This study's principal objective was to explore the statistically predictive power of academics' research agendas for their job dissatisfaction beyond demographics. Five hundred and forty-seven academics from the eight publicly funded universities in Hong Kong responded to the Multi-Dimensional Research Agenda Inventory-12 (MDRAI-12) and the Job Dissatisfaction Scale (JDS). Three key findings were obtained. First, good psychometrics for the MDRAI-12 and the JDS were obtained. Second, research agendas varied by age, gender, academic rank, and academic discipline, while job dissatisfaction varied by age, academic rank, and institutional ranking. Third and most importantly, when age, gender, academic rank, academic discipline, and institutional ranking were statistically controlled, trailblazing research agendas generally negatively contributed to job dissatisfaction, whereas a cohesive (conservative) research agenda positively predicted job dissatisfaction, as hypothesized. Implications of the findings are discussed for academics and university senior managers. Copyright © 2023 Springer Nature.

This paper provides a new gender-based analysis of survey data collected on Hong Kong academics in 2008. First, it illustrates the gender differences that exist in the Hong Kong academy. Second, it discusses possible explanations for these differences as informed by the data. And third, it offers a novel argument, again informed by the data, for the importance of addressing these differences, particularly with respect to the issue of women and academic leadership.
[Copyright of Higher Education Research & Development is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.864618]