Looking Back, Looking Forward: How the Pandemic Influenced Faculty Values

The purpose of the study was to understand faculty career values and how faculty values and priorities were affected by COVID-19. Using a mixed-method design, this study found there were differences among the relative value faculty placed on research, teaching, and service, and these differences were consistent with expectations for faculty employed in various tenure and non-tenure line positions. In some instances, faculty values remained the same. In others, the faculty statements indicated changed values in the domains of faculty self-direction and sense of security, the former associated with work-life balance and burnout and the latter with salary and retirement concerns. This study provided insight into faculty values and priorities and how those values and priorities may have changed because of the pandemic. These understandings of faculty values and experiences have implications for faculty recruitment, retention, and development.


INTRodUCTIoN
Higher education faculty faced multitudes of challenges in both their professional and personal lives during COVID-19.From an abrupt move to online teaching, to interrupted research projects, to family illness and caregiving responsibilities, faculty found their lives upended on multiple levels.For many faculty, the pandemic meant isolation from peer networks and university communities (Pololi et al., 2021), increased workload and stress from teaching online, and work-life imbalance and interference (Boamah et al., 2022).This study explored the values and motivations of faculty during this fraught time.The purpose of our study was to understand faculty career values and how faculty values and priorities were potentially affected by COVID-19.

disruptions to Faculty Life
It is important to consider the context in which faculty make career decisions and keep career valuesnamely the university setting.The university is a socialized and systematized institution, particularly for early-career faculty, who are navigating the socialized constructs of university expectations.Building a supportive network of colleagues is important to their success in gaining tenure, receiving continuing contracts, and being awarded promotions and salary adjustments (Pifer & Baker, 2013).Faculty satisfaction and success within the institution are determined by work-life integration, transparency in the evaluation process (specifically for pre-tenured faculty), support for research and teaching, and culture, climate, and collegiality (Trower, 2012).Gonzales and Terosky (2018) observed that faculty rely on informal and formal collegial networks for mentorship and collaboration in research and teaching, and they also use those same networks to develop close friendships.Although collegial networks can and do happen online, for many faculty, on-campus networks were severely disrupted by the pandemic and left them isolated from their colleagues and friends.Meaningful work, relationships, and research productivity are motivating factors in faculty success and satisfaction, and the absence of these motivators due to COVID-19 caused stress and burnout (Pololi et al., 2021).These factors ultimately impacted how faculty managed pandemic changes to workload.
Teaching workloads and time devoted to attendant responsibilities increased because of the abrupt move to online instruction during the pandemic.A 2020 Chronicle of Higher Education survey of 1,122 professors at colleges and universities revealed 50% of faculty reported a decrease in their enjoyment of teaching (Tugend, 2020).Cordaro (2020) noted that some faculty may experience compassion fatigue from supporting students who experienced pandemic trauma.This increased emotional labor and workload interfered with faculty personal lives, creating work-life conflicts that affected faculty burnout and job satisfaction (Boamah et al., 2022).Similarly, a survey of 307 faculty in business and behavioral science disciplines found faculty experienced higher levels of technostress, the negative effects of technology on mental and physical health, due to the pandemic (Boyer-Davis, 2020).Although increased, time-sensitive, and altered workload caused fatigue and emotional labor for many faculty, some experienced technostress more severely than others.
For faculty populations already affected by systemic inequities, the pandemic exacerbated the situation.The work lives of women and faculty of color were affected more adversely by the pandemic than others (Pereira, 2021;King & Frederickson, 2021;Berheide et al., 2022;Porter et al., 2022).Gender disparities in manuscript submissions increased early in the pandemic in the sciences (King & Frederickson, 2021).Squazzoni et al. (2020) posited that since scholars were working from home and day cares and schools were closed, familial responsibilities may have limited the productivity of caregivers while faculty with fewer caregiving responsibilities may have gained an advantage.Berheide et al. (2022) attributed a reduction in research productivity to the increased emotional labor spent in caring for students' needs during the pandemic and noted the increase in emotional labor was felt more deeply by women of color, as they faced higher work demands because of cultural and identity taxation.

Faculty Motivation and the Great Resignation
COVID-19 changed the landscape of teaching, research, and service for faculty life.These changes caused faculty to evaluate their priorities and values and consider the cost of emotional labor and how to negotiate their work lives post COVID-19.In April 2021, Anthony Klotz coined the phrase the Great Resignation to describe the mass exodus of workers seeking alternative career opportunities based on a re-evaluation of priorities and values (Lodewick, 2022).Klotz noted Americans were grappling with the psychological effects of the pandemic and evaluating work-life balance issues.As a result, from April 2021 to February 2022, workers left their jobs at an average of 4 million per month (Lodewick, 2022).Colleges and universities were not invincible against the Great Resignation.Academics who left higher education for work outside academia cited toxic environments, low wages, and lack of care for well-being as reasons for leaving (Gewin, 2022).Faculty were not immune to considering resignation.In fact, market dynamics compelled such ruminations.
A Nature survey revealed that early career faculty faced more competition for stagnant wages during the pandemic; however, mid-career faculty were least satisfied with their careers (Gewin, 2022).Even tenured researchers left academia during the Great Resignation.Pereira (2021) argued that reduced research productivity of women faculty has been a frequent measure of the effects of the pandemic, but reduced productivity during the pandemic was a result of increased workload and low pay.As universities intensified efforts and deployed human and financial resources to deal with COVID-19, faculty were expected to do the same, causing some to examine their priorities and make changes that best aligned their priorities and activities with their values.
Not all faculty work lives were adversely affected by the pandemic, however.Some faculty found renewed energy for teaching and research during COVID-19 (Daumiller et al., 2021).For example, a pre-post survey of faculty who shifted to online teaching because of the pandemic found an individual faculty member's goal orientation often determined their attitudes toward challenges faced during the pandemic (Daumiller et al., 2021).Using the achievement goal approach of Butler (2007), which measures how goal orientation affects attitudinal responses, Daumiller et al. (2021) discovered faculty who were oriented toward learning new things (learning goal approach) in their work saw the move to online instruction as a positive opportunity to improve their teaching and broaden their skills.Faculty who were less focused on learning (work avoidance goal approach) were more likely to show burnout and receive lower student evaluations.

Faculty Values
Whether faculty resigned their positions, struggled, disengaged, or found opportunities to grow, their responses to the pandemic were driven by their values and motivations.Professional values are how faculty appraise their careers; motivations are the psychological force or inspiration that attracts, repels, and/or incentivizes career behaviors and actions.Rohan (2000) noted that many studies focus more on motivations rather than the values informing or guiding these motivations.However, motivational theories explain behaviors and traits rather than value orientations (Rohan, 2000;Schwartz, 2012).In other words, values drive motivators, and motivators drive action.Motivation can be affected by many factors, including systemic inequities and disparities in the treatment of specific faculty populations, whereas values are relatively constant (Rohan, 2000).To understand faculty motivators, then, it is important to continue the work on the faculty values and value systems that underpin motivation.For example, Terosky et al. (2014) found a mismatch between women associate professors regarding career values and promotion.Some women associate professors noted staying true to their values was more important to them than promotion, such as maintaining a meaningful research agenda that may not be most favored by promotion committees.They also reported work-life balance constraints curtail timely and successful advancement toward promotion.Similarly, in a study of mid-career women faculty, O' Meara (2015) found a misalignment between traditional narratives regarding success in the academy and women's priorities and social reality.Understanding faculty value orientations can yield insights into how faculty perceive their work life that is more constant and, thus, less impervious to external, short-term events.Morgeson et al. (2015) described how event characteristics shape individual responses, including how novel, critical, and disruptive the event is over time.The pandemic represents a "career shock" that propelled deep thought and contemplation.This study builds on pre-pandemic research on faculty career priorities, including studies by career stage and rank (Baker et al., 2019;Kezar & Maxey, 2012;Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2006) as well as by demographic characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and gender (Wood, et al., 2015;Turner et al., 2017;Winslow, 2010).
Two research questions guided the study: 1. How did faculty with different position titles value research, teaching, and service during the COVID-19 pandemic?2. How did faculty make meaning of their career priorities and values during the pandemic?
This study provided insight into faculty values and priorities and how those values and priorities may have changed because of the pandemic.The long-term effects of the pandemic on faculty life remain to be determined, and this study aimed to be at the forefront of understanding the impact of COVID-19 on how faculty viewed and made sense of their careers during the pandemic.In addition, understanding faculty counternarratives to traditional narratives about faculty values and success in academia is important in supporting faculty throughout the arc of their careers.

THEoRETICAL FRAMEwoRK
To understand how faculty expressed their career values and changes to their values because of COVID-19, we used the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values (2012) as a framework.The Schwartz Theory of Basic Values situates ten motivationally distinct values along two continua, including one focused on the opposition of change and conservation and the other on the opposition of selftranscendence and self-preservation.The ten values include achievement, benevolence, conformity, hedonism, power, security, self-direction, stimulation, tradition, and universalism.For example, the values of universalism and benevolence align with self-transcendence, while the values of achievement and power signify self-enhancement.The basic values reflect beliefs, desirable goals, and enduring standards and are ordered by importance to guide action.Rohan (2000) emphasized both the importance and difficulties of values research.The term values is problematic because it overlaps with terms such as worldviews or attitudes.In addition, the term values is overused and overapplied in disparate contexts.Rohan (2000) contended that, because of this lack of clear definition and delineation, the study of values has suffered.He asserted that value systems are cognitive structures that are constant even as environments and contexts change, including the shift between personal and professional contexts.Values underpin motivation and subsequent choices, decisions, and actions.Rohan (2000) defined value as "an implicit analogical principle constructed from judgements about the capacity of things, people, actions, and activities to enable best possible living" (p.270).Rohan (2000) differentiated these systems into personal value systems and social value systems: When personal value priorities are salient, the ideology that "feels right" will be one that contains links to important personal value priorities; when social value priorities are salient, the ideology that feels right will be one that contains links to important social value priorities.(p. 272) Although individual responses to values may vary, across all values there is a hierarchical order to Schwartz's value survey, where benevolence, universalism, and self-direction rank highest across cultures and time, perhaps to preserve survival of the group by prioritizing group-normed social behavior (Schwartz, 2012).Schwartz (2012) noted, however, that even though a person may hold a value above all others, their behaviors may not always match their values.While values are quite enduring, they may be affected by significant life events, long-term exposure to others with different value systems, and similar experiences.Changes to social norms and personal behavior may also work reflexively to modify the prioritization of values and worldviews (Rohan, 2000).Schwartz (2012) suggested that values are structured through "congruence and conflict among the values that are implicated simultaneously in decisions" (p.13).Therefore, in times of uncertainty and social instability, anxiety-free values such as self-directedness and benevolence could come in conflict with anxiety-based values such as security (see Figure 1).We anticipated these dynamics were at play during the pandemic and as faculty made consequential career decisions.

METHodS
To ensure credibility, trustworthiness, transferability, confirmability, and dependability of our findings, we implemented a mixed methods approach, administering a survey through Qualtrics with closed and open-ended questions.We used concurrent triangulation design where we collected qualitative and quantitative data at the same time to compare results from both and analyze the data accordingly to gather different but complementary data on the same topic to corroborate and confirm the insights (Rauscher & Greenfield, 2009).We obtained approval from the Institutional Review Board to conduct the study.On closed-ended questions, we ran basic descriptive statistics that summarized the data set, using measures of central tendency and measures of variability including mean, median, and mode, standard deviation, and variance.Standard statistical analyses were utilized for this project.We used a one-way ANOVA to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the means of the relative value that faculty at different ranks place on research, teaching, and service.
For open-ended questions, we used framework analysis and consensus building (Gale et al., 2013) as our methodological orientation and operationalized several aspects of faculty values based on the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values (Schwartz, 2012).Five of the basic values were identified in the open-ended responses and coded as follows: self-direction, achievement, security, benevolence, and universalism.Self-direction was defined as independence, creativity, and freedom (Rohan, 2000;Schwartz, 1996Schwartz, , 2012)); achievement was defined as personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards (Rohan, 2000;Schwartz, 1996Schwartz, , 2012)); security was defined as safety for self and family and stability of society (Rohan, 2000;Schwartz, 1996Schwartz, , 2012)); benevolence was defined as preserving and enhancing the welfare of those in contact (Rohan, 2000;Schwartz, 1996Schwartz, , 2012)); and universalism was defined as understanding, appreciating, tolerating, and protecting the welfare of all people (Rohan, 2000;Schwartz, 1996Schwartz, , 2012)).Figure 1 demonstrates the relational structure of these five values.

Trustworthiness
We used note-taking as an audit trail to transparently describe the research steps taken and consensus findings reached and used persistent observations by identifying through meetings and note-taking the characteristics and elements most relevant to the research questions.We spent five meetings over a four-month period familiarizing ourselves with the data, identifying and reworking the thematic framework, indexing and charting themes, and mapping and interpreting the findings.
Five coders participated in the coding process.We developed a code book and applied the code book to our first set of data, refining the definitions and main codes along the way.Then, we applied the refined codebook to the second set of codes.We did not use interrater reliability metrics.Instead, we met regularly to achieve consensus on the code definitions and the final application of codes to data.We used Microsoft Word commenting and Excel to code and create our consensus codes.

Survey/Instrumentation
A descriptive survey was designed to collect demographic data needed to examine the research questions regarding perceived impacts of COVID-19 on faculty academic careers and how faculty made meaning of their career priorities and values during the pandemic.The survey was distributed by email in two rounds, three months apart, to allow for maximum participation.The data reported are drawn from both survey rounds.Survey invitations were emailed to all faculty members of the university through a conscribed list.

Sample
Of the 2004 faculty members, 14% (n = 280) responded to the survey.Online response rates, especially surveys delivered via email, are often lower than other methods (Daikeler et al., 2020;Wu et al., 2022).Faculty members at the university represent seven different colleges with the highest response rates from the College of Liberal Arts (34.6%) and the College of Science and Engineering (27.3%).
Faculty respondents varied in position title, gender, and race, which has implications for the research questions.The sample included professors (20.4%), associate professors (21.1%), assistant professors (20.4%), full-time non-tenure line faculty, including full-time lecturers and other ranked non-tenure line positions (30%), and part-time lecturers (8.2%).Most respondents were female (53.9%) with males (30.4%) as the next highest respondents, followed by cisgender (9.2%), preferred not to say (4.8%), genderqueer (1%), and gender not listed (0.7%).While almost three-quarters of the respondents were white (70.7%), this is an accurate representation of the faculty race and ethnicity demographics at the university (see Table 1).

RESULTS
In answering our first research question, "How did faculty with different position titles value research, teaching, and service during the COVID-19 pandemic?"faculty were asked how important research/ scholarly/creative activity, teaching, and service were on a five-point Likert scale (1-not at all important, 2-slightly important, 3-moderately important, 4-very important, 5-extremely important).Data were analyzed for measures of central tendency and dispersion based on faculty rank and gender (see Tables 2-3).
Professors, associate professors, and assistant professors placed a higher value on research/ scholarly/creative activity than non-tenure line faculty.Non-tenure line faculty placed a higher value on teaching than professors, associate professors, and assistant professors.The value of service was rated lowest by professors.
The value placed on research/scholarly/creative activity, teaching, and service did not vary much between genders.Teaching was valued highest in both males and females.This was followed by research/scholarly/creative activity with males placing a slightly higher to this value than females.Service was valued almost equally between males and females.
To further answer the research question about how faculty with different position titles valued research, teaching, and service during the COVID-19 pandemic, a one-way ANOVA was applied to investigate differences between faculty (professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and non-tenure line faculty) among research, teaching, and service constructs.The analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between faculty and their perception of importance of research (p<0.0001);however, the effect size / difference (.18) between means was small based on Cohen's D. Furthermore, no significant differences between faculty were determined on the importance of teaching and service constructs.
Tukey's post hoc comparisons yielded significant differences between professors, assistant professors, and non-tenure line faculty (p=0.0001) and their perceptions of the importance of research.There was no significant difference between professors and associate professors (p=0.910).Again, there was no significant difference between faculty on teaching and service perceptions.

FINdINGS
Through framework analysis and consensus building, we determined Schwartz's Values Theory (1996, 2012) was relevant and beneficial as a theoretical frame for analyzing faculty members' values using content analysis.In answering our second research question, "How did faculty make meaning of their career priorities and values during the pandemic?"five major themes emerged from the ten values identified in Schwartz's Values Theory: achievement, benevolence, security, self-direction, and universalism (see Table 6).
Faculty were asked open-ended questions about their values during the pandemic and whether those values had changed during the pandemic.Some responses overlapped themes; however, we coded only for the primary theme found in the response.Fifty-three (19%) of the respondents left the open-ended questions blank.Approximately six responses (2%) were not coded because answers pertained to matters unrelated to the questions asked (e.g., "none of your business").In addition to sharing career values, faculty also noted how their values did or did not change during the pandemic.Of the 162 faculty who responded to the open-ended questions, 113 reported a change in values.Self-direction and security were the most frequent values noted in the responses.The participants reported other values, such as benevolence and achievement, also changed.Very few reported a change in universalism.

Achievement
Approximately 47% of responses fell under the theme of achievement.Comments included faculty members' desire to positively impact their students, disciplines, work environments, or policies and society.Most achievement responses focused on teaching and supporting students.Examples include: "Career values are to teach/mentor with a purpose of developing compassionate, strong, thoughtful leaders," "I want to meaningfully contribute to the life change experience that university represents for my students," and "Be awesome in the classroom, mentor students and make things happen on campus for the betterment of everyone." The second most common achievement responses prioritized research.Faculty commented on their intrinsic motivation-"I really enjoy writing and value scholarship and research.I wish that were 100% of my job"-as well as the importance of research in a larger context such as "advancing research within my field" or "publishing meaningful research that reaches and impacts the populations I am studying."The third most common responses regarded earning promotion.Often this was mentioned in the context of earning tenure: "Produce high-quality scholarship, successfully mentor and instruct undergraduates, and attain tenure."Other responses focused on earning promotion, such as from Associate to Professor, or within non-tenure line ranks: "I want to be promoted to Clinical Professor" or, from a non-tenure line into a tenure-track position, "be placed in a tenure-eligible position."The fourth and fifth most common comments under the achievement theme focused on service at the department, college, or university levels and engagement in one's professional discipline or field; for example, "I want to influence both method and theory in my research discipline.That's my top priority." Other responses categorized under achievement included collaborating with and mentoring colleagues, giving back to the community, and serving underserved populations.Although these comments might also fall under the theme of benevolence or universalism, they were placed under achievement because they used task-based or aspirational language.Many wanted to help others and "be a helpful colleague," while others expressed valuing the opportunity "to connect and collaborate with like-minded scientists."At the community level, faculty indicated they aspired to "give back to my community" or "make a contribution to local agencies."Likewise, faculty shared the value of "contributing to the science to improve outcomes for under-represented populations."Several comments were broadly about making meaningful contributions and making a difference.
Eighteen percent of faculty reflected that the pandemic had either challenged their achievement value or that they had used achievement as further motivation.For example, one participant aimed for teaching excellence in all tech modalities: "I am a people person and consider myself to be an excellent face-to-face instructor; now I want to deliver the same online."In this case, the participant used the existing value of achievement to strive for online teaching excellence.Research excellence also emerged as achievement became a motivating value: "I have to 100% be focused on my own research.At least 8 papers have been in extended review for over 2+ years."In this case, the participant strove for research excellence after a lull in activity.

Benevolence
The theme of benevolence was the second-most common value identified in the responses to openended questions with approximately 14% of responses.Faculty valued balancing work and family responsibilities, as well as "inclusion and shared governance," and to "serve/mentor students."Most comments on benevolence focused on teaching.These values and priorities included the desire to "pass on information to students that they [students] will utilize in their career after they graduate" and "provide the most useful, current, and thorough education to learners of all types."More broadly, faculty said they wanted to make a "difference in the lives of. . .students, on both an educational and personal level.Their mental and emotional health, sense of belonging, and preparation for life outside the university is a priority."Other comments focused on valuing being a good person and doing good work.Some expressed this as "being ethical, trustworthy, dependable, and of service to others" or "I value collaboration, and I aim to support human flourishing and a thriving faculty-student community.I want my students and research assistants to find joy in what they are learning." Nineteen percent of responses reflected a change or increase in the value of benevolence due to the pandemic.These change responses included statements of dependability, reliability, and faithfulness to friends, family, and the group.For example, one participant reportedly became "more flexible and provide[d] more opportunities to students."Overall, the idea of increased charity and compassion for others emerged from this group of benevolence codes: "I have increased my values toward being more compassionate to self and others, and I have put more emphasis on personal health over class attendance."This participant expressed an increase in valuing benevolence because of the pandemic.

Security
The third (or fourth) most common theme identified as a value, security, accounted for 7% of responses.Comments focused on security centered around upcoming retirements.Many responses focused on making a living wage or a salary commensurate with experience and expertise, such as "Be paid what I'm worth."Other comments tied status to security.Some commented on perceived lack of job security, "I want to save enough to retire and get out of Texas before the Republicans kill me" or "No upward mobility possible as a lecturer.Best I can do is not get fired," while others defined what they perceived as security: "Job security, fulfillment, variety, and salary/benefits." We coded approximately 28% of responses to changes in values as motivated by security.Security comments focused on safety, harmony, and stability of society, relationships, self, and family.For example, some reported disruptions to their security: "I am retiring 2 years early because I can't keep up with the pace of change at the university."This participant felt that retirement was premature, resulting from fast-paced changes.Participants also reported finding ways to increase security: "I am more focused on external funding to ensure I have more job security."The lack of security due to the pandemic motivated this participant to seek external funding to increase job security.

Self-direction
The theme of self-direction was the fourth (or third) most common theme found in the responses, accounting for 7% of responses.Most comments were related to creativity and personal growth, giving to self and others, and desiring a locus of control and ability to balance demands within one's work.Some comments focused on "artistic challenge and growth" or valuing "growth, productivity, honesty, integrity" and "transparency, honesty, rigor."Other comments observed self-sufficiency supports teaching innovation and improvement.Comments included, "Values are to provide the best of myself and to continue learning," "Develop my teaching and mentoring skills to become a more effective teacher," and "Priorities include developing high quality online instruction."Comments related to control and balance included statements indicating burnout as well as happiness with and hopefulness about achieving balance.One example comment indicated burnout: "I'd like to push more research out the door, but I'm tired.I have no desire to do anything."In a more dire example, another wrote: I used to be to be a leader in research and teaching who also motivated and supported others in their growth.I was hungry for this life and path; now, I question my career values and priorities.I have been investigating options outside of academic work.I do not know that I will ever act on them, but I imagined myself working into my mid 70s because I loved it.I recently investigated the earliest I could retire.
While others also indicated signs of stress, their responses were more hopeful in terms of using their sense of self-direction to achieve balance.Examples included, "I love teaching and enjoy research so I strive for somewhat of a balance between them.I want to do work that is meaningful to my students (they feel it helps them) and complete research that interests me" and "Honest and high-quality research, development of students as future collaborators, building long-term funding and research relationships, and most importantly finding happiness with work/life balance." When asked if the pandemic changed their values, approximately 34% of the responses reflected change in self-direction.We applied the code when participants selected their own purposes and interests.For example, one participant shared a self-directed perspective on what is important: "Life is more important than work, workshops, and mandatory meetings."Others reported new focus and self-direction in completing work: "My priorities have shifted and though I was considering transitioning out. . .I have found a new purpose in serving my college."In this case, the participant chose to invest in work and found a new purpose.

Universalism
Four percent of responses fell under the theme of universalism.Many of the comments from this theme focused on lifting up those around them.Other comments focused on how faculty could use their individual efforts to promote the greater good and the desire to help others, such as vulnerable or under-served populations.Some comments centered around working to shape universal worldviews, such as "teaching, encouraging forgiveness, and spiritual awareness."Many comments promoted social justice, as in this response: Supporting others, particularly those who feel and are excluded, protecting people who have less power (e.g., assistant professors, staff) from faculty who are exploitative and/or sexist, giving visibility to amazing students and faculty by nominating them and promoting their work, treating others with compassion and respect, when possible, doing the best work I can, contributing to the university, contributing to my field.
Other faculty responses included sentiments such as, "Mutual hard work among collaborators, equity/fair treatment, making the world a better place."One faculty member provided the following list: 1.To pursue research that promotes social justice and improves the health and well-being of individuals.2. To mentor students while they pursue their early career goals.3. To teach from an ethical lens the theoretical and practical concepts that are core to our profession.
In creating opportunities for others, faculty said they valued work that benefitted students and colleagues, including, "Developing launch pads for BIPOC students to excel in their career and have access to graduate school," "Develop and publish social engagement tools for sharing lived experiences," and "Obtain grant funding with external partners to support students in HSI's to move from community college to 4-year programs." Less than 1% of responses were coded as exhibiting a change in universalism as a value due to the pandemic.Answers involved correcting injustice, caring for the weak, working toward equal opportunity, and tolerating different ideas and beliefs.For example, one participant framed universalism in terms of serving the underserved: "They've become more focused on supporting underserved communities to navigate career pathways."Overall, universalism was an infrequent code.

Changes in Priorities during the Pandemic
When faculty commented on change in values during the pandemic, the responses revealed the complexity of having what they most valued challenged by living and working through the pandemic.For example, one participant described feelings of insecurity about the pandemic but also a new awakening to their online teaching abilities: "I have concerns about going back into the classroom without mask or vaccination requirements, but . . .I enjoyed online teaching more than I anticipated, even with these difficulties, and would be open to doing more in the future."In this case, the pandemic inspired both insecurity and self-growth.Another participant addressed this paradoxical challenge: Further emphasis on equity and inclusion; need to work together; grateful for career and its opportunities; need to connect well in-person and more past the challenges of remote/distant work that did not have the human interaction-it was great for the emergency of the pandemic, but by itself fully distant work (teaching/research/service) is not as meaningful or creative.
In this example, the participant wanted to improve social justice and make more meaningful connections with their small circles of influence.
In some instances, faculty values did not change, but the work circumstances due to the pandemic altered their ability to complete work in the same way and at the same pace as before the pandemic.One participant noted: They [values] have not [changed], but I struggled to submit papers, research grants.I could have submitted at least 2 more papers if I did not have to full-time support my little child who was stuck at home.I don't think the world will remember that I lost a year, and all of these have consequences.For e.g., since I did not submit any paper in 2020 due to COVID-19, there will not be any papers to show for in 2021 since all papers published in 2021 had to be submitted in 2020.My male colleagues, however, went on to submit 50% more grants and papers, and might come back and say "but I could do it" --yes they probably have a female counterpart on my boat, where their (male) boat sail on a different and more calm sea.
Another participant noted changing relationships with work: I have certainly begun to value my personal time and the "work-life balance" more during COVID-19.I think this had to do in part with the increased parenting responsibilities I had during the pandemic.But also, this happened because of the increased work responsibilities.Initially, the messages we as a faculty were receiving from our director were something on the order of "maybe now is the time you can publish more!Or get more grants!Do more for your students" Initially, there was very little recognition of the emotional, psychological, and logistical impact of the pandemic on us as faculty.In response, I doubled down on my own boundaries and self-care.I learned to push back, speak up, and say no.

dISCUSSIoN
In the quantitative findings, there were differences among values and academic ranks.Professors valued teaching and research roughly equally, while associate and assistant professors valued research above teaching.Non-tenure line faculty valued teaching more and valued research less than tenureline professors, associate, and assistant professors, which is consistent with role expectations.All groups valued service much less than teaching and research.Despite these differences, achievement was the most prevalent faculty value reflected in the data.The desire for excellence was apparent in both the practice of teaching and research.There were differences in the methods by which these goals might be met.For example, research excellence was often defined through gaining tenure or promotion, winning external funding, or other professional recognition, while teaching excellence came to include online proficiency.
The highest number of statements indicating changed values were regarding self-direction and security.In terms of self-direction, faculty values reflect polar perspectives: On one end, there was optimism driven by healthy moderation and balance of work and family life; on the other end, there was burnout and its associated negative feelings.The driving factors toward the latter perspective have disproportionately affected primary caregivers.The result of this added burden has contributed to the rejection of "hustle culture" made apparent in a movement of professionals creating more solid boundaries between work and private lives.This phenomenon, which has increased since the pandemic, has been coined as "quiet quitting" in popular literature (Ellis & Yang, 2022;Krueger, 2022).
In terms of security, faculty member values reflect a concern with salary and retirement.However, during the pandemic these concerns took on different forms: Early retirement has become more prevalent (Coile & Zhang, 2022;Freeman, 2022;Mitchell, 2020) as well as the pressure to search for external funding.In terms of benevolence, faculty member values saw a shift toward flexibility during the pandemic.Where values had hitherto been primarily concerned with preparing a student for professional life-emphasizing attendance and personal responsibility-the shift to online learning led to an increased awareness of the importance of accommodations for students.
Quantitative and qualitative findings were consistent with expectations for faculty employed in different types of positions.Tenured and tenure-track faculty placed higher value on research and scholarly and creative activity, in alignment with the expectations for tenure and promotion.Non-tenure line faculty with no performance evaluation expectations for research, scholarly or creative activity, valued them less.Teaching was relatively high for all groups, compared to service, which was relatively lower for most groups.This finding also confirms expectations that service, which is typically apportioned less of a percentage of performance expectations for faculty, was valued lower.Interestingly, the pandemic might have further devalued service at a time when faculty input and stewardship were a greater institutional need.Furthermore, high value placed on research may have not wavered for tenured and tenure-track faculty during the pandemic.It is also important to note the pandemic slowed editorial processes; peer review processes were delayed, and their quality degraded (Bauchner et al., 2020;Rabin, 2020;Behera et al., 2021).The tension between scholarly value and output might have worsened frustration and attitudes about the profession.Teaching and research were the top two qualitative themes as well, which further reinforces the expectations mentioned above.The security theme may also underscore potential differences in career values between faculty in different positions.The security theme included attitudes about pay fairness and job security.It may be the case non-tenure line faculty feel the most vulnerability in these areas, but it also may be the case tenured and tenure-track faculty felt equally vulnerable given political and economic volatility worsened by the pandemic.
Qualitative findings also revealed the benevolent values underpinning the importance of teaching for all, which included service to students and commitment to the important role of education in human flourishing.Two additional qualitative themes-self-direction and universalism-may also point to the dynamics underpinning the quantitative findings where teaching and research persisted as top priorities during the pandemic.Faculty reported universal and personal achievement goals to improve skill sets and contribute to societal good.They also reported the desire to promote the greater good and chart meaningful paths for themselves.These universal values could be construed as a bedrock of higher education and professionalism that would and could remain consistent even during crises such as a pandemic.It may be the case that the pandemic bolstered rather than diminished these universal and personal values.Qualitative findings about changes in career values point to it being the case that core values anchored faculty during the pandemic as external circumstances reeled.Faculty perceived less financial stability as they experienced more self-direction and desire for benevolence, universal good, and self-achievement.

Implications
While the academic workplace is different post-pandemic, our study suggests faculty still greatly value achievement and benevolence, and their values have shifted to put a higher regard on self-direction.With these values come several implications for policy and practice.For example, considering the burden caregivers faced during the pandemic, policy implications for universities could include how faculty are evaluated post-pandemic in terms of annual review, tenure, and promotion to recognize the impact of the pandemic.Likewise, universities might carefully consider how to hire, manage, and incentivize faculty whose values now demand a reasonable pace of work and balance between their values and their jobs as well as between work and home life.In practice, universities need to bolster support systems for vulnerable populations as well as strategies to boost satisfaction to address burnout, disengagement, "quiet quitting," and early retirements.
In light of our findings, professional development, competitive salaries, benefits, awards programs, flexible career paths, and policy review appear to be critical components to ensuring quality work environments.Institutions are best served by developing, tailoring, and improving these work factors based on local constituent feedback, mission and goals, program assessment, and proven practices.Since the faculty employment market is often national or beyond, successful hiring and retention are dependent on external benchmarking and knowledge of internal statistics, research findings, and trends.

Limitations
This study was limited by the sample, which comprised a single research university in the southwest region of the United States.A more comprehensive follow-up study of different institution-types across the country would broaden understanding of faculty experiences during the pandemic.Another limitation was the snapshot in time in which the study occurred.As the pandemic has progressed in length, immunizations have become more widely available, and restrictions have lifted, it is possible faculty values and priorities have again shifted.While the disruptive and novel aspects of the pandemic appear to have passed, long-term repercussions may continue to weigh on faculty career decisions.Finally, although a sample size of 280 respondents is appropriate for analysis, it represents 14% of the university's faculty population.Our sample size limited our ability to make or confirm generalizations across different faculty positions.The size and representativeness of the sample are a potential limitation in many research studies due to nonresponse bias, although recent work points to the error of dismissing results simply due to low response rates (Meterko et al., 2015).

Suggestions for Future Research
A follow-up study could illuminate the current and future state of faculty values, especially considering reports on the disengagement of faculty and other employees.While the Great Resignation quickly upended employment markets, disengagement signals a sustainable and intentional strategy used by faculty to change the way they approach their work and their institutions.The pandemic crisis exacerbated pressure points around salaries, workloads, job stability, and similar matters.These work factors may be more pronounced for faculty in positions that are perceived as less secure and less financially rewarding than tenure-line positions.Future studies could investigate and confirm the differences between different faculty positions.Last, we found professional identities are related to one's belonging.A future study of faculty belonging could help better illuminate faculty values.Recent work on employee belongingness in relation to inclusion highlights the role of both individual and relational factors (Canlas & Williams, 2022), which aligns with the values orientation used in this study.

CoNCLUSIoN
In summary, the pandemic presented unprecedented challenges for institutions of higher education and faculty, who were forced to adapt in different ways to organize their work and professional lives.These shifts changed the landscape of the higher education workplace as well as, in many instances, faculty relationship to work.Using a mixed-method design, this study found there were differences among the relative value faculty placed on research, teaching, and service, and these differences were consistent with expectations for faculty employed in various tenure and non-tenure line positions.The highest number of statements indicating changed values were regarding selfdirection and security, the former associated with work-life balance and burnout and the latter with salary and retirement concerns.Despite the upheaval caused by the pandemic, faculty remained committed to the values of benevolence and contributing to societal good.These understandings of faculty values and experiences have implications for universities in faculty recruitment, retention, and development.