another (Linsky & Straus, 1975; Fox, 1992; 
Hattie & Marsh, 1996; and Fairweather, 2005).  

According to D. Olsen, S.A. Maple & F.K. 
Stage (1995), academics expressed greater 
satisfaction with teaching are less likely to 
receive support and recognition from their 
peer in their department. M.C. Liu (2001) 
found that academic members spend a greater 
percentage of  time on teaching express greater 
dissatisfaction with their work; and faculty in 

Table 3:
Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), and ANOVA (Analysis of  Variance) Results of  the Job Satisfaction Level in 

Two Universities

Universities M SD F Sig.
University of  Technology 2.79 0.89

2.198 .140
University of  Science 2.58 0.73
Average  of  two universities 2.69 0.82

Note: The mean difference is significant at the p ≤ .05

Table 4:
ANOVA Results between Job Satisfaction and Different Universities

Universities
Male Female

F Sig.
M (SD) M (SD)

University of  Technology 2.86 (0.43) 2.26 (0.91)
7.032 .009

University of  Science 2.67 (0.79) 2.37 (0.55)

Note: The mean difference is significant at the p ≤ .01



EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 6(2) February 2014

175

the natural and engineering were more likely to 
spend time conducting research than teaching. 
M.F. Fox (1992) and H.W. Marsh & J. Hattie 
(2002) indicated that increased time spent on 
research positively impacts job satisfaction of  
faculty, however, their study was inconsistent 
with this study. 

In addition, the results of  this study are 
supported some suggestions by J.D. Kelly 
(1989) and K. Sseganga & R.M. Garrett (2005) 
that most frequently perceived as responsible 
for low satisfaction is university policy/aim. 
Morale is highest when faculty members 
participate in governance and decision making 
(Rice & Austin, 1988). The studies of  T.N. 
Kyamanywa (1996); E.J. Venter (1998); and T. 
Ali & I. Akhter (2009) showed that leadership 
style significantly affected job satisfaction 
of  academic members in higher education 
institution. 

A research conducted by S.H. Packard & 
D.R. Kauppi (1999) found that employees with 
supervisors having democratic management 
styles experienced higher level of  satisfaction 
than with autocratic leadership style. 
Furthermore, the important role management 
can play in the job satisfaction of  academics. 
According to L.L. Van Tonder (1993), a 
manager could modify his/her management 
style to ensure that staff  enjoyed maximum 
satisfaction and thrived emotionally and 
professionally. Specifically, job satisfaction of  
academics may affect their perceptions of  the 

effectiveness of  the school as an organization 
(Schulz & Teddlie, 1989; Hemmasi, 1992; 
Maghrabi, 1999; and Judge & Church, 2000). 

CONCLUSION 1

It is clear that the findings of  this study 
have practical implication for university 
management and policy makers in Vietnamese 
higher education. This aim of  this study was 
to determine the specific factors that affected 
the job satisfaction of  academic members from 
two public universities of  Ho Chi Minh City 
in Vietnam. Through the findings described in 
this study, academic members in the University 
of  Technology were more satisfied than faculty 
members in the University of  Science. 

The present analysis found that no 
significant differences existed job satisfaction 
of  academic members among the two 
universities; but, there were significant 
difference between male and female faculty. In 
addition, male faculty members were generally 
more satisfied than female colleagues. This 
study also recognized that job satisfaction 
of  academic members both universities were 
significantly affected by their work time and 
institutional characteristics. 

The findings of  this study show that 
academic members both universities were 

1ACKNOWLEDGMENT: I would like to acknowledge my 
sincere gratitude to anonymous, kindest support and help, valu-
able advice, synthesized comments on revision, and detailed edit-
ing throughout.

Table 5:
Regression Analysis Results between Job Satisfaction and Independent Variables at the Each University

 

Independent Variables
University of Technology University of Science

Beta (β)
Work Time (Per Week):

Teaching -.269*

Research

Community Service .346**

Private .234* -.471***
Institutional Characteristics: 
Development Aim -.428*** -.287*

Leadership Style .436***

Campus Landscape

Administration Efficiency .586***

R2 .587 .466

Note: The mean difference is significant at the *p ≤ .05, ** p ≤ .01, *** p ≤ .001



MINH-QUANG DUONG,
A Comparison of  Factors Influencing the Job Satisfaction

176

moderate satisfied in their job. Thus, policy 
makers and management of  university need 
to re-examine their reward structures, value 
systems, and expectations placed on faculty 
work in order to keep highly productive faculty 
more satisfied with their jobs. In addition, each 
university management and policy makers 
should take more position factors than other 
factors in the process of  policy development 
for institution. 

It is hoped that the barrier to the job 
satisfaction of  academic members are found 
in this study may be useful for management 
institutes to develop work environment and 
culture that would allow higher levels of  
faculty job satisfaction and can contribute to a 
great extent to improve the level of  academic 
members in developing countries in general 
and Vietnamese higher education in particular. 

The data of  this study obtained through 
questionnaires were all self-reports from the 
participants; hence, the findings may be subject 
to response consistency effect. On the other 
hand, this study would not be generalized to all 
academic members across Vietnamese higher 
education. The findings of  this study are 
restricted to the two public universities of  Ho 
Chi Minh City which the samples were drawn.

References

Ali, T. & I. Akhter. (2009). “Job Satisfaction of  Faculty 
Members in Private Universities: In Context of  
Bangladesh” in International Business Research, 2(4), 
pp.167-175.

Bameka, P. (1996). “Factors Affecting Academic Staff  
Productivity at Makerere University”. Unpublished 
Master’s Dissertation. Makerere: Makerere University.

Bas, T. & K. Ardic. (2002). “Impact of  Age on Job 
Satisfaction to Turkish Academician” in G.U.II.B.F. 
Dergisi, pp.89-102.

Chen, S.H. et al. (2006). “The Development of  an 
Employee Satisfaction Model for Higher Education” 
in TQM Magazine, 1(5), pp.484-500.

Cranny, C.J., P.C. Smith & E.F. Stone. (1992). Job 
Satisfaction: How People Feel about Their Jobs and How it 
Affects Their Performance. New York: Lexington Books.

Evans, L. (1997). “Addressing Problems of  
Conceptualization and Construct Validity in 
Researching Teachers’ Job Satisfaction” in Educational 
Research, 39(3), pp.319-331.

Eyupoglu, S.Z. & T. Saner. (2009). “The Relationship 
between Job Satisfaction and Academic Rank: A 

Study of  Academicians in Northern Cyprus”. Paper 
presented at the World Conference on Educational 
Sciences, North Cyprus, 4-7 February. 

Fairweather, J.S. (2005). “Beyond the Rhetoric: Trends 
in the Relative Value of  Teaching and Research in 
Faculty Salaries” in The Journal of  Higher Education, 
76(4), pp.401-422.

Fox, M.F. (1992). “Research, Teaching, and Publication 
Productivity: Mutuality Versus Competition in 
Academia” in Sociology of  Education, 65(4), pp.293-
305.

Garrett, M.R. (1999). “Teacher Job Satisfaction in 
Developing Countries” in Educational Research 
Supplemental Series: ERIC Document Reproduction 
Service, No.ED 459 150.

Gautam, M., K. Mandal & R.S. Dalal. (2006). “Job 
Satisfaction of  Faculty Members of  Veterinary 
Sciences: An Analysis” in Livestock Research for Rural 
development, 18(6).

Ghafoor, M.M. (2012). “Role of  Demographic 
Characteristics on Job Satisfaction” in Far East 
Research Centre, 6(1), pp.30-45.

Glisson, C. & M. Durick. (1988). “Predictors of  Job 
Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in 
Human Service Organizations” in Administrative 
Science Quarterly, 33(1), pp.61-81.

Grunwald, H. & M.W. Peterson. (2003). “Factors that 
Promote Faculty Involvement in and Satisfaction with 
Institutional and Classroom Student Assessment” in 
Research in Higher Education, 44, pp.173-204.

Hagedorn, L.S. (2000). “Conceptualizing Faculty Job 
Satisfaction: Components, Theories, and Outcomes” 
in New Directions for Institutional Research, 105, pp.5-20.

Hair, J.F. et al. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. New 
Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hattie, J. & H.W. Marsh. (1996). “The Relationship 
between Research and Teaching: A Meta-Analysis” in 
Review of  Educational Research, 66(4), pp.507-542.

Hean, S. & R. Garrett. (2001). “Source of  Job 
Satisfaction in Science Secondary School Teachers in 
Chile” in Compare, 31, pp.363-379.

Hemmasi, M. (1992). “Correlates of  Pay and Benefit 
Satisfaction: The Unique Case of  Public University 
Faculty” in Public Personnel Management, 21(4), 
pp.429-443.

Hensel, N. (1991). Realizing Gender equality in Higher 
Education: The Need to Integrate Family/Work Issues 
(1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 2). 
Washington DC: George Washington School of  
Education and Human Development.

Ho, C.L. & W.T. Au. (2008). “Teaching Satisfaction 
Scale: Measuring Job Satisfaction of  Teachers” in 
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, pp.172-
185.

Judge, T.A. & A.H. Church. (2000). “Job Satisfaction: 
Research and Practice” in C.L. Cooper & E.A. Locke 
[eds]. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Linking 
Theory with Practice. Oxford, UK: Backwell, pp.166-
198.

Kelly, J.D. (1989). “Gender, Pay, and Job Satisfaction of  
Faculty in Journalism” in Journalism, 66(2), pp.446-
452. 



EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 6(2) February 2014

177

Kusku, F. (2003). “Employee Satisfaction in 
Higher Education: The Case of  Academic and 
Administrative Staff  in Turkey” in Career Development 
International, 8(7), pp.347-356.

Kyamanywa, T.N. (1996). “Factors Affecting Job 
Satisfaction in Tertiary Institutions in Uganda: 
A Study of  Uganda Polytechnic Kyambogo and 
National College of  Business Nakawa”. Unpublished 
Masters Dissertation. Makerere: Makerere University. 

Linsky, A.S. & M.A. Straus. (1975). “Student 
Evaluations, Research Productivity, and Eminence of  
College Faculty” in The Journal of  Higher Education, 
46(1), pp.89-102.

Liu, M.C. (2001). “The Adaptation and Experience of  
Foreign-Born Faculty Members in the United States”. 
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Claremont, USA: Claremont 
Graduate University. 

Locke, E.A. (1976). “The Nature and Causes of  Job 
Satisfaction” in M.D. Dunnette [ed]. Handbook of  
Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand 
McNally, pp.1297-1349.

Luthans, F. (1994). Organizational Behavior. New York: 
McGraw-Hill.

Maghrabi, A.S. (1999). “Assessing the Effects of  Job 
Satisfaction on Managers” in International Journal 
Value-Based Management, 12, pp.1-12. 

Malik, N. (2011). “Study on Job Satisfaction Factors of  
Faculty Members at University of  Balochistan” in 
International Journal of  Academic Research, 3(1), pp.267-
272.

Marsh, H.W. & J. Hattie. (2002). “The Relation between 
Research Productivity and Teaching Effectiveness: 
Complementary, Antagonistic, or Independent 
Constructs?” in The Journal of  Higher Education, 73(5), 
pp.603-641. 

Mehboob, F., M.A. Sarwar & N.A. Bhutto. (2012). 
“Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction among Faculty 
Member” in Asian Journal of  Business and Management 
Sciences, 1(12), pp.1-9.

Miller, H.A., S. Mire & B. Kim. (2009). “Predictors 
of  Job Satisfaction among Policy Officers: Does 
Personality Matter?” in Journal of  Criminal Justice, 37, 
pp.419-426.

Neumann, Y. (1978). “Predicting Faculty Job Satisfaction 
in University Departments” in Research in Higher 
Education, 9(1), pp.261-275.

Nguni, S., P. Sleegers & E. Denessen. (2006). 
“Transformational and Transactional Leadership 
Effects on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, Organizational 
Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship 
Behavior in Primary Schools: The Tanzanian Case” 
in School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 
pp.145-177.

Nguyen, N.C. et al. (2013). “Factors Affecting Job 
Satisfaction of  Teachers of  Hue University in 
Vietnam” in Journal of  Research in International Business 
and Management, 33(5), pp.169-174.

Noordin, F. & K. Jusoff. (2009). “Levels of  Job 
Satisfaction amongst Malaysian Academic Staff ” in 
Asian Social Science, 5(5), pp.122-128.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: 
McGraw-Hill.

Olorunsola, O.E. (2010). “Job Satisfaction and Gender 
Factor of  Administrative Staff  in South West Nigeria 
Universities” in EABR & ETLC Conference Proceedings 
Dublin. Ireland, pp.91-95.

Olsen, D., S.A. Maple & F.K. Stage. (1995). “Women and 
Minority Faculty Job Satisfaction: Professional Role 
Interests, Professional Satisfactions, and Institutional 
Fit” in The Journal of  Higher Education, 66(3), pp.267-
293. 

Oshagbemi, T. (1997). “The Influence of  Rank on the Job 
Satisfaction of  Organizational Members” in Journal 
Managerial Psychology, 12(8), pp.511-519.

Packard, S.H. & D.R. Kauppi. (1999). “Rehabilitation 
Agency Leadership Style” in Rehabilitation Counseling 
Bulletin, 43(1), pp.5-7.

Paul, E.P. & S.K. Phua. (2011). “Lecturers’ Job 
Satisfaction in a Public Tertiary Institution in 
Singapore: Ambivalent and Non-Ambivalent 
Relationships between Job Satisfaction and 
Demographic Variables” in Journal of  Higher Education 
Policy and Management, 33(2), pp.141-151.

Pearson, D.A. & R.E. Seiler. (1983). “Environmental 
Satisfiers in Academe” in Higher Education, 12(1), 
pp.35-47.

Platsidou, M. & G. Diamantopoulou. (2009). “Job 
Satisfaction of  Greek University Professors: Is 
it Affected by Demographic Factors, Academic 
Rank and Problem of  Higher Education?” in G.K. 
Zarifis [ed]. Conference Proceedings on Educating the 
Adult Educators: Quality Provision and Assessment in 
Europe. Thessaloniki: ESREA-ReNAdET, Grafima 
Publications, pp.535-545.

Rice, E.R. & A.E. Austin. (1988). “Faculty Morale: What 
Exemplary Colleges Do Right” in Change, 20(2), pp.51-58. 

Santhapparaj, A.S. & S.S. Alam. (2005). “Job Satisfaction 
among Academic Staff  in Private Universities in 
Malaysia” in Journal of  Social Sciences, 1(2).

Saygi, H., T. Tolon & H. Tekogul. (2011). “Job 
Satisfaction among Academic Staff  in Fisheries 
Faculties at Turkish Universities” in Social Behavior 
and Personality: An International Journal, 39(10), 
pp.1395-1402.

Schulz, I.L. & C. Teddlie. (1989). “The Relationship 
between Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and Their 
Perceptions of  Principals’ Use of  Power and School 
Effectiveness” in Education, 109(4), pp.461-468.

Schulze, S. (2006). “Factors Influencing the Job 
Satisfaction of  Academics in Higher Education” 
in South African Journal of  Higher Education, 20(2), 
pp.318-335.

Sharma, R.D. & J. Jyoti. (2006). “Job Satisfaction of  
University Teachers: An Empirical Study” in Journal 
of  Service Research, 9(2).

Sharma, R.D. & J. Jyoti. (2010). “Job Satisfaction among 
School Teachers” in IIMB Management Review, 18(4), 
pp.349-363.

Spector, P.E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, 
Assessment, Causes, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, 
CA: Sage.

Springfield-Scott, M. (2000). “Faculty Job Satisfaction 
in a University Work Environment” in Thresholds in 
Education, pp.25-32.



MINH-QUANG DUONG,
A Comparison of  Factors Influencing the Job Satisfaction

178

Sseganga, K. & R.M. Garrett. (2005). “Job Satisfaction 
of  University Academics: Perspectives from Uganda” 
in Higher Education, 50, pp.33-56.

Telman, N. & P. Unsal. ( 2004). Calisan Memnuniyeti. 
Istanbul: Epsilon Publishing. 

Van Tonder, L.L. (1993). “Die Bestuur van 
Bevredigingsaspekte aan ‘n Tegniese Kollege”. 
Unpublished M.Ed. Dissertation. Johannesburg: Rand 
Afrikaans University.

Venter, E.J. (1998). “Gehalte van Werklewe van 
Dosente aan die Universiteit van die Oranje 
Vrystaat”. Unpublished M.BA. Degree. Potchefstroom: 
Potchefstroom University for CHE.

Verret, L.B. (2012). “Factors Affecting University STEM 
Faculty Job Satisfaction”. Unpublished Doctoral 
Dissertation. Louisiana: Louisiana State University.

Wood, O.R. (1976). “A Research Project: Measuring 
Job Satisfaction of  the Community College Staff ” in 
Community College Review, 3(3), pp.56-64.

Zhou, Y. & J.F. Volkwein. (2004). “Examining the 
Influences on Faculty Departure Intentions: A 
Comparison of  Tenured Versus Non-Tentured Faculty 
at Research Universities Using NSOPF-99” in 
Research in Higher Education, 45, pp.139-176.