Journal of Education and Educational Development Article Psychological Wellbeing of University Teachers in Pakistan Muhammad Akram University of Education, Pakistan makram@ue.edu.pk Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare the psychological wellbeing of public and private university teachers in Pakistan. Psychological wellbeing is generally conceptualized as an interaction of positive effects such as happiness and optimal functioning of people in social and individual areas of life. Using multistage sampling technique, 437 university teachers in four public and private universities each were sampled for this study. Psychological Wellbeing Scale previously validated by Akin (2012) and others comprising 30 statements with 7 point Likert scale was adapted by the researchers. The study found that overall, male and female university teachers perceived similar level of psychological wellbeing. Female teachers; however, perceived higher score in different factors such as developing positive relations and self-acceptance. Unmarried teachers perceived more purposeful life and personal growth than married teachers, while married teachers perceived more autonomy than unmarried teachers. Further, the teachers did not significantly differ on psychological wellbeing based on their university location (public and private) and their teaching experience. The study found that teachers with higher ranks and designation significantly differed in their wellbeing than their colleagues with lower ranks. Keywords: autonomy, personal growth, psychological wellbeing, purposeful life, self-acceptance Introduction Psychological Wellbeing (PWB) is a broad and dynamic construct that deals with social and subjective dimensions of human psychology as well as health related issues and behaviours (Deci & Ryan, 2008). This construct is used in terms of optimal functioning, meaning and self-actualization. PWB is concerned with an individual’s judgment about his or her satisfaction and is conceptualized as an interaction of positive effects such as happiness and optimal functioning of people Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) 235 Psychological Wellbeing of University Teachers in Pakistan in social and individual areas of life. Therefore, it is assumed that individuals who show a high level of psychological wellbeing feel supported and more satisfied with their lives. Research shows that the employees with higher level of psychological wellbeing show greater commitment, lead better life and are more productive than those who have a low level of psychological wellbeing (Rathi, 2009). Pavot and Diener (2009) define wellbeing in terms of categorical system which measures the responses of individuals in three categories: Emotional responses, internal satisfactions and global judgments of individuals about life happenings. Medvedev and Landhuis (2018) explain that wellbeing is a very broad term which covers all aspect of normal life: physical, mental, social, emotional and spiritual. Wellbeing is a more emotional state of mind involving the evaluation of events that happen to human beings (Sirgy, 2012). A basic proposition concerning the determinants of PWB was advanced by Jahoda (1958), who suggested that the existence of overall wellbeing is a function of experience in important aspects of life such as family, community, vocation and work. Wellbeing includes the concept of self-acceptance that generally searches for a positive or negative attitude of employees toward the self, where they acknowledge multiple aspects and satisfaction or dissatisfaction about certain qualities of life and feel positive or negative about their past. The wellbeing of employees also demonstrates that they will be different than what they are currently. The concept focuses on developing positive relations with colleagues where strong and trusting relationships are established for personal as well as others’ welfare. Those who demonstrate less level of wellbeing feel isolated and frustrated in interpersonal relationships and do not show willingness to make compromises to sustain important ties with others. Further, employees who demonstrate higher level of wellbeing feel more autonomous and are able to resist pressures and rely on their own judgments. The employees demonstrate purpose in their life and sense of directedness and have aims and objectives in their lives. Lastly, wellbeing measures personal growth of employees, sees improvement in self and behavior over time and sense of improvement. To summarize, the concept of wellbeing focuses on satisfaction of the employees about their job-related life. There is a dearth of literature on measuring psychological wellbeing of teachers, especially of university teachers in Pakistan; however, some of the 236 Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) Akram studies have beenconducted in school context. For example, Naheed, Rehman, and Shah (2000) assessed psychological wellbeing of 172 public primary, middle and high school teachers in Multan, Pakistan and found a favorable attitude of teachers toward psychological wellbeing. Malik and Noreen (2015) measured the role of organizational support in moderating well-being at school, college and university levels and found that organizational support was a significant moderator of psychological well-being. Further, Suleman, Hussain, Shehzad, Syed, and Raja (2018) measured psychological wellbeing of 402 secondary school teachers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and found a positive significant relationship between occupational stress and psychological well-being. The background of the study shows that there is a wide gap of measuring psychological well-being of teachers at higher education level. Teachers have a leading role in teaching and learning process, which is recognized around the globe thus, they should be competent in their subjects and possess capability to impart knowledge meaningfully. It is necessary to measure and compare psychological wellbeing of teachers, especially in higher education institutions, which has been given relatively less importance by the researchers (Parsons & Brown, 2002). This study was conducted to investigate the psychological wellbeing of teachers at public and private universities in Pakistan. Review of the Related Literature Psychological wellbeing (PWB) is an important topic of concerns in educational circles. The PWB in particular deals with the relation of a person’s inner world with outer world (Myers & Diener, 1995). Özü, Zepeda, Ilgan, Jimenez, Ata, and Akram (2017) define psychological wellbeing as the state of happiness, and psychological satisfaction in terms of subjective mental health and moods of individual adopted to maintain quality of life. Krok (2018) believe that PWB is life satisfaction and state of serenity for sense of achievement in life. There are two important concepts of wellbeing adopted in different studies: one is hedonic point of view that deals with people’s pleasure seeking versus displeasure behaviours (Sirgy, 2012). The other is eudemonic view which deals wellbeing as the product of trying hard to discover the truth of inner self and realizes the true potential of someone that represents the true nature in actual (Ryff, 1995). Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) 237 Psychological Wellbeing of University Teachers in Pakistan It has been evidenced in many studies that there is difference in hedonic happiness and unhappiness. This difference might be due to different memory events that happen in the outer environment of people’s biographical thoughts that are present in persons throughout their lives (Joshanloo, 2014). It is also proved that people with hedonic point of view are supposed to be more susceptible towards positive stimuli and remember positive stimuli better. With respect to eudemonic point of view, perhaps no investigation has been done regarding memory and interpretation of life in terms of wellbeing. In some studies it was found that these differences were present in low and high level of wellbeing. In 1980s, the researches on psychological wellbeing, happiness and satisfaction with life frequently aimed at diagnosing the social and ethical issues of society (Myers & Diener, 1995). In this regard, many institutions initiated research works in the form of improving the standard of life by introducing the wellbeing programmes at different levels of instruction and it became part of the higher education (Day & Gu, 2010). Edlin and Golanty (2012) described wellbeing with relatively larger perspective. They elaborated that to remain calm, disease free and painless, to behave like adults, to do what one wants to, to see what one wants to, and to say anything that one thinks appropriate to say collectively give a better glimpse of wellbeing. Stoewen (2017) described the spiritual wellbeing as a belief system that operates under some assumptions as searching the actual and true purpose of life, diving into the actual depth of life, and estimating the expanse of this universe that follows some natural laws. Conceptual Framework of the Study The conceptual framework is a formal way of presenting the relationships between the variables of the study. This study involves six factors given in Figure 1 that constitute the construct of psychological wellbeing. We assume, based on the conceptual framework, that the faculty members who demonstrate higher score on autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations, purpose in life and personal growth, will represent higher level of psychological wellbeing and vice versa. 238 Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) Akram Personal Growth Purpose in Life Autonomy Psychological Wellbeing PosiƟve RelaƟon Environmental Mastery Personal Growth Figure 1.Components of psychological wellbeing Ryff (1989) developed an approach of measuring psychological wellbeing originally developed from the classical trait and personality theories of Jung (1933), Maslow (1943), Rogers (1951), Erikson (1956), Jahoda (1958) and Allport (1961). According to Ryff (1989), wellbeing comprises six subscales: autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relations with others and purpose in life, personal growth and self-acceptance. Autonomy can be equated with attributes like internal regulation of behaviour, independence, self- determination, and internal locus of control (Ryff, 1989). These attributes represent the ability of individuals to take decisions independently without the interference of any other person or agencies one works with. 1. Autonomy reflects the independence a person has to make decisions. It also indicates the freedom and liberation the environment gives to individuals to exert their choice. 2. Environmental mastery can be desirable as an environment that is sustainable for a person’s will for working suitability and is flexible enough to make a person feel comfort (Ryff, 1989). 3. Positive relations can be referred to those relations that constitute warm Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) 239 Psychological Wellbeing of University Teachers in Pakistan and trustable relationships having strong feelings with high sympathy and affections. These feelings enable humans to feel being loved, establish deeper friendship with others, and adopt socially compatible identification. 4. Meaningful (purpose in) life involves positive intentions that individuals have and all their goals and ambitions that contribute to the formations of an outlook of life (Ryff & Singer, 2008). 5. Openness is one of the most important things in Personal Growth of fully functioning individual. A person with openness makes tremendous development continuously rather than just achieving some specific status (Ryff & Singer, 2008). 6. Self-Acceptance is also an important component of wellbeing. Ryff (1989) described that ideas of self-love, self-esteem, and self-respect are evident in lists of criteria showing parallel to Self-Acceptance. Research on PWB describes relationships and impact of this construct with and on various demographic variables. Many researchers such as Ilgan, Özü-Cengiz, Ata, and Akram, (2015), Kittel and Leynen (2003), and Ryff (1989) found mixed results of psychological wellbeing among male and female teachers. A majority of these studies found autonomy and positive relations with others as significant factors that contribute to psychological wellbeing. Ozu, Zepeda, Ilgan, Jimenez, Ata, and Akram (2017) compared psychological wellbeing of school teachers among American, Turkish, and Pakistani teachers in public high schools. The results indicated that the US sample had the highest PWB means followed by teachers in Turkey and Pakistan, respectively. The reviewed literature shows there is lack of researches on PWB in Pakistani context (Ilgan et al., 2015), especially at the higher education level. To fill this gap, the current study seeks to compare PWB of public and private university teachers in Pakistan. The findings of this study might support the teachers to develop their PWB and to provide initial empirical findings at university level in Pakistan. Hypotheses 1. There is a significant difference in psychological wellbeing of male and female university teachers. 240 Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) Akram 2. There is a significant difference in psychological wellbeing of married and unmarried university teachers. 3. There is a significant difference in psychological wellbeing of public and private university teachers. 4. There is a significant difference in psychological wellbeing of university teachers based on their teaching experience. 5. There is a significant difference in psychological wellbeing of university teachers based on their designation. Methodology Descriptive study using survey method was deployed to compare psychological wellbeing of university teachers. T-test for independent samples and One-way ANOVA were used for studying the differences in various subcategories. Sample Using multistage sampling technique, the researchers initially selected eight universities (4 public and 4 private) from the province of Punjab. Later, 437 teachers conveniently available from any department across each university were sampled for the study. All eight universities represented different regions of the province of Punjab such as Lahore, Sargodha and Faisalabad. The capital city Islamabad was also included for the study. Instrumentation The PWB previously validated by Akın et al. (2012) was used to determine the psychological wellbeing of university teachers. Proper permission to use this questionnaire was obtained from the authors. The PWB includes 30 statements with 7-point rating scale such as: 1) Strongly Disagree; 2) Disagree; 3) Partially Disagree; 4) Undecided; 5) Partially Agrees; 6) Agree; and 7) Strongly Agree. The PWB comprises 6 dimensions with five items each. The dimensions are as follows: (a) Self-acceptance, (b) positive relations with others, (c) autonomy, (d) environmental mastery, (e) purpose in life, and (f) personal growth. The results of confirmatory analysis for PWB conducted by Akin et al. (2012) indicated that the six-dimensional model was well fit: χ2 = 2689.13, df = 791, p = 0.00000, RMSEA = 0.048, NFI = 0.92, NNFI = 94, CFI = 0.95, IFI = 0.95, RFI = 0.92, GFI = 0.90, Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) 241 Psychological Wellbeing of University Teachers in Pakistan and SRMR = 0.048. The internal consistency coefficient of the PWB was 0.87. These results demonstrate that the 30 item version of PWB was a valid and reliable instrument to use for this study. Data Collection Data collection was completed in three months. One of the researchers visited each university and collected data from 437 participants. Data were carefully collected, entered (into SPSS) and cleaned before running the analyses. The overall reliability of the instrument was found to be high (α=0.88); factor-wise reliabilities were also found high as: Autonomy (α=.71); Environmental mastery (α=.74); Personal Growth (α=.71); Positive relations (α=.82); Purpose in Life (α=.81); and Self-Acceptance (α=.78). Ethical issues such as informed consent and confidentiality were properly addressed before, during, and after the data collection. Data Analysis Initially, frequencies were calculated on demographic variables. The detailed description of the sample and frequencies is given in Table 1. Table 1 Description of the Sample (N=437) Variables Gender Marital Status University Type Teaching Experience (in years) Position (Designation) 242 Levels n (%) Male 270 (61.8) Female 167 (38.2) Married 334 (76.4) Unmarried 103 (23.6) Public 236 (54.0) Private 201 (46.0) 1 to 5 184 (42.1) 6 to10 135 (30.9) 11 to 15 62 (14.2) Above 15 56 (12.8) Lecturer 210 (48.1) Assistant professor 147 (33.6) Associate Professor 50 (11.4) Professor 30 (6.9) Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) Akram According to Table 1, there were 437 participants: 270 male and 167 female; 334 married and 103 unmarried; 326 teachers from public universities and 201 from private universities; 210 lecturers, 147 assistant professors, 50 associate professors, and 30 full professors who participated in this study. After frequencies, the descriptive statistics were calculated. The mean values and standard deviations are given in Table 2. According to the table, the highest mean score was found in building positive relations with others (M = 5.61, S.D.= 0.77), followed by autonomy (M = 5.01, S.D.= 0.61). The faculty demonstrated lowest mean score on personal growth (M = 3.96, S.D.=0.73) as given in Table 2. Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Psychological Wellbeing (N=437) Factors Min Max Mean SD Autonomy 2.20 6.40 5.01 0.607 Environmental Mastery 2.40 6.00 4.59 0.453 Personal Growth 2.20 13.60 3.96 0.732 Positive Relations with others 1.60 7.00 5.61 0.768 Purpose in Life 2.20 15.60 4.13 0.848 Self-Acceptance 1.40 6.60 4.67 0.557 Teachers’ Wellbeing (Overall) 2.80 6.40 4.66 0.316 A t-test for independent samples was run to see if male and female teachers at universities differed significantly on their psychological wellbeing (see Table 3). Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) 243 Psychological Wellbeing of University Teachers in Pakistan Table 3 Gender Based Comparison of University Teachers on Psychological Wellbeing Variables / factors Gender N Mean SD Male 270 5.01 0.625 Female 167 5.03 0.578 Male 270 4.58 0.482 Female 167 4.61 0.402 Male 270 3.97 0.819 Female 167 3.94 0.567 Male 270 5.54 0.822 Female 167 5.72 0.660 Male 270 4.14 0.956 Female 167 4.14 0.639 Male 270 4.63 0.610 Female 167 4.77 0.449 Male 270 4.65 0.350 Female 167 4.70 0.247 Autonomy Environmental Mastery Personal Growth Positive Relation Purpose in Life Self-Acceptance Teachers’ Wellbeing (Overall) Df t-value P 435 -0.342 0.732 435 -0.683 0.495 435 0.336 0.737 435 -2.448 0.015 435 0.065 0.948 435 -2.589 0.010 435 -1.861 0.063 *p< 0.05 level (2-tailed) Table 3 showed that overall there was no significant difference in psychological wellbeing of male and female teachers t (435) = -1.861, p= 0.063. Factors-wise analysis showed that female teachers developed more positive relations with others (M = 5.72, SD = 0.660) than male teachers (M = 5.54, SD = 0.822), t(435) = -2.448, p= 0.015, and demonstrated a higher level of self-acceptance (M = 4.77, S.D.= 0.449) than male teachers (M = 4.63, S.D. = 0.610), t(435) = -2.589, p= 0.010. For the factors such as autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth and purpose in life, difference in male and female teachers were not significant: t(435) = -0.342, -0.683, 0.336, 0.065, p= 0.732, 0.495, 0.737 respectively. An independent samples t-test was used to explore if married and unmarried teachers significantly differed in their psychological wellbeing. This is illustrated in Table 4. 244 Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) Akram Table 4 Comparison of Married and Unmarried University Teachers Variables/factors Marital Status N Mean SD Married 334 5.06 .568 Single 103 4.86 .698 Married 334 4.61 .434 Single 103 4.56 .512 Married 334 3.92 .748 Single 103 4.09 .668 Married 334 5.64 .739 Single 103 5.50 .854 Married 334 4.09 .608 Single 103 4.31 .353 Married 334 4.70 .474 Single 103 4.617 .768 Married 334 4.67 .277 Single 103 4.65 .420 Autonomy Environmental Mastery Personal Growth Positive Relation Purpose in Life Self-Acceptance Well-being (Overall) Df t-value Sig. (p) Effect size (d) 435 3.117 .002* 0.333 435 1.067 .286 435 -2.007 .045* 435 1.619 .106 435 -2.312 .021* 435 1.407 .160 435 .509 .611 0.233 0.224 *.p< 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 4 showed that no significant difference in psychological wellbeing of single and married teachers was found at t(435) =.509, p= .611. In factors-wise comparisons, it was found that married teachers had better autonomy (M=5.07, S.D.=.56841) than single teachers (M=4.86, S.D.=.698), t(435) = 3.117, p=.000, effect size= 0.333. It was also found that single teachers had better personal growth (M=4.09, S.D.=.668) than married teachers (M=3.92, S.D.=.748), t (435) =-2.007, p=.045, effect size= 0.233. Similarly, single teachers were found spending more purposeful life (M=4.31, S.D.=1.353) than married teachers (M=4.09, S.D.=.608), t(435) = -2.312, p=.021, effect size=0.224. It is therefore concluded that single teachers had better personal growth and were spending more purposeful life than married university teachers, while married teachers had greater autonomy than single teachers. No significant differences were found between married and single teachers on environmental mastery, positive relation and self-acceptance. Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) 245 Psychological Wellbeing of University Teachers in Pakistan Further, an independent sample t-test was run to explore if public and private university teachers significantly differed in their psychological wellbeing. The results are given in Table 5. Table 5 Comparison of Public and Private University Teachers Variables/factors University n Mean SD Public 236 4.90 0.732 Private 201 5.16 0.367 Public 236 4.62 0.500 Private 201 4.57 0.390 Public 236 3.99 0.916 Private 201 3.92 0.424 Public 236 5.45 0.905 Private 201 5.79 0.511 Public 236 4.31 1.036 Private 201 3.94 0.482 Public 236 4.68 0.653 Private 201 4.68 0.419 Public 236 4.66 0.391 Private 201 4.68 0.196 Autonomy Environmental Mastery Personal Growth Positive Relations with others Purpose in Life Self-Acceptance Teachers’ Wellbeing (Overall) df T P 435 -4.667 0.000 435 1.148 0.252 435 1.177 0.240 435 -4.758 0.000 435 4.616 0.000 435 0.054 0.957 435 -0.579 0.563 *.p< 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table 5 showed that no significant difference in public and private university teachers’ wellbeing was found, t(435) = -0.579, p= 0.563. For factorswise, however, it was found that private university teachers had better autonomy (M=5.16, S.D.=.367) than public university teacher, t(435) = -4.667, p= 0.000, effect size = 0.483. It was also found that private university teachers had better positive relations with others (M=5.79, S.D. =.511) than public university teachers (M = 5.45, S.D. = 0.905), t(435) = -4.758, p = 0.000, effect size = 0.483. Similarly, public university teachers were found spending more purposeful life (M = 4.308, S.D.= 1.036) than private university teachers (M = 3.94, S.D.= 0.482), t(435) = 4.616, p=.000, effect size= 0.483. It is, therefore, concluded that private university 246 Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) Akram teachers were better in making positive relations with others, and spending more purposeful life than public university teachers. On the other hand, public university teachers have greater autonomy than private university teachers. For the factors environmental mastery, personal growth and self-acceptance, difference in public and private university teachers were not significant. Table 6 Experience Based Comparison of Teachers’ Psychological Wellbeing Sum of Squares Teachers’ Wellbeing (Overall) Between Groups 0.269 Within Groups 43.409 Df 3 Mean Square F P 0.893 0.445 0.090 433 0.100 p<0.05 University teachers were compared on their psychological wellbeing based on their teaching experiences. The teachers were categorised into four categories based on their teaching experience: teachers with experience of less than 10 years, between 11 and 20 years, between 21 and 30 years, and beyond 30 years. Table 6 shows that overall teachers did not significantly differ on psychological wellbeing based on their teaching experience, F(4, 432) = .893, p= .445. Lastly, the researchers found the differences between university teachers on their psychological well-being based on their designation (lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor and full professor). One-way ANOVA was run to calculate these differences. The results are given in Table 8. Table 8 Designation Based Comparisons of Teachers’ Psychological Wellbeing Teachers’ Wellbeing (Overall) Sum of Squares df Mean Square Between Groups 1.239 3 0.413 Within Groups 42.439 433 0.098 F P 4.214 .006 p<0.05 Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) 247 Psychological Wellbeing of University Teachers in Pakistan Table 8 shows that teachers significantly differed on psychological wellbeing based on their designations; F(3, 433) = 4.214, p= .006<0.05. Post hoc Tukey test revealed that professors had better wellbeing (M=4.94, S.D.=.547) than lecturers (M=4.63, S.D.=.326) and assistant professors (M=4.67, S.D.=.296); associate professors experienced better autonomy (M=5.36, S.D.=.294) than lecturers (M=4.91, S.D.=.641) with F(3, 433) = 4.545, p= .004; professors had better personal growth (M=4.92, S.D.=3.09) than lecturers (M=4.03, S.D.=.603), assistant professors (M=3.85, S.D.=.510) and associate professors (M=4.04, S.D.=.766); whereas, lectures had better personal growth (M=4.03, S.D.=.603) than assistant professors (M=3.85, S.D.=.510). No significant differences were found between university teachers’ perceptions on environmental mastery, F(3, 433)=1.358, p=.255, personal relation, F(3, 433) = 1.290, p=.277, purpose in life, F(3, 433) = 1.788. p=.149, and self-acceptance, F(3, 433) = 2.131, p=.096. Findings This study focused on measuring the differences in psychological wellbeing on public and private university teachers. The study found that teachers significantly differed on their psychological wellbeing based on their gender. No significant difference in public and private university teachers’ wellbeing was found. However, private university teachers significantly perceived higher score on autonomy and positive relations with others, while public university teachers perceived higher score on purpose in life. Overall, no significant difference in male and female teachers’ wellbeing was found. Factor-wise analysis revealed that male teachers in public universities perceived more autonomy than female teachers, while female teachers developed more positive relations with their colleagues and developed more positive relations with their colleagues. Male teachers in private universities perceived that they enjoyed more purposeful life than male and female teachers in public universities; female teachers in private universities perceived more purposeful life than male in public universities and female teachers in private universities perceived they assumed more self-acceptance than their colleagues in private universities. In summary, no significant difference in married and unmarried teachers’ wellbeing was found at university level. For factors wise, it was found that married teachers had better autonomy than unmarried teachers do. However, unmarried 248 Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) Akram teachers had better personal growth and they spent more purposeful life than married teachers. Teachers’ wellbeing was not significantly different for different teaching experiences at university level; however, teachers with 11 to 15 years of experience had more autonomy at university level than teachers with experience of 1to 5 years. The study found that professors had better psychological wellbeing than lecturers and assistant professors. Associate professors (M=5.36, SD=.294) had better autonomy than lecturers, professors had better personal growth than lecturers, assistant professors, and associate professors, whereas, lectures had better personal growth than assistant professors. Discussion The purpose of this study was to compare the psychological wellbeing of teachers in public and private universities in Pakistan based on demographic variables such as teacher gender, experience and designation. A psychological wellbeing questionnaire developed by Akin et al. (2012) was used to collect data from 437 faculty members. The study found various results based on demographic comparisons. For example, the study found that teachers in public and private universities did not significantly differ on psychological wellbeing; factor-wise comparison; however, indicated that private university faculty assumed more autonomy and developed more positive relations with others as compared to teachers in public universities. This finding is not compatible with the results of Bashir and Zilli (2015) conducted in India. The reason may be that they sampled individuals across different undertakings such as banks, insurance companies and universities. Alam and Rizvi (2012) found that psychological wellbeing was higher in public sector banks as compared to private banks. The mixed results suggest that further studies should be conducted to get more clear results. Gender based overall nonsignificant results of this study were compatible with various researches (Ilgan, et al., 2015; Kittel & Leynen, 2003; Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Singer, 2008). We assumed that the universities might provide similar wellbeing opportunities to men and women within and across their universities. Factor-wise gender based results found that male and female teachers in public universities assumed autonomy. This might be due to the job satisfaction of the teachers in public Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) 249 Psychological Wellbeing of University Teachers in Pakistan universities where they have regular job facilities. Female teachers demonstrated more positive relations with others and assumed more self-acceptance than male teachers. The research supports this finding as women are more professional than male in developing relations and assuming responsibilities (Ilgan et al., 2015). The findings that unmarried and married teachers had similar level of psychological wellbeing was also supported by previous findings (Çelik & Tabancali, 2012). This may result from the continual social support that couples get from each other and unmarried teachers get from their family due to joint family system. The result that teachers with higher designation assumed more wellbeing than teachers with lower ranks is also supported by previous literature. This finding is compatible with the results of Farhan and Ali (2015) who found that wellbeing of higher ranked teachers was higher as compared to the lower ranked teachers. The reason may be that senior teachers take more salary, assume higher level of responsibility, most probably leadership and administrative role which give them autonomy, greater opportunity of personal growth, higher job satisfaction, and more purposeful life. Similarly, the lecturers, being ranked least in the academic genre, get greater opportunities for personal growth, which may be due to their realization towards achieving higher ranks and promotions and competing with higher rank faculty. The university teachers are under heavy pressure in the wake of universalization of higher education and implementation of right to education. This research study might portrait about university teachers’ perceptions of psychological wellbeing and helps them to develop a strong sense of individuality and freedom, which is helpful in establishing positive relations with others. The study might help higher educational institutions in involving teachers in activities that may lead to positive effect on their institutions. Moreover, this study might enhance the performance of both teachers and students, and help them in social, academic, and emotional adjustment in their society. 250 Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) Akram Conclusion and Recommendations This study was conducted with relatively a small sample size in only one province (Punjab). The researchers recommend that further studies should be conducted with a larger sample size selected across all provinces. Public university teachers should be encouraged to feel more autonomous and exercise their rights to the maximum extent. Male teachers should be encouraged to develop more relations with their colleagues, which can be done through conducting research collaborations with their colleagues. Since no significant differences among university faculty were found in environmental mastery and personal growth based on any demographic variable, further studies are recommended to find out the causes of such similar findings. It is implied that wellbeing of the teachers can be impacted through demographic variables, work stress, conflicting situation of the organizations and their health. Further studies might be conducted on comparing psychological wellbeing of university teachers involving other factors such as work stress and conflicts so that findings can be shared with policymakers to help them make valid decisions related to employees’ wellbeing as well as quality of their life. References Akın, A., Demirci, İ., Yildiz, E., Gediksiz, E., & Eroglu, N. (2012). The short form of the Scales of Psychological Wellbeing (SPWB-42): The validity and reliability of the Turkish version. Paper presented at the International Counselling and Education Conference 2012 (ICEC 2012). İstanbul, Turkey. Alam, S., & Rizvi, K. (2012s). Psychological wellbeing among bank employees. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 38(2), 242-247. Allport, F. H. (1961). The contemporary appraisal of an old problem. Psyccritiques, 6(6), 195-196. Bashir, S., & Zilli, A. S. (2015). Psychological wellbeing among public and private undertakings in Aligarh. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 2(2), 1018. Retrieved from http://oaji.net/articles/2015/1170-1422510679.pdf Çelik, K., & Tabancalı, E. (2012). Özel eğitim kurumlarında çalışan öğretmenlerin iş/ çalışma yaşam kalitesi.[Work life quality of teachers working in special education institution]. Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11, 31-38. Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2010). The new lives of teachers. Routledge. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudemonia, and wellbeing: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1-11. DOI 10.1007/s10902-006- Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) 251 Psychological Wellbeing of University Teachers in Pakistan 9018-1 Edlin, G., & Golanty, E. (2012). Health & wellness. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Erikson, E. H. (1956). The problem of ego identity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 4(1), 56-121. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1177/000306515600400104 Farhan, S., & Ali, A. Z. (2015). Impact of socio-demographics on subjective wellbeing - A study on female teachers of public sector universities of Karachi –Pakistan. International Journal of Development Research, 5(12), 6271-6275. Ilgan, A., Özü-Cengiz, O., Ata, A., & Akram, M. (2015). The relationship between teachers’ psychological wellbeing and their quality of school work life. The Journal of Happiness and Wellbeing, 3(2), 159-181. Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. New York, Basic Books. Joshanloo, M. (2014). Eastern conceptualizations of happiness: Fundamental differences with western views. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 475-493. Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern man in search of a soul. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Kammann, R., & Flett, R. (1983). Affectometer 2: A scale to measure current level of general happiness. Australian Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 259-265. Kittel, F., & Leynen, F. (2003). A study of work stressors and wellness/health outcomes among Belgian school teachers. Psychology and Health, 18(4), 501-510. Krok, D. (2018). When is meaning in life most beneficial to young people? Styles of meaning in life and well-being among late adolescents. Journal of Adult Development, 25(2), 96-106. DOI: 10.1007/s10804-017-9280-y Malik, S., & Noreen, S. (2015). Perceived organizational support as a moderator of affective well-being and occupational stress. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 9(3), 865-874. Retrieved from http://www.jespk.net/publications/266. pdf Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370396. Medvedev, O. N., & Landhuis, C. E. (2018). Exploring constructs of well-being, happiness and quality of life. PeerJ, 6, 1-16. DOI 10.7717/peerj.4903. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10-19. Naheed, S., Rehman, G., & Shah, S. A. A. (2000). Attitude of Pakistani school teachers towards their profession and their psychological well-being. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 15(1-2), 39-55. Özü, Ö., Zepeda, S., Ilgan, A., Jimenez, A. M., Ata, A., & Akram, M. (2017). Teachers’ 252 Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) Akram psychological well-being: A comparison among teachers in USA, Turkey and Pakistan. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 19(3), 144-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623730.2017.1326397 Parsons, R. D., & Brown, K. S. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and action researcher. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2009). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. In assessing wellbeing (pp. 101-117). Springer, Dordrecht. Rathi, N. (2009). Relationship of quality of work life with employees’ psychological wellbeing. International Journal of Business Insights and Transformation, 3(1), 53-60. Rogers, C. R. (1959). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081. Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological wellbeing in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(4), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772395 Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13-39. DOI 10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0 Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia (Vol. 50). Springer Science & Business Media. Stoewen, D. L. (2017). Dimensions of wellness: Change your habits, change your life. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 58(8), 861-862. Suleman, Q., Hussain, I., Shehzad, S., Syed, M. A., & Raja, S. A. (2018). Relationship between perceived occupational stress and psychological well-being among secondary school heads in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. PLOS One, 13(12), 1-22. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208143 Citation of this Article: Akram, M. (2019). Psychological wellbeing of university teachers in Pakistan. Journal of Education and Educational Development. 6(2), 235-253 Received: November 2018 Revised: May 2019 Accepted: October 2019 Vol. 6 No. 2 (December 2019) 253