Caregiver Faculty: Working through a Pandemic

Abstract

Myriad research examines benefits and drawbacks of working from home, both pre- and post-pandemic. Our research looks at how work from home mandates due to the COVID-19 pandemic were implemented, primarily by those who also had caregiver roles to fulfill. We used a convenience sample, drawing from full-time college faculty at a mid-sized state college in Florida, gathering information from caregivers and non-caregivers for comparative purposes. As we analyzed our data, we considered two additional concepts: Elmore’s backward mapping, which asks us to consider how employer mandates are implemented and will assist us in making policy recommendations, and Smith’s Standpoint, which allowed us to consider our own different gendered experiences as we analyzed survey responses. Our findings reveal that there are some employees well suited to working from home, while others are less enthusiastic about this initiative, and that a significant factor is household caregiving responsibilities, often considered to be the domain of women. Our insights shed light on differences in caregiver-employee statuses; we hope to help guide effective institutional policy should there be a need for workplaces to shut down again and to encourage administrators to consider faculty who may be a good work from home fit should it be considered for everyday work. Understanding where the strengths and weaknesses were/are for workers who work from home will benefit employers.

The seed of this paper, and our interest in this topic, began as we returned to work on campus after having been working from home (WFH) for approximately a year and a half due to COVID-19. We are both full-time sociology professors at a mid-sized state college in Florida. Our working experiences are similar in that our contracts (and state requirements for employment) dictate that all full-time faculty teach the same number of classes each semester. For our institution, the bulk of our teaching duties (four of our five required sections each semester) are, with few exceptions, taught in a traditional face-to-face classroom environment.

Our full-time faculty have an option to teach online; however, this option has been administratively defined, with full-time faculty being generally afforded one online course per semester as part of their required five course teaching contract. However, as we know intuitively, and as Kentnor (2015) reveals, “[o]nline education is no longer a trend, but mainstream” (p. 22). Kentnor (2015) further advises that by 2012, “69% of chief academic leaders indicated online learning was critical to their long-term strategy” (p. 21). And, as Anft (2021) reports, more than a quarter of students in college now say they prefer online learning to other types of education (p. 7).

At our institution, while there seems to be a general recognition of the importance of the online learning environment and many full-time faculty who would welcome the opportunity to teach more online sections, little has been done to ease long-used administrative restrictions.

The full-time face-to-face/online ratio at our college is an internal mandate, supported by administration and supervisors who, for many years, have required that full-time faculty teach mainly on our physical campuses. Full-time faculty are allowed to add overload online courses to their schedule, but in most cases, only one of five contracted (required for load and to meet full-time status) courses will be online. Exceptions are infrequently made, for example, due to illness or other temporary circumstances. Adjuncts supplement the fast-growing enrollment in our online environment, and this makes our campus-based delivery modes, whether intended or not, counter to trends that support the rapid growth of online courses and the desire for full-time teaching positions which are fully online.

While some full-time faculty had opted to teach one online course as part of their load prior to the pandemic, some had not. With limited-to-no experience with online course delivery, a significant issue ensued when those faculty had to quickly pivot to online teaching mid-semester, a term referred to as “emergency remote teaching” in response to the pandemic, differing from adequately planned online learning (Hodges et al. 2020) that takes time to create and experience to apply.

By mid-March 2020, the pandemic forced us all into online mode. If anything could be considered fortuitous about this shift, it is that it happened for us as we went out for spring break. Closing the campus just before spring break afforded all faculty at least some time (a week) to convert classes that had been regularly taught as face-to-face classes to our college’s online learning management system.

Unfortunately for faculty, there were no specific mandates in place to help usher in this shift. Rather, we were advised via e-mail of the closure due to COVID-19 and were asked to reach out to our students, advising them that classes for the remainder of the semester would meet virtually. The mechanics—the how of doing this—were essentially left up to individual faculty. While there was some help (supervisors and some academic technology support), faculty were sent away at the start of spring break with little concrete guidance on how to make this switch.

When we returned to campus in fall 2021, we chatted about our experiences teaching from home. Interestingly, as we conversed, we found that for the two of us, both females, the experiences we had were quite different (Appendix A). This contrast between our two experiences was obvious: One of us was a caregiver, and the other was not. We discussed how this created different points of view about WFH. We wondered how many of our colleagues had similar feelings and experiences based on their caregiver statuses and whether our experiences were common among our peers.

Literature Review

Early feminist (twentieth century) “women’s issues” tended to focus on housekeeping and child-rearing. Often, women’s work outside of the home (paid labor in the workforce) was deemed non-essential or less important than the paid work of men. Scholars pondered why men needed only work “at work” while women worked the second shift (Hochschild and Machung 1989). While recent years have seen some gains for women as far as workplace equity is concerned, women often still bear the brunt of tasks in the home, outside of the purview of the paid workplace. Ridgeway and Correll (2004) assert that, even with recent gains in the positions of women socially and culturally, gender remains “an institutionalized system of social practices for constituting people into two significantly different categories, men and women, and organizing social relations on the basis of that system” (p. 510).

This gendered division of labor proved to be a factor during COVID-19 shutdowns. Not only did women continue to shoulder the burden of “domestic” tasks through the pandemic, when daycares shut down and nursing homes/assisted living facilities began experiencing COVID-19-related issues, women may have been more likely to take on increased duties at home. While significant strides have been made over time to balance work and home duties regardless of gender, the reality is that gender still matters in most homes with a traditional (heterosexual) parental structure. The lack of open childcare facilities and the nationwide problems with COVID-19 in institutional elder care were more likely to have increased burdens on women WFH.

Working from Home

WFH is a form of remote working, which is “a flexible work arrangement whereby workers work in locations, remote from their central offices or production facilities,” and “the worker has no personal contact with co-workers there but is able to communicate with them using technology” (Di Martino and Wirth 1990:530), but the location of work is restricted to the home. There are many ways to refer to working away from the office. Working away from the office has been studied and referred to as various terms: remote work, telecommuting, telework, to name a few. Aczel et al. (2021) used the term “working from home” which “covers working from any location other than the dedicated area provided by the employer” (p. 2) in their study of academics during the pandemic lockdown. Definitions of WFH are often similar regardless of the industry. Studying academics WFH during the pandemic allowed us to consider issues that arise when WFH initiatives are not voluntary, and moreover how the work-life balance may be impacted.

A plethora of research looks at the advantages and disadvantages of WFH prior to the pandemic, and more research is starting to come out on the effects of WFH for those who did not have (or choose) that option. In fact, some researchers assert that the pandemic will cause some jobs to be permanently remote (Sytch and Greer 2020).

Pre-COVID Research

Those who worked from home prior to the pandemic generally made a focused decision to do so and likely felt as though the decision to do so was beneficial to them. However, as most of the country, even the world, shut down to try and stop the spread of COVID-19, adults and children were forced to work and continue schooling from home. Prior to COVID-19, very little of the world population had any experience with WFH, especially full-time (Wang et al. 2021). However, data taken from employees across the United States from Global Workplace Analytics and Owl Labs (2019) found that 62 percent of their sample worked remotely (e.g., WFH) at least once a month or full-time, but only 30 percent worked remotely full-time in 2019. Yet by 2020, nearly 70 percent of Americans worked from home due to COVID-19 (Global Workplace Analytics and Owl Labs 2020). As workplaces began to reopen in 2021, 27 percent of those who WFH still had not returned to work (Global Workplace Analytics and Owl Labs 2021).

WFH was found to be beneficial for employees in some past research, with studies pointing to ease of balancing work and non-work responsibilities, such as leisure time and family obligations (Baines and Gelder 2003). Interestingly, Felstead and Henseke (2017) found that remote working negatively affected work-life balance while also revealing that participants felt their jobs were more stimulating and pleasurable while working remotely; they also reported that remote workers were more enthusiastic about their jobs and reported considerably higher levels of job satisfaction despite the negative impacts to work-life balance.

In additional research conducted prior to COVID-19 about WFH initiatives and mandates, Castellano (2015) cited a survey that concluded that slightly over half of the respondents felt that “employees working from home are just as or more productive than those in the office” (p. 12). Furthermore, Castellano (2015) reported that “a quarter of employees think remote work limits their career growth” (p. 12).

As we can see from the authors above, early research on WFH points to several tensions. WFH initiatives have been simultaneously viewed by workers and employers with both positive and negative concerns. Will the “during” and post-COVID research expose the same tensions?

During- and Post-COVID Research

Some research findings from during the pandemic highlighted that worker productivity levels did not change despite the transition to WFH (Awada et al. 2021). Moreover, in analyzing 29 European countries on workers’ experience of WFH, Ipsen et al. (2021) indicated that their respondents reported fewer negative and relatively more positive experiences. Similarly, research of South Africa found that while some of their respondents reported fewer interruptions and increased job satisfaction while WFH, other respondents reported more distractions and a decrease in job satisfaction, indicating that workers experience this shift to WFH during the pandemic very differently (de Klerk, Joubert, and Mosca 2021). Furthermore, a study on researchers from Hungary found that two-thirds of their sample reported it would be better to do more WFH in the future (Aczel et al. 2021).

Interestingly, focusing on the mental health and presence of children at home for academic parents, other researchers (Lantsoght et al. 2021) found that their respondents reported that the presence of children at home made the situation of the pandemic and WFH less stressful. However, loneliness, procrastination, and work-home interference were found to be the most difficult elements among a sample of Chinese remote workers during the pandemic (Wang et al. 2021), while feelings of isolation and the need for interaction resulted in negative experiences of all participants in a study conducted in South Africa (de Klerk et al. 2021).

Just as with the pre-COVID WFH research, employees relay several tensions from the experience of WFH, and some of the themes that emerge in during- and post-COVID WFH research were similarly expressed by post-COVID WFH research participants.

Gender Differences with WFH

In general, WFH allows for frequent and regular interruptions from family and has been found to negatively influence work effectiveness (Wang et al. 2021). However, the results on how gender affects WFH is mixed. For example, some research concludes that women with young children who WFH may show a reduction in depressive symptoms, perhaps due to job stress in the (away from home) workplace setting. This was especially true for new mothers who were able to make more time to care for children, especially because commuting to work was reduced. The researchers also found that WFH was more beneficial the more children a woman had (Shepherd-Banigan et al. 2015). This may be supported by Powell and Craig (2015), who argued that when considering the balance of multi-tasking and childcare while WFH, the women in their study chose to WFH exactly for that reason. Also, Ipsen et al. (2021) noted that when comparing those with children at home to those without children, the workers with children at home during the pandemic felt higher levels of comfort for WFH. Contrary to that research, a study on Hungarian workers found that those with children were less likely to be able to take advantage of the benefits from WFH compared with those without children (Aczel et al. 2021).

Using social media opinions on WFH during the pandemic, researchers found that women held more positive opinions about WFH than men. They concluded that the women in their sample reported reduced work hours, which may explain why they reported more positive opinions about WFH as it allowed them to spend more time with family, especially children. Interestingly, they also found that older workers with higher incomes tend to hold more positive opinions on WFH (Xiong et al. 2021). While analyzing worker productivity of WFH during the pandemic, other researchers found similar findings. For instance, those who were older, female, and had higher income levels were found to be more productive during the pandemic compared with their counterparts (Awada et al. 2021).

It has also been long argued that women who WFH carry much of the burden of domestic responsibilities (Sullivan and Smithson 2001). Prior to the pandemic, research found that although women tend to report a slightly higher amount of conflict with work-family balance and that they spend more of their time on domestic work, men reported that they tend to work more from home than women, work longer hours, but have more flexible work schedules (van der Lippe and Lippényi 2020). Furthermore, Powell and Craig (2015) found that women spent more time on caring for children and domestic work compared to men, and the time spent on both increased the more frequently women worked from home. Interestingly, the researchers also found that men who worked from home occasionally devoted the highest amount of time to taking care of the children. A similar finding was reported during the pandemic, stating that fathers who worked from home either voluntarily or forced to because of the pandemic increased time devoted to childcare (Andrew et al. 2020; Carlson, Petts, and Pepin 2020). Therefore, an increase in WFH may result in a shift in gender roles, with fathers taking on more childcare roles becoming a norm (Carli 2020).

However, some have argued that women may not benefit as much from WFH compared to men, at least during a time of crisis such as the pandemic (Feng and Savani 2020). This finding is supported by Deryugina, Shurchkov, and Stearns (2021) when they found that women academics with young children reported greater difficulty with work productivity during the pandemic compared to men. Interestingly, research found that while overall research productivity increased in their sample during the lockdown, female academics’ productivity decreased compared to male academics (Cui, Ding, and Zhu 2021). The overall greater familial obligations that affect(ed) women more than men academics during the pandemic were further supported by Kim and Patterson (2022).

Undoubtedly, it was found that the lack of childcare services and WFH created a gender gap in job satisfaction and work productivity for families with dual careers (Feng and Savani 2020). As importantly, women who were WFH and caring for children during the pandemic experienced significant distractions, reported working longer hours, and reported increased levels of anxiety and stress (de Klerk et al. 2021). To accommodate an increase in childcare demands, others found that mothers were more like to reduce their work hours compared to fathers during the pandemic, which further increases the gender gap in pay (Collins et al. 2020; Lyttelton, Zang, and Musick 2020).

During the pandemic, most adult workers and children were constrained to the house to complete occupational duties and school responsibilities. Indeed, this caused conflicts in productivity for both employees and students. In fact, it was found that when sharing the workspace with someone else in the household, the worker’s productivity decreased (Awada et al. 2021). Ipsen and colleagues (2021) found that workers with children at home reported that they were working less efficiently compared to those with no children.

To balance working and childcare, Weeks (2018) reported that parents, in particular academic parents, adjusted to working late into evenings and early mornings. Even more important, when looking at the caregiving of a child, the age of the child impacted worker productivity differently. For example, if an infant or toddler was present while WFH, productivity was lower because workers reported less time at their workstation, most likely because infants and toddlers require more attention. However, school-aged children who were learning from home may also have needed more attention to ensure they were completing their educational responsibilities; parents may have been more likely to share their workstations with school-aged children, thus also increasing their time at the workstation. Teenagers present in the household were found to boost worker productivity even more, since they were likely to be able to share some of the household responsibilities and alleviate them from the working adults (Awada et al. 2021). Findings of research that focused on academic parents during the lockdown for COVID-19 reported similar results, with younger children (infants) posing the most negative impact on WFH compared to older children (Lantsoght et al. 2021). Interestingly, Sullivan and Smithson (2007) contend that the presence of dependent children explains the differences for those WFH compared to gender.

As shown, the results of WFH initiatives are quite varied. While some research points to the positive aspects of WFH for the employee, other findings suggest that WFH was not well incorporated. Additional research is warranted, and to craft good workplace policies, administrators should consider a variety of worker variables to determine which employees would be a good fit to WFH; knowing who among staff are a good WFH fit will in turn benefit the employer.

Methods

Our inquiries were gathered through an online survey (administered via Survey Monkey), with a series of open- and closed-ended questions (Appendix B). We crafted our questions to capture five categories: balancing work-life demands, productivity/efficiency and technology use, impacts of technology use on workload, workloads, and tenure.

Word maps and clusters were applied as preliminary analytic tools, allowing us to make comparisons across responses. While respondents had widely varying responses to questions, looking at responses via keyword and word map analyses allowed us to tease out similarities and work toward a meaningful, global understanding of content.

As we combed through many lengthy responses, we used a qualitative descriptive approach to represent our findings. As Sandelowski (2000) asserts, this approach allowed for unanticipated descriptive passages to be incorporated into our findings during the process of analysis. Thus, broadly, we used an interaction approach within a descriptive, interpretive framework.

We also considered as a foundation Dorothy Smith’s Standpoint as we realized that our different perspectives and closeness to the project (both in personal interest and in surveying faculty with whom we work) provided an opportunity to analyze data which hit close to home from a gendered perspective. This was a primary point of focus and was on our minds as we reviewed our data as 76 percent of our respondents were female.

We also believe that our insider perspectives are valuable and important. Having more than an outsider’s perspective has been immensely helpful with understanding specifics in the data. We have experienced the same workplace benefits and drawbacks as our research participants. We also had to overcome the same hurdles related to the lack of concrete administrative WFH mandates that our employer instituted. We believe this gives us a unique frame of reference, one that an outsider could not possess.

Smith’s (1992) intention was to use Standpoint as an analytical tool. The benefit to framing our analysis using it outweighed any sticking points we considered. Thus, as we conceptualized the project, and subsequently began to collect data, our own distinct points of view were weighed; this helped us to craft relevant survey questions for our subjects with caregiving roles. And, while we did not expect to take a primary approach that centered on a feminist standpoint, in analysis it became clear that there was a gendered arch, not only with participants but also in responses to questions about caregiving for family while WFH. Smith’s revelation of the gendered aspects of research and practice guided not only our original conceptualization but also our analysis.

We would be remiss in not considering how these macro-level forces may be at play with how COVID-19 WFH policies were implemented. By adding a lens of gender to our analysis, we can contemplate how policies may impact workers as it relates to gender.

Results

Our employer is a medium-sized state college with a total of 265 full-time faculty. Of those, 159 are tenured, and the remaining are working toward tenure or on annual contracts. The majority of faculty in all categories is female, with the overwhelming majority also identifying as White. We sent our survey to all full-time faculty and received 25 responses, about 10 percent of our faculty ranks.

Several of our open-ended questions asked respondents to describe their efforts to work from home while caregiving or asked them to reflect on the past year and relay both positive and negative feelings and experiences about WFH. The questions and responses were organized into five categories: balancing work-life demands, productivity/efficiency and technology use, impacts of technology use on workload, workloads, and tenure.

Balancing Work-Life Demands

The demographics of our sample are shown in Table 1. Of the faculty who participated in the survey, the majority were also caregivers to at least one person during their WFH experience (Figure 1). The relationship between the caregiver and dependent(s) is shown in Figure 2.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics (n = 25).

Variable	Inclusion
Gender
Male	24%
Female	76%
Age
<30	0%
31–45	24%
45–60	48%
60+	28%
Race
White	100%
Years teaching at college
≤5	24%
6–10	20%
11–15	20%
> 15	36%

Figure 1.

Work-life balance: caregiving among working from home faculty during pandemic, n = 25.

Figure 2.

Work-life balance: caregiving relationship, n = 21.

Over half of our faculty caregivers responded that their caregiving time interrupted their work schedules. A third of the caregivers also had other help in the home; however, half of our respondents reported no regular help with caregiving tasks. A majority of our sample spent between two and five or more hours a day on caregiving tasks, with the majority being more than five hours.

Most of the respondents who cared for children also had responsibilities to teach/homeschool their children. For these responses, the tasks varied:

In 2020 my children were in preschool and 1^st grade when quarantine started and they had to homeschool. They have continued doing partial homeschool since then. They are now in kindergarten and third grade and I homeschool them on Mondays and Fridays. (Respondent 6)

I was ensuring that my 15-16 yr old (9th and 10th grade) participated in his synchronous sessions while also making sure his IEP accommodations were met. Additionally, I was responsible for my 7-8 (1st and 2nd grade) completing her asynchronous assignments to complete 1st grade and working with her through her virtual school curriculum in 2nd grade. I also arranged tutoring for my second-grader. (Respondent 23)

Other respondents shared that a great deal of their time was dedicated to teaching their children, most of which consisted of children below 10 years, so they served not only as caregiver but as teacher as well. What is clear in these responses is that the younger the children in the home, the more caregiving tasks the faculty member had to perform, which is consistent with similar findings of WFH during the pandemic (Awada et al. 2021).

For those who responded to the general question about caregiving while WFH, the majority responded negatively about their WFH experiences, about one-third responded positively, and a few relayed that their experiences were both positive and negative. Many respondents noted specific issues related to juggling caregiving (for children or adults) and work duties. Of those, two were specifically related to caregiving for partners or parents with illnesses:

The most stress I have ever had. However, working from home enabled me to keep my mother in the home after her stroke, while I figured out how to find professional caregiving help for the very few hours I can afford. Both caring for my mother and my job require high amounts of attention. I am never, never off. (Respondent 11)

I was dealing with dementia with my father-in-law. I had him all day by myself. It was hard to have a “regular” schedule as you never knew what your day would be like. (Respondent 13)

A few respondents were split in their response to caregiving while WFH, with one respondent citing both positive (not having to commute to work) and negative (juggling caregiving with work) reasons. The other respondents learned to deal with the change from WFH and caregiving by being very flexible and learning to work around caregiving and daily work responsibilities.

When asked to reflect on the past year and consider what advantages there might have been with balancing work-life demands, all but one responded. Some strong themes emerged in the responses to this question, with nearly half of the respondents mentioning the flexibility of schedules being a positive and more than half of the respondents mentioning increased or quality family time as an advantage to WFH. As one respondent stated,

It allowed me the opportunity to spend most of her last days with her in a loving and productive way. (Respondent 7)

Another respondent who was also a caregiver for a dependent adult found that WFH was also an advantage:

Allowed for me to efficiently complete my work responsibilities while spending time with my adult special needs son. (Respondent 24)

Interestingly, while caregiving for her children and assisting in their education during the pandemic, another respondent stated,

I was able to assist my children with school issues. For example, I identified a reading problem my youngest was facing, found her virtual tutoring, and helped her conquer the issues. I also was able to eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner with my children daily. (Respondent 23)

A few respondents also mentioned more time for family duties/chores as being beneficial, with one-fourth mentioning having increased health benefits and finding the time to cook healthy meals and regularly exercise.

As found as an advantage in previous research (Ipsen et al. 2021; Lantsoght et al. 2021), not having to commute to work was a significant theme found throughout the comments. In fact, one-third of the respondents mentioned the lack of commuting and the time saved traveling as an advantage while WFH. The savings on time and money on not having to commute to work are evident as most of the respondents reported having to commute over 15 minutes (one way) to work each day, with several respondents reporting commuting more than 30 minutes. Interestingly, although participants reported not having to commute to work as an advantage, one respondent reported the lack of commute as a disadvantage because “the drive to and from work was ‘me time.’”

What’s more, only a few respondents mentioned the advantage of WFH on reducing interruptions or distractions from working in the office. Interestingly, an advantage of WFH for other respondents was related to COVID-19 directly, with some responses pointing to the fact that WFH took away the stress of possible exposure to COVID-19. Not only were these respondents relieved of not exposing themselves to COVID-19, but they were also caregivers and stressed how relieved they felt for not exposing household members whom they cared for.

When considering the negative impacts of WFH, again almost all responded. In fact, nearly one-fifth of these responded that they could not find any negative impacts to WFH. Of the remaining responses, many respondents shared multiple themes; however, there were two clear themes that emerged in response to this question. Half of the faculty discussed the issues of balancing work and family life, while fewer mentioned the distractions of WFH as a major disadvantage. In discussing the difficulties of balancing work and family life, some respondents mentioned the inability to separate work from homelife and the difficulties of frequently having to change roles from caregiver to employee to teacher (for their own young children). Some felt as though they were at work constantly.

Moreover, of the respondents who mentioned distractions while WFH, it varied from distractions from children, a spouse, or an elderly person they were caring for. For instance, there were comments of distractions of spouse(s) also WFH, noises from other household members who were home, providing meals for dependent others in the house, and household chores that were piling up with everyone being home.

Productivity/Efficiency and Technology Use

Despite the difficulties respondents reported above with WFH and caregiving, most of the respondents reported that either their work-related productivity stayed the same or in fact increased while WFH during the pandemic. In addition to productivity, we further wanted to understand how faculty felt about their efficiency with WFH when compared to working from their campus office. While slightly more than 10 percent indicated that they were “less efficient” at home compared to working in their campus office, one-fourth of the overall respondents reported they were “much more efficient” with WFH. Overall, the majority reported that they were “similarly efficient,” “somewhat more efficient,” and/or “much more efficient” while WFH compared to working in their campus office. Faculty were also asked to describe what work-related tasks were either more efficient or less efficient while WFH.

Most respondents asked about WFH efficiency responded positively in two distinct areas. Over half of the respondents felt that they were more efficient at non-teaching job-related tasks (virtual meetings, responding to e-mail from other faculty or coworkers, and other required paperwork):

I was more organized in setting up courses and completing tasks. I kept a daily list of what needed to be done and that helped me keep more focused and able to prioritize. I always have been very process oriented; I like to streamline as much as possible. I was very good about answering emails ASAP and writing back to students when they had questions. (Respondent 14)

I was able to attend more meetings as there was no drive time between them. I was also able to share documents in real-time rather than via email. (Respondent 24)

Almost one-third of the participants followed up this area of positivity by also responding that working with students in the online environment was more efficient when WFH. Some respondents mentioned that there were less interruptions from coworkers to deal with, thus increasing their productivity and effectiveness:

I did not waste travel time or getting dressed time, which are actually quite significant time sucks, so I was able to focus earlier in the day on responding to individual students. Individual response to students was much more enhanced when working from home. (Respondent 12)

. . . things like setting up a course, entering grades, checking an assignment, etc. And anything that I did within my courses that was file-based. (Respondent 17)

When asked about what might have been less efficient when WFH, faculty responses were quite varied with no strong themes emerging; however, a common, yet subtle theme seemed to revolve around the fact that most of the faculty were not prepared to teach their courses online, which led to them feeling less efficient. Several faculty mentioned issues related to technology getting in the way of efficiency, such as IT issues and needing to purchase technology to operate online courses. A few respondents mentioned the challenges of revising or reworking lab components for online instruction, while a few other respondents mentioned the difficulties of online grading and recording lectures. Additional responses clustered around problems related to the lack of face-to-face (real time) faculty-student interaction, especially since, like faculty experiencing difficulties of transitioning to WFH, many students struggled to adapt to online learning.

Impacts of Technology Use on Work

Respondents were further asked about their methods of communicating and the possible technical issues that arose while WFH and how these issues were resolved. Faculty were asked to select all forms of communication with workplace peers while WFH, which ranged from virtual meetings (Teams, Zoom, etc.), e-mail, telephone, face-to-face, and/or other forms (Figure 3). “Other” forms of communication that respondents indicated they used mostly consisted of text messaging with their peers. An additional question on communication was asked to faculty, but this time we asked how they communicated with students while WFH (Figure 4). Similar to how faculty communicated with peers while WFH, many indicated using text messaging with their students when they specified the “other” method of communication.

Figure 3.

Productivity/efficiency and technology use: forms of communication between faculty and peers, n = 25.

Figure 4.

Productivity/efficiency and technology use: forms of communication between faculty and students, n = 25.

Obviously, to efficiently WFH, the availability of technology is very important, which faculty reported in the previous section on efficiency. Thus, faculty were also asked about the technology they had available at home and were asked to select all that applied (high-speed Internet, microphone, camera, telephone with dedicated line for work, and other [specify]). As Figure 5 shows, most, if not all, of the respondents either already owned or had to purchase the necessary technology to WFH as efficiently as possible during the pandemic, such as high-speed Internet, microphone, and camera. For those who reported using “other” technology, the most commonly reported was the use of a computer or tablet.

Figure 5.

Productivity/efficiency and technology use: types of technology available to faculty, n = 25.

To further understand the importance of technology while WFH, faculty were asked about any technical problems they experienced and the resolution of those problems. Of the responses, three themes emerged: slow Internet, purchasing equipment, and learning online software. Although all the respondents reported having high-speed Internet at home, almost one-third mentioned slow Internet as being a technical issue. Some reported contacting their Internet service provider and/or IT support through the college, resulting in resolution some of the time. Also, other respondents mentioned they had to purchase equipment so that they could teach from home, such as doc cams, laptops and desktops, and microphones and lighting for recording lectures.

To adapt to WFH, many faculty had to purchase equipment, often quite expensive equipment, so that they could continue teaching during the pandemic. In fact, it was frequently mentioned throughout the survey responses that some faculty’s home offices were not ergonomic, and they had to adjust and/or purchase items to improve their work area. One respondent even expressed physical health concerns because their office was not well suited to work for extended periods of time. Another less common but noted theme mentioned among the respondents was an issue learning the software, such as Teams, Zoom, and the college’s Learning Management System (LMS), Canvas.

Workloads

Other research has also found that when WFH, employees often work longer hours compared to when they work from the office (van der Lippe and Lippényi 2020). Therefore, faculty were asked questions about workloads prior to the pandemic (working from the office) and then during the pandemic (WFH). Slightly over half of the respondents reported that they regularly worked from home. Of those reporting ever WFH before the pandemic, over one-third reported working more than four hours per day on average, while most of the remaining reported working less than one hour per day on average. Thus, faculty appeared to often WFH even prior to the pandemic.

Faculty were then asked about the timing of their workday while WFH during the pandemic. Interestingly, most of the respondents reported they began work by 10 a.m., with almost half of those reporting their workdays began earlier than 8 a.m. Only a few of the respondents reported beginning work after 10 a.m. Also, most reported that they worked at least one weekend day every week. Of those who reported working on weekends, slightly over half of all respondents worked between one and four hours per weekend day, with over one-third reporting working more than four hours per weekend day. Therefore, it appears that faculty, even prior to the pandemic, worked from home, but the pandemic reduced the boundaries between work and home, making workdays often blend into weekends.

Tenure

One additional broad concern noted in prior research (Ford and Butts 1991) is that of how WFH impacts the ability to be promoted. Those who WFH most or all the time may feel invisible because of the disconnect between the employee and supervisors and administrators who handle promotion and employee recognition. This is especially important within academia since a major goal within most academic institutions is to make tenure. Therefore, we asked our sample whether they felt their ability to move up within the organization was diminished by working remotely. Interestingly, almost half reported they did not feel that WFH diminished their ability to move up, while slightly less than a quarter said yes, and almost a third were not sure whether their ability to move up was affected by WFH. Within the survey, one respondent commented on this directly as a disadvantage of WFH:

. . . but it made other matters: like getting tenure. . . well I didn’t and should have! No recovery from that. (Respondent 4)

And another respondent hinted at the concern of promotion/tenure as well by stating,

I was also limited to workshops that were offered online. (Respondent 5)

This is of particular importance because as a requirement of tenure, there are various non-teaching tasks that faculty must meet (attending workshops, trainings, conferences, etc.). While these things may now be more easily available in a virtual setting, for most faculty early in the pandemic shutdown, these sorts of events had not yet been made available to them as they WFH. The inability to meet the additional demands of a tenure timeline therefore could (and likely did) cause a great amount of stress for those on this path.

Discussion

In our research, there were some clearly articulated responses, citing advantages and disadvantages to WFH for employees. Administrators should heed these reasons, both positive and negative, when considering future WFH initiatives.

One negative theme that arose in the comments among a few respondents was WFH isolation and missing out on the social aspects of work. The concerns of feelings of isolation are widely supported in the literature on WFH (Wang et al. 2021), but this problem was undoubtedly worsened by the fact that most of society was also shut down because of the pandemic. When asked about feelings of isolation while WFH, the answers were evenly divided on whether they felt isolated or not. The fact that half of the respondents expressed feelings of isolation, which contributed to feelings of anxiety and stress, while the other half did not, should be taken into consideration when creating policy that decides who may be better fit to WFH. Those that reported they did not feel isolated while WFH referenced the fact that they were in frequent contact with their colleagues; thus, ensuring regular communication when WFH seems to be a key element to WFH and reducing feelings of isolation.

Trying to craft a good “one-size-fits-all” policy about WFH may not be advantageous for employers. Rather, working with individual employees who may have already shown through the pandemic that they enjoy WFH and that they are productive in doing so could be the best way to approach administrative WFH decisions and initiatives. After all, keeping employees satisfied with work is integral to their productivity and can be a significant indicator of workplace longevity (Schuler and Jackson 2006; Terera and Ngirande 2014).

In addition, it is advantageous to policymakers and administrators to provide clear directives while also reviewing how their mandates are interpreted and instituted on the ground. In the late 1970s, Richard F. Elmore designed an action plan for policymakers and workplace administrators, which used what he named a “backward mapping” approach. This approach considers organizational data from the bottom up rather than from the top down. In other words, rather than looking at how policy is administratively crafted and mandated, Elmore sought to question whether the top-down policy implementation approach works well on the ground at all.

As we are interested in policies, procedures, rules, and decisions around the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent WFH directives, we used Elmore’s approach to gauge how these changes impacted and were instituted by individual workers (in this case, faculty) and whether these WFH mandates were implemented successfully.

The primary reason for considering Elmore’s tool is to provide feedback to our administrators about how effective (or ineffective) plans for WFH during COVID-19 were. We sought to explain the first aspect of the backward mapping process: How did workers use directives and policies that were handed down to them by administrators and supervisors during their WFH time? Because administrators sometimes overlook ground-level results (the how) of implemented policies, this approach helps those who craft policy to understand implementation more clearly, and thus subsequent benefits or drawbacks to new polices as they are implemented. This sort of bottom-up approach allows us to provide important information to upper-level college administrators while also providing a sense of validation to faculty who had to work with new and often vague, quickly changing pandemic policies. The biggest hurdle for faculty to overcome with the rapid switch to online that COVID-19 brought to our college was the lack of clear direction to assist faculty with immediate needs, both practical and technology-driven.

As Elmore (1979–1980) asserts, this analysis should be viewed as important as “policymakers have a strong interest in affecting the implementation process and the outcomes of policy decisions” (p. 604). Even considering the benefit that backward mapping might give to policymakers, one of our primary reasons for using it is our own familiarity—we are both faculty who have worked through the pandemic, on campus and at home. We were required to implement WFH initiatives alongside our colleagues. Furthermore, in our discussions with each other and colleagues, we realized there were some striking differences and similarities in our experiences.

As a recommendation, we encourage administrators to craft a policy or procedure that would assist them in finding their qualified and willing WFH faculty. The arrangement to WFH needs to be mutually satisfying, with administrators trusting that the WFH employees they select are the “right fit” for any WFH initiative and with employees who find it beneficial to do so. A simple survey of faculty would be a good place to begin. If that were coupled with appropriate training for online teaching, faculty would have the skills and the desire to WFH, benefiting both self and employer. A simple checklist could be easily employed by supervisors when the need to ramp up online teaching existed.

Elmore’s approach proved to be a good tool for teasing out tensions created by WFH during the pandemic and for allowing us to see how the lack of specific mandates impacted faculty as they ramped up for online teaching. It is clear from our analysis that not all employees enjoyed the COVID-19 WFH experience and that some were frustrated by the lack of administrative direction. Starting with faculty perceptions showed us that some faculty were not prepared for the lack of mandates provided by administration and that this proved to be problematic—a more concrete application of directives could have prevented some of the frustration that faculty experienced. While administration may also have been “flying by the seat of their pants,” a tighter rein on what faculty needed to do (especially for those who had never taught online before) could have minimized the negative consequences of this experience for faculty and in turn, students.

Conversely, the faculty who did have positive experiences may be excellent candidates for any future WFH initiatives, and it is important that administrators know who these employees are. With WFH happening in increasing numbers, it can only be beneficial to all stakeholders—in our case, college-wide administrators, faculty and support staff, and the students we all serve.

For administrators, this means being ready to pivot well-qualified faculty to where they are needed. Developing a tool by which those faculty could be identified and then quickly deployed to online teaching as needed is beneficial to all concerned.

Conclusion

There are several additional questions and concerns that we considered post-analysis. While not within the scope of our project, in reviewing the literature, we found a few additional areas of interest. One area that we did not capture in our research: Why do older workers with higher incomes prefer WFH initiatives (Xiong et al. 2021)? Is this because they have already climbed the career ladder and are comfortable in their positions, or is there another less obvious reason that contributes to this situation? And a second consideration that we feel warrants exploration: How does the age of dependent children at home factor into satisfaction/dissatisfaction with WFH (Aczel et al. 2021; Ipsen et al. 2021)?

And while we did not seek out students as participants in this project, what is clear from looking at enrollment trends in our mid-sized state college is that our online campus has greatly benefited (as far as enrollment numbers) from the pandemic WFH mandate, with students who may have been uncomfortable in the online learning environment prior to COVID-19 shutdowns now enrolling in online courses in significant numbers. That is a trend, we believe, that will not be reversing. Rather, we predict that traditional brick-and-mortar campuses will suffer the consequences of students getting comfortable with online learning during the pandemic, and we will continue to see decreases in campus-based enrollments over time.

Our participants yielded unique and thoughtful perspectives on WFH during a pandemic while also assuming caregiver roles. Additional (comparative) studies could add to our findings. Our results will be shared with the administration where we work and could provide valuable information for WFH faculty initiatives elsewhere.

WFH can be beneficial for both employees and employers provided factors that impact productivity and job satisfaction are considered. Some employees are well suited to WFH, and their home lives do not pose a problem for productivity. These are the very employees that employers should be concentrating on when considering general WFH initiatives and opportunities. Benefiting workers by allowing a WFH model can lead to higher levels of worker satisfaction, and in turn reduce turnover and burnout. It is essential, however, that an effort be made on the part of employers to ensure employees who do not work well under a WFH model not be forced to do so. Pandemic aside, WFH models need to be tailored to the employee who can provide benefits to the organization.

Author Biographies

Debra Marshall is Professor in the Arts, Humanities and Sciences Division at Eastern Florida State College and teaches undergraduate sociology and psychology. Her published work focuses on issues surrounding privatization of family safety agencies. Her current research focuses on contemporary workplace challenges and faculty career satisfaction.

Sara Hoskin is a member of the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Division at Eastern Florida State College and teaches undergraduate sociology. Her research interests are in deviant behavior, sexuality, gender, and social construction, as well as complexities of parenting and working.

Appendix A

Researcher Narratives

Researcher 1: As the announcements were being made that we would not be returning to campus following spring break 2020, at first, I was somewhat relieved because now I would not have to commute 35–40 minutes each way, four times a week. It was also a relief that the mornings would not be so stressful on me getting ready for work and making sure my son was prepared and gets to school. However, as both my classes and my son’s school would resume, at least online, following spring break, the unforeseen and uncertain times were upon us.

I had never taught online before and it was clear that most of my students either had never taken an online course or at least did not prefer it. So, we were all thrust into this situation. On top of me easing the minds of my students, I was also transitioning my exams and lectures online for the first time. My son, who is very much an extrovert and loves socializing, was now asked to complete his tasks at home, on a computer, with little to no socialization outside of myself, my husband (who did not work from home), and our pets. That was an extremely difficult task, especially to ask from my son, who at the time, was 8.

As Fall 2020 approached, I was able to take the summer to prepare as much as I could to be teaching all my courses online. I also opted to keep my son at home as he started the 3 ^rd grade, since I had the luxury of working from home. As before, the lack of commuting and having to get both him and I ready for school and work, our mornings were much calmer. However, as my son had to transition into attending school on Zoom, the difficulties started to mount. I found myself having to balance writing and recording lectures around my son’s lunchtime, recess (I tried to take him out every day to get exercise—but that took a bit of time out of my day), as well as the technical issues that would arise from eLearning. The stressors that we both felt from this type of learning and teaching environment contributed to antagonism between the two of us.

Additionally, I found myself being easily distracted with household chores and entertaining my dogs (who loved the shutdown since we were home!). My son eventually returned to face-to-face learning, which eliminated stressors and conflict I felt with him learning online. Yet, I still yearned for more face-to-face interaction, not only with my students but my colleagues in the office.

As we returned to campus in spring 2021, I met my students part time face-to-face with part of their semester remaining online; I felt a sense of relief for returning to “normalcy” within my work-life. Between the difficulty with my son eLearning and myself, also an extrovert, teaching online, I prefer my face-to-face courses despite the lengthy commute and hectic mornings to get both of us out of the house on time.

Researcher 2: For me, the WFH experience was liberating and productive. As we left the campus on the last day of our workweek before spring break, I remember cautioning my students that they may not be coming back for the remainder of the semester, and to keep a close eye on all official college announcements, and for any announcements via email from me. My caution to them proved true as we soon received the official notice of our college’s brick and mortar campuses being closed for the remainder of the semester.

I found that I was able to utilize the time saved getting ready for work and then commuting there and back each day to the advantage of significantly increasing my work output, concentrating on serving the needs of my students in the online platform more than I ever had before. Reflecting on the experience of teaching from home, I realized that just having that extra time every day allowed me to delve into more depth and detail when students asked questions via email. I also didn’t mind having virtual meetings with my peers and found that I could easily multitask, listening in on a meeting while completing grading tasks or answering emails. I found that welcome distractions that I have at work (mainly colleagues who stop by my office to visit or ask questions related to work matters) disappeared, and I was able to better concentrate on tasks that needed my full attention.

I also live by myself and have full autonomy over my home schedule. I embraced this new way of working, and I think I used it to my full advantage while also benefitting the students I serve as well as the administration of the college. I was less stressed and more professionally fulfilled. I sometimes found myself starting work as early as 6:00 AM, putting in four or five hours of meaningful time in my online classes (developing content, answering email, grading papers and assignments and crafting announcements). By late morning most days, I often felt as if I had gotten more work done than I did when traveling to campus and working from my office there. I was able to fit in working out and meditating every day, and this was a luxury that I could never fit in when commuting. I lost weight, and when I had telehealth appointments with my doctor, she commented on how good my “numbers” looked.

Coming back to work on campus has been interesting. I have really enjoyed seeing and talking to my colleagues every day. And, I have also enjoyed getting back into the swing of face-to-face delivery of lectures. Being in class has been invigorating. But it hasn’t stopped the nagging feeling I have that I was better at my job when teaching from home. Perhaps that’s a personality thing, perhaps it’s about having less “getting ready” for work and more just working. Either way, I find myself already reflecting on being able to WFH, and the desire I have to return to it.

Appendix B

Survey Instrument

1. For how many family members were you a regular caregiver during the pandemic?

2. What relationship do you have/did you have to those for whom you cared during the pandemic while working from home?

3. Did you have responsibilities to teach or homeschool children during the pandemic?

4. Describe the tasks you performed while teaching/homeschooling during the pandemic. Note the age(s) of the child(ren).

5. Did you have regular help with caregiving tasks (another family member, another adult, or professional help)?

6. On an average day, how much time did you spend on caregiving tasks?

7. When working from home, did/does time spent caregiving interrupt your work schedule?

8. Reflecting upon the past year, describe working from home while trying to care for family members.

9. What advantages did working from home provide with balancing life and work demands?

10. What disadvantages did working from home provide with balancing life and work demands?

11. How did working from home impact your work-related productivity?

12. Based on the experiences you had working from home, how efficient do you think you were compared to when you were working from your campus office?

13. What work-related tasks were more efficiently completed while you were working from home?

14. What work-related tasks were less efficiently completed while you were working from home?

15. How did you communicate with peers while working from home?

16. How did you communicate with students while working from home?

17. What technology do you have available?

18. What technical problems did you experience and how were they resolved?

19. When working from home, how often did you work at least one weekend day (Saturday, Sunday)?

20. If you worked weekend days, how many hours did you work on those days?

21. While working from home, on most days, how early did you begin working?

22. Before the pandemic, did you regularly work from home?

23. Before the pandemic, on average, how many hours per day did you continue to work (either before or after your scheduled campus duties) once you were home from campus?

24. Do you feel as if your ability to move up within the organization is diminished by working remotely?

25. How long does it take you to commute to work every day (one way)?

26. Please tell us whether you have felt isolated during your work from home experience and how that experience felt.