View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Influencing Factors on Scholars' Perceptions of Organisational Support in Chinese Higher Education: An Exploratory Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Influencing Factors on Scholars' Perceptions of Organisational Support in Chinese Higher Education: An Exploratory Study
Language: English
Authors: Taoli Wang, Wenjing Wang (ORCID 0009-0003-8253-5681), Kun Dai
Source: European Journal of Education. 2025 60(1).
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Higher Education, Teacher Administrator Relationship, College Faculty, Tenure, Research Universities, Collegiality, Justice, Work Environment, Organizational Culture, Teacher Promotion
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12849
ISSN: 0141-8211
1465-3435
Abstract: Supporting scholars is crucial for promoting academic development in higher education institutions (HEIs). While organisational support for academic careers has been widely researched in various contexts, little attention has been paid to factors influencing Chinese scholars' perspectives on such support, which could significantly impact their professional attitudes and performance. This qualitative study explores factors influencing scholars' perception of organisational support and the micro-processes by which these factors operate in Chinese higher education. Informed by organisational support theory, in-depth interviews were conducted with 30 tenure-track scholars from two Chinese research universities. Findings reveal diverse opinions among Chinese scholars regarding organisational support. Several influencing factors were identified: organisational justice, leadership and colleague support, organizational rewards and working conditions and organisational culture. These factors closely relate to scholars' work environment, career advancement and talent development, ultimately affecting their perception of whether their organisations care about their growth. This study emphasises the importance of considering scholars' perceptions to enhance the effectiveness of organisational support and contributes to building harmonious relationships between scholars and HEIs beyond mere evaluation mechanisms.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A10/s7151/202101/t20210108_509152.html
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1461259
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGEnt4GGYpkeWtmFs68QU88AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCYen248WsMTK5Nt9QIBEICBmzsJ2yd05GqSGJtW1C0TQeD73qELJG0G_J4byV7orctaYwsVCLlT0j7m5g1Q7hj1d4oo9rG-AHEyjrnEBl7v-pSxEq4atyhlvP9ZBIwjwFMfiH3y5xa9dc7lG6thcyj--a6Ih30SFxlp61QHIvwEF7jxSz9R9nL9f4nMzBwbLddo5IFe0QRa6A0WBen6VZrC9BGP_0nCOb-lvx0I
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183654340;eje01mar.25;2025Mar17.06:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183654340-1">Influencing Factors on Scholars' Perceptions of Organisational Support in Chinese Higher Education: An Exploratory Study </title> <p>Supporting scholars is crucial for promoting academic development in higher education institutions (HEIs). While organisational support for academic careers has been widely researched in various contexts, little attention has been paid to factors influencing Chinese scholars' perspectives on such support, which could significantly impact their professional attitudes and performance. This qualitative study explores factors influencing scholars' perception of organisational support and the micro‐processes by which these factors operate in Chinese higher education. Informed by organisational support theory, in‐depth interviews were conducted with 30 tenure‐track scholars from two Chinese research universities. Findings reveal diverse opinions among Chinese scholars regarding organisational support. Several influencing factors were identified: organisational justice, leadership and colleague support, organizational rewards and working conditions and organisational culture. These factors closely relate to scholars' work environment, career advancement and talent development, ultimately affecting their perception of whether their organisations care about their growth. This study emphasises the importance of considering scholars' perceptions to enhance the effectiveness of organisational support and contributes to building harmonious relationships between scholars and HEIs beyond mere evaluation mechanisms.</p> <p>Keywords: career development; Chinese university; organisational support; scholar</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Scholars require continuous training to effectively apply their knowledge and skills in the workplace (Jaramillo‐Baquerizo et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref1">38</reflink>]). Universities worldwide have implemented strategies to enhance scholars' career development, in order to promote their successful transition from academic experts to professional intellectuals. These strategies include providing induction and orientation sessions (Billot and King [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref2">8</reflink>]; Reddy et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref3">55</reflink>]), research start‐up funding (Englund, Olofsson, and Price [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]) and mentoring programmes (Lunsford, Baker, and Pifer [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref5">46</reflink>]). The efforts of higher education institutions (HEIs) to support scholars are valuable in promoting scholars' career development (e.g., Tison and Horne [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref6">66</reflink>]; Ayyala et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]; Lunsford, Baker, and Pifer [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref8">46</reflink>]). However, some strategies are not necessarily perceived as organisational support among scholars. For instance, a survey of over 100 scholars in Australia, North America and the United Kingdom found that over 40% of participants felt unsupported, with some claiming that their universities 'pretend' to provide support (Heffernan and Heffernan [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref9">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Studies have identified various degrees of perceived organisational support (POS) in different countries, such as Malaysia (Lew [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref10">43</reflink>]), Thailand (Na‐Nan, Joungtrakul, and Dhienhirun [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref11">52</reflink>]) and Turkey (Erat et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref12">24</reflink>]). The findings show that POS significantly influences academics' individual performance and quitting motivation. Some studies further identified varying levels of POS within the same HEI (Culver, Young, and Barnhardt [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>]; Ahmed et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]). For example, while the overall level of scholars' POS is relatively high in Pakistani higher education, some still lack support (Ahmed et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>]) Since the 1990s, the Chinese government has implemented numerous policies guiding HEIs to promote supportive systems for scholars' career development, such as 'Guidelines for Enhancing the Reform of University Faculty Development in the New Era'. Many Chinese HEIs have adopted strategies to support scholars in response to such policy demands, whereas Chinese scholars' POS levels vary (He [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref16">33</reflink>]; Lin [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref17">44</reflink>]). The complex situation in the Chinese higher education field provides a suitable site to explore scholars' experiences with organisational support and its influencing factors.</p> <p>Chinese universities have implemented various support strategies, such as induction training, to promote young scholars' career development (Huang, Gu, and Hu [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref18">36</reflink>]; Han, Yin, and Wang [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]). However, Chinese scholars' POS levels vary significantly across universities (e.g., He [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]; Zhao et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref21">72</reflink>]). The tension between namely supportive environments and differing perceptions of organisational support in Chinese higher education creates an intriguing scenario for exploring the factors influencing POS. Given the lack of sufficient investigations into scholars' POS, we aim to conduct an exploratory study in China, addressing two key research questions: What factors influence Chinese scholars' perceptions of organisational support? How do these factors shape their perceptions of organisational support? This approach allows us to delve into the complex dynamics of organisational support in Chinese academia, examining the factors that contribute to POS and the mechanisms by which these factors operate. By addressing these questions, we seek to enhance the current understanding of the nuanced interplay between institutional support strategies and scholars' perceptions, potentially informing more effective approaches to fostering supportive academic environments in China and beyond.</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-3">Organisational Support and Scholars' Career Development</hd> <p>A thriving body of research on HEIs' practices in supporting scholars' career development focuses on support strategies and evaluation. Many researchers have identified supportive strategies by exploring scholars' development needs (Locke, Trudgett, and Page [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref22">45</reflink>]; Machovcova et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref23">48</reflink>]; Hassan [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref24">32</reflink>]). For example, via qualitative studies of scholars in Australian and Czech HEIs, Locke, Trudgett, and Page ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref25">45</reflink>]) and Machovcova et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref26">48</reflink>]), respectively, investigated the professional needs of young faculty and suggested HEIs provide more emotional care and mental support. Other studies further proposed supportive measures by analysing the impacts of changing environments (Desierto and De Maio [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]; Gibson et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref28">29</reflink>]). Within the context of COVID‐19, Gibson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref29">29</reflink>]) argued that HEIs need to offer a tenure‐clock extension to alleviate scholars' pressure from tenure review. Besides support strategies, studies have also begun to evaluate the impact of specific strategies on scholars' professional skills, attitudes and performance. For example, using quantitative methods, Lunsford, Baker, and Pifer ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref30">46</reflink>]) tested the effect of support strategies on academic job satisfaction and professional development.</p> <p>Despite extensive research on the role of organisational support in scholars' career development, scholars' own perceptions of such support are under‐researched. Prior studies have explored the antecedents and outcomes of scholars' POS in several nations, such as Australia, China and Pakistan (e.g., He [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref31">33</reflink>]; Heffernan and Heffernan [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref32">34</reflink>]; Billot and King [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref33">8</reflink>]; Ahmed et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>]). Among these studies, a few examined scholars' levels of POS (He [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref35">33</reflink>]; Lin [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref36">44</reflink>]); however, the process by which various factors influence their POS remains unclear. In addition, most of the studies focusing on the outcomes of scholars' POS tend to employ a quantitative approach by examining the relationship between scholars' POS and their work experience, including job satisfaction (Thevanes and Saranraj [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref37">65</reflink>]), job performance (Guan et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref38">30</reflink>]; Ridwan, Mulyani, and Ali [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref39">57</reflink>]), organisational attachment (Fuller et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref40">26</reflink>]) and work engagement (Crome et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Studies have identified several factors that affect scholars' POS, such as employment types and working years (Rhoades and Eisenberger [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref42">56</reflink>]; Gakovic and Tetrick [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]), social context (Zagenczyk et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref44">70</reflink>]), organisational culture and internal marketing (Vieira‐dos Santos and Gonçalves [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref45">68</reflink>]), perceived appraisal by administrators (Culver, Young, and Barnhardt [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref46">16</reflink>]), procedural and distributive justice (Guan et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref47">30</reflink>]), gender identity (Shreffler, Shreffler, and Murfree [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref48">61</reflink>]) and perceived organisational politics (Bukhari and Kamal [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref49">11</reflink>]). In sum, organisational support theory is widely applied to understand the influencing factors of scholars' POS in the field of higher education (e.g., Guan et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref50">30</reflink>]; Bukhari and Kamal [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref51">11</reflink>]; Culver, Young, and Barnhardt [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref52">16</reflink>]), although a quantitative approach fails to reveal how scholars' POS is shaped and structured. Since how scholars view HEIs' support may illuminate how their POS is formed, it is imperative to conduct a qualitative study exploring the influencing factors and how these factors affect scholars' POS according to principles of organisational support theory.</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-4">Theoretical Lens: Organisational Support Theory</hd> <p>Organisational support theory (Eisenberger et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]) provides a theoretical lens for this study. Previous studies have focused on the positive impact of organisational evaluation and trust on employees' positive emotions by investigating enterprises, government departments and hospitals (Buchanan [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>]; Hrebiniak [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref55">35</reflink>]; Steers [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref56">63</reflink>]). Eisenberger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref57">20</reflink>]) argued that these studies have overemphasised or assumed employees' commitment to the organisation, ignoring the positive impact that the organisation's commitment to employees may have on the organisation and its members. Furthermore, organisational support theory posits that employees personify the organisation as a living being with purpose and intention and form POS based on whether the organisation meets their socio‐emotional needs (Eisenberger, Rhoades Shanock, and Wen [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref58">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>In general, organisational members' positive POS often reflects their overall feelings about whether the organisation values their contribution and cares about their well‐being (Eisenberger et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref59">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref60">20</reflink>]; Rhoades and Eisenberger [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref61">56</reflink>]), thus may contribute to their organisational belonging and reduce turnover rate. Through a systematic analysis, Rhoades and Eisenberger ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref62">56</reflink>]) summarised the major influencing factors of POS: fairness, supervisor support, organisational rewards and job conditions. Fairness refers to procedural justice, such as the fairness of resource distribution, which illustrates the institution's concerns for employees' welfare (Shore and Shore [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref63">60</reflink>]). Second, superior figures also manifest organisational characteristics (Ahmad and Zafar [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>]; Mwesigwa, Tusiime, and Ssekiziyivu [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref65">51</reflink>]). For example, supervisor support embodies the values and emotional attitudes transmitted by the organisation and is closely related to the generation and adjustment of organisational members' POS (Kurtessis et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref66">42</reflink>]). For faculty working in HEIs, the preferential treatment from superiors (such as department chairs and deans) has a more pronounced impact on their POS (Eisenberger et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref67">19</reflink>]). Organisational rewards and job conditions include recognition, wages, promotion, job security and autonomy. The positive feedback given by the organisation through organisational rewards and improving working conditions can improve members' POS and enhance their sense of control and creativity at work (Aldabbas, Pinnington, and Lahrech [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref68">4</reflink>]; Eisenberger, Rhoades, and Cameron [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>]), further stimulating their work progress and autonomy. Besides these factors, some research also highlights the antecedents of POS, such as growth opportunities (Ahmed and Nawaz [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>]), work–family support (Krishnan and Mary [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref71">40</reflink>]), leader–member exchange and human resource practices (Khurram [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref72">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>In conclusion, organisational support theory mainly focuses on the impact of organisational support on members' career development and the positive actions members take in return. Based on the principle of reciprocity, organisational support also plays a positive role in promoting harmonious organisation–member relationships and in enhancing members' in‐role and extra‐role performance (Subardjo and Harjanti [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref73">64</reflink>]; Tremblay et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref74">67</reflink>]). For example, Ma and Yao's ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref75">47</reflink>]) survey of postdoctoral researchers in China's 'Double First‐Class' universities found that organisational support, such as achievement rewards and mentor guidance, can improve postdoctoral researchers' creativity. Zhang, Farh, and Wang ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref76">71</reflink>]) further argued that compared with findings from the Western context, the foremost antecedents of POS in China might include culture‐specific factors (such as care for disadvantaged employees) and generic factors (such as procedural justice and supervisor). This further illustrates the applicability of organisational support theory in examining the interaction between the organisation and its members, which fits well with the context of Chinese universities where strategically enhancing scholars' POS becomes increasingly important. Moreover, considering that most studies have been conducted in North American contexts (Zhang, Farh, and Wang [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref77">71</reflink>]), this study makes further contribution by focusing on the characteristics of POS among scholars in HEIs in China (such as the specific cultural atmosphere of universities).</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-5">Research Method</hd> <p>This research conducted a qualitative case study to address the research questions. The qualitative case study focuses on real‐world problems in a specific context and provides a holistic understanding of a research question or situation through in‐depth descriptions (Baškarada [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref78">7</reflink>]; Gammelgaard [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref79">28</reflink>]). This requires researchers to maintain openness and flexibility when approaching the research case, which meets the research needs of this study to inquire about Chinese scholars' POS and its related factors through structured and open questions. The researchers chose two research universities in China, M University and N University, as the case study. M and N are representative public universities listed in China's 'Double First‐Class University' project with a high academic reputation. The pressure to promote globalisation and meet national requirements is intense, which results in high research productivity expectations of the faculty. At the same time, both universities have implemented a series of policies to support scholars, attempting to create a supportive environment (see Table 1). This study aims to explore the interaction between the faculty and universities in detail.</p> <p>1 TABLE An overview of the main faculty support policies at M and N universities.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">University</th><th align="center">Policy</th><th align="center">Year of promulgation</th><th align="center">Support recipients</th><th align="center">Support methods</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">M University</td><td align="center">Young Scholars' Programme</td><td align="center">2016</td><td align="center">Highly competitive tenure‐track faculty</td><td align="center">Improved working conditions; global talent scheme; negotiable annual salary; allowance for young scholars (about $13,733/year for no more than 6 years)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Several Measures for In‐depth Implementation of the Strategy of Strengthening the University with Talents in the NewEra</td><td align="center">2021</td><td align="center">Excellent talents</td><td align="center">Encourage teachers to explore new ideas; talent recruitment and training; optimisation of the evaluation system; integration of superior resources</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Young Scholars Public Welfare Project</td><td align="center">2022</td><td align="center">Young faculty and researchers under the age of 40</td><td align="center">Allocation of discretionary funding</td></tr><tr><td align="left">N University</td><td align="center">Young Faculty's Mentoring System</td><td align="center">2005</td><td align="center">New faculty</td><td align="center">Appointment of individual mentors on a 2‐year basis</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Excellent Scholars Programme</td><td align="center">2016</td><td align="center">Faculty with outstanding performance</td><td align="center">Allowance (about $16,480 or $8239)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Implementation Measures on Strengthening the Construction of Young Talent Projects</td><td align="center">2018</td><td align="center">Young talents</td><td align="center">Improved training system; doctoral supervision; optimisation of services; increased incentives in departments</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Excellent Newcomer Award</td><td align="center">2020</td><td align="center">Excellent young faculty aged 35 and below</td><td align="center">About $6866 awarded to each winner</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Young Faculty Lifting Program</td><td align="center">2020</td><td align="center">Young faculty</td><td align="center">20 funded projects each year for application (about $27,466/item for natural sciences, about $13,733/item for humanities and social sciences)</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Philosophy and Social Sciences Young Academics' Promotion Programme</td><td align="center">2020</td><td align="center">Young faculty (associate and full professors) under the age of 40</td><td align="center">No more than 20 funded projects open for application each year (about $13,733/item for 3 years)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 1 shows that M University focuses on supporting scholars with more potential for academic output, while N University pays more attention to early‐career scholars. The differences in organisational support between the two case universities thus allow the researchers to compare the positive and negative perceptions of the two universities' scholars about their institutions and the influencing factors of their POS.</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-6">Participants</hd> <p>To achieve information richness, we employed a purposeful sampling approach (Creswell and Poth [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref80">14</reflink>], 119–120). We sent invitation emails to faculty members at M and N Universities after obtaining ethical approval. Considering the length of service and subjects taught by different scholars, we ultimately selected 15 interviewees (from Bin to Coral) from M University and another 15 (from Bai to Ding) from N University in 2021–2022, based on voluntary participation. All participants had been employed by their current university for at least 3 years (see Table 2). Their disciplines include natural sciences (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref81">12</reflink>), humanities (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref82">9</reflink>) and social sciences (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref83">9</reflink>).</p> <p>2 TABLE Participants' basic information (names anonymised).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Participants</th><th align="center">Professional rank</th><th align="center">Subject</th><th align="center">Gender</th><th align="center">Years of employment</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Bin</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Alan</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Fan</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Janine</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Andrew</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Jason</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ming</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Milo</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Social sciences</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ouyang</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Social sciences</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ben</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Social sciences</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Chuan</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Social sciences</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Feng</td><td align="center">Associate professor</td><td align="center">Social sciences</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Jie</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Humanities</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Elsa</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Humanities</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Coral</td><td align="center">Associate professor</td><td align="center">Humanities</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Bai</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Daisy</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cheng</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Guang</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Deng</td><td align="center">Associate professor</td><td align="center">Natural science</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ethel</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Social sciences</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hale</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Social sciences</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hugh</td><td align="center">Associate professor</td><td align="center">Social sciences</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ina</td><td align="center">Associate professor</td><td align="center">Social sciences</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Lin</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Humanities</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Megan</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Humanities</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Nian</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Humanities</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ping</td><td align="center">Assistant professor</td><td align="center">Humanities</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Yang</td><td align="center">Associate professor</td><td align="center">Humanities</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Ding</td><td align="center">Associate professor</td><td align="center">Humanities</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">8</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0183654340-7">Data Collection and Analysis</hd> <p>Informed by organisational support theory, we conducted semistructured, in‐depth individual interviews focusing on scholars' POS and its influencing factors. Ethical considerations, including informed consent and anonymity, were carefully implemented. The interviews began with the question, 'What may affect your sense of support within the organisation?'. Follow‐up questions probed relevant POS factors on a deeper level. For example, 'What factors do you use to assess whether you have received support? Have your feelings of support changed since starting this job? If so, what contributed to this change?'. All interviews, lasting 1–1.5 h, were conducted in Chinese and audio‐recorded. Bilingual members from the research team transcribed the recordings into Chinese and translated the texts into English with cross‐checking. Participants were invited to verify the transcripts for accuracy.</p> <p>Data analysis employed both inductive and deductive approaches (Armat et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref84">5</reflink>]). Using a thematic approach (Braun and Clarke [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref85">9</reflink>]), we inductively coded the data to identify key themes concerning the influencing factors affecting scholars' POS. These included organisational justice (e.g., result in fairness and procedural fairness), dean's/chairman's care, organisational reward, work conditions, organisational atmosphere and cultural orientation (such as pragmatism and competition culture). Concurrently, we conducted a deductive analysis based on organisational support theory to understand participants' viewpoints.</p> <p>Researchers performed these coding approaches independently, engaging in continuous dialogues and discussions. In addition to fairness, supervisor support, organisational rewards and job conditions identified by Rhoades and Eisenberger ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref86">56</reflink>]), we found that the university's humanistic environment and organisational atmosphere were significant influencing factors. These were consolidated into the dimension of organisational culture. Consequently, four themes emerged: organisational justice, leadership and colleague support, organisational rewards and working conditions and organisational culture. Representative quotes were selected to provide rich and nuanced interpretations in the findings section.</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-8">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183654340-9">Organisational Justice: Closely Related to the Evaluation System</hd> <p>The scholars' perceived match between university performance evaluations and their research outputs reflects an ongoing concern for justice, which in turn influences their POS. All 30 participants desired HEIs to evaluate faculty members by considering their disciplinary characteristics. Feng noted, 'Schools only focus on fairness of the evaluation process and ignore the fairness of the results. Eliminating scholars who have difficulty achieving outstanding results in a short period would decrease their POS.'</p> <p>Fan, Andrew and Bin were more concerned about result fairness, while Ping and Bai acknowledged that procedural fairness significantly impacted their POS. Ping stated:</p> <p>I hope the university could explain the relevant policies more clearly. For example, the tenure review process, whether tenure‐track faculty who like teaching or research can transfer to full‐time teaching or research positions. If possible, what are the procedures and standards for this transfer? But I'm not very clear on this right now.</p> <p>These participants' accounts indicate that vague and constantly changing assessment criteria for tenure review increase organisational expectations and individual pressure undertaken by tenure‐track faculty regarding work outcomes, undermining their perception of organisational fairness (Nyunt et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref87">53</reflink>]). Notably, given that the tenure review process lacks supervision and information disclosure, Jie, Daisy, Elsa and Ben further highlighted the complexity and difficulty for HEIs to improve scholars' POS through a relatively fair evaluation system. Jie stated:</p> <p>Although there are some assessment requirements in the employment contract signed by tenure‐track faculty, meeting the contract requirements is not enough. These are only the bottom line. Due to the existence of ambiguity, what we can do is to publish papers as many as possible to enhance our competitiveness.</p> <p>Notably, although there are tenure clock extension policies (Quinn [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref88">54</reflink>]) for female scholars due to maternal leave, as Deng stated, some participants did not apply for an extension since they (e.g., Megan) were concerned that the school would accordingly increase the workload requirements for the additional year during assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-10">Leadership and Colleague Support: More Informal and Emotional</hd> <p>Compared to the traditional personnel management system providing '<emph>bianzhi</emph>' (institutionally secured) positions akin to lifelong employment in Chinese universities (Si [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref89">62</reflink>]), faculty within the tenure‐track system at the two universities faces greater assessment pressure. Several participants (Ethel, Ina, Yang, Lin and Ding) mentioned that strong assistance from chairs and senior colleagues significantly impacts their POS. Lin argued, 'When encountering daily work problems such as the use of the campus network, timely help from colleagues increases my POS.'</p> <p>From a professional development perspective, the accumulated academic capital advantage of college deans can help tenure‐track faculty enhance their academic influence. For instance, the former dean of Jie's college served as the director of an academic journal's committee, while the current dean serves as editor‐in‐chief. Young scholars, including Jie, are responsible for editing work, allowing them to 'quickly grasp the skills of research publication, and gradually establish academic reputation in the process'. Milo further provided an example:</p> <p>Universities are not courts; ultimately, they rely on informal methods to maintain themselves. For example, what happens in a college is often shared through informal connections rather than official announcements. If other colleagues in this university are unwilling to share this information promptly, the level of POS for young scholars working there is certainly low.</p> <p>Like Milo, Coral further stated that, especially in the absence of a common institutional interest link, the support of chairmen for tenure‐track faculty is mainly based on the moral care of experts for young scholars. Scholars are prone to suffer from negative emotional experiences if the chairperson fails to employ common sense in decision‐making (Kruse [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref90">41</reflink>]). Hale shared his views:</p> <p>Some deans act as 'yes‐men' (好好先生), and no one is willing to offend elder faculty members. One of the reasons is that they are like the elder faculty from the traditional system and belong to vested interests. Furthermore, some of the leaders do not have a very tough management style, resulting in numerous academic factions, inconsistent thinking, and unclear disciplinary development concepts within the college. All of these will damage scholars' POS.</p> <p>Therefore, the organisational attitude conveyed by chairpersons and deans influences tenure‐track scholars' perception of whether they have been accepted as organisational members, which further affects their POS.</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-11">Organisational Rewards and Working Conditions: Strive to Obtain More Resources</hd> <p>Due to differences in research funding needs among disciplines, the impact of organisational rewards and working conditions (such as research start‐up funding and individual offices) on the organisational support of tenure‐track faculty varies. The working conditions in science and engineering departments that require substantial space and equipment affect scholars' POS. For example, Deng admitted that preparing equipment systems consumed considerable time and effort:</p> <p>Compared to scholars in the humanities and social sciences, scholars in the natural sciences who engage in experimental research often are limited by experimental equipment. If young scholars need to rebuild experimental equipment from scratch in a new lab, there is no doubt that this will undoubtedly lead to slow progress in academic work.</p> <p>Therefore, facilities such as computers, software, furniture and lab space are essential for some scholars when receiving start‐up packages (Farris, Key, and Sumner [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref91">25</reflink>]). In particular, within the context of national funding cuts, although these two case universities provided a certain amount of research start‐up funding (about £16,000 to £21,000) for new faculty, there was a significant gap between this funding and the actual needs of science and engineering scholars. Participants still need to apply for additional financial support (such as support policies in Table 2) or gain more organisational rewards through hard work (such as Ouyang, who was selected for his college's Young Faculty Support Programme).</p> <p>However, the strict screening process for other support policies means that only a few outstanding faculty could receive additional funding. Based on academic performance and preference, this reward system regulates academic publishing behaviour (Mathies, Kivistö, and Birnbaum [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref92">50</reflink>]), further widening the gap among tenure‐track faculty members. In response, participants (such as Lin) urged universities to increase guaranteed support, which would help enhance their POS.</p> <p>Furthermore, due to the limited campus area, Guang also argued that office conditions related to daily work invisibly affect his POS. In addition to these tangible material resources, Alan, Chuan, Ming and Jason from M University further pointed out the importance of high‐quality student sources and their positive impact on their POS.</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-12">Organisational Culture: Pragmatism and Emphasis on Competition</hd> <p>According to the participants, cultural influences manifest at various levels within the department and the institution. For example, the impact of practical thinking on scientific research in some Chinese universities is often overlooked as knowledge that cannot generate economic benefits or directly guide production. Therefore, unlike Jason, who is engaged in applied and 'chokehold technique' research in niche areas, scholars conducting fundamental theoretical research are more susceptible to organisational neglect and negative emotional experiences within such a cultural atmosphere, leading to decreased POS. Initially engaged in theoretical research, Cheng has begun transitioning to applied research to compensate for its 'shortcomings'. He stated that:</p> <p>It is difficult for young faculty members who engage in theoretical research to publish papers, which means they are struggling to survive. We are more inclined to believe that scientific research should be doing meaningful and rewarding things, which may be different from some Western countries.</p> <p>Hale, who has failed several times in applying to the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), mentioned that the low compatibility of his research focus with national policy orientation is one of the important reasons for his failure. The tension between research interests and national funding orientation further reduced his POS. Furthermore, the culture of cultivating academic development and the competitive culture of meritocracy in organisations also invisibly affect young scholars' POS. Ethel provides the following explanation of how the two cultures affect her POS:</p> <p>If a university is very eager for talents and hopes to independently cultivate young faculty, it often doesn't emphasise competition when managing faculty, resulting in relatively low talent elimination and turnover rates. Tenure‐track faculty are prone to develop a high level of POS. On the contrary, if a university finds it very easy to recruit faculty and does not care about the development of talents after their employment, it often sets a high threshold for tenure review. These tenure‐track faculty receive relatively little support, which naturally makes it difficult to generate POS.</p> <p>Janine, Feng and Nian further regard this culture of strengthening internal competition as a jungle game, referring to the rule where only the winners of the evaluation system can obtain tenure'. The allocation of organisational rewards based on performance also invisibly affects scholars' actions and professional activities (Huang and Xu [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref93">37</reflink>]). Hugh also argued that universities promoting the 'publish or perish' ideology are more like machines that constantly urge scholars to improve productivity, increasing their pressure to survive in academia. Under such pressure of quantitative assessment, scholars' POS gradually dissipate.</p> <p>Overall, the four factors—organisational justice, leadership and colleague support, organisational rewards and working conditions and organisational culture—are pivotal in shaping scholars' POS. These factors are closely related to scholars' work environment, career advancement opportunities and development. Each exerts a significant influence on the organisational support perceived by scholars. Furthermore, these factors do not operate in isolation but are interrelated and collectively shape scholars' POS. Specifically, organisational culture determines the principles underlying the distribution of rewards and resources, which in turn affects scholars' perceptions of organisational justice.</p> <p>Scholars who occupy advantageous positions in rewards and conditions allocation tend to view the organisation as more equitable, often experiencing a high level of POS. The influence of leadership and colleague support is relatively minor for these individuals. Conversely, scholars who perceive the organisation as unfair in resource distribution are more attuned to the additional support provided by leaders and colleagues. Adequate support from leaders and colleagues can mitigate their perceptions of organisational unfairness and enhance their POS. Without such support, their sense of organisational unfairness would be exacerbated, leading to a persistently low POS. This interplay of factors highlights the complex nature of scholars' perceptions of organisational support and underscores the need for a holistic approach to fostering a supportive academic environment.</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-13">Discussion</hd> <p>This study explored Chinese scholars' POS and its influencing factors in China based on organisational support theory. Findings show that scholars' views towards such support are complex, and four main factors influenced scholars' POS: organisational justice, leadership and colleague support, organisational rewards and working conditions and organisational culture. These factors exhibit variations in their impact on scholars' POS, further contributing to the tension between HEIs and scholars through organisational support.</p> <p>Concerning organisational justice, the findings suggest that the transparency of tenure review is considered a crucial indicator of organisational support, which directly influences scholars' perceptions of whether their organisation can reasonably evaluate and respect their contributions. This is in line with Nyunt et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref94">53</reflink>]) findings that the changing assessment standards of tenure review would decrease scholars' perception of organisational justice. Furthermore, similar to Rosser's ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref95">59</reflink>]) findings that universities did not suspend female scholars' assessments even if they chose to postpone, this study further illustrated that some female scholars who applied for maternal leave during this period may choose not to postpone their assessments due to this tenure pressure. Therefore, despite the tenure review extension policy promoting gender equality, female scholars might still perceive a lack of fairness intrinsic to the assessment criteria. This explains why organisations offer tenure clock extension policies to support scholars, yet female scholars do not necessarily perceive them as practical for addressing their challenges and are more likely to leave before the tenure review (Chen, Liu, and Kim [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref96">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Consistent with the findings of Gakovic and Tetrick ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref97">27</reflink>]) and Kurtessis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref98">42</reflink>]), this study revealed that support from leadership and colleagues is essential for scholars in assessing whether they feel included as members of their organisation and in forming their POS. Unlike the findings of Zagenczyk et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref99">70</reflink>]) and Rhoades and Eisenberger ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref100">56</reflink>]), who argued that social context, age and working years affect individuals' POS, the current study did not identify these factors as influencing Chinese scholars' POS. This discrepancy can be attributed to several factors within the Chinese context.</p> <p>Notably, the competitive culture of meritocracy in Chinese academia typically makes it difficult for scholars to acquire information regarding promotion and career development through inquiry or observations of other co‐workers. Consequently, the social context scholars navigate is, to a significant extent, similar across the group. Besides, supportive leadership is often associated with acute stressors, innovative culture and leader workload (Dayanti et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref101">17</reflink>]). As noted by scholars, leadership support is typically related to the academic capital accumulated by college deans rather than being adjusted based on the age or working years of the scholars. Another possible reason lies in academics' tendency to analyse the influence of others on their POS when perceiving support, while they may overlook the interaction between their individual characteristics and other colleagues. This focus on external factors rather than interpersonal interactions may contribute to the lack of observed impact of age and working years on POS.</p> <p>These findings suggest that the factors influencing scholars' POS may vary across cultural contexts and institutional structures, highlighting the need for a context‐specific understanding of organisational support in academic settings. The unique characteristics of the Chinese academic environment, including its competitive meritocracy and the role of academic capital in leadership support, appear to shape scholars' POS in ways that differ from those observed in other contexts.</p> <p>Furthermore, the impact of organisational rewards and the work environment on scholars' POS varies by discipline. Compared to scholars in the humanities and social sciences, those in the natural sciences attach greater significance to the research funding provided by the organisation, such as the amount of research funding and the accessibility of research equipment. For example, Coughlan and Perryman ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref102">13</reflink>]) argued that hard science and theoretically applied disciplines (e.g., science and technology) showed more significant demand for open educational resources than soft science and socially applied disciplines (e.g., arts and education). Similarly, this study also found that compared to humanities scholars, natural science participants rely more on working conditions. Factors such as organisational incentives and research equipment impact their POS more. Thus, differences between disciplines are worth further investigation to understand scholars' POS in future research.</p> <p>As Vieira‐dos Santos and Gonçalves ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref103">68</reflink>]) pointed out, organisational culture affects faculty's POS. This study also found that a culture oriented towards pragmatism and competition further differentiates the organisational support felt by scholars engaged in theoretical research from those involved in applied research. Scholars who emphasise translating results into practice are more likely to receive support. Particularly in an academically competitive and merit‐based atmosphere, organisational support policies with a strong emphasis on selectivity can, ironically, widen the gap between average and outstanding scholars, leading to a decrease in the organisational support felt by some scholars.</p> <p>In addition, the aforementioned factors have isolated impacts and can work synergistically on scholars' POS, which is consistent with findings from research in other settings (e.g., Masterson et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref104">49</reflink>]; Wayne et al. [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref105">69</reflink>]). However, these findings diverge from Eisenberger et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref106">19</reflink>]) argument that the care of the chairman and dean has a more pronounced impact on scholars' POS. It seems that, in the Chinese context, leadership support is a moderating factor, rather than a central determinant. This discrepancy may be attributed to the increasing emphasis Chinese HEIs place on faculty's performance in research publications and grants (Zhao et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref107">72</reflink>]). Consequently, scholars are becoming more attentive to organisational support that maintains a supportive work environment and provides rewards, as these factors directly relate to their research output and career advancement. In contrast, support from leaders influences scholars' sense of organisational belonging but does not directly determine research publication or the attainment of research funding. Thus, leadership support primarily serves as a moderating factor in shaping scholars' POS rather than a primary determinant. This nuanced understanding of the interplay between various factors influencing POS in Chinese academic settings highlights the need for a context‐specific approach to organisational support in HEIs.</p> <p>This study has several theoretical contributions and practical implications for addressing the challenges of organisations providing support that faculty members do not necessarily consider adequate. First, building on the analysis of factors influencing organizational members' perceived organizational support (POS) (Rhoades and Eisenberger [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref108">56</reflink>]), this study explores the micro‐processes by which these factors shape scholars' POS. Related findings could assist higher education institutions (HEIs) in refining support strategies to better address scholars' needs and foster their long‐term development. Second, as organisational support theory indicates varied POS between Eastern and Western cultures (Rockstuhl et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref109">58</reflink>]), this study provides evidence from China to better understand the characteristics of organisational support and its influencing factors. This study can potentially enhance the strategies related to academic development for policymakers, university administrators and department leaders. For policymakers, it is essential to establish clear policies for evaluating tenure and to ensure that promotion channels and procedures are transparent and open. This can help promote organisational fairness and enhance the POS among scholars. For university administrators and department leaders, it is crucial to prioritise the emotional needs of scholars and provide them with discipline‐specific training and workshops. This can foster a harmonious work environment and alleviate the pressures associated with competition.</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-14">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study explored factors influencing scholars' POS in the Chinese context. Based on organisational support theory, four key factors affecting scholars' POS were identified: organisational justice, leadership and colleague support, organisational reward and working conditions and organisational culture. By revealing the interactions between scholars and HEIs, this study identified the gap between support provision and effectiveness, offering empirical insights for HEIs to improve their support strategies.</p> <p>Several limitations need to be mentioned. The study primarily employs a qualitative design to investigate, at a microlevel, how different factors influence Chinese scholars' POS. More quantitative studies could further examine how these factors interact and jointly influence scholars' POS through direct or indirect pathways, enhancing the understanding of the underlying mechanisms shaping scholars' POS. The study focuses mainly on junior scholars at the assistant and associate professor levels who are still on the tenure track. It is important to note that senior faculty who have already been granted tenure and non‐tenure‐track scholars may have different perceptions of their work environment.</p> <p>Future research could include scholars with different ranks and employment types to explore their POS and compare the results. Employing mixed‐method approaches could provide a more comprehensive understanding of POS in academic settings. Furthermore, investigating how cultural and institutional differences across various countries might influence scholars' POS could contribute to a more nuanced and globally applicable understanding of organisational support in HEIs. These future directions could enhance our knowledge of the complex dynamics shaping scholars' POS in diverse academic contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-15">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0183654340-16">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <ref id="AN0183654340-17"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref64" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: This work was supported by the Key Project in 2024 of Hubei Province of China: "Research on the Mechanism of Role Stress Generation among Young Faculty in Universities in Hubei Province under the Talent‐Strengthening Strategy" (Grant Number: 2024GA130); Huazhong University of Science and Technology Double First‐Class Funds for Humanities and Social Sciences (Plan for the Construction of Institutional Research Innovative Team) (Grant Number: 3041421011) and the Chinese University of Hong Kong Direct Grant (Grant Number: 4058113).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref14" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A10/s7151/202101/t20210108%5f509152.html">http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A10/s7151/202101/t20210108%5f509152.html</ulink> last accessed on 21 August 2023.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0183654340-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ahmad, I., and M. A. Zafar. 2018. " Impact of Psychological Contract Fulfillment on Organisational Citizenship Behavior: Mediating Role of Perceived Organisational Support." International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30, no. 2 : 1001 – 1015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ahmed, I., W. Khairuzzaman Wan Ismail, S. Mohamad Amin, and T. Islam. 2014. " Role of Perceived Organisational Support in Teachers' Responsiveness and Students' Outcomes: Evidence From a Public Sector University of Pakistan." International Journal of Educational Management 28, no. 2 : 246 – 256.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref70" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ahmed, I., and M. M. Nawaz. 2015. " Antecedents and Outcomes of Perceived Organisational Support: A Literature Survey Approach." Journal of Management Development 34, no. 7 : 867 – 880.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref68" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Aldabbas, H., A. Pinnington, and A. Lahrech. 2021. " The Influence of Perceived Organisational Support on Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of Work Engagement." Current Psychology 42, no. 8 : 6501 – 6515.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref84" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Armat, M. R., A. Assarroudi, M. Rad, H. Sharifi, and A. Heydari. 2018. " Inductive and Deductive: Ambiguous Labels in Qualitative Content Analysis." Qualitative Report 23, no. 1 : 219 – 221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ayyala, M. S., K. Skarupski, J. N. Bodurtha, et al. 2019. " Mentorship Is Not Enough: Exploring Sponsorship and Its Role in Career Advancement in Academic Medicine." Academic Medicine 94, no. 1 : 94 – 100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref78" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baškarada, S. 2014. " Qualitative Case Studies Guidelines." Qualitative Report 19, no. 40 : 1 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref2" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Billot, J., and V. King. 2017. " The Missing Measure? Academic Identity and the Induction Process." Higher Education Research and Development 36, no. 3 : 612 – 624.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref82" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2019. " Reflecting on Reflexive Thematic Analysis." Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11, no. 4 : 589 – 597.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buchanan, B. 1974. " Government Managers, Business Executives, and Organisational Commitment." Public Administration Review 34, no. 4 : 339 – 347.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bukhari, I., and A. Kamal. 2017. " Perceived Organisational Support, Its Behavioral and Attitudinal Work Outcomes: Moderating Role of Perceived Organisational Politics." Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research 32, no. 2 : 602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, J., Q. Liu, and M. Kim. 2022. " Gender Gap in Tenure and Promotion: Evidence From the Economics Ph. D. Class of 2008." Southern Economic Journal 88, no. 4 : 1277 – 1312.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coughlan, T., and L.‐A. Perryman. 2011. " Something for Everyone?: The Different Approaches of Academic Disciplines to Open Educational Resources and the Effect on Widening Participation." Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning 15, no. 2 : 11 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W., and C. N. Poth. 2016. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crome, E., L. Meyer, A. Bosanquet, and L. Hughes. 2019. " Improving Engagement in an Early Career Academic Setting: Can Existing Models Guide Early Career Academic Support Strategies? " Higher Education Research and Development 38, no. 4 : 717 – 732.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Culver, K. C., R. L. Young, and C. L. Barnhardt. 2020. " Communicating Support: Examining Perceived Organisational Support Among Faculty Members With Differing Appointment Types." Innovative Higher Education 45 : 299 – 315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dayanti, P. R., A. Eliyana, A. P. Emur, and A. S. Pratama. 2022. " Supportive Leadership: A Literature Review." International Journal of Science and Management Studies (IJSMS) 5, no. 2 : 74 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Desierto, A., and C. De Maio. 2020. " The Impact of Neoliberalism on Academics and Students in Higher Education." Journal of Academic Language and Learning 14, no. 2 : 148 – 159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberger, R., J. Cummings, S. Armeli, and P. Lynch. 1997. " Perceived Organisational Support, Discretionary Treatment, and Job Satisfaction." Journal of Applied Psychology 82, no. 5 : 812 – 820.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberger, R., R. Huntington, S. Hutchison, and D. Sowa. 1986. " Perceived Organisational Support." Journal of Applied Psychology 71, no. 3 : 500 – 507.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberger, R., L. Rhoades, and J. Cameron. 1999. " Does Pay for Performance Increase or Decrease Perceived Self‐Determination and Intrinsic Motivation? " Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, no. 5 : 1026 – 1040.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eisenberger, R., L. Rhoades Shanock, and X. Wen. 2020. " Perceived Organisational Support: Why Caring About Employees Counts." Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 7, no. 1 : 101 – 124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Englund, C., A. D. Olofsson, and L. Price. 2017. " Teaching With Technology in Higher Education: Understanding Conceptual Change and Development in Practice." Higher Education Research and Development 36, no. 1 : 73 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erat, S., O. Erdil, H. Kitapçi, and O. Çömlek. 2012. " The Effect of the Perception of Organisational Trust and Organisational Support on Intention to Quit and Individual Performance: An Empirical Study of the Turkish State Universities." African Journal of Business Management 6, no. 30 : 8853.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farris, E. M., E. M. Key, and J. L. Sumner. 2023. " "Wow, I Didn't Know These Options Existed": Understanding Tenure‐Track Start‐Up Packages." PS: Political Science & Politics 56, no. 1 : 75 – 81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fuller, J. B., K. Hester, T. Barnett, and L. F. C. Relyea. 2006. " Perceived Organisational Support and Perceived External Prestige: Predicting Organisational Attachment for University Faculty, Staff, and Administrators." Journal of Social Psychology 146, no. 3 : 327 – 347.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gakovic, A., and L. E. Tetrick. 2003. " Perceived Organisational Support and Work Status: A Comparison of the Employment Relationships of Part‐Time and Full‐Time Employees Attending University Classes." Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior 24, no. 5 : 649 – 666.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gammelgaard, B. 2017. " The Qualitative Case Study." International Journal of Logistics Management 28, no. 4 : 910 – 913.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson, E. M., F. C. Bennett, S. M. Gillespie, et al. 2020. " How Support of Early Career Researchers Can Reset Science in the Post‐COVID19 World." Cell 181, no. 7 : 1445 – 1449.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guan, X., T. Sun, Y. Hou, L. Zhao, Y.‐Z. Luan, and L.‐H. Fan. 2014. " The Relationship Between Job Performance and Perceived Organisational Support in Faculty Members at Chinese Universities: A Questionnaire Survey." BMC Medical Education 14 : 1 – 10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han, J., H. Yin, and J. Wang. 2018. " A Case Study of Faculty Perceptions of Teaching Support and Teaching Efficacy in China: Characteristics and Relationships." Higher Education 76 : 519 – 536.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hassan, S. 2011. " The Needs and Perceptions of Academics Regarding Their Professional Development in an Era of Educational Transformation." South African Journal of Higher Education 25, no. 3 : 476 – 490.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> He, C. 2022. Research on the Influence of Organisational Support on College Teachers' Scientific Research Ability. Dissertation for Master's Degree of Guangxi University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heffernan, T. A., and A. Heffernan. 2018. " The Academic Exodus: The Role of Institutional Support in Academics Leaving Universities and the Academy." Professional Development in Education 45, no. 1 : 102 – 113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hrebiniak, L. G. 1974. " Effects of Job Level and Participation on Employee Attitudes and Perceptions of Influence." Academy of Management Journal 17, no. 4 : 649 – 662.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, J., M. Gu, and X. Hu. 2022. " Does Pre‐Service Training Help New Faculty? " Journal of Educational Development Research 42, no. 5 : 38 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, Y.‐T., and J. Xu. 2020. " Surviving the Performance Management of Academic Work: Evidence From Young Chinese Academics." Higher Education Research and Development 39, no. 4 : 704 – 718.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaramillo‐Baquerizo, C., M. Valcke, R. Vanderlinde, and N. Aelterman. 2021. " Exploring the Consideration of University teachers' Basic Psychological Needs in the Design of Professional Development Initiatives." Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 43, no. 3 : 315 – 329.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khurram, S. 2009. " Perceived Organisational Support, Antecedents and Consequences: Proposing and Testing a Model in a Public Sector University of Pakistan." South Asian Journal of Management 16, no. 1 : 7 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krishnan, J., and V. S. Mary. 2012. " Perceived Organisational Support–An Overview on Its Antecedents and Consequences." International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 2, no. 4 : 1 – 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruse, S. D. 2022. " Department Chair Leadership: Exploring the Role's Demands and Tensions." Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50, no. 5 : 739 – 757.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurtessis, J. N., R. Eisenberger, M. T. Ford, L. C. Buffardi, K. A. Stewart, and C. S. Adis. 2017. " Perceived Organisational Support: A Meta‐Analytic Evaluation of Organisational Support Theory." Journal of Management 43, no. 6 : 1854 – 1884.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lew, T. 2009. " The Relationships Between Perceived Organisational Support, Felt Obligation, Affective Organisational Commitment and Turnover Intention of Academics Working With Private Higher Educational Institutions in Malaysia." European Journal of Social Sciences 9, no. 1 : 72 – 87.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin, J. 2019. Research on the Relationship Among Organisational Support, Well‐Being and Job Engagement of University Teachers. Dissertation for Master's Degree of Fujian Normal University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Locke, M. L., M. Trudgett, and S. Page. 2023. " Building and Strengthening Indigenous Early Career Researcher Trajectories." Higher Education Research and Development 42, no. 1 : 156 – 170.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lunsford, L., V. Baker, and M. Pifer. 2018. " Faculty Mentoring Faculty: Career Stages, Relationship Quality, and Job Satisfaction." International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education 7, no. 2 : 139 – 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, L. C., and H. Yao. 2022. " Effect of Organizational Support System on Postdoctoral Research Creativity in Universities." China Higher Education Research 5 : 88 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Machovcova, K., J. Mudrak, K. Cidlinska, and K. Zabrodska. 2023. " Early Career Researchers as Active Followers: Perceived Demands of Supervisory Interventions in Academic Workplaces." Higher Education Research and Development 42, no. 1 : 171 – 185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masterson, S. S., K. Lewis, B. M. Goldman, and M. S. Taylor. 2000. " Integrating Justice and Social Exchange: The Differing Effects of Fair Procedures and Treatment on Work Relationships." Academy of Management Journal 43, no. 4 : 738 – 748.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathies, C., J. Kivistö, and M. Birnbaum. 2020. " Following the Money? Performance‐Based Funding and the Changing Publication Patterns of Finnish Academics." Higher Education 79, no. 1 : 21 – 37.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mwesigwa, R., I. Tusiime, and B. Ssekiziyivu. 2020. " Leadership Styles, Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment Among Academic Staff in Public Universities." Journal of Management Development 39, no. 2 : 253 – 268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Na‐Nan, K. H., J. Joungtrakul, and A. Dhienhirun. 2018. " The Influence of Perceived Organisational Support and Work Adjustment on the Employee Performance of Expatriate Teachers in Thailand." Modern Applied Science 12, no. 3 : 105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nyunt, G., K. O'Meara, L. Bach, and A. LaFave. 2024. " Tenure Undone: Faculty Experiences of Organisational Justice When Tenure Seems or Becomes Unattainable." Equity & Excellence in Education 57, no. 1 : 107 – 121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, K. 2010. " Tenure Clock Extension Policies: Who Uses Them and to What Effect? " NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education 3, no. 1 : 185 – 209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reddy, S., R. L. Searle, L. B. Shawa, and D. Teferra. 2016. " A Balancing Act: Facilitating a University Education Induction Programme for (Early Career) Academics." Studies in Higher Education 41, no. 10 : 1820 – 1834.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhoades, L., and R. Eisenberger. 2002. " Perceived Organisational Support: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Applied Psychology 87, no. 4 : 698 – 714.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ridwan, M., S. R. Mulyani, and H. Ali. 2020. " Building Behavior and Performance Citizenship: Perceived Organisational Support and Competence (Case Study at SPMI Private University in West Sumatra)." International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation 24, no. 6 : 2049 – 2064.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rockstuhl, T., R. Eisenberger, L. M. Shore, et al. 2020. " Perceived Organisational Support (POS) Across 54 Nations: A Cross‐Cultural Meta‐Analysis of POS Effects." Journal of International Business Studies 51 : 933 – 962.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosser, S. V. 2007. " Leveling the Playing Field for Women in Tenure and Promotion." NWSA Journal 19, no. 3 : 190 – 198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shore, L. M., and T. H. Shore. 1995. " Perceived Organisational Support and Organisational Justice." In Organisational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of the Work, edited by R. C. K. M. Kacmar, 149 – 164. Westport, CT : Quorum Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shreffler, M. B., J. R. Shreffler, and J. R. Murfree. 2019. " Barriers to Advancement of Female Faculty in Higher Education: An Examination of Student Evaluations of Teaching, Work‐Family Conflict and Perceived Organisational Support." Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice 19, no. 8 : 72 – 85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Si, J. 2022. " No Other Choices but Involution: Understanding Chinese Young Academics in the Tenure Track System." Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 45, no. 1 : 53 – 67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steers, R. M. 1977. " Antecedents and Outcomes of Organisational Commitment." Administrative Science Quarterly 22, no. 1 : 46 – 56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Subardjo, A., and W. Harjanti. 2019. " The Impact of Social Exchange Theory Implementation Over Organizational Attitude and Behavior." International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 9, no. 7 : 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thevanes, N., and Y. Saranraj. 2018. " The Impact of Perceived Organisational Support on Job Satisfaction of Academic Staff." Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting 6, no. 2 : 1 – 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tison, J., and J. Horne. 2020. " Young Institutions and New Faculty: Committing to Learning Communities." Journal of Faculty Development 34, no. 2 : 95 – 100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tremblay, M., J. Cloutier, G. Simard, D. Chênevert, and C. Vandenberghe. 2010. " The Role of HRM Practices, Procedural Justice, Organisational Support and Trust in Organisational Commitment and In‐Role and Extra‐Role Performance." International Journal of Human Resource Management 21, no. 3 : 405 – 433.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vieira‐dos Santos, J., and G. Gonçalves. 2018. " Organisational Culture, Internal Marketing, and Perceived Organisational Support in Portuguese Higher Education Institutions." Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones 34, no. 1 : 38 – 41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wayne, S. J., L. M. Shore, W. H. Bommer, and L. E. Tetrick. 2002. " The Role of Fair Treatment and Rewards in Perceptions of Organisational Support and Leader‐Member Exchange." Journal of Applied Psychology 87, no. 3 : 590 – 598.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zagenczyk, T. J., K. D. Scott, R. Gibney, A. J. Murrell, and J. B. Thatcher. 2010. " Social Influence and Perceived Organisational Support: A Social Networks Analysis." Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 111, no. 2 : 127 – 138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, Y., J. L. Farh, and H. Wang. 2012. " Organisational Antecedents of Employee Perceived Organisational Support in China: A Grounded Investigation." International Journal of Human Resource Management 23, no. 2 : 422 – 446.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhao, X., H. Yin, C. Fang, and X. Liu. 2021. " For the Sustainable Development of Universities: Exploring the External Factors Impacting Returned Early Career Academic's Research Performance in China." Sustainability 13, no. 3 : 1333.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Taoli Wang; Wenjing Wang and Kun Dai</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref109"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1461259
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Influencing Factors on Scholars' Perceptions of Organisational Support in Chinese Higher Education: An Exploratory Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Taoli+Wang%22">Taoli Wang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wenjing+Wang%22">Wenjing Wang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8253-5681">0009-0003-8253-5681</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kun+Dai%22">Kun Dai</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(1).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Administrator+Relationship%22">Teacher Administrator Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tenure%22">Tenure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Universities%22">Research Universities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Collegiality%22">Collegiality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Justice%22">Justice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Environment%22">Work Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Culture%22">Organizational Culture</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Promotion%22">Teacher Promotion</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ejed.12849
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-8211<br />1465-3435
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Supporting scholars is crucial for promoting academic development in higher education institutions (HEIs). While organisational support for academic careers has been widely researched in various contexts, little attention has been paid to factors influencing Chinese scholars' perspectives on such support, which could significantly impact their professional attitudes and performance. This qualitative study explores factors influencing scholars' perception of organisational support and the micro-processes by which these factors operate in Chinese higher education. Informed by organisational support theory, in-depth interviews were conducted with 30 tenure-track scholars from two Chinese research universities. Findings reveal diverse opinions among Chinese scholars regarding organisational support. Several influencing factors were identified: organisational justice, leadership and colleague support, organizational rewards and working conditions and organisational culture. These factors closely relate to scholars' work environment, career advancement and talent development, ultimately affecting their perception of whether their organisations care about their growth. This study emphasises the importance of considering scholars' perceptions to enhance the effectiveness of organisational support and contributes to building harmonious relationships between scholars and HEIs beyond mere evaluation mechanisms.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A10/s7151/202101/t20210108_509152.html
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1461259
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1461259
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ejed.12849
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Administrator Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tenure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Universities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Collegiality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Justice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Culture
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Promotion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Influencing Factors on Scholars' Perceptions of Organisational Support in Chinese Higher Education: An Exploratory Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Taoli Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wenjing Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kun Dai
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-8211
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3435
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1