Scholars in the Changing American Academy: New Contexts, New Rules and New Roles

Scholars in the Changing American Academy

The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4 Series Editors William K. Cummings, The George Washington University, Washington, USA Akira Arimoto, Kurashiki Sakuyo University, Kurashiki City, Okayama, Japan

Editorial Board Jürgen Enders, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands Amy Metcalfe, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Christine Musselin, CSO Research Interests Higher Education and Research, Paris, France Rui Santiago, University of Aveiro, Portugal Simon Schwartzman, Institute for Studies and Labour and Society, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Ulrich Teichler, University of Kassel, Germany Charles Wohluter, Northwest University, South Africa

Scope of the series As the landscape of higher education has in recent years undergone significant changes, so correspondingly have the backgrounds, specializations, expectations and work roles of academic staff. The Academy is expected to be more professional in teaching, more productive in research and more entrepreneurial in everything. Some of the changes involved have raised questions about the attractiveness of an academic career for today’s graduates. At the same time, knowledge has come to be identified as the most vital resource of contemporary societies. The Changing Academy series examines the nature and extent of the changes experienced by the academic profession in recent years. It explores both the reasons for and the consequences of these changes. It considers the implications of the changes for the attractiveness of the academic profession as a career and for the ability of the academic community to contribute to the further development of knowledge societies and the attainment of national goals. It makes comparisons on these matters between different national higher education systems, institutional types, disciplines and generations of academics, drawing initially on available data-sets and qualitative research studies with special emphasis on the recent twenty nation survey of the Changing Academic Profession. Among the themes featured will be: 1. Relevance of the Academy’s Work 2. Internationalization of the Academy 3. Current Governance and Management, particularly as perceived by the Academy 4. Commitment of the Academy The audience includes researchers in higher education, sociology of education and political science studies; university managers and administrators; national and institutional policymakers; officials and staff at governments and organizations, e.g. the World Bank.

For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/8668

William K. Cummings • Martin J. Finkelstein

Scholars in the Changing American Academy New Contexts, New Rules and New Roles

William K. Cummings Department of Educational Leadership The George Washington University 2129 G Street, NW, Room 303 Washington, DC 20052 USA [email protected]

Martin J. Finkelstein Department of Education Leadership, Management and Policy Seton Hall University Jubilee Hall, Room 418 400 South Orange Avenue South Orange, NJ 07090 USA [email protected]

ISBN 978-94-007-2729-8 e-ISBN 978-94-007-2730-4 DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4 Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York Library of Congress Control Number: 2011942223 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Preface

As academics that have been around for awhile (Cummings’ first full-time US academic appointment was in 1972, Finkelstein’s was in 1979), it is our sense that things are not like they used to be. But what is the precise nature and scope of the change? And how has it affected academic work and careers? The conduct in 2007 of a national survey of the US academy modeled in part on an earlier 1992 national survey has provided us with the opportunity to address these questions. An additional bonus of the 2007 survey known as The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) study is that it has been conducted in 18 other countries, thus making the overall endeavor possibly the largest ever study of the world’s academic profession. In this book, we seek to provide some tentative answers to our guiding questions on the state of the US academy in historical and comparative perspective. As with most endeavors of this kind, the message is mixed. The physical plant in which the US academy works seems to have improved somewhat, especially for the purposes of teaching. The obligations of academics have changed somewhat, toward a greater stress on teaching with a reduced emphasis on research. While we expected younger faculty to be taking a greater share of the increased teaching burden and hence to be less satisfied, it would appear that they have adjusted well to the changes—partly through downsizing their expectations from their employers. The big losers over the past two decades appear to be the expanding legion of contingent faculty who get paid less and possibly respected less for doing much more. Another major theme in our analysis is to consider the health of the US academy relative to the academies of the other countries and economies participating in the 2007 CAP survey. In general we have found that the USA maintains a high quality academic system, but other systems are catching up. Especially impressive are the gains of some of the East Asian systems (notably Korea and Hong Kong). Also notable is the progress of Malaysia, Mexico, and Brazil. This volume provides some information on these comparisons while other volumes in the related series go into greater detail.

v

vi

Preface

While Martin Finkelstein and William K. Cummings are the principal authors of this volume, they received considerable assistance from several colleagues. Olga Bain is a co-author of Chaps. 5 and 6. Elaine Walker and Rong Chen are co-authors of Chap. 7 and Ming Ju is co-author of Chap. 8. Above all else, our commitment in this volume is to let the data speak for themselves. As we all know, however, data rarely do that—unassisted! There are worldviews and assumptions that shape the direction and contours of survey instruments; and there are professional values and commitments that invariably shape how the data are “sliced and diced” and reported. While we cannot avoid those, it seems useful and fair in the interests of transparency to offer the reader an introduction to some of the views and value commitments that we—consciously, at least—bring to the analysis reported here. Both Cummings and Finkelstein share a sense that the changes we are experiencing in academic life are structural and far-reaching—not a “swing of the pendulum,” but rather a re-alignment in the models and practices that define academic work and careers in the service of new and expanded social functions of American higher education. In the terms of the late Martin Trow (1973), we see these trends as invariably associated with the “massification” and incipient “universalization” of higher education: quantitative changes which at some point (and we appear to be approaching that point) become changes in quality. Moreover, these concomitants to massification are concurrently being shaped by the great economic transformation of the past generation: the emergence of the globalized, knowledge-based economy at once integrating knowledge production across borders, but also through its “flattening” affects, undermining the staying power of old status hierarchies and practices and re-structuring the nature of work in most organizations outside the Academy. We are, simply stated, hardly immune from these macro developments; and we see current higher education developments through that larger lens. So, while we, in some sense, view many of the changes we are chronicling with a sense of inevitability, at least in terms of (with respect to) the drivers and the economic context, we are less clear about their implications for the “peculiar” institution that is the Academy—a sort of hybrid organization mixing aspects of a “social institution” (like a church) with aspects of a “firm” that needs to manage revenues and expenditures to stay in business. We do not make any assumption that change—even wholesale change—is bad for the Academy, its social institutional or firm-like character, or for any one or group of its stakeholders. We are not seeking to viscerally or uncritically “resist” new models and practices. Rather, we approach such change from two perspectives. On the one hand, we are acutely aware that, historically, certain models and practices that developed in the USA over the past half-century such as the highly structured academic career track (much more predictable than that of most nations with the possible exception of Japan), including the institution of academic tenure, are being acknowledged as sources of the American system’s historic ascendancy and strength—frequently in foreign lands. Similarly, the place of individual colleges and universities as the locus within which academic careers are pursued (another historically distinctive feature of the US system) may also be disintegrating. We are appropriately concerned that such arbiters of our

Preface

vii

system’s strength are “loosening”—although we recognize that in the face of expanded social functions, these models will no doubt require some kind of modification. That being said, we are at the same time skeptical about how new developments and practices will affect the system and its long-term performance. What will be the impact on system performance of the increased “loosening” of the career track and the increased “de-coupling” of faculty careers from their institutional nexus? How can that best be managed? We fondly hope that the data presented here will help readers begin to address these questions. Moreover, we wish to extend an invitation to readers to think of the book and the associated data as a resource for their own questions. The appendix to the book provides a full disclosure of the study instrument as well as information on how to access already published international tables and procedures for downloading the dataset if the desire is to carry out further analysis. As of June 2012, the dataset will become a public resource, and we hope many of you will decide to make use of it. It is thus with an appreciation of the scale of the transformation, a concern about its impacts on the Academy and the academic profession, and an open, but determined mind, that we have attempted to mine the data for answers—and for new questions. We hope that you take our work in this spirit.

Acknowledgments

In putting together this volume, we are indebted to a wide variety of individuals across the globe. Most fundamentally, we are grateful to those scholars, including Akira Arimoto, then at Hiroshima University, and Ulrich Teichler, Kassel University, who parlayed their experience in the 1992 Carnegie Survey into organizing and leading a 15-year follow-up survey—and then inviting us to join them in that enterprise. We are indebted to the national teams of scholars from 18 other nations who became part of the enterprise, and particularly those who organized a series of conferences between 2008 and 2011 in which preliminary findings from the various national surveys were presented and in which we were able to collaboratively engage in data cleaning and organizing a systematic dissemination initiative. Those conferences were held in Kassel, Germany, in 2009, in Hiroshima, Japan, in 2009, 2010, and 2011, in Mexico City and Buenos Aires, in 2010, as well as in Melbourne, Australia. (Final conferences are tentatively scheduled for Wuhan, China in 2011 and Berlin, Germany in 2012.) The research team at the INCHER, Kassel University, played a key role in organizing, cleaning, and maintaining the 19 national datafiles, working collaboratively with a Methods Group composed of leaders from several of the national teams. In particular, we are grateful to Ulrich Teichler, Harald Schomburg, Florian Loewenstein, and Rene Kooij who tirelessly vetted national datafiles, raised questions, and showed enormous patience, care, and dedication in working with the data and its occasionally fussy and irritable producers. Closer to home we are grateful to Olga Bain, George Washington University, for her assistance at several stages of the study, including contributions to individual chapters. At Seton Hall University, the University Research Council as well as the Dean of the College of Education, Dr Joseph DePierro, provided timely and much needed financial and logistical support for the survey. Ming Ju, then graduate assistant at Seton Hall University, contributed both to the data analysis as well as to the write-up of several of the chapters herein. Most recently, Kevin Iglesias, also a graduate assistant at Seton Hall University, provided extraordinary assistance on whipping the tables into shape. We are grateful to Yoka Janssen and her editorial colleagues at Springer who supported not only the publication of a series of volumes ix

x

Acknowledgments

under their imprimatur reporting on the results of CAP surveys across the globe, but encouraged us to include in that collection a volume dedicated entirely to the results of the American survey. Astrid Noordermeer at Springer provided support in putting together the original manuscript and shepherding it through the production process. We are grateful as well to several external reviewers (unknown to us) whose insights and observations have no doubt improved the manuscript. Finally, we want to recognize the nearly 25,000 dedicated academic staff and researchers across the globe, including about 1,200 right here in the USA, who took the time to share with us their perceptions and judgments about the state of academic life in the first decade of the twenty-first century. We could not have done it without them. William K. Cummings, Burke, VA Martin J. Finkelstein, South Orange, NJ

Contents

1

2

The Changing Academic Profession in the USA .................................. 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 1.2 The Changing Context for Academic Work .................................. 1.3 Impact on the Academic Profession .............................................. 1.4 Two Types of Academies ............................................................... 1.5 The Concept of the Academic Profession ...................................... 1.6 The Development and Stratification of Three Global Models of the University ..................................... 1.7 Twentieth-Century Massification of Higher Education in the USA .................................................... 1.8 The Transformation of Management and Governance .................. 1.9 Inquiry on the American and Global Academic Profession(s) ................................................................. 1.10 The 2007 Changing Academic Profession Study .......................... 1.11 Core Themes of the CAP Project ................................................... 1.11.1 Relevance ......................................................................... 1.11.2 Internationalization .......................................................... 1.11.3 Managerialism .................................................................. 1.12 The Purpose and Organization of This Volume ............................. References .................................................................................................

1 1 1 3 3 4

9 10 10 11 11 12 12 14

Concepts and Methods ........................................................................... 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 2.2 Conceptual Framework: A General Systems Model...................... 2.3 Research Questions Addressed ...................................................... 2.4 Participating Countries................................................................... 2.5 Sample Design of the National Surveys ........................................ 2.5.1 Analytic Goals.................................................................. 2.5.2 Design Options ................................................................. 2.5.3 Structure of Higher Education ......................................... 2.5.4 Selection of the US Sample .............................................

15 15 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 19

5 7 7

xi

xii

Contents

2.6 2.7

Development of the Survey Instrument ........................................... Data Collection ................................................................................ 2.7.1 Response Rate ...................................................................... 2.8 Data Coding and Analysis ............................................................... 2.8.1 Coding .................................................................................. 2.8.2 Data Analysis ....................................................................... 2.8.3 Missing Data ........................................................................ 2.9 Summary .......................................................................................... References .................................................................................................

19 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24

The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics............................................. 3.1 Introduction: The Arbiters of Faculty Work Life............................. 3.2 Purpose of the Proposed Study ........................................................ 3.3 Data Source and Method.................................................................. 3.3.1 Dependent Variables ............................................................ 3.3.2 Independent Variables .......................................................... 3.3.3 Data Analysis ....................................................................... 3.4 Prologue to Results: Trends in Academic Work, 1970–1992 .......... 3.5 Findings ........................................................................................... 3.5.1 Descriptive Results .............................................................. 3.5.2 Inferential Results ................................................................ 3.6 Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................ References .................................................................................................

27 27 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 46 49 50

4

Comparing the Research Productivity of US Academics .................... 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 4.2 The USA as Number One? .............................................................. 4.3 The Data and Its Limitations............................................................ 4.4 The Recent Pattern ........................................................................... 4.5 Accounting for Individual Productivity ........................................... 4.5.1 Model ................................................................................... 4.5.2 Comparing the Regression Coefficients............................... 4.6 Looking Backward ........................................................................... 4.7 Conclusion ....................................................................................... References .................................................................................................

51 51 51 53 54 54 55 57 59 61 61

5

The “Glass Ceiling” Effect: Does It Characterize the Contemporary US Academy? .......................................................... 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 5.2 Equity or Discrimination: The Analytical Question ........................ 5.3 The Determinants of Advancement in Academia ............................ 5.4 The Dependent Variable: Rank ........................................................ 5.5 Independent Variables ...................................................................... 5.5.1 Sociodemographic................................................................ 5.5.2 Other Personal Factors .........................................................

63 63 64 65 66 66 66 67

3

Contents

5.5.3 Organizational Variables ...................................................... 5.5.4 Professional and Disciplinary Variables .............................. 5.6 Interactions....................................................................................... 5.7 The Basic Academic Advancement Model...................................... 5.7.1 The Impact of Discipline ..................................................... 5.7.2 Gender and Advancement .................................................... 5.7.3 Advancement of Minorities in the US Academy ................. 5.7.4 Advancement of the Foreign Born in the US Academy ..................................................... 5.7.5 Lingering Discrimination? ................................................... 5.8 Conclusion ....................................................................................... Appendix: Variables Included in 2007 Regressions ................................. References ................................................................................................. 6

7

The Internationalization of the US Academy: A Disciplinary Perspective ..................................................................... 6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 6.2 The Background of Academic Internationalization ......................... 6.2.1 Internationalization of Research Universities ...................... 6.2.2 Expanding to the Professions ............................................... 6.2.3 Reaching Out to Liberal Arts Colleges and School ............. 6.2.4 Individual Characteristics .................................................... 6.3 Research Questions .......................................................................... 6.4 Methods............................................................................................ 6.5 Level of Interest ............................................................................... 6.5.1 2007 Level Compared to Other Nations .............................. 6.5.2 2007 Level Compared to 1992 Level ................................... 6.6 A Model of Academic Internationalization ..................................... 6.7 Some Factors Accounting for Differential Interest in 2007 ............. 6.7.1 University Type .................................................................... 6.7.2 Academic Field .................................................................... 6.7.3 Academic Rank .................................................................... 6.8 Discussion and Implications ............................................................ References .................................................................................................

xiii

69 70 71 71 72 73 73 74 75 76 77 77 79 79 79 80 81 81 82 82 83 83 83 83 85 86 86 86 89 90 91

Internationalization of Work Content and Professional Networks ..................................................................... 93 7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 93 7.2 Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 94 7.2.1 Independent or Predictor Variables ...................................... 95 7.2.2 Data Analysis ....................................................................... 99 7.3 Logistic Regression Analysis ........................................................... 99 7.3.1 Dependent Variable: Collaborate with International Colleagues in Research ........................................................ 100

xiv

Contents

7.3.2

Dependent Variable: Coauthor with Foreign Colleagues ............................................................................ 7.3.3 Dependent Variable: Primary Research Emphasis This Year Is International in Scope ...................................... 7.4 Discussion and Conclusion .............................................................. Appendix: Coding Summary of Variables in the Study ............................ References ................................................................................................. 8

9

Historical and Comparative Perspectives on the Faculty Role in Governance........................................................ 8.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 8.2 The Current Study ............................................................................ 8.2.1 Dependent Variables ............................................................ 8.3 Support for Academic Work ............................................................ 8.4 Decision-Making in Academia ........................................................ 8.4.1 Faculty Perceptions of the Influence of Internal and External Stakeholders in Five Decision Areas .............. 8.4.2 Faculty Self-Reported Involvement and Influence in Governance................................................ 8.4.3 Perceptions of Administrative Competence and Faculty Engagement ................................. 8.5 The Cap Governance Findings in Comparison to Other US National Surveys ......................................................... 8.5.1 The 2007 CAP Survey Compared to the 2001 Kaplan and the 2002 USC Survey ....................................... 8.5.2 Faculty Role in Decision-Making ........................................ 8.5.3 Trends in Governance Roles, 1981–2001 ............................ 8.5.4 Faculty Engagement and Faculty-Administrative Communication .................................................................... 8.6 The US CAP Survey Data in Comparative Perspective ................... 8.7 Summary and Conclusions .............................................................. References ................................................................................................. Declining Institutional Loyalty .............................................................. 9.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 9.2 The Multidimensional Nature of Academic Work........................... 9.2.1 The Perception of Relative Benefits..................................... 9.3 Which Factors Have the Greatest Influence on Institutional Loyalty? .................................................................. 9.4 Recent Trends in the Commitments of US Academics.................... 9.5 Findings from Correlation Analysis................................................. 9.6 Findings from Multiple Regression ................................................. 9.7 Implications for Academic Work ..................................................... 9.8 Conclusions ...................................................................................... References .................................................................................................

102 103 105 107 109 111 111 112 112 113 114 114 117 118 120 120 120 123 123 124 127 129 131 131 132 132 133 134 134 137 137 139 139

Contents

10

11

xv

Conclusion: New Rules and Roles ......................................................... 10.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 10.2 What Have We Learned About the Contours of Change? ............. 10.2.1 Teaching and Research..................................................... 10.2.2 Internationalization .......................................................... 10.2.3 Faculty Demographics and Careers ................................. 10.2.4 Faculty Governance and Institutional Engagement ......... 10.3 What Do These Changes Portend? ................................................ 10.3.1 Establishing Some Basic Parameters and Distinctions................................................................ 10.3.2 Implications for Faculty as Individuals ............................ 10.3.3 Implications for Institutional Functioning ....................... 10.4 Putting Change in the Academy in Perspective ............................. 10.5 The Search for Indicators or Benchmarks ..................................... References .................................................................................................

141 141 142 142 142 143 144 146

Appendices ............................................................................................... 11.1 The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Survey ...................... 11.1.1 The Changing Academic Profession, 2007–2008: The US Component of an International Survey ............... 11.2 CAP Letter of Solicitation ............................................................. 11.2.1 An Invitation to Participate in a New Global Initiative ............................................................... 11.3 CAP Basic Frequency Tables: US and Other Advanced Countries .......................................................................

153 153

147 148 148 149 149 150

153 170 170 172

About the Authors ........................................................................................... 269 Index ................................................................................................................. 271

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 3.1

Table 3.2

Table 3.3

Table 3.4

Table 3.5

Table 3.6

Table 3.7

Table 3.8

Sampling strata .............................................................................. US faculty sample and respondents by institutional type .............. US faculty sample estimates and population parameters (in percent) .................................................................. Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) ........................................................................... Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by institutional type: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) ................. Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by institutional type: new entrants only, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) .................................................. Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by discipline: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) .................................................. Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by gender: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) .................................................. Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by gender: US research university faculty only, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) ............................. Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by discipline and gender (F female, M male): all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) ........................................................................... Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by appointment type: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) ..................................................

19 21 22

33

34

35

36

38

39

40

41

xvii

xviii

Table 3.9

Table 3.10

Table 3.11

Table 3.12 Table 3.13 Table 4.1

Table 4.2 Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5 Table 4.6

Table 4.7

Table 5.1

Table 5.2

List of Tables

Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by appointment type: US new entrants only, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) ....................................... Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by appointment type: US research university faculty only, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) ......................................................................... Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by appointment type and gender (F female, M male): all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) ......................................................................... Predictors of time allocation, role orientation, and publications: all US faculty, 1992 ......................................... Predictors of time allocation, role orientation, and publications: all US faculty, 2007 ......................................... Total number of science and engineering articles published worldwide by region and by country: all countries, 1995–2005 ............................................................. Mean number of research articles published by country: all countries, 2007 .................................................... Percent reporting various personal characteristics, research orientation and effort, collaboration patterns, and institutional policies supportive of research productivity by country: USA, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Australia, 2007 ................................................................. Rank ordering of countries in terms of characteristics supportive of research productivity: USA, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Australia, 2007 ........................................... Predictors of research productivity in five countries: USA, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Australia 2007 .............. Change in mean number of science and engineering articles and percent nonpublishers by country: all countries, 1992–2007 .......................................... Percent reporting various personal characteristics, research orientation and effort, collaboration patterns, and institutional policies supportive of research productivity by country: USA, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Australia, 1992 and 2007.................................................. Demographic, career characteristics, and work activities by academic generation: all faculty, 2007 (percent or mean) ................................................................ Predictors of the attainment of senior rank: all faculty, 2007 ..................................................................

43

44

45 47 48

52 54

55

58 58

60

60

67 72

List of Tables

Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 6.1

Table 6.2 Table 6.3

Table 6.4

Table 6.5

Table 6.6

Table 6.7

Table 6.8 Table 6.9

Table 6.10

Table 7.1 Table 7.2

Table 7.3 Table 7.4

xix

Predictors of attainment of senior rank with gender added: all faculty, 2007 ................................................................ Predictors of attainment of senior rank with race/ethnicity added: all faculty, 2007 ................................................................ Predictors of attainment of senior rank with nativity added: all faculty, 2007 ................................................................ Attitudinal and behavioral aspects of internationalization in teaching and research by country: all countries, 2007 (in percent).......................................................................... Percent engaged in international collaboration and publication: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007........................... Spearman rank order correlation matrix of attitudinal and behavioral indicators of internationalization in teaching and research: all countries, 2007............................... Percent agreeing that their “research is international in scope or orientation” by institutional type: all US faculty, 2007 ..................................................................... Percent agreeing that “in your courses, you emphasize international perspectives or content” by institutional type: all US faculty, 2007 ............................................................ Percent agreeing that their “research is international in scope or orientation” by discipline: all US faculty, 2007 ................................................................................ Percent agreeing that “in your courses you emphasize international perspectives or content” (percent agreeing) by discipline: all US faculty, 2007............................................... Percent reporting that they “collaborate with international colleagues” by discipline:all US faculty, 2007 ............................ Percent agreeing that their “research is international in scope or orientation” by academic rank: all US faculty, 2007 ................................................................................ Percent agreeing that “in your courses, you emphasize international perspectives or content” by academic rank: all US faculty, 2007 .....................................................................

73 74 75

84 85

86

87

87

87

88 89

89

90

The independent variables ........................................................... 97 Predictors of collaboration with international colleagues in research: research active US faculty only, 2007 .................................................................................... 100 Predictors of coauthorship with foreign colleagues: research-active US faculty only, 2007 ......................................... 102 Predictors of primary research is international in scope: research active US faculty only, 2007 .......................... 104

xx

List of Tables

Table 7.5

Summary: significant predictors of attitudinal and behavioral aspects of internationalization, research-active US faculty only, 2007 ......................................... 106

Table 8.1

Percent faculty rating facilities as excellent or very good: 1992 (nine countries), 2007 (16 countries).................................. Percent rating various stakeholders as influential or very influential (having primary influence) on selected decisions: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007.................. Mean weekly hours in administration and percent rating themselves as very influential at various organizational levels: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (by institutional type and discipline) .................................. Percent agreeing that administration is competent and faculty are institutionally engaged: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (by institutional type and discipline) .................. Percent reporting various levels of faculty influence in eight decision areas, 2001 ....................................................... Percent reporting substantial faculty influence in various decision areas by position, 2002 ................................. Top three areas cited for different types of faculty authority, 2002 ............................................................................. Percent reporting change since 1981 in the formal governance roles and influence of various constituencies: US faculty senate and union leaders, 2001 .................................. Percent rating level of participation and influence of various constituencies on budget preparation and allocation: US faculty senate and union leaders, 2001 ................................................................................ Percent rating various constituencies as influential or very influential (having primary influence) on selected decisions: USA compared to five countries, 2007....................... Percent reporting that faculty are influential or very influential (have the primary influence) on selected decisions: USA compared to five countries, 2007....................... Faculty involvement (mean weekly hours) and perceived personal influence (% very influential) at various organizational levels by discipline: USA and five countries, 2007 ............................................................... Percent (strongly) agreeing that administrators are competent and faculty are institutionally engaged by discipline: USA compared to five countries, 2007 .................

Table 8.2

Table 8.3

Table 8.4

Table 8.5 Table 8.6 Table 8.7 Table 8.8

Table 8.9

Table 8.10

Table 8.11

Table 8.12

Table 8.13

Table 9.1

115

116

118

119 121 122 122

123

123

125

125

126

126

Percent rating of their commitment to their department, institution, and discipline as strong: US compared to seven countries, 2007 ................................................................ 135

List of Tables

Table 9.2

Table 9.3

Table 11.1 Table 11.2 Table 11.3 Table 11.4

Table 11.5

Table 11.6

Table 11.7

Table 11.8 Table 11.9 Table 11.10 Table 11.11

Table 11.12 Table 11.13 Table 11.14 Table 11.15 Table 11.16 Table 11.17

Table 11.18

xxi

Demographic, career, institutional support, and governance correlates of institutional loyalty: USA and seven other countries, 2007......................................... 136 Mean weekly hours in various mandatory versus discretionary work activities by level of institutional loyalty: US faculty only, 2007 .................................................... 138 Kind of degree obtained (percent; multiple responses) .............. Age of award of degree (means)................................................. Year of award of degrees (means) .............................................. First degree obtained in the country of current employment (percent of respondents having obtained a first degree) ............................................................... Second degree obtained in the country of current employment (percent of respondents having obtained a second degree) ......................................................................... Doctoral degree obtained in the country of current employment (percent of respondents having obtained a doctoral degree) ....................................................................... Post-Doctoral degree obtained in the country of current employment (percent of respondents having obtained a post-doctoral degree) ............................................................... Country where first degree was obtained (percent of respondents having obtained a first degree) ........................... Country where second degree was obtained (percent of respondents having obtained a second degree) ...................... Country where doctoral degree was obtained (percent of respondents having obtained a doctoral degree) .................... Country where post-doctoral degree was obtained (percent of respondents having obtained a post-doctoral degree) ........................................................................................ Discipline or field of the highest degree obtained (percent) ....... Discipline or field of current academic unit (percent) ................ Discipline or field of current teaching (percent)......................... Modes of doctoral training (percent of respondents naming modes of doctoral training; multiple responses) ........... Modes of doctoral training (percent of doctoral degree holders; multiple responses) ........................................... Duration of full-time employment in different sectors (means of years; respondents employed full-time at any time since the award of the first degree in each sector; zero is excluded) ......................................................................... Duration of full-time employment in different sectors (means of years; all respondents employed full-time at any time since the award of the first degree in each sector; zero is included) ..............................................................

180 180 180

181

181

181

182 182 182 183

184 185 186 187 188 189

190

191

xxii

List of Tables

Table 11.19 Duration of part-time employment in different sectors (means of years; respondents employed part-time at any time since the award of the first degree in each sector; zero is excluded) ......................................................................... Table 11.20 Duration of part-time employment in different sectors (means of years; all respondents employed part-time at any time since the award of the first degree; zero is included) ................................................................................. Table 11.21 Duration of employment in academia (means of years) ............. Table 11.22 Number of institutions employed at since the award of the first degree (means; zero is excluded) .............................. Table 11.23 Number of institutions employed at since the award of the first degree (means; zero is included) ............................... Table 11.24 Number of institutions employed at since the award of the highest degree (means; zero is excluded) ......................... Table 11.25 Number of institutions employed at since the award of the highest degree (means; zero is included) ......................... Table 11.26 Year of first and current appointment (means) ........................... Table 11.27 Number of years since first and current appointment (means) ....................................................................................... Table 11.28 Current full-time and part-time employment (percent) ...................................................................................... Table 11.29 Average proportion of full-time employment of respondents currently employed part-time (means of part-time employed respondents) ........................................... Table 11.30 Additional employment and remunerated work (percent; multiple responses; all repondents) ............................. Table 11.31 Type of current institution (percent) ........................................... Table 11.32 Academic rank (percent) ............................................................ Table 11.33 Duration of current employment contract (percent) ................... Table 11.34 Annual gross income (means of US$) ........................................ Table 11.35 Service activities in current academic year (percent of all respondents; multiple responses) ........................ Table 11.36 Service activities in current academic year (percent of respondents undertaking additional service activities; multiple responses) .................................................... Table 11.37 Considered major changes in job (percent; multiple responses) ..................................................................... Table 11.38 Action taken for major changes in job (percent of respondents who reported major changes in their job; multiple responses) .............................................................. Table 11.39 Action taken for major changes in job (percent of all respondents of the question; multiple responses).............. Table 11.40 Hours spent on academic activities when classes are in session (arithmetic mean of hours per week) ...................

192

193 193 193 194 194 195 195 196 197

197 198 199 199 199 200 201

202 203

204 205 206

List of Tables

Table 11.41 Proportion of time spent on teaching and research when classes are in session (means of percentages) ................... Table 11.42 Hours spent on academic activities when classes are not in session (arithmetic mean of hours per week) ............. Table 11.43 Proportion of time spent on teaching and research when classes are not in session (means of percentages)............. Table 11.44 Preferences for teaching/research (percent) ............................... Table 11.45 Assessment institution’s support for own work (arithmetic mean)........................................................................ Table 11.46 Positive assesment of institution’s support for own work (percent; responses 1 and 2)................................. Table 11.47 Importance of affiliation (arithmetic mean) ............................... Table 11.48 Importance of affiliation (percent; responses 1 and 2) ............... Table 11.49 Views on scholarship and career (arithmetic mean) ................... Table 11.50 Positive views on scholarship and career (percent; responses 1 and 2) ...................................................................... Table 11.51 Job satisfaction (percent; arithmetic mean) ................................ Table 11.52 Perceived changes in working conditions in higher education (percent; arithmetic mean) ......................................... Table 11.53 Perceived changes in working conditions in research institutes (percent; arithmetic mean) .......................................... Table 11.54 Proportion of instruction time spent on programs at different levels of study (arithmetic mean of percentages) .................................................................. Table 11.55 Average number of students taught on programs at different levels of study programs (means) ............................ Table 11.56 Involvement in types of teaching activities (percent; multiple responses) ...................................................... Table 11.57 Workload expectations set by institution (percent; multiple responses) ..................................................................... Table 11.58 Views and activities about teaching (arithmetic mean) .............. Table 11.59 Positive views and activities about teaching (percent; responses 1 and 2) ....................................................... Table 11.60 Teaching abroad/ in foreign languages (percent of respondents with teaching responsibilities; multiple responses) ..................................................................... Table 11.61 Collaboration in research (percent of respondents undertaking research work; multiple responses) ........................ Table 11.62 Collaboration in research (percent of all respondents; multiple responses) ..................................................................... Table 11.63 Character of primary research (arithmetic mean) ....................... Table 11.64 Character of primary research (percent; responses 1 and 2) ...................................................................... Table 11.65 Research activities (percent of all respondents; multiple responses) .....................................................................

xxiii

207 208 209 209 210 211 212 212 213 214 215 215 216

216 217 218 218 219 220

221 221 222 222 223 224

xxiv

List of Tables

Table 11.66 Number of research outputs in the past three years (arithmetic mean; only respondents with any research output).................................................................... Table 11.67 Proportion of respondents producing different research outputs in the past three years (arithmetic mean; only respondents with respective research outputs) ......................................................................... Table 11.68 Proportion of respondents producing different research outputs in the past three years (percent of respondents with any research output; multiple responses) ..................................................................... Table 11.69 Proportion of respondents producing different research outputs in the past 3 years (percent of all respondents; multiple responses) ...................................... Table 11.70 Modes of publications (means of percentages of respondents having published in the past 3 years) ................. Table 11.71 Proportion of respondents with publishing in different modes (percentage of respondents having published in each mode in the past 3 years; multiple responses) ..................................................................... Table 11.72 Views on the conditions for research (arithmetic mean)........................................................................ Table 11.73 Positive views on conditions for research (percent; responses 1 and 2) ...................................................................... Table 11.74 Sources of funding (means of percentages)................................ Table 11.75 Sources of funding (means of adjusted percentages) ................. Table 11.76 Sources of external funding (means of percentages) .................. Table 11.77 Sources of external funding (means of adjusted percentages) ................................................................................ Table 11.78 Actors having the primary influence on selecting key administrators (percent) .............................................................. Table 11.79 Actors having the primary influence on choosing new faculty (percent) .................................................................. Table 11.80 Actors having the primary influence on making faculty promotion and tenure decisions (percent) ...................... Table 11.81 Actors having the primary influence on determining budget priorities (percent) .......................................................... Table 11.82 Actors having the primary influence on determining the overall teaching load of faculty (percent) ............................. Table 11.83 Actors having the primary influence on setting admission standards for undergraduate students (percent) .......................... Table 11.84 Actors having the primary influence on approving new academic programs (percent) .............................................. Table 11.85 Actors having the primary influence on evaluating teaching (percent) .......................................................................

224

225

226

227 229

230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 237 238 238 239 239 239 240

List of Tables

Table 11.86 Table 11.87 Table 11.88 Table 11.89 Table 11.90 Table 11.91 Table 11.92 Table 11.93 Table 11.94 Table 11.95 Table 11.96 Table 11.97 Table 11.98 Table 11.99 Table 11.100 Table 11.101 Table 11.102 Table 11.103 Table 11.104 Table 11.105 Table 11.106 Table 11.107 Table 11.108

Table 11.109 Table 11.110 Table 11.111 Table 11.112

xxv

Actors having the primary influence on setting internal research priorities (percent) ........................................ Actors having the primary influence on evaluating research (percent) ..................................................................... Actors having the primary influence on establishing international linkages (percent) ................................................ Personal influence at various institutional levels (arithmetic mean) ..................................................................... High personal influence at various institutional levels (percent; responses 1 and 2) ........................................... Evaluators of teaching (percent; multiple responses) .............. Evaluators of research (percent; multiple responses)............... Evaluators of service activities (percent; multiple responses)................................................................... Views of institutional management and administration (arithmetic mean) ...................................... Strong views of institutional management and administration (percent; responses 1 and 2) ...................... Views on institutional practice (arithmetic mean).................... Strong views on institutional practice (percent; responses 1 and 2) .................................................................... Perception of teaching and research related institutional strategies (arithmetic mean) ................................. Strong perceptions of teaching and research related institutional strategies (percent; responses 1 and 2) ................. Gender (percent)....................................................................... Year of birth (means)................................................................ Age of repondents at the time of the survey (2007) (percent)........................................................................ Marital status (percent) ............................................................ Employment of spouse/partner (percent of respondents with a spouse/partner) ...................................... Academic spouse/partner (percent of respondents with a spouse/partner) .............................................................. Number of children (percent) ................................................... Interruption of employment for care of child or elder (percent) ...................................................................... Duration of interruption of employment for care of child or elder (means of years; respondents who interrupted employment) .................................................. Educational attainment of father (percent) ............................... Educational attainment of mother (percent)............................. Tertiary education attainment of parents (percent) .................. Educational attainment of partner (percent of respondents with a partner) ..................................................

240 240 241 241 241 242 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 250 250 250 251 251 251 251

251 252 252 252 253

xxvi

Table 11.113 Table 11.114 Table 11.115 Table 11.116 Table 11.117 Table 11.118 Table 11.119 Table 11.120 Table 11.121 Table 11.122 Table 11.123 Table 11.124 Table 11.125 Table 11.126 Table 11.127

Table 11.128

Table 11.129

Table 11.130 Table 11.131

Table 11.132

Table 11.133

Table 11.134

List of Tables

Citizenship at birth (percent).................................................... Citizenship at the time of your first degree (percent) ............... Current citizenship (percent) .................................................... Country of residence at birth (percent) .................................... Country of residence at the time of your first degree (percent) ........................................................................ Current country of residence (percent) .................................... First language/mother tongue (percent) ................................... Teaching language (percent) .................................................... Other teaching language (percent of those not primarily teaching in first language/mother tongue) ................ Other teaching language (percent of all respondents with teaching activities) ........................................................... Research language (percent) .................................................... Other research language (percent of those not primarily employing the first language/mother tongue) .......................... Other research language (percent) ........................................... Years spent outside the country of first degree (percent of all respondents; multiple responses) ...................... Years spent in the country of first degree (means of years of all respondents who stayed in the country of first degree) .......................................................................... Years spent in the country of current employment (means of years of all respondents since the award of the first degree) .................................................................... Years spent outside the country of first degree and current employment (means of years of all respondents who were employed in other countries since the award of the first degree)........................................... International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship excluded) ............... International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens).............................................................. International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens).............................................................. International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens).............................................................. International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens, Asia / Australia same regions) ............

253 254 254 255 255 256 256 257 257 258 258 258 259 260

260

260

261 261

262

263

263

264

List of Tables

Table 11.135

Table 11.136 Table 11.137 Table 11.138 Table 11.139 Table 11.140 Table 11.141 Table 11.142 Table 11.143 Table 11.144 Table 11.145

xxvii

International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens, Asia / Australia different regions) ............................................ International activities (means of index from 0 – low to 8 – high).......................................................... International activities – teaching (means of index from 0 – low to 3 – high) ........................................... International activities – research (means of index from 0 – low to 5 – high) ........................................... Infrastructural support (means of index from 0 – low to 8 – high).......................................................... Research – teaching ratio (percent) .......................................... Varied teaching activities (means of index from 0 – low to 7 – high).......................................................... Publications (means of scores) ................................................. Foreign language use (percent; missings excluded)................. Foreign language use (percent; missings included, just one answered variable needed).......................................... Dominant language – in terms of country (percent) ................

265 266 266 266 266 266 267 267 267 267 268

Chapter 1

The Changing Academic Profession in the USA

1.1

Introduction

We seek in this book to highlight key issues facing the academic profession in the USA and around the world at the beginning of the twenty-first century. In this introductory chapter, we outline several trends influencing the academic profession globally and in the USA, in particular, focusing both on the concept of the academic profession and the extraordinary changes that are restructuring academic work and careers as we have come to know them in the post–World War II period.

1.2

The Changing Context for Academic Work

It was indeed the period from the end of the Second World War through the mid1970s that was dubbed the “golden age” of the modern American university, and it was an especially promising decade for members of the US academic profession (Kerr 1997). US higher education was expanding, salaries were rising, employment contracts offered security and reasonable work loads, and university managers and academics shared a mutual respect for academic freedom. In the ensuing three decades, especially in the USA, there have been many changes. Perhaps most fundamental has been the shift in national and state government priorities toward more emphasis on basic education, health, and welfare and away from fiscal support of higher education. A new ideology has emerged, stressing the private as contrasted to the public benefits of higher education, and the importance of leaving market forces to shape the future directions of higher education. Indeed, the rule of the market was ushered in by the 1972 Amendments to the Higher Education Act, in which the federal government established the now wellknown student aid program known as Pell Grants. These grants represent a major strategic shift in federal policy. Historically, student aid funds had been channeled

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4_1, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

1

2

1 The Changing Academic Profession in the USA

to students indirectly through grants to institutions to be used at their (the institution’s) discretion. The Pell Grant program put the lion’s share of federal student aid dollars directly in the hands of students and permitted them the choice among institutional providers. This policy shift reengineered the higher education market—putting significantly more power in the hands of consumers (students and their parents) and forcing colleges to compete often fiercely for the best students (Reisman 1980). The shift in federal student aid policy was reinforced during the 1980s by the larger political shift to neoconservatism, the valorization of the market as the arbiter of value that followed the Thatcher–Reagan era and the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. (Gumport 1997; Slaughter and Rhoades 2007). The shift in ideology and funding has forced institutions of higher education, especially those in the public sector, to seek new revenue sources while cutting costs. With declining baseline institutional support, this has meant that academic staffs are under increasing pressure to generate revenue from instructional, research, and service activities. That pressure is reflected in the trend toward increasing privatization, that is, outsourcing of nonessential services, for example, dining, security, bookstore, the establishment, and/or expansion of fund-raising units and mechanisms at most public institutions that support academic quality enhancements, faculty and administrative salary supplements, and the spin-off of technology transfer units at most major research universities (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). Enrollment expansion has slowed, and the number of full-time tenure-track academic positions has stagnated.1 Expenditures per student have increased, but new revenues have been primarily channeled into managerial and professional staff as contrasted to instructional personnel (Frances 1998). Increased emphasis has come to be placed on technology in the delivery of instruction and on accountability for all forms of academic work. The proportion of instructors who are on part-time appointments has rapidly increased relative to full-timers, and the average salaries and benefits for full-timers has barely kept up with inflation (Schuster and Finkelstein 2006). While the national economy has come to place increasing emphasis on knowledge products, the level of funding for the underlying research and development effort has remained essentially level at 2.6% of GNP, and the academy’s share of these funds has decreased (Cummings 2008). What is particularly troubling and portentuous about these developments is the increasing realization that they constitute not a temporary dislocation—an aberration— but rather a fundamental restructuring of the economic order—not unlike the dislocation that accompanied the industrial revolution more than a century ago or the transition from an industrial to a service economy in the last quarter of the twentieth century (Finkelstein 2003). In the USA, social observers like George Keller (Keller 2008) have heralded the advent of the “new society,” one in which the student market for higher education has been radically restructured to focus on heretofore underserved and excluded populations, including first-generation college students and new immigrants, requiring a radical restructuring of teaching and learning, and one

1

Except in the biological and physical sciences (Leslie 2007).

1.4

Two Types of Academies

3

in which public policy has increasingly consigned higher education to the realm of “private” goods, encouraging new, for profit educational providers and entrepreneurs to enter the marketplace and place competitive pressures on traditional institutions (Wildavsky 2010). In Europe, social scientists and philosophers, such as Charles Handy (1994) in the UK and Christine Musselin (2010) in France, have chronicled the reorganization of the corporations and the workplaces to more clearly align with a new, global academic order in which institutional “nimbleness” and flexibility trump established hierarchies and traditional employment relationships.

1.3

Impact on the Academic Profession

What are the implications—short and long term—of these changes for the academic profession and its individual members? Some seem obvious—lowered job security, less attractive compensation, and longer hours of obligated work. Others are less clear. Is the profession perceived as less attractive and hence less able to recruit new members? Has the profession lost some of its traditional autonomy to academic managers and other stakeholders?2 We speak to this very issue in Chap. 8 on governance and management. If so, has that loss of autonomy made a difference in the quality of the work output? Has a bifurcated workforce—half full-time and half part-time—managed their research and teaching functions as well as heretofore? Or have improvements in efficiency been achieved by compromises in effectiveness? Is the overall health of the enterprise improving? Or, in danger of deteriorating? These are some of the questions that the authors of this book set out to answer 4 years ago, primarily through the vehicle of an international survey of the academic profession in the USA and 18 other countries known as the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) study. Before describing the CAP project in Chap. 2, it will be helpful to review several of the core concepts that shaped this investigation. What do we mean by the notion of “the academy” or the “academic profession”? In what ways have these concepts developed historically? In what ways have those concepts been undergoing redefinition over time? What can be said about the larger, global context of the higher education enterprise? And how does the particular case of the USA—the focus of this volume—fit within that broader context?

1.4

Two Types of Academies

What is meant by the terms academy and academic profession? There are at least two distinct meanings associated with the academy. One is as a formal organization focused on education beginning with Plato’s school in ancient Athens. The second

2

We speak to this very issue in Chap. 8 on governance and management.

4

1 The Changing Academic Profession in the USA

is as an association for the protection and advancement of knowledge such as the Museum founded by Ptolemy I in the third century BC. From these early origins, academies of both types have been founded first in Western Europe and subsequently around the world—for example, the Arabs established academies in Cordoba and in Samarkand (Johnson 1990). The popularity of academies seemed to wane in the late medieval ages but was again resurrected in the Renaissance. For example, the Academie Francaise was established in Paris in 1635, and the Royal Society was established in London in 1660. These academies held meetings to discuss new developments in knowledge, published journals, and sponsored selected projects—not unlike contemporary disciplinary and professional associations. Many who were welcomed as members in these early academies were independent intellectuals, but over time, an increasing proportion had their primary association with a university or college or institute. So, on the one hand, those associated with intellectual work looked to the academy as a locus for the validation of their intellectual achievements; on the other, they looked to the formal organizations of higher learning for a work site and a salary. At some point, the concept of the academy came to be more firmly associated with those employed in the formal organizations and less with the scholarly associations outside the university.

1.5

The Concept of the Academic Profession

Profession refers to a self-selected occupational group that draws on a specialized knowledge base to address emerging problems; to this end, professions develop standards of accepted practice, codes of ethics, and procedures for the training and induction of new members. Concurrent with the linguistic transformation that came to identify academics with their place of employment, it became increasingly common to think of academics as belonging to a common calling, the academic profession (Scott 1970; Rhoades 1998). This appellation may have been appropriate in the early days of modern higher learning. For through the seventeenth century, most academics went through a common training, had command of the unified body of classical knowledge (with some specialization from this base), acknowledged a common set of ethical principles, and established bodies to adjudicate instances of ethical lapse. But while academic work derives from this earlier pattern of unity, from at least the Renaissance period, academics began to place increasing emphasis on their disciplinary specializations to the point that their specialized activities came to command their primary professional loyalties, and the historic unity of academic life was attenuated. This great “unraveling” was aided and abetted by the decline of the guild system and the concurrent corporatization of academic work. Indeed, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, following the Protestant Reformation in Europe, kings, prelates, and municipal entities (e.g., Calvin’s Geneva) began the chartering of academic

1.6

The Development and Stratification of Three Global Models of the University

5

corporations ruled by lay governing boards. These corporate governing boards introduced yet a second intruder (beyond academic field) into the unity of the academic profession and the locus of its loyalties, the corporate employer (Cowley 1980). The lay corporate model was imported into the American colonies at the very beginning, with Yale setting the pattern in 1701. While academic work in the New World remained anything but professional for more than a century3 certainly by the third quarter of the nineteenth century when the US higher education system was becoming more public and practical, the differentiation of academic life had proceeded apace. Parallel with the unifying multidisciplinary academies, there gradually emerged a plethora of disciplinary associations, and the organization of institutions of higher learning came to reflect this differentiation with the establishment of disciplinary-based departments and faculties (Berelson 1960). Thus by the turn of the twentieth century, both the intellectual and organizational underpinnings of a unified academic profession had largely disappeared. Yet the notion that academics belonged to a unifying profession survived.4

1.6

The Development and Stratification of Three Global Models of the University

From these common origins, several distinctive organizational models of the university emerged—some more focused on research and others more focused on teaching or service. At the institutional level, Ben-David (1977) highlights the differences between the English model that was teaching oriented, the German and French models that were research oriented, and the US model that combined elements of both of these traditions and also stressed service. Ben-David argues that each of these models has its strengths and weaknesses—with the German model arguably superior in the fostering of basic research and the US model enjoying an advantage in applied research. Whereas in the German model there was a tendency to assign responsibility for all research in a particular discipline to a lone senior professor who commanded an institute staffed by numerous junior researchers, in the US case, universities tended to establish departments composed of several equal-rank

3

During the eighteenth century, the USA was populated with freestanding baccalaureate colleges and a few universities in name only. These institutions offered a fixed baccalaureate course and were typically staffed by temporary tutors. The development of more permanent professorships and the emergence of a full-time, exclusive academic caree developed in the middle and last part of the nineteenth century (see McCaughey 1974; Tobias (2002). 4 As we shall see later in this chapter, the founding, in the case of the USA, of the American Association of University professors in 1915 demonstrated a sort of cross-disciplinary professorial self-consciousness well into the twentieth century.

6

1 The Changing Academic Profession in the USA

academics exploring a common field. In France, separate organizations were established to respectively foster teaching (grande ecoles) and to foster research (institutes) in designated fields. The national systems described by Ben-David were the pioneers, achieving much in terms of scholarly products—for example, a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes have been received by the members of their respective academies. And arguably, they have been looked to as the best places in the world to pursue advanced academic study. So with the increasing international recognition of the importance of knowledge, there has been a tendency for these systems to dominate in research and training, and for others to follow. Some have described this stratification using the world system language of the core, semiperiphery, and periphery (Altbach 2002). As new nations launched their own academic systems, they tended to look to the core for the setting of standards and the training of personnel. They dreamed of catching up, but they faced the stubborn reality that the journey is long. Hence it is meaningful to think of higher education systems in terms of relative ascendancy. On the one hand are the established systems, and on the other are those that are emerging, trying to catch up. In both groups, there is much internal variation. Still as a starting point, it is a useful division and will be employed as one analytical approach in this book. One of the salient characteristics that differentiates academic systems from each other is their capacity to produce their own supply of faculty. Core systems tend to believe they are on top of the world’s body of knowledge and hence qualified to train the next generation of academics, while peripheral systems lack this confidence and tend either to recruit faculty from the core institutions or to send their best students to the core systems for advanced training. Thus, many of the academics in peripheral systems have been trained in the universities of the core countries (Altbach 2002). The classical approach to graduate training involved a student receiving guidance from a lead professor as the student carried out a challenging research project. The US system is particularly notable for its generation of a formal graduate school with sequences of courses forming the basis for awarding advanced degrees in addition to guided research. Thus arguably, the US system has become the preferred destination for graduate-level training, and many of the top-tier US institutions have as many graduate students as undergraduate students. While this core-periphery distinction persists, in recent years, several of the core systems have experienced difficulty in motivating young people to consider the academic profession as their chosen path. For example, in the science and engineering disciplines, many of the core systems are unable to attract indigenous students and thus have welcomed increasing numbers of students from peripheral systems to their graduate student ranks. And the best and brightest of these international students have moved up to become members of the new generation of academics in the core systems. Meanwhile the quality of facilities and faculty in several of the former peripheral systems has rapidly upgraded to the point where these systems favorably compete with the core.

1.8

1.7

The Transformation of Management and Governance

7

Twentieth-Century Massification of Higher Education in the USA

Ben-David’s analysis focused on the premier institutions of the respective systems where the focus on research was paramount. However, concurrent with the rise in the salience of academic research was the transformation of the modern economy toward increasing efficiency in the industrial and service sectors in the post–World War II period. With the shift in the economy was a corresponding shift in the employment structure toward an increasing emphasis on data and people-oriented jobs, requiring higher levels of education. Martin Trow (1973) observed for the USA that the demand for secondary level graduates began to accelerate by the turn of the twentieth century and peaked in the 1940s; subsequently the demand for college graduates accelerated leading to the shift from elite to mass higher education. The increase in the demand for higher education was accompanied by the founding of an ever-expanding number of medium and small higher educational institutions whose primary focus was on teaching rather than research. Representative of this trend was the explosion of junior and community colleges where the mission focus was exclusively on teaching. This diversification of institutional missions was captured in the Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education (Carnegie Council 1994) and subsequently in UNESCO’s distinction between tertiary type A (bachelor and postgraduate emphasis) and type B institutions (less than bachelors). While the USA led in the expansion of tertiary education and its provision to an ever increasing proportion of the age cohort, other national systems were soon to follow—especially in East Asia and Western Europe. By the turn of the twenty-first century, Finland, Canada, and South Korea had surpassed the USA in their enrollment rates, and many other countries were approaching US levels.

1.8

The Transformation of Management and Governance

Arguably, one concomitant of massification and the increasing centrality of higher education’s training and research functions to the global, knowledge-based economy was the transformation of the governance and management of higher education— with different arrangements emerging in different national settings. In all nations, the expansion of higher education was accompanied by the growing interest of diverse stakeholders, including notably the state and the corporate sector, in higher educational decision-making (Trow 1973). But the way particular nations integrated these pressures varied. In the case of Russia (and later the Soviet Union) and France, the State moved in to assume major responsibilities for the finance and administration of higher educational institutions. With the increased role of the state, many conflicts were resolved by high-level officials appointed by the government rather than the academy, a pattern we have referred to as statism. In contrast, according to

8

1 The Changing Academic Profession in the USA

Burton Clark (Clark 1984) was a more decentralized form of coordination exemplified by Italy and Germany where much authority was invested in prominent academics who came to enjoy a near oligarchic control over academic life, a species of decentralized academic oligarchy. While the state’s support of higher education was not exceptionally generous, the state’s intrusion into academic matters was relatively modest. And finally, the USA (and the UK) evolved a third pattern where individual institutions that were historically controlled by boards of trustees significantly deferred to market signals.5 Especially in the USA, national and local governments have followed the market ideology and have sharply cut back their direct support of higher educational institutions. Accompanying the decline of public funding has been the emergence of a market ideology of revenue generation and allocation leading to increases in student tuition, to the intrusion of commercialism into the research labs of the leading universities, and to the offering of tenuous employment contracts for an increasing proportion of the academic community. This might be described as the entrepreneurial corporate model. Of course, none of these types—statist, oligarchic, and entrepreneurial/corporate—are pure but rather are meant to be suggestive of the core principles guiding decision-making. Clark (1984) sees other systems as being approximations of these three patterns. Among these three emergent management/governance models, the entrepreneurial corporate model may render academic staff the most vulnerable. And this certainly appears to be the case in the USA where university faculty enjoy neither the independent power of their Italian counterparts nor the protection of regulations characteristic of the statist pattern. The American Association of University Professors, established in 1915, of course, played for more than half a century a vital role in establishing standards for academic appointments and the protection of academic freedom, and thus represented an important example of the way the concept of an overarching academic profession continued to inspire collective action in academia, even as the nature of disciplinary development has resulted in the increasing fragmentation of knowledge and pressures outside the academy grew. The normative influence of that organization has, however, waned over the past generation as its energies have been channeled into collective bargaining (narrower issues of economic self-interest) and its standing as a preeminent professional organization has eroded. Indeed, the pace of unionization has stabilized or declined over the past generation (around 30% of faculty in the USA are unionized, mostly those in large public systems)—except at the peripheries of the profession—among part-time and limited-term full-time faculty.6 5

In the case of public institutions, such governing boards usually included the appointees of public officials who often coordinated with state departments of education. 6 Over time, organizations like the AAUP have emerged in many other systems. For example, the Association of National University Professors and the Association of Private University Professors were established in Japan in 1946 to promote the material interests of professors as well as to protect their academic freedom. A common factor in the emergence of such associations is the expanding scale of higher education. With the expansion of national systems, the stakeholders also increased, as did the diversity of views on the proper role of higher education. Tensions multiplied as did the frequency of troubling cases. And thus there emerged the motivation to form associations focused on protecting the interests of academics and the academy.

1.9 Inquiry on the American and Global Academic Profession(s)

1.9

9

Inquiry on the American and Global Academic Profession(s)

Even as their collective influence has waned, academics, by virtue of their acknowledged centrality to the economic competitiveness of nations, have spawned an emerging cottage industry of inquiry into their recruitment, productivity, nurturance, and contribution to the economy and public interest. This pattern of self-reflection took off in the USA in the 1970s, in Western Europe in the 1980s, in East Asia in the 1990s, and worldwide since then. Among the more notable endeavors originating in the USA was a multivolume book series edited by Clark Kerr, former Chancellor of the University of California as President of the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Similarly Ernest Boyer during his tenure as President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, commissioned several studies on higher education, including first a survey of the US academic profession, and subsequently a survey of the academic profession around the world. The latter survey is the predecessor for that which is the foundation of this volume. The first round of research on higher education and the academy tended to be conducted by individual scholars, but over time an increasing proportion of this research came to be carried out in formal research institutes, including the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA established by Alexander Astin in 1969 and the Centers for the Study of Higher Education established at the University of Michigan by Algo Henderson, at Pennsylvania State University by G. Lester Anderson, and at the Teacher’s College of Columbia University by Earl McGrath.7 Some of these research institutes focused primarily on the challenges facing particular higher educational institutions, whereas others focused on broader issues such as the financing of higher education, equity in access and in attainment, and even the relative prominence of particular universities and the relative strength and attractiveness of the academic systems of different nations. They were supplemented by work directly sponsored by government agencies, including the US Department of Education, National Center of Education Statistics, which sponsored national faculty surveys between 1988 and 2004, and the National Science Foundation which has conducted longitudinal surveys of academic scientists since the 1970s, the Survey of Doctoral Recipients (SDR) (Schuster and Finkelstein 2006). Arguably, the funded research agenda came increasingly to focus on the issues of interest to the sponsors and managers of higher education and less on the concerns of individual academics to enhance their effectiveness in their roles as teachers, researchers, and citizens.

7

The latter three were funded by coordinated grants from the Kellogg Foundation. For a description of the development of higher education as a field of study in the USA, see Lewis Mayhew Higher Education as a Field of Study (Dressel and Mayhew 1970).

10

1.10

1 The Changing Academic Profession in the USA

The 2007 Changing Academic Profession Study

With the internationalization of academic introspection, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching proposed an international survey in the late 1980s that finally came to fruition in 1991–1992. This survey known as The 1992 Carnegie International Survey of the Academic Profession highlighted both many problems facing academic systems around the world and the overall satisfaction of academics with their professional work and their occupational choice (Altbach 1996). The early 1990s was possibly a pivotal period in the relation of academic systems to their respective national contexts. Since then, at least in the more economically advanced societies and perhaps especially in the USA, policy makers have tended to stress the private as contrasted with the public benefits of higher education. And thus has emerged the new market ideology for higher education to compete with a historical faith in its public benefit. Accompanying this new perspective has been increasing pressure on academics to engage in academic capitalism, that is, to reorient their research agendas to the knowledge needs of the commercial sector. Accompanying this new discourse is more pressure on higher education to become efficient and accountable. Meanwhile around the world, we find an amazing trend of higher educational expansion which necessarily leads to the increase in the size of the academy, especially in the emerging nations, and to an increased flow of academics to new employment opportunities opening up in nations other than their own. Who then are the contemporary academics, why have they joined, what do they value, how comfortable are they with the changing definition of the role of the academy in modern society, and what are their expectations for the governance and management of the institutions where they are finding employment? These concerns were on the minds of those who had organized the earlier Carnegie survey, and soon after the turn of the twenty-first century, they began to discuss the possibility of a new survey. This core group first met in Paris, then London, and out of these meetings was born the plan for a new International Survey of the Changing Academic Profession. While the core group developed the initial plan, within a short period, the concept “snowballed,” so that groups from 19 countries indicated their interest in participating.

1.11

Core Themes of the CAP Project

Building on these impressive international expressions of interest, the CAP consortium drafted a conceptual framework for the study. The core themes of this framework were as follows:

1.11

Core Themes of the CAP Project

1.11.1

11

Relevance

Whereas the highest goal of the traditional academy was to create fundamental knowledge, what has been described as the “scholarship of discovery,” the new emphasis of the knowledge society is on useful knowledge or the “scholarship of application.” This scholarship often involves the pooling and melding of insights from several disciplines and tends to focus on outcomes that have a direct impact on everyday life. One consequence is that many future scholars, though trained in the disciplines, will work in applied fields and may have options for employment in these fields outside of the academy. This provides new opportunities for more “boundaryless” forms of academic careers and knowledge transfer, while it may also create recruitment difficulties in some places, and especially in fields such as science, technology, and engineering. There are strong interdependencies between the goals of higher education, the rules for distributing resources, and the nature of academic work. The changes associated with movement from the “traditional academy” with its stress on basic research and disciplinary teaching to the “relevant academy” are largely uncharted and are likely to have unanticipated consequences. One task of this project is therefore to understand how these changes influence academic value systems and work practices and affect the nature and locus of control and power in academe.

1.11.2

Internationalization

National (and local and regional) traditions and socioeconomic circumstances continue to play an important role in shaping academic life and have a major impact on the attractiveness of jobs in the profession. Yet today’s global trends, with their emphasis on knowledge production and information flow, play an increasingly important role in the push toward the internationalization of higher education. The international mobility of students and staff has grown; new technologies connect scholarly communities around the world, and English has become the new lingua franca of the international community. The economic and political power of a country, its size and geographic location, its dominant culture, the quality of its higher education system, and the language it uses for academic discourse and publications are factors that bring with them different approaches to internationalization. Local and regional differences in approach are also to be found. Questions are therefore raised about the functions of international networks, the implications of differential access to them, and the role of new communication technologies in internationalizing the profession.

12

1.11.3

1 The Changing Academic Profession in the USA

Managerialism

In academic teaching and research, where professional values are traditionally firmly woven into the very fabric of knowledge production and dissemination, attempts to introduce change are sometimes received with skepticism and opposition. At the same time, a greater professionalization of higher management is regarded as necessary to enable higher education to respond effectively to a rapidly changing external environment. The control and management of academic work will help define the nature of academic roles—including the division of labor in the academy, with a growth of newly professionalized “support” roles and a possible breakdown of the traditional teaching/research nexus. New systemic and institutional processes such as quality assurance have been introduced which also change traditional distributions of power and values within academe and may be a force for change in academic practice. This project will examine both the rhetorics and the realities of academics’ responses to such managerial practices. A number of views can be discerned about recent attempts at the management of change in higher education, and the responses of academics to such changes. One view would see a victory of managerial values over professional ones with academics losing control over both the overall goals of their work practices and their technical tasks. Another view would see the survival of traditional academic values against the managerial approach. This does not imply that academic roles fail to change, but that change does not automatically mean that interests and values are weakened. A third view would see a “marriage” between professionalism and managerialism with academics losing some control over the goals and social purposes of their work but retaining considerable autonomy over their practical and technical tasks. The desirability or otherwise of these three different positions is also subject to a range of different views.

1.12

The Purpose and Organization of This Volume

The above is the background for the CAP project and for this book which focuses on the US country study. The book will introduce the methods of the CAP project and the US survey in Chap. 2. In Chap. 3, we look explicitly at the balance between teaching and research in the US system—which has historically occupied the midpoint between the research-oriented French and German models, on the one hand, and the teaching-oriented British model, on the other. We argue that while the balance has always varied across institutional sectors, it is increasingly varying within sectors as a function of the new academic appointments and the infusion of new demographic groups, that is, women, into the profession. In Chap. 4, we examine changes in the publication productivity of American academics over the past two decades in comparison to academics in other nations. From that analysis emerges a troubling picture of a decline in US-originated publication amid a gradual rise in publication productivity across the globe, especially in East Asia, and we locate the

1.12

The Purpose and Organization of This Volume

13

source of the newly emerging publication gap in the USA’s declining public investment in research and development. Chapter 5 considers recent trends in the recruitment and career advancement of academics, with a special focus on the experiences of women, minorities, and the foreign-born. The available evidence from the CAP survey—as well as other sources—suggests that these groups are making some progress, but that widely identified barriers to the pursuit of academic careers continue to exist. Chapters 6 and 7 explicitly focus on the “international” dimension of teaching and research. In chap. 6, we address several dimensions of “internationalization,” ranging from integration of international perspective into courses to integration into research, from teaching abroad to research collaborations with foreign scholars. The data suggest that internationalization in teaching activities may be relatively independent of internationalization in research activities, and furthermore that internationalization as an attitudinal characteristic may be independent of actual behaviors, such as collaborative publication with foreign scholars and teaching abroad. Chapter 7 explicitly focuses on internationalization in research at both the attitudinal and behavioral levels. We find that many of the same factors affect the infusion of international perspective into research as the collaboration and copublication with foreign colleagues. Chief among these are preservice socialization, specifically, length of time spent abroad following receipt of the baccalaureate degree, and professional characteristics such as general level of research involvement and level of research orientation. In Chaps. 8 and 9, we turn to the changing role of American faculty in the lives of their institutions. Chapter 8 looks at faculty perceptions of the locus of decisionmaking on their campuses in the key areas of personnel, curriculum, budget, and new programs, their perceptions of administrative leadership and faculty influence— and changes therein over the past generation. Findings of the CAP survey are compared to findings from two other major studies of US collegiate governance during the period, and perceptions of American professors are compared with those of professors in five other developed countries to allow us to properly contextualize the findings. In Chap. 9, we focus on the broader issue of the level of commitment or loyalty that faculty feel toward their employing institutions. We specifically look at institution as compared to academic discipline as the locus of faculty loyalty and find that, unlike the pattern in several emerging economies, American professors have over the past two decades become increasingly loyal to their academic fields at the expense of their employing institutions. This decline in loyalty appears to reflect a declining level of actual involvement in institutional affairs outside the local department. Finally, in Chap. 10 we seek to distill the trends that emerged from the various separate chapters into an overall portrait of the changing American academic workforce. We conclude indeed that the last two decades have seen the diversification of a relatively homogenous and well-organized profession into a highly differentiated workforce with diverse work patterns, career trajectories, and institutional lives. It is the hope of the US CAP team that this volume will contribute to the ongoing US and international dialogue on strategies for enhancing the role of the academic profession in national and world development.

14

1 The Changing Academic Profession in the USA

References Altbach, P. (Ed.). (1996). The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Altbach, P. G. (2002). Centers and peripheries in the academic profession: The special challenges of developing countries. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.). The decline of the Guru (pp. 1–22). Boston: Boston College, 2008. Ben-David, J. (1977). Centers of learning: Britain, France, Germany and the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill. Berelson, B. (1960). Graduate education in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill. Carnegie Council on Higher Education. (1994). A classification of institutions of higher education. New York: McGraw Hill. Clark, B. (1984). The higher education system. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cowley, W.H. (1980). Professors, presidents and trustees. Edited by D.T. Williams. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cummings, W. (2008). Is the academic center shifting to Asia? In G. Postiglione, W. K. Cummings, & D. Chapman (Eds.), Crossing borders and bridging minds: Issues and perspectives. Hong Kong: Springer HKU & CERC. Dressel, P., & Mayhew, L. (1970). Higher education as a field of study. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Finkelstein, M. (2003). The morphing of the American academic profession. Liberal Education, 89(Fall), 6–15. Frances, C. (1998). Higher education: Enrollment trends and staffing needs. TIAA-CREF Research Dialogues, 55 (March) . Gumport, P. (1997). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67–91. Handy, C. (1994). The age of unreason. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Johnson, O. (1990). Academy. In Encyclopedia Americana (pp. 69–71). Danbury: Grolier. Keller, G. (2008). Higher education and the new society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kerr, C. (1997). Higher education and the great transformation. Albany: SUNY Press. Leslie, D. (2007). The reshaping of America’s academic workforce. TIAACREF Research Dialogues, 87(March), 1–23. McCaughey, R. M. (1974). The transformation of American academic life: Harvard University, 1821–1892. Perspectives in American History, 8, 239–334. Musselin, C. (2010). The market for academics. New York: Routledge. Reisman, D. (1980). On higher education: The academic enterprise in an era of rising student consumerism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: Unionized faculty and restructuring academic labor. Albany: SUNY Press. Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Scott, W. R. (1970). Professionals in organizations: Areas of conflict. In H. M. Vollmer & D. L. Mills (Eds.), Professionalization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2007). Higher education and the new economy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tobias, M. (2002). Old Dartmouth on Trial. New York: New York University Press. Trow, M. (1973). The Transition from elite to mass to universal access. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the OECD, Paris. Wildavsky, B. (2010). The great brain race. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chapter 2

Concepts and Methods

2.1

Introduction

This chapter describes the framework underlying the Changing Academic Profession survey of 2007, the sampling and data collection procedures, as well as the nature of the survey instrument. While it provides a general conceptual and methodological backdrop for the entire international initiative involving 19 individual national studies, we focus here on the methodological details of the US survey.

2.2

Conceptual Framework: A General Systems Model

The 2007 CAP survey sought to examine the nature and extent of the changes experienced by the academic profession in recent years, drawing in part on comparisons of current developments with those documented in the first International Survey of the Academic Profession conducted in 1991–1992. The project proposed a sixstage model for the investigation of change in the academic profession that draws substantially on general systems theory (see Bess and Dee 2008; Astin 1985). We differentiated the larger environment of higher education institutions into drivers (macro social and economic trends, e.g., globalization of the world economy, that were broadly reshaping national economies, workforce requirements, and higher education research and training objectives) and conditions to describe the concrete structures including institutional mission differentiation, stakeholder identification, and financing mechanisms that became the proximate environment for institutions of higher education. We conceptualized the throughput as including beliefs of both internal and external stakeholders about institutional goals, priorities, and appropriate instrumentalities and roles and practices, that is, the division of academic labor; the perceived interrelationships among the basic components of teaching, research,

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4_2, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

15

16

2

Concepts and Methods

and service (Fairweather 2005); and perceptions about the structure and trajectory of academic careers. Finally, in our model, we distinguished between outputs by which we meant the proximate products of teaching, research, and service at the individual and institutional levels and outcomes by which we meant the macro consequences for the larger system.

2.3

Research Questions Addressed

Within the context of this model of change, the CAP study addressed six research questions: 1. To what extent is the nature of academic work and the trajectory of academic careers changing? 2. What are the external and internal drivers of these changes? 3. To what extent do changes differ between countries and types of higher education institution? 4. How have the academic professions responded—attitudinally and behaviorally— to changes in their external and internal environment? 5. What are the consequences of the changes and faculty responses to them for the attractiveness of an academic career? 6. What are the consequences for the capacity of academics—and their universities—to contribute to the further development of knowledge societies and the attainment of national goals?

2.4

Participating Countries

The following 19 countries participated by conducting national surveys during 2007–2008 with a common sampling frame and instrument: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Hong Kong,1 Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, South Korea, the UK, and the USA. Each national study includes a national contextual paper and a survey of the academic profession, supplemented in some cases by interviews.2

1

In the 1992 survey, Hong Kong, still under British rule, was treated as a separate country from Mainland China. In 2007, even though Hong Kong had reverted a decade earlier to Chinese control, separate surveys were conducted in Hong Kong and Mainland China to allow for 1992–2007 comparisons. 2 No interviews were conducted as part of the US survey.

2.5

Sample Design of the National Surveys

2.5

17

Sample Design of the National Surveys

The sampling design for the respective national CAP surveys was shaped by three factors: the analytic goals of the project, the design effect of the sampling design selected by each country, and the structure of higher education in each country.

2.5.1

Analytic Goals

Early on, the project decided on an effective completed sample of 800 for each participating country. For inferring population characteristics from sample data, a certain minimum completed sample size is necessary to attain respectable confidence intervals.3 To obtain decent confidence intervals for a descriptive proportion such as the proportion of a population that agrees on some issue, a completed sample size of circa 300 is helpful. To cross tabulate the first variable with a second and get good confidence intervals, we need to nearly double the sample size. To bring in a third level of analysis, further expansion is required. It was in this manner that the project decided on an effective completed sample size of 800—it will easily enable statistical significance testing up to the third level of analysis. The figure of 800 is for the actual number who responded, and not the number sampled. Our expectation was that respondents in each nation would be representative of the population of academic staff. Thus, the goal in CAP sampling was to obtain a completed effective sample of 800.

2.5.2

Design Options

The project explored a number of sampling designs, including simple random sampling, where each respondent in the population has an equal probability of being included4; stratified sampling wherein the population is broken into subgroups, but the sampling ratios in the subgroups are equal; stratification with unequal sampling ratios between groups to oversample small subgroups who might be marginalized

3

Note this sample size is the same regardless of the size of the population. The simplest way to accomplish this goal is to randomly select all respondents directly from a complete list of the population. This is possible for small countries that have complete faculty lists, for example, Japan. 4

18

2

Concepts and Methods

if sampling ratios were equal; and cluster sampling wherein several units (A) from the population of units are first selected and then, within each unit, a certain number of individuals are selected (B).5

2.5.3

Structure of Higher Education

The overall project sought to adjust sampling design to the structure of the individual national systems of higher education, ranging from small and relatively homogeneous systems to those which are larger and more diverse in terms of institutional types. It adopted the following basic sampling principles: 1. Where there are relatively few institutions (50 or less) and they are somewhat similar, the best approach is to develop a list of all academics in the institutions and randomly select the target sample of 1,800 academics (600 * 1/0.33 or the response rate ratio). 2. Where there are many institutions and they are similar, a one- or two-stage cluster sample can be undertaken: (a) In the one-stage sample, a moderate number of institutions are selected (perhaps 20), and then all of the academics in those institutions are selected. Because of the cluster sample design, a multiple of 600 academics would need to be selected (Deff (=3 plus) * 600) or somewhere upward of 1,800 academics. But then we need to take account of nonresponse rate—1,800 * 3 = 5,400 (b) In the two-stage sample, a larger number of institutions are randomly selected (A = 50+), and then within each of these, relatively small samples of academics (B = circa 12–15) are randomly selected so that A * B = Deff * 600 or approximately 1,800. But then we need to take account of nonresponse rate—1,800 * 3 = 5,400. Like several large, mature economies, the USA has considerable diversity among institutions, and so we sought initially to differentiate a minimum of two strata—for example, large institutions that have substantial programs of graduate education and other baccalaureate-level institutions (that tend to be smaller and mainly offer 4-year programs). Beyond these initial strata, the USA has a large private sector, and given

5

Even if the selections of A and B are based on random numbers, statisticians tell us there is a substantial negative impact on equal probability which they term the design effect. They provide formulas for estimating the design effect, and these formulas imply that randomly sampling a relatively large number of universities (A) and then randomly sampling a relatively small number of academics (B) within each university minimizes the design effect. Tables are available for gauging the size of the Deff. Unless care is taken (i.e., select many units, and relatively few within each unit), use of the cluster-sampling principle may require a sample five or six times as large as that obtained through simple random sampling to achieve similar confidence levels.

2.6 Development of the Survey Instrument Table 2.1 Sampling strata Control: public Size: large Public and large Size: small Public and small

19

Control: private Private and large Private and small

that factor, it seemed necessary to create a four-cell institutional sampling frame as follows (Table 2.1): With these four strata established, we estimated the proportion of academics in each stratum. These proportions times the effective sample size of 800 indicate the minimum effective sample size for each stratum.

2.5.4

Selection of the US Sample

The universe of 4-year colleges and universities in the USA was stratified by two characteristics—size/degree level and control. A total of 80 institutions were selected from among four strata (defined by large/graduate, small/undergraduate, public, private) and their faculty lists secured. Having determined the proportion of academic staff in the population in each of the four institutional strata so defined (see above), a random sample of faculty was selected within each institutional stratum so as to approximate their proportions in the population. This approach yielded a total sample of 5,772 faculty at eighty 4-year colleges and universities across the USA.

2.6

Development of the Survey Instrument

Several sets of considerations underlay the design of the survey instrument. In terms of item content, the design sought to include a critical mass of questions related to each of the CAP project’s three major themes: relevance, internationalization, and managerialism. The items on managerialism which included perceptions of the power and influence in campus decision-making (governance) of various internal and external constituencies, institutional policies and practices on budgeting, evaluation of academic personnel, their teaching and research, and faculty self-perceptions of their own power and influence in their institutions and local academic units were consolidated in one of six sections of the survey. Items related to faculty internationalization, on the other hand, were distributed over what became separate sections on faculty teaching and research activities, respectively, as well as on a career history and mobility and on their demographic background (including citizenship and educational background). Similarly, items related to the “relevance” theme were distributed over the separate sections on faculty teaching and research activities as well as over their career history. A copy of the paper version of the instrument is included in Sect. 11.1.

20

2

Concepts and Methods

A second set of considerations focused on to assess change over time on a wide variety of dimensions of academic work and careers. We identified at least three approaches to assessing change: (1) questions that directly inquired about changes or the degree of change since the respondent’s initial entry into full-time academic work, (2) questions in 2007/2008 that replicated word for word those asked in the earlier 1992 Carnegie International surveys which would allow for direct comparisons between years, and (3) disaggregating responses to 2007 survey items by career age (stage) to allow for generational comparisons.6 In the first case, we planned to cross tabulate perceptions of change with respondent career age (stage), allowing us to align level of perceived change with years of experience in the profession (effectively partialing out any “experience” effect). In the case of repeated earlier questions, we sought in particular to include verbatim a number of items directly from the 1992–1993 First International Survey of the Academic Profession conducted by Philip Altbach and Ernest Boyer under the auspices of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. This would allow for comparisons across countries on the very same items (Altbach 1996). Finally, based on the earlier work of Finkelstein et al. (1998), we sought to apply what had proved to be an illuminating lens of generational analysis to the assessment and interpretation of change. A third set of considerations stemmed directly from the comparative focus on the project. In order to draw comparisons across national systems, we needed to pose questions that allowed for the development of common metrics and equivalencies across national systems. That required us to pose questions in a form or format that would be answerable across very different contexts and systems. Thus, for example, we allowed each national team to specify their own national systems for academic rank, and based on these national designations, we later were able to group positions in terms of senior rank versus junior rank. A final set of considerations concerned survey length. Previous experience with national surveys had suggested that an instrument requiring any more than 30–40 min for completion would seriously depress response rates. We strove therefore to limit the length of the instrument— cutting out questions that were deemed nonessential. The copy of the final US instrument is attached as Sect. 11.1. The 19 CAP countries agreed to a core set of items that defined a common instrument employed by all 19 national teams. Individual countries were allowed, however, to supplement the common instrument with questions deemed especially critical or relevant to their individual system. The US, Canada, and Mexico teams in light of the recent NAFTA and GATT treaties sought to include a number of questions focused specifically on academic collaboration across these internal North American boundaries.

6

Such differences may, of course, reflect differences between historical generations in their values and perceptions quite beyond any differences in actual descriptive conditions.

2.7

Data Collection

2.7

21

Data Collection

The US team contracted with the Research Services Division of SPSS Corp. (the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) to program and host the online American English version of the CAP survey. The survey link with an individually coded identifier was e-mailed to all 5,772 faculty on October 3, 2007. A copy of the letter of invitation is included as Sect. 11.2. A total of five reminders were sent out electronically between October 15 and December 7, 2007. In March 2008, a paper version of the survey was mailed to approximately 1,000 of the nonrespondents in an effort to capture additional responses from those who were unwilling to respond to an online survey.

2.7.1

Response Rate

Ultimately, a total of 1,146 responses were received from faculty at 78 institutions for an effective response rate of 21.4%. Table 2.2 below provides a comparison of our respondents to the entire sample. It suggests that our respondents mirror the basic distribution of the sample between research universities and other 4-year institutions. Among other 4-year institutions, however, faculty at doctoral-granting universities tend to be overrepresented among respondents (32.2% vs. 17.6% in the sample) and faculty at baccalaureate colleges tend to be underrepresented among respondents (3.5% vs. 10.4% in the faculty sample). Faculty at public institutions are slightly overrepresented among respondents (67.1%) compared to the sample (62.4%), and faculty in the private sector slightly underrepresented among respondents (32.9%) compared to the faculty sample (37.6%). Based on these findings, the data file was weighted to ensure that respondents represented the distribution of US faculty across institutional types. Recent work by Groves (2006) and Groves and Peytcheva (2008) has reinforced the notion that visibly low response rates do not necessarily indicate sample bias. Indeed, they recently proposed a number of strategies to test for sample bias in

Table 2.2 US faculty sample and respondents by institutional type Institutional sample Faculty sample Institution type Total Public Private N Percent Research universities 29 21 8 2,718 47.1 Other 4 year 51 26 25 3,054 52.9 Doctor granting 11 6 5 1,014 17.6 Master offering 28 17 11 1,440 24.9 Baccalaureate 12 3 9 600 10.4 All 80 47 33 5,772 100 Source: 2009 CAP US data file

Respondents Total Percent 499 46.0 585 54.0 349 32.2 260 24.0 38 3.5 1,084 100.0

22

2

Concepts and Methods

Table 2.3 US faculty sample estimates and population parameters (in percent) CAP (weighted) CAP (unweighted) Gender: female 37.8 41.9 Institutional type: research + PhD 67.0 74.0 Discipline: natural science + engineering 28.2 23.0 Appointment type: tenure/track 72.0 82.9 Rank: full + associate 55.0 64.9

NSOPF 2004 37.4 65.1 29.9 75.6 54.5

Source: 2009 CAP US data file; NSOPF04

studies with relatively low response rates. Two of their proposed strategies were particularly appropriate for this study. They include (1) comparing basic frequencies of demographic and career variables as well as bivariate measures of association between the focal study and more robust, large sample studies in the literature; and (2) comparing frequency and cross tabulations between the weighted and unweighted files of the focal study in order to determine the magnitude and significance of the differences between the two data files. To the extent that differences are minimal, the inferences, they argue, can be made that sample bias is not affecting the findings. For the first set of comparisons, we examined the following variable values in our focal study in both unweighted and weighted data files and compared their values to the population estimates obtained from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, 2004: gender (% female), institutional type (% research university), academic rank (% associate and full professors), type of appointment (% tenured or tenure eligible), and academic field (% natural sciences and engineering). As reported in Table 2.3, we found that the weighted sample of respondents for this study approximates the parameters of the national faculty population as estimated by the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 2004 with respect to gender, academic field, type of appointment, academic rank, and institutional type. We conclude that in our US survey, our relatively low response rate of 21.4% was not associated with significant sample bias.

2.8 2.8.1

Data Coding and Analysis Coding

An international code book was created for the core survey by a team of research associates at the INCHER at Kassel University in Germany. A copy of the international code book is included as Sect. 11.3. Requirements for international comparability of the various national data files, including the US dataset, required a number of coding modifications to accommodate differences in terminology across national systems. Thus, for example, differences in how various national systems operationalize academic ranks required that we collapse academic rank categories in the US data file to

2.8

Data Coding and Analysis

23

senior (associate and full professor) and junior (assistant professor and others). Similarly, despite the rather high level of institutional differentiation in the US system by international standards,7 the institutional-type variables were dichotomized as university— specifically including Research I and II universities and PhD-granting I and II universities in the traditional Carnegie scheme (Carnegie 1994)—and other 4-year institutions.8

2.8.2

Data Analysis

Basic frequencies were computed on all items from the weighted data file. Those frequencies are reported in chapter 11.3. Beyond these basic frequencies, cross tabulations of focal variables in any given analysis were computed against some key control variables, including institutional type (coded as indicated above), academic field, gender, and type of appointment (tenured or tenure track versus limited term). Beyond such basic descriptive statistics, several of the analyses reported in this volume—notably those in Chaps. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9—included the use of regression analysis. The details of those analyses are described in the individual chapters.

2.8.3

Missing Data

The online survey was “programmed” by SPSS personnel to require that respondents answer all questions on a given screen before they were allowed to proceed to the next screen. Moreover, built into the programming were minimum and maximum allowable values for various individual items as well as consistency checks between items so that, for example, respondents entering an “out-of-range” value were so advised and asked to recheck their response once before accepting the value entered. Or, as another example, the respondent could not enter a year of their first academic appointment that preceded their year of birth. When such inconsistencies were identified, respondents were alerted and asked to change one or another of their responses. While this programming approach—together with the substantial length of the survey—irritated many respondents, and ipso facto depressed response rates,9 it yielded two immeasurable benefits in terms of data quality: there was virtually no missing data among respondents who completed at least four of the six sections

7

Reflected historically in the nine-step classification of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the myriad missions of institutions carrying the label of university in the United States as compared to the much clearer and more singular meaning of the term university in most other national systems. 8 We also included a third category for all 2-year institutions granting the associate degree or less, but these cases are excluded from the analysis in this volume. 9 We received emails from 60 odd respondents indicating that they were unhappy with those constraints and chose to abandon the survey rather than complete it under such conditions. Based on those emails, we estimate that the irritation factor as a depressor of response rate was modest.

24

2

Concepts and Methods

in the survey instrument (the threshold we employed for including respondents in the dataset), and there were no anomalous values to individual items that required that such responses be recoded as “no answer.”

2.9

Summary

While the 2007 Changing Academic Profession survey represents in some sense a 15-year follow-up to the original 1991–1992 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s survey of the International Academic Profession, and involved many of the same investigators among participating nations, nonetheless, it is distinguishable in terms both of its distinctive focus on change and its foundation in a theoretical conception of change and in the exploration of three a priori defined substantive dimensions of change: relevance, internationalization, and managerialism. All 19 nations employed a similar two-stage sampling frame and agreed to a minimal sample size, a substantial set of common questions asked in the same way, in the same time frame, and with the same basic response categories—differing only in language. Given wide variation in Internet access, funding levels, the majority of nations employed a paper and pencil survey and used mail or in-person distribution and collection. The USA was one of three nations (Canada and Korea being the others) to employ an online survey. The survey was programmed and hosted by SPSS Research Services and elicited about 1,100 responses from an effective sample of about 5,000.10 While the response rate of 21.4% appeared at first blush to be small, it was in line with the norms of what social scientists report as the typical response rate to online in contradistinction to paper and pencil surveys. Moreover, a subsequent analysis comparing respondents to population allowed us to weight respondents to approximate very closely some major population parameters. While many of the analyses are descriptive and employ simple cross tabulations, several types of multivariate regression analyses have been undertaken to allow for some wellfounded inferences to the larger population of American academics.

References Altbach, P. G. (Ed.). (1996). The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation. Astin, A. (1985). Achieving academic excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice (Vols. I and II). Sterling: Stylus Publishing. Carnegie Council for Policy Studies. (1994). A classification of institutions of higher education. New York: McGraw Hall.

10

By effective sample, we simply mean the number of surveys that were actually delivered to faculty university inboxes (and not spammed) and the proportion of those that were returned.

References

25

Fairweather, J. S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 401–422. Finkelstein, M., Seal, R. K., & Schuster, J. H. (1998). The new academic generation: A profession in transformation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Groves, R. M. (2006). Non-response rates and non-response bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 646–675. Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of non-response rates on non-response bias: A meta analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(Summer 2008), 167–189.

Chapter 3

The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics

3.1

Introduction: The Arbiters of Faculty Work Life

In 1987, the late Burton (Clark 1987) proposed an elegantly parsimonious sociology of the American academic profession: academic work life in the USA, he argued, was “nested” in a matrix defined, on the one hand, by the type of institution in which a professor worked and, on the other, by the academic discipline or field in which s/he received their doctoral training. Each cell in this matrix defined a slightly different variation on the academic work role—substantially predictable based on only these two factors. The work role variable to which Clark was referring included prominently the balance between teaching and research (in terms of actual time and effort allocation), the type of research undertaken (e.g., basic vs. applied), the form and quantity of publications produced (e.g., research notes, journals articles vs. books; sole vs. multiple authorships), the work venue (e.g., laboratory, office, library, home office), etc. The notion was simple enough: individual academic fields provided distinctive and enduring educational socialization experiences during doctoral training that were “carried over” into the subsequent career, and these were reenforced and/or reshaped at the margins by the expectations and organizational structures of the institutional settings in which they pursued their work. From a comparative perspective, this second order institution level, in-service socialization component was what distinguished the American system from other national systems typically characterized by a more basic uniformity in work settings—that is, a university is a university is a university. From the moment of its initial articulation, this “matrix theory” of the academic profession gained wide currency as a cogent macrolevel lens through which to understand US faculty work activities and behavior. In the ensuing quarter century, however, American higher education has undergone what many consider a radical transformation and/or restructuring (Schuster and Finkelstein 2006; Slaughter and Rhoades 2004) in several respects. Most generally, it has witnessed something of a blurring of the lines of demarcation among types of institutions as the research

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4_3, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

27

28

3

The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

university model (research dollars and publications as the desideratum of academic quality), including expectations that all faculty engage in research and publish, has diffused broadly throughout the system’s 4-year sector. Former liberal arts colleges are adding Master’s programs, and former comprehensive institutions are adding doctoral programs and seeking (or adopting) “university” status. This increasing homogenization of research expectations could certainly threaten to attenuate differences in teaching and research balance attributable historically to institutional type. Second, the last quarter has seen a radical “marketization” of academic fields in the university, that is, academic fields have grown and prospered inside the university in direct proportion to their role and commercial value outside it—in the new knowledge-based economy of the twenty-first century. Those fields that generate resources outside university walls (science and technology-based) and must compete with industry for faculty talent have prospered, while those that compete less well commercially have faltered. That has led some observers to conclude that universities have become bifurcated institutions academically—divided between the “haves” and the “have nots” (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). It is not clear to what extent this commercial stratification of the academic menu has intensified or attenuated differences among disciplines overall or between disciplines within one or another of the new stratification cells. Distinct from, albeit related to, these trends in institutional homogenization and academic field commodification are trends in the restructuring of academic appointments and the demographics of the faculty workforce. Gappa and Leslie (1993), Baldwin and Chronister (2001), Schuster and Finkelstein (2006), Cross and Goldenberg (2009), and Kezar and Sam (2010) have all heralded the ascent of contingent faculty appointments in the USA: the rise first of part-time (in the 1970s and 1980s) and then (in the 1990s and 2000s) of full-time nontenure-track appointments—across institutional types and academic fields. While these appointments differ most obviously in their duration and permanence, they differ substantively in their specialization of function: that is, they focus incumbent work activities on a single one of the typical triumvirate of faculty functions in the post–World War II American university; either teaching (predominantly), research (usually related to federal grants), or service (related to directing new academic programs, frequently with an off-campus or distance learning component). To the extent that a “new” majority of faculty in US colleges are now holding appointments that limit their responsibilities to, for example, only one of the historic faculty functions, e.g., teaching, suggests, at the least, that one other variable may need to be added to Clark’s faculty work prediction equation (a three-dimensional matrix?). And then, there is the matter of gender.1 The final macro trend of the past quarter century in American (indeed, global) higher education is its increasing feminization. In 1969, about one quarter of American professors were women; by 2008, that overall figure had reached about 38%. Moreover, among new entrants to the US academic 1

Race/ethnicity and foreign born are two additional demographic variables that influence work life, as discussed in Chap. 5 below; however, at least through the time of the 2007 CAP survey, the influence of these variables on work life was overshadowed by the salience of gender.

3.3

Data Source and Method

29

workforce today, nearly half (about 45%) are women. In certain fields of the humanities (English, foreign languages), softer social sciences (psychology, history), and the professions (education, social work, nursing, and many of the allied health professions), the majority of instructional faculty are now women. This demographic shift becomes salient when we consider that social science research in the past half century has documented the decisive role of gender in shaping academic work and careers (Finkelstein 1984; Finkelstein, Seal and Schuster 1998): women are more oriented to teaching than men and less oriented to research; they allocate more of their time to teaching, are more student centered than men, they publish less, etc. To the extent that they are an increasing presence in the workforce and to the extent that their historically documented work life differences vis-a-vis men persist, then it would appear that gender—as well as type of appointment—may need to be added to institutional type and academic field (assuming the latter’s salience persists) as determinants of the work life of the “new” American professor.

3.2

Purpose of the Proposed Study

In light of the original “Clarkian” principles and the potentially transformative academic trends we have noted in the intervening years, the purpose of this chapter is to test the extent to which Clark’s formulation still obtains or whether his original formulation needs to be expanded to include the “new” potential predictors of type of appointment and gender as arbiters of the shaping of academic work, in particular the balance that faculty strike between their teaching and research responsibilities. To be precise, we will address the following questions: • To what extent do institutional type and discipline continue to shape academic work in much the same powerful way as Clark described in 1987? • To what extent have type of appointment and gender emerged as an additional set of organizing principles for academic work in the USA?

3.3

Data Source and Method

For purposes of addressing the research questions above, we sought to compare US faculty responses in 1992 and 2007 on five common survey items that serve as indicators of the faculty work role—weekly hours spent in teaching and weekly hours spent in research, total weekly work hours, reported orientation to teaching vs. research, and articles published over the past 3 years—and disaggregate those responses by institutional type, academic field, type of appointment, and gender. Specifically, we sought to determine whether interinstitutional and interdisciplinary differences in the above work activities in 1992 were larger, smaller, or about the same as those in 2007. Were those institutional type and interdisciplinary differences affected when type of appointment or gender were controlled—in either 1992

30

3

The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

or 2007? Were there systematic differences in work activities by type of appointment and gender in 1992 or 2007? If so, how large were those differences, especially relative to those associated with institutional type and academic field? In either year (1992 or 2002), were any differences greater, lesser, or the same for new entrants than for experienced faculty?2

3.3.1

Dependent Variables

Five identical items were selected from the 1992 Carnegie survey and the 2007 CAP survey to serve as dimensions of the teaching and research balance within the faculty work role. These included: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Total self-reported weekly work hours Total weekly self-reported hours spent in teaching Total weekly self-reported hours spent in research Self-reported orientation to teaching vs. research (ranging from heavily in research to heavily in teaching) 5. Self-reported published articles in the last 3 years

3.3.2

Independent Variables

For both surveys, we employed the same independent variables: institutional type, academic field, gender, appointment type, and career stage. While the options for institutional type varied somewhat across the two surveys, we dichotomized the institutional type variable for both 1992 and 2007 into universities (including research and doctoral granting) and other 4 years. For academic field, we categorized the data for both 1992 and 2007 into the following four clusters: life and medical sciences, physical sciences and engineering, humanities and social sciences, and others, including the professions. The type of appointment variable was dichotomized as either tenured or tenure-track (career ladder) or contract (nonladder). For career stage, we used the traditional 7-year probationary period as the criterion to dichotomize respondents into two subgroups: new entrants (7 years or less since first full-time appointment) and senior faculty (including what are usually considered mid-career faculty, i.e., those who have spent 8 years or more in the profession).

2

In Finkelstein, Seal and Schuster’s The New Academic Generation (Johns Hopkins 1998), it was shown that new trends that were barely discernible in aggregate data became striking when that same data was disaggregated by year of entry to the academic profession, that is, that new developments clearly affecting new recruits might be largely hidden by aggregate data.

3.4

Prologue to Results: Trends in Academic Work, 1970–1992

3.3.3

31

Data Analysis

The data analysis proceeded in two stages: a descriptive stage and a multivariate stage as follows: Descriptive. For each dimension of the faculty work role in each bookend year, cross tabulations were computed by each independent variable categorized as above. The cross tabulations were then compared for observable trends. Inferential. A series of logistic regression analyses were undertaken for each of the five outcome (dependent) variables. Each logistic regression analysis included three models: an initial model that tested the effects of institutional type and academic field only, a second model to which appointment type and career stage were added, and a third model to which gender was added. In the process of generating the correlation matrix upon which the regression analyses were conducted, appropriate tests for multicollinearity among predictor variables were conducted.

3.4

Prologue to Results: Trends in Academic Work, 1970–1992

Before proceeding directly to an examination of the results, it seems necessary by way of establishing the context for interpreting these findings to locate for the reader the status of the teaching vs. research balance in the US faculty role for the period immediate prior to the 15 years period examined here: the period from about 1970–1992 in which American higher education’s golden age had begun receding and had been replaced by a period of fiscal constraint and reexamination and assessment. If the 1992 Carnegie survey provides the “baseline” for the current study, we need to provide the reader a sense of the “baseline” that those undertaking the 1992 Carnegie survey had when they took their snapshot of faculty work. We try to do so by using data from earlier US national surveys to provide an overview of the two decades prior to the Carnegie survey. In the early 1970s, faculty in the USA reported about a 40–42-h work week in national surveys—a figure that rose sharply by late 1980s, to close to 50 h (with perhaps one out of four reporting 55 or more weekly hours). Most of that rise was attributable to an increase in research hours and publication activity; indeed, the overall rise masked a slight decline in weekly teaching hours. This trend represented the widespread diffusion of the research model throughout the 4-year sector of American higher education. This is the period when college rankings, especially by US News and World Report, made their debut and focused attention on factors such as faculty credentials, external research dollars generated, and faculty publications as key factors in attracting the best students and driving campus positions in the ratings game (Wildavsky 2010). It is also the period when student consumerism received its biggest boost—the 1972 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 targeting individual students rather than institutions as the recipients of

32

3

The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

federal scholarship grants. Ultimately, the confluence of these developments led to unfettered pursuit by students of the most highly rated colleges and reenforced institutional jockeying for ever better positions in the prestige race. The early 1990s saw something of a “teaching” correction in American higher education. The decade opened with the publication of Ernest Boyer’s widely influential Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (Boyer, 1990). That volume decried the knee-jerk embrace of research and decried its displacement of teaching as the overriding focus of most 4-year institutions, and it provided a conceptual framework and rationale for expanding conceptions of faculty research and scholarship to include “the scholarship of teaching.” That clarion call was supported by the increasing disaffection of state legislators and other public officials with undergraduate education that was increasingly relegated to graduate teaching assistants and other part-time faculty. In several states, these concerns effectively translated into higher teaching loads or at least the enforcement of legal teaching loads and a concomitant decline in research effort (facilitated, too, by a concurrent decline in federal research support). These trends were reflected in a stabilization or slight regression to earlier (i.e., lower) levels of weekly work hours—mostly at the expense of research hours. This was the context into which the 1992 Carnegie survey introduced itself. And now, thus armed, we turn to those results.

3.5

Findings

3.5.1

Descriptive Results

Table 3.1 below reports overall weekly work hours, weekly hours in teaching and in research, teaching vs. research orientation, and publications for US faculty in 1992 and 2007. These data appear to confirm the sort of “teaching correction” post-1990 we postulated in the preceding section: weekly time devoted to teaching increased by 12%, and research time declined by more than 27% in the 15-year period, thus allowing for an actual decline in total weekly work hours despite the teaching effort uptick. This reallocation of effort is reflected in a slight decline in reported orientation to research and a substantial decline in reported publication activity.

3.5.1.1

Institutional Type

When we examine differences in teaching and research effort between institutional types in both 1992 and 2007 (Table 3.2), we find a consistent pattern of difference between research and nonresearch institutions in each year: faculty in research institutions spend less time in teaching than their “other four-year” counterparts, they are more research oriented, they publish much more and work longer hours.

3.5

Findings

33

Table 3.1 Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) 1992 2007 % Change n = 3,300 n = 1,066 (1992–2007) Mean teaching hours, weekly 18.7 20.9 +12.0 Mean research hours, weekly 16.5 11.9 −27.8 Mean total work hours, weekly 50.9 47.7 −6.3 Teaching or research: % teaching oriented 49.2 57.0 +7.8 Teaching or research: % research oriented 50.8 43.0 −7.8 Mean articles for the last 3 years 6.4 4.1 −36.1 Source: Altbach (1996); CAP (2009)

Moreover, the magnitude of the institutional type differences appears to remain equally large, suggesting that type of institution continues to play a formative role in shaping the character of faculty work. In an effort to detect whether any more subtle changes in the power of institutional type may be operating for certain faculty subgroups (but not others) and thus be effectively masked in the aggregated analyses, we sought to repeat the cross tabulation of institutional type and faculty work activities, controlling for career stage. The hypothesis here was that if indeed there was some attenuation in the effect of institutional type on faculty work, it should be most noticeable among the most recent faculty hires. Table 3.3 reports the effect of institutional type and work activities for faculty in the first 7 years of their career only, that is, typical probationary faculty in their first academic appointment. The data here show that while among new hires, the basic pattern of difference in both teaching effort, research effort, and orientation between research and nonresearch institutions remains, differences in total weekly work effort between institutional types virtually disappear, and publication differentials are cut in half. This suggests that the spread of the competitive research and publication ethos throughout the 4-year sector described earlier may indeed be manifesting itself if not yet in allocation of time to research, then in efforts to increase the tangible products of research—scholarly publications.

3.5.1.2

Academic Discipline

Table 3.4 shows weekly hours for teaching, research, and all activities, research orientation and publication in 1992 and 2007 for faculty in four clusters of academic fields: (1) the life and medical sciences; (2) the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering; (3) the humanities and social sciences; and (4) other fields, including the professions (health sciences as well as law, architecture, education, and business). In 1992, the position of the four disciplinary clusters is roughly as expected: faculty in the natural sciences (life sciences and physical sciences combined) spend less time teaching, more on research, work more hours overall, are more research oriented, and publish nearly twice as much as their colleagues in the humanities and

3

Table 3.2 Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by institutional type: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) 1992 2007 % Difference % Difference Other 4 years Research (research vs. Other 4 years Research (research vs. (n = 980) (n = 2370) other 4 years) (n = 611) (n = 475) other 4 years) Mean teaching hours, weekly 23.4 16.7 −28.7 24.2 18.2 −24.8 Mean research hours, weekly 11.1 18.6 +7.5 9.1 16.3 +80.2 Mean total work hours, weekly 47.8 52.2 +9.1 47.2 50.3 +6.6 Teaching or research: % teaching oriented 73.9 38.9 −35.0 72.8 37.7 −35.1 Teaching or research: % research oriented 26.1 61.1 +35.0 27.2 62.3 +35.1 Mean articles for the last 3 years 3.3 7.5 +126.8 3.0 6.4 +109.2 Source: Altbach (1996); CAP (2009)

34 The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

Table 3.3 Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by institutional type: new entrants only, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) 1992 2007 % Difference % Difference Other 4 years Research (research vs. Other 4 years (research vs. (n = 260) (n = 560) other 4 years) (n = 177) Research (109) other 4 years) Mean teaching hours, weekly 22.4 16.4 −26.9 26.1 19.6 −24.7 Mean research hours, weekly 10.2 20.5 101.8 9.8 18.5 +89.0 Mean total work hours, weekly 42.7 52.7 23.4 48.9 49.3 +0.9 Teaching or research: % teaching oriented 69.2 37.5 −31.7 67.5 32.4 −35.1 Teaching or research: % research oriented 30.8 62.5 31.7 32.5 67.6 +35.1 Mean articles for the last 3 years 2.4 5.9 146.1 2.6 4.6 +74.4 Source: Altbach (1996); CAP (2009)

3.5 Findings 35

Table 3.4 Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by discipline: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) 1992 2007 Life and Life and medical Physics and Social sciences medical Physics and Social sciences sciences engineering and humanities Professions sciences engineering and humanities Professions n » 1,035 n » 590 n » 1,025 n » 675 n » 230 n » 195 n » 333 n » 300 Mean Teaching hours, 13.4 20.0 21.6 21.1 18.8 19.2 22.5 22.0 weekly Mean research hours, 18.5 19.4 14.7 13.3 12.6 14.2 12.0 9.8 weekly Mean total work hours, 52.5 51.8 49.2 50.1 48.8 47.8 48.0 46.7 weekly Teaching or research:% 42.7 40.4 52.0 62.7 53.9 52.3 54.0 65.8 teaching oriented Teaching or research: % 57.3 59.6 48.0 37.3 46.1 47.7 46.0 34.2 research oriented Mean articles for the 8.6 7.8 4.2 4.7 5.5 5.3 3.1 3.3 last 3 years Source: Altbach (1996); CAP (2009)

36 3 The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

3.5

Findings

37

social sciences and other fields, including the professions (although the relative position of the life and physical sciences changes slightly from item to item). By 2007, the basic pattern persists, with, however, some notable exceptions: the gap in overall work hours and research hours favoring natural scientists (the former, a function primarily of their greater effort allocated to the latter) narrows as do differences in research orientation and, to a lesser extent, publications. While disciplinary differences remain, they appear, like differences attributable to institutional type, to be somewhat attenuated.

3.5.1.3

Gender

Table 3.5 displays gender differences in the focal faculty role activities in 1992 and 2007. The pattern that emerges in both 1992 and 2007 is largely as expected: men spend less time in teaching and more time in research than their female colleagues; they are more oriented to research and publish much more. Two points are worthy of note. First, the magnitude of the differences between the genders seems smaller than between the institutional types and academic fields overall. Second, the differences are especially small in overall weekly hours devoted to work (indeed by 2007, women reported working longer hours than men), and the gender disparity in publications seems to narrow by 2007. In an effort to further locate and analyze these gender differences, Table 3.6 shows the gender differences on the five focal work dimensions for research university faculty only (controlling for institutional type), and Table 3.7 shows the gender differences controlling for academic discipline. The message of Table 3.6 is clear: at research universities (vis-à-vis the general institutional population), gender differences have to some extent always been attenuated, but, more to the point, by 2007, gender differences in weekly hours devoted to work, research orientation, and publications had virtually disappeared. The data in Table 3.7 suggest that in no small part the attenuation of gender differences in research orientation and publications is likely attributable to women faculty in the humanities and social sciences and the professions who have largely eliminated any gender disparities in publication in those fields. These findings are largely consistent with the trends in faculty research productivity noted by Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) in their recent overview of the evidence gleaned from more than three decades of national faculty surveys in the USA.

3.5.1.4

Type of Appointment

Table 3.8 shows the differences in the focal faculty role activities in 1992 and 2007 by type of appointment: tenured and tenure-track (often referred to as career ladder) vs. nontenure-track (nonladder). The pattern of differences in 1992 is minimal in all but two respects: most notably, there is a sharp differential in publication activity in the expected direction with tenured and tenure-track faculty out publishing their

3

Table 3.5 Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by gender: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) 1992 2007 Female Male Female Male % Difference % Difference n » 880 n » 2,400 (male vs. female) n » 400 n » 650 (male vs. female) Mean Teaching hours, weekly 20.6 18.0 −12.3 22.5 20.0 −11.2 Mean research hours, weekly 13.5 17.5 +29.5 10.3 13.0 +27.0 Mean total work hours, weekly 49.9 51.3 +2.7 48.5 47.4 −2.2 Teaching or research: % teaching oriented 57.2 46.3 −10.9 63.6 53.3 −9.3 Teaching or research: % research oriented 42.8 53.7 +10.9 37.4 46.7 +9.3 Mean articles for the last 3 years 4.3 7.1 +67.6 3.5 4.5 +29.7 Source: Altbach (1996); CAP (2009)

38 The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

Table 3.6 Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by gender: US research university faculty only, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) 1992 2007 Female Male Female Male % Difference % Difference n » 570 n » 1,780 (male vs. female) n » 168 n » 302 (male vs. female) Mean teaching hours, weekly 18.0 16.3 −9.5 19.4 17.5 −9.7 Mean research hours, weekly 16.4 19.4 +18.5 15.2 17.0 +11.6 Mean total work hours, weekly 52.0 52.2 +0.4 50.6 50.3 −0.7 Teaching or research: % teaching oriented 44.4 37.1 −7.3 38.4 36.8 −1.6 Teaching or research: % research oriented 55.6 62.9 +7.3 61.6 63.2 +1.6 Mean articles for the last 3 years 5.4 8.2 +52.8 6.2 6.5 +5.5 Source: Altbach (1996); CAP (2009)

3.5 Findings 39

Source: Altbach (1996); CAP (2009)

2007 Mean teaching hours, weekly Mean research hours, weekly Mean total work hours, weekly Teaching or research: % teaching oriented Teaching or research: % research oriented Mean articles for the last 3 years 29.2

59.0 5.5

32.5

3.9

3.7

Physics and engineering F n » 46 20.9 9.4 47.5 70.8

4.4

54.2

M n » 159 18.3 14.7 48.4 45.8

2.5

45.9

3.5

46.6

Social sciences and humanities F M n » 132 n » 202 21.5 22.6 10.6 12.4 45.5 48.8 54.1 53.4

3.2

37.4

2.7

32.4

Other fields (including professions) F M n » 112 n » 192 23.5 20.0 10.3 9.4 50.3 42.6 62.6 67.6

3

Life and medical sciences F M n » 121 n » 126 21.4 15.6 9.6 13.9 47.7 49.4 67.5 41.0

Table 3.7 Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by discipline and gender (F female, M male): all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) Life and medical Physics and Social sciences Other fields sciences engineering and humanities (including professions) F M F M F M F M 1992 n » 320 n » 793 n » 58 n » 553 n » 326 n » 737 n » 230 n » 476 Mean teaching hours, weekly 15.6 12.4 23.7 19.3 22.6 20.5 21.4 20.5 Mean research hours, weekly 13.8 17.0 14.7 17.9 11.9 14.9 11.2 13.5 Mean total work hours, weekly 49.4 52.2 49.7 51.4 48.3 48.5 48.7 49.4 Teaching or research: % teaching 49.5 39.8 58.5 38.6 56.1 50.2 69.4 59.5 oriented Teaching or research: % research 50.5 60.2 41.5 61.4 43.9 49.8 30.6 40.5 oriented Mean articles for the last 3 years 5.3 8.4 4.4 7.3 3.3 4.2 3.0 4.4

40 The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

Table 3.8 Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by appointment type: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) 1992 2007 % Difference % Difference Contract Tenured/track Contract Tenured/track (tenured/track (tenured/track vs. contract) n » 704 n » 2,804 n » 360 n » 718 vs. contract) Mean teaching hours, weekly 17.0 18.7 +9.9 20.0 20.6 +3 Mean research hours, weekly 14.6 15.2 +4.3 8.5 12.8 +51.2 Mean total work hours, weekly 49.3 50.3 +2.1 43.8 48.8 +11.4 Teaching or research: % teaching oriented 48.0 49.5 +1.5 70.7 49.6 −21.1 Teaching or research: % research oriented 52.0 50.5 −1.5 29.3 50.4 +21.1 Mean articles for the last 3 years 4.5 6.0 +32.7 2.3 4.2 +80.2 Source: Altbach (1996); CAP (2009)

3.5 Findings 41

42

3

The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

contract colleagues by nearly 50%, and somewhat incongruously, it is the contract faculty that taught nearly 10% less than the tenured and tenure-track faculty.3 There is little appreciable difference in either orientation to teaching vs. research or in weekly effort devoted to research. By 2007, both the scope and absolute magnitude of differences in role activities had strikingly expanded: large differences were discernible in all areas except weekly teaching hours, including a decided gap in research orientation, weekly research effort, and the previous publication gap between appointment types had increased. This suggests that relatively muted differences had developed into a substantial work role differential by 2007. When we examine the scope and magnitude of the role activities gap controlling for career stage (Table 3.9), we find that new entrants in 1992 largely reflected the aggregate (except for a decidedly smaller gap in publication activity), while in 2007, the gap between contract and tenured/tenureable faculty among new entrants vis-àvis more senior faculty had expanded especially in the areas of weekly research effort and publication, (although inexplicably contract faculty also seem to teach 10% less than their tenureable colleagues). This suggests—at least with respect to research effort and publication activity—that the accentuation of appointment type differences was especially visible among the newest entrants to the profession. The data in Table 3.10 which controls for institutional type shows that the appointment type–related gap in work activities is largely replicated in research universities— where differences in research effort, weekly work hours, and research orientation persist among different types of full-time faculty appointees, while the gap in publication activity is somewhat attenuated. This suggests that irrespective of appointment type, there is a modestly durable institutional type effect. Table 3.11 shows the work role gap in 1992 and 2007 for contract vs. tenureable faculty by gender. There are few surprises in the overall data, with a few notable exceptions: the persistent gender gap in weekly teaching and research effort and in orientation to research that is visible in the aggregate (Table 3.10) and among tenured and tenuretrack faculty in 2007 and appears to persist across both institutional type (Table 3.6) and academic field (Table 3.7) largely disappears among contract faculty in 2007. Male contract faculty teach about the same amount—20 h weekly—in 2007 as female contract faculty and spend about the same amount of time—9 h weekly—in research, and the gender gap in research orientation is the lowest among any faculty subgroup defined by institutional type, academic field, and type of appointment. This is in stark contrast to the gender gap for tenured and tenure-track faculty which remains relatively large in 2007. The only area in which the gender gap among contract faculty surpasses that of tenured and tenure-track faculty is in publication activity where men out publish women by nearly 40%. That type of appointment appears to neutralize the persistent effects of gender on work role definition suggests clearly—and persuasively—that appointment type may now serve as an independent arbiter of work role definition. 3

This unexpected (at least in terms of direction) teaching differential may reflect the disproportionate number of contract faculty in this earlier period with research as their principal activity, especially at the research universities. Such faculty typically teach much less (Schuster and Finkelstein 2006).

Table 3.9 Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by appointment type: US new entrants only, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) 1992 2007 % Difference % Difference Contract Tenured/track Contract Tenured/track (tenured/track (tenured/track n » 375 n » 479 vs. contract) n » 155 n » 159 vs. contract) Mean teaching hours, weekly 17.2 18.6 +8.2 20.3 22.8 +12 Mean research hours, weekly 15.6 15.3 −2.1 8.8 14.3 +61.7 Mean total work hours, weekly 49.6 47.8 −3.7 44.3 49.6 +11.9 Teaching or research: % teaching oriented 43.4 51.2 +7.8 70.8 47.1 −23.7 Teaching or research: % research oriented 56.6 48.8 −7.8 29.2 52.9 +23.7 Mean articles for the last 3 years 4.3 4.9 +13.5 1.9 3.6 +89.8 Source: Altbach (1996); CAP (2009)

3.5 Findings 43

3

Source: Altbach (1996); CAP (2009)

Table 3.10 Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by appointment type: US research university faculty only, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) 1992 2007 % Difference % Difference Contract Tenured/track Contract Tenured/track (tenured/track (tenured/track n » 496 n » 1,995 vs. contract) n » 97 n » 394 vs. contract) Mean teaching hours, weekly 14.9 16.9 +14.0 16.6 18.3 +10.1 Mean research hours, weekly 16.3 16.9 +3.7 11 16.5 +50.1 Mean total work hours, weekly 50.9 51.4 +1.0 44.8 51.1 +14 Teaching or research: % teaching oriented 40.3 38.6 −1.7 60.8 31.2 −29.6 Teaching or research: % research oriented 59.7 61.4 +1.7 39.2 68.9 +29.7 Mean articles for the last 3 years 5.27 7.05 +33.8 4.1 6.02 +46.8

44 The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

Table 3.11 Weekly hours in teaching and research, role orientation, and publications by appointment type and gender (F female, M male): all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (percent or mean) 1992 2007 Contract Tenure/track Contract Tenured/track F M F M F M F M n » 263 n » 438 n » 673 n » 2128 n » 154 n » 197 n » 245 n » 469 Mean teaching hours, weekly 19.4 15.7 20.3 18.2 20.1 20.0 23.0 19.3 Mean research hours, weekly 12.5 15.9 12.6 16.0 9.0 8.4 10.7 14.0 Mean total work hours, 48.4 49.9 49.0 50.7 44.3 43.7 49.5 48.4 weekly Teaching or research: 53.1 44.8 58.8 46.6 73.3 67.8 54.3 47.1 % teaching oriented Teaching or research: 46.9 55.2 41.3 53.4 26.7 32.2 45.7 52.9 % research oriented Mean articles for the last 3.2 5.3 4.3 6.5 2.2 2.5 3.8 4.4 3 years Source: Altbach (1996); CAP (2009)

3.5 Findings 45

46

3.5.2

3

The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

Inferential Results

Table 3.12 displays the results of the final (third) model of the logistic regression analyses for all five dependent variables for 1992. At first inspection, the results provide clear—and resounding—empirical confirmation to the basic Clark conceptualization: both institutional type and academic field emerge as significant predictors of all five faculty work dependent variables, although between the two, institutional type was more powerful. A 1992 faculty member at a research university was about five times more likely than one at another 4-year institution to be highly oriented to research (rather than teaching) and to expend a large weekly effort on research; they were three times more likely to have published above the median than faculty at other 4-year institutions, and about 1.5 times as likely to work above the median number of weekly hours and one third as likely to teach above the median number of weekly hours. Less powerfully, a 1992 faculty member in the natural sciences was about twice as likely as one outside the natural sciences to be oriented to research (rather than teaching), to devote more than the median weekly number of hours to research, and to publish more than the median number of articles. They were about half as likely as nonscientists to teach above the median number of weekly hours and no different from nonscientists in total weekly work hours. Beyond institutional type and academic field, gender emerges—even as early as 1992—as a significant arbiter of work role behavior—almost on a par with academic field (a close third). A male faculty member in 1992 was about one and one half times as likely as a female to be above the median in weekly research hours, in research orientation, and in publication; conversely, they were about ¾ as likely to be above the median in weekly teaching hours. Type of academic appointment is, however, largely invisible as a determinant of academic work role in 1992: contract faculty were no more or less likely than tenured and tenure-track (career ladder) faculty to expend any greater (or lesser) effort in teaching, research, overall job or to publish more. Table 3.13 displays the results of the final (third) model of the logistic regression analyses for all five dependent variables for 2007. The Exp B values suggest first that while the determinative power of institutional type persists across four of the five dimensions of the work role, it is slightly attenuated. The only dependent variable upon which the predictive power of institutional type remains equally strong is faculty orientation to research: a 2007 faculty member at a research university is still about five times more likely than one at another 4-year institution to be above the median in research orientation. They are slightly less likely, however, than a faculty member in 1992 to be above the median in research hours (Exp B = 2.7 vs. 3.3) and publications (Exp B = 3.7 vs. 4.0) and show no significant difference with other 4-year institution faculty in total work hours (they were significantly higher in 1992). The determinative power of both academic field and gender appears to persist at about the same level of power: Exp B in the neighborhood of 1.5 for scientists vs. nonscientists and for men vs. women on research orientation, teaching and research hours, and publications.

(X 2 = 310.082, df = 7, p<=.000)

(X 2 = 293.668, df = 7, p<=.000)

Source: Altbach (1996) ***p<.001; **p<.01; *p<.05 a Predictors coded as follows: (variable name: value selected) Where value selected represents the higher coded value in the corresponding variable set

Predictorsa Institutional type: research university Discipline: life and medical sciences Discipline: physical sciences Discipline: humanities Appointment type: tenure/tenure-track Career age: new entrants Gender: male

Research hours Sig. Exp(B) .000*** 4.731 .000*** 1.487 .000*** 2.342 0.095 1.199 0.157 1.159 .025* 1.243 .000*** 1.524

Teaching hours Sig. Exp(B) .000*** 0.367 .000*** 0.344 .010** 0.726 0.561 1.062 0.537 1.069 0.255 0.894 .000*** 0.705

Articles 3 years Sig. Exp(B) .000*** 3.073 .000*** 1.882 .002** 1.615 .011* 0.72 0.052 1.279 0.121 0.832 .000*** 1.453

(X 2 = 30.999, df = 7, (X 2 = 194.174, df = 7, p<=.000) p<=.000)

Total work hours Sig. Exp(B) .001** 1.469 0.053 1.261 0.238 1.182 0.427 0.907 0.405 1.101 0.724 0.963 0.052 1.221

Table 3.12 Predictors of time allocation, role orientation, and publications: all US faculty, 1992

(X 2 = 339.283, df = 7, p<=.000)

Teaching/research orientation Sig. Exp(B) .000*** 5.009 .000*** 1.984 .000*** 2.318 .000*** 1.581 0.624 0.952 0.109 1.16 .000*** 1.391

3.5 Findings 47

Source: CAP (2009) Where value selected represents the higher coded value in the corresponding variable set *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 a Predictors coded as follows: (variable name: value selected)

(X 2 = 99.085, df = 7, p<=.000)

(X 2 = 66.217, df = 7, p<=.000)

(X 2 = 23.451, df = 7, p<=.001)

Total work hours Sig. Exp(B) 0.698 0.944 .030* 1.483 .035* 1.513 0.143 1.279 .001** 1.646 0.724 0.95 0.111 0.806

(X 2 = 53.191, df = 7, p<=.000)

Articles 3 years Sig. Exp(B) .000*** 2.67 .011* 1.876 0.244 1.365 0.41 0.836 .000*** 2.534 0.34 1.209 0.634 1.09

(X 2 = 153.985, df = 7, p<=.000)

Teaching/research orientation Sig. Exp(B) .000*** 5.132 .007** 1.677 .007** 1.748 .001** 1.842 .000*** 2.684 0.655 1.07 .022* 1.385

3

Predictorsa Institutional type: research university Discipline: life and medical sciences Discipline: physical sciences Discipline: humanities Appointment type: tenure/tenure-track Career age: new entrants Gender: male

Research hours Sig. Exp(B) .000*** 3.774 0.68 1.087 .012* 1.708 0.166 1.294 .000*** 2.041 0.541 1.102 .004** 1.528

Teaching hours Sig. Exp(B) .000*** 0.393 .013* 0.619 .008** 0.566 0.916 1.018 0.359 0.871 0.216 1.205 .006** 0.677

Table 3.13 Predictors of time allocation, role orientation, and publications: all US faculty, 2007

48 The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

3.6 Discussion and Conclusions

49

The new and big story revealed by Table 3.13 is the emergence of type of appointment as a powerful predictor of work role behaviors rivaling academic field and gender as second only to institutional type as an arbiter of academic work. The table shows that a career ladder (tenured or tenure-track) faculty member who in 1992 showed no visible differences on any of the five dimensions of academic work from a contract faculty member was by 2007 two and a half times more likely than a contract faculty member to be above the median in research orientation and weekly research hours, twice as likely as a contract faculty member to be above the median in publication, and one and a half times as likely as a contract faculty member to be above the median in total weekly work hours. This suggests that by 2007, appointment status had developed very quickly as a fourth pillar defining the complexion of academic work.

3.6

Discussion and Conclusions

Based on the above analyses, what then can we say first, most generally, about the changing balance of teaching and research in American higher education? In past 15 years, we have suggested that a rebalancing of teaching and research toward teaching is observable. The self-reported total number of weekly hours devoted to academic work has stabilized or declined slightly, teaching orientation and hours have increased across the board, research hours have declined across the board (although there has been a much smaller decline in observable research orientation), and publication volume and rate has declined but is distributed more widely within the 4-year system. Within the context of this broader teaching “correction,” which can be interpreted as nothing more than a swing of the pendulum (although, to be sure, it may be a lengthy swing), what can we say more fundamentally about the factors that shape academic work in the USA? To what extent do Burton Clark’s observations of a quarter century ago still hold? To what extent do they need to be modified or even supplanted? The results of our analyses suggest several layers of conclusions. Most generally, at the macrolevel, they suggest that institutional type and academic field remain powerful arbiters shaping how faculty members go about their work. Moreover, our analyses suggest that even as Professor Clark wrote, gender had already emerged as a nearly coequal third axis shaping academic work—both within institutional and disciplinary settings. By 2007, however, while institutional type, academic field, and gender persist as arbiters of academic work, the available evidence suggest that type of appointment has emerged—and very quickly—as a major shaper of the academic work role, second only to institutional type. This is the single most dramatic and far-reaching conclusion of this analysis. Clearly, in the past 15 years, new types of full-time appointments which were just emerging in the 1990s have become major factors in the academic workplace—not only as a function of their rapidly growing numbers, but in terms of the powerful definition, or redefinition, that they give to the academic work role—across

50

3

The Balance Between Teaching and Research in the Work Life…

institutional and disciplinary settings and even within the boundaries of gender socialization. While, then, a fourth arbiter of the complexion of academic work has emerged, the available evidence suggests some subtle shifts in the interaction among these four. There is some evidence that gender differences are being attenuated by the power of institutional type (the elimination of many differences, especially in publication behavior at research universities) and appointment type (males and female work patterns differ less in contract appointments than in tenure-track appointments). There is even some evidence that the power of institutional type is attenuating slightly as publication expectations spread across the system—even in the midst of a “teaching correction.” There is some further evidence that career stage may be entering the picture—insofar as new entrants to the profession may differ less among themselves in their work orientation and behavior than their senior colleagues. Taken together, the findings suggest that we are witnessing an increasing differentiation of academic work. If a quarter century ago, Professor Clark could explain half the variance in a professor’s work life based on only two bits of information (institutional type and academic field), we can say with some confidence that he would need to add at least two additional ones today: gender and appointment type. And perhaps most significantly, the newly emergent arbiter of academic work, appointment type, promises increasing specialization in the work role—rendering questions of teaching and research balance increasingly moot (or rather increasingly irrelevant) to an ever larger segment of the USA. instructional faculty.

References Altbach, P. (Ed.). (1996). The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation. Baldwin, R., & Chronister, J. (2001). Teaching without tenure. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation. Clark, B. (1987). Academic life: Small worlds, little worlds. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation. Cross, J., & Goldenberg, E. (2009). Off track profs: Non-tenured teachers in higher education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Finkelstein, M. (1984). The American academic profession: A synthesis of social scientific inquiry since world war II. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. Finkelstein, M., Seal, R., & Schuster, J. (1998). The new academic generation: A profession in transformation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Gappa, J., & Leslie, D. (1993). The invisible faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Understanding the new majority: Contingent faculty in higher education. ASHE higher education reports. San Francisco: Joseey-Bass. Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Seal, R., & Schuster, J. (1998). The new academic generation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. The Change Academic Profession (2009). Original U.S. weighted data file. Wildavsky, B. (2010). The great brain race: How global universities are reshaping the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chapter 4

Comparing the Research Productivity of US Academics*

4.1

Introduction

Academic research as disseminated through journals and other venues is an important indicator of national creativity, and additionally is believed to have an important link to national innovativeness and economic growth (US National Academy of Sciences 2007; Wildavsky 2010). In the science and technology fields, particular importance is attached to publications in refereed journals. The great majority of such articles are produced by university-based researchers (in most advanced countries, no more than 20% of its scientific articles are produced by researchers in nonuniversity settings). Thus, a nation’s achievement in research is essentially a summation of the accomplishments of the university-based professional staff.

4.2

The USA as Number One?

Until recently, particular US universities led the world in scientific production, and the US system as a whole produced the lion’s share of the world’s refereed articles. In part, this was because the USA had an exceptionally large research and development workforce, with the academy being a large part of this workforce. Additionally, individual US researchers were relatively productive. However, since the late 1980s, US aggregate productivity of refereed scientific articles has leveled off (Adams 2010). One reason may be a slowdown in the growth of the R&D workforce, including the academic profession. Additionally, it may be that US researchers including academics are not as individually productive as they once were—due perhaps to the need to spend more time in the classroom, to a leveling off of public funds to support research, to contractual inhibitions associated with *An earlier version of this chapter was presented at the 2010 Hiroshima University International Forum on the Changing Academic Profession.

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4_4, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

51

52

4

Comparing the Research Productivity of US Academics

Table 4.1 Total number of science and engineering articles published worldwide by region and by country: all countries, 1995–2005 Region/country 1995 2005 1995–2005 World 564,645 709,541 2.3 USA 193,337 205,320 0.6 European Union 195,897 234,868 1.8 CA 23,740 25,836 0.8 MX 1,937 3,902 7.3 AR 1,967 3,058 4.5 BR 3,436 9,889 11.1 FI 4,077 4,811 1.7 NO 2,920 3,644 2.2 UK 45,498 45,572 0 GM 37,645 44,145 1.6 IT 17,880 24,645 3.3 PO 990 2,910 11.4 CH 9,061 41,596 16.5 KR 3,803 16,396 15.7 JP 47,068 55,471 1.7 AU 13,125 15,957 2 Source: National Science Board (NSB) 2010

the commercial funding of research, or to other factors. At any rate, as a result of nearly stagnant US output and continued growth in other parts of the world, the US share of all articles fell from 38% to 27% between 1988 and 2007 (NSB 2010).1 Japan in 1995 had the second largest share of scientific publications, and Russia was fifth. Japan has experienced a modest increase in its volume and in its share of world scientific publications since then, whereas Russia as well as its former Soviet Union neighbors’ volume and share has actually declined. The Russian decline is partly related to a decline in the R&D labor force and partly related to funding cutbacks. In contrast to the modest or negative achievements in research productivity over the past 10 years of the above three global giants, several other Pacific Rim countries have in recent years experienced notable growth in scientific productivity and increased their shares of world output. As noted in Table 4.1, China’s annual average rate of increase in academic productivity was 16.5% between 1995 and 2005, South Korea’s was 14.1%, and Singapore’s was 10.5%. These countries are often depicted as the Asian tigers. Additionally, we see several emerging countries in

1

Detailed descriptions of the methodology for the databases used to compute these figures (and those in Table 4.1) can be found in NSB (2010), pp. 5–30 to 5–31. The key sources for the articles are the Science Citation Index (SCI) and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). These indexes classify articles by year of publication and country/economy of author’s institutional affiliation; where there is more than one author, fractional assignments are used. The NSB totals are for articles in highly cited journals as determined by the Patent Board. The number of such journals has increased over time.

4.3

The Data and Its Limitations

53

other parts of the world that are enjoying rapid increases in scientific productivity— notably Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Brazil, and Mexico. The productivity surge of these nations is in part related to national policies promoting productivity, in part related to increases in the size of the R&D workforce. But what else? There is a growing body of studies (e.g., see the several studies in Clotfelter 2010) probing the causes of differential trends in aggregate national2 research productivity, and there are also many studies examining the determinants of the research productivity of individual researchers.3 This paper drawing on the CAP project survey provides new evidence for the latter debate.

4.3

The Data and Its Limitations

The CAP project encouraged relatively large national surveys of the academic profession in 19 countries conducted mainly over 2007; for several of these countries, a similar survey (similar in terms of sample design and many of the questions of the common instrument) was conducted in 1992 under the sponsorship of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The CAP survey covers all academic fields. As the most prominent international comparisons of research productivity focus on the productivity of research articles by academics in the natural science and engineering fields (inclusive of psychology and some social sciences), we will similarly narrow the focus. In other words, the results presented below are for the subsample of academics in natural science (including some of the social sciences) and engineering. Respondents were asked an extensive battery of questions on research context and productivity. Several indicators of productivity were collected including a question on number of research articles published in the last 3 years; this question is the closest the survey comes to measuring articles published in refereed journals and thus will be the focus of the analysis below. What are the average levels of productivity in different countries and what accounts for these levels? There are inevitably limitations to this approach. The number of articles published is self-reported, and thus there are possible societal differences in the interpretation of this and other questions. So our attention will be on relative differences rather than absolute scores.

2

Most of the samples of the CAP study were from “national” academic populations. Hong Kong, a region of China, is an exception. The CAP study included samples of academics both from mainland China and from Hong Kong. In the discussion below, we will sometimes refer to Hong Kong as a nation, even though the correct designation should be region. 3 In the US context, the most recent comprehensive examinations of individual faculty research productivity include the work of Blackburn and Lawrence reported most fully in Faculty at Work (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995) and that of Carole Bland et al. (2006).

54

4

Table 4.2 Mean number of research articles published by country: all countries, 2007

4.4

Comparing the Research Productivity of US Academics Country Mean articles USA 5.0 CA 6.6 MX 3.2 AR 4.3 BR 4.7 FI 5.5 NO 5.2 UK 6.9 GM 9.3 IT 8.8 PO 5.6 CH 9.2 HK 10.6 KR 11.6 JP 9.7 AU 7.3 Source: 2009 CAP US data file

% None 26.2 10.9 40.7 26.6 21.4 21.1 18 10.9 13.4 6.2 19.3 15.8 7.1 1.9 11.3 11.4

The Recent Pattern

Indeed, as illustrated in Table 4.2, there are big societal differences in the level of average individual research productivity, with South Korea reporting a 2005–2007 publishing rate that is two and a half times greater than that of the USA. Pulling down the US average is the fact that a relatively large proportion of US academics (27%) say they have not published a single article over the past 3 years; the failure to publish is interesting in view of the US myth of publish or perish. The US individual publication rate is closer to that of Brazil or Portugal than that of most of the other advanced economies included in the CAP survey.4 While there are currently 19 countries in the CAP international data file, it may be too confusing to compare all of these countries. Thus, for the discussion that follows, we will select two countries that are relatively low in average productivity (the USA and Australia), two that are intermediate (Japan and Hong Kong), and one that is high (Korea).

4.5

Accounting for Individual Productivity

The research literature suggests a variety of factors that are thought to be associated with individual productivity as highlighted in Table 4.3 (see, e.g., Blackburn and Lawrence 1995; Bland et al. 2006). The empirical evaluation of these factors 4

In part, that differential may be attributable to the greater diversity of the US system, with a substantial proportion of nonuniversities among the 4-year college and university sector.

4.5

Accounting for Individual Productivity

55

Table 4.3 Percent reporting various personal characteristics, research orientation and effort, collaboration patterns, and institutional policies supportive of research productivity by country: USA, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Australia, 2007 USA HK KR JP AU Personal Female 36.7 28.8 18.1 5.3 49.6 Foreign-born 20.4 33.8 0.2 2 37.5 Professor 66.9 49 64.8 85.3 24.2 Tenured 60.1 36.6 5 71.2 48.9 Full time 94.3 93.5 100 99.4 96.6 Mean age 52 45.9 45.5 51.8 47.3 Motivation Research-oriented Teaching and research compatible Research is original

47.6 66 68.1

64.6 51.5 81

69.1 65.4 74.4

73.6 27.8 75.1

58.1 41.1 53.7

Support Research funds available Research equipment available Research labs available

16.9 30.6 28.4

25.7 47 40.7

14.9 25.4 25.9

18.9 32.1 25.3

18.8 28.8 25.6

Effort Mean research hours in normal week

13.6

16.3

18.3

17.1

14.1

Connections Collaborate internationally Collaborate domestically Publish in foreign journals

32.7 57.1 22.5

56.9 52.4 69.7

34.6 69.4 60

25.4 53.3 35.2

44.1 49.3 39.8

14.1 7 7 44

10.4 13.6 8.4 63.9

24.5 45.8 28.8 32.9

24.2 30.7 19.6 56.7

12.8 10.8 9.9 34.5

Policies Commercial research Restrictions on publicly funded research Restrictions on privately funded research Research stressed in personnel decisions Source: 2009 CAP US data file

tends to come from analytical studies of particular “national” systems. The CAP dataset allows an additional “hierarchical” level of comparison, that is, the comparison between nations.

4.5.1

Model

There are different ways to introduce the national level into an analysis. Lately, it is popular to utilize a hierarchical model. A long-standing alternative is the simple direct comparison of national regressions. We have elected the latter approach, for this stage of the analysis, as we think it allows a more explicit comparison of key factors.

56

4.5.1.1

4

Comparing the Research Productivity of US Academics

Dependent Variable

For the dependent variable in the analysis, we transformed the self-reported number of articles over the past 3 years to the natural log of total articles plus one. This procedure was selected to approximate a more normal distribution of publications for each national sample.

4.5.1.2

Independent Variables and Data

For the independent variables, drawing on the research literature—especially the US literature—we selected variables that have been highlighted in recent studies; for many of these variables, there are inconsistencies in the literature which we seek to highlight below. For example, some studies suggest that productivity declines with increasing age while others suggest the opposite. Shin and Cummings (2009) concluded that age has relatively little impact on productivity mainly because older researchers tend to retire as their productivity slows down so those who remain in the workforce tend, through self-selection, to be the most productive in their cohort. Xie and Shauman (1998) drawing on large US datasets explored gender differences in time allocation and in outcomes such as publication rates. They found sizeable differences in the 1970s, but these declined over time. A multivariate analysis led to the conclusion that these gender differences could be largely, albeit not totally, explained away by other personal and work environment factors. This study points to the importance of considering institutional resource allocation and position in the organization in addition to time budgets. Sax et al. (2002) report similar findings; additionally, they note that family-related variables, such as having dependent children, “exhibit little or no effect on research productivity.” Mason and Goulden (2004), on the other hand, found that the timing of children (pre- or posttenure) did significantly affect productivity and career progression. Mamieseishvilli and Rosser (2010) compared foreign-born academics in the USA with native-born in terms of time allocation and productivity. Concerning time allocation for teaching, they found little difference between US and foreign-born academics, possibly reflecting the fact that teaching duties are organizationally determined. In contrast, concerning hours devoted to research as well as research productivity, the foreign-born faculty had an edge. The multivariate analysis leading to this conclusion controlled for such factors as age, position, discipline, and gender. Corley and Sabharwal (2007) reported similar findings. A big issue is the amount of time devoted to various academic activities. Milem et al. (2005) relied on three large-scale US datasets for 1972 and 1989–1992 to consider trends in average time devoted to teaching and research. They found that academics on average devoted more time to teaching than to research (about three times as much), but that the trend was toward a greater emphasis on research in 1989–1992 relative to 1972. The authors stressed the considerable variation in time allocation by institutional type with faculty in the research universities devoting at

4.5

Accounting for Individual Productivity

57

least twice as much time to research as those in the liberal arts colleges. Also, whereas the average time for teaching declined in the research universities over this 20-year period, it increased at the liberal arts colleges as well as at the comprehensive universities. Their study highlights the importance of considering institutional type. Colbeck (1998) challenged the conventional time budget studies that assumed working hours could be neatly assigned to teaching, research, service, and administration. She sought through an observational study to determine the extent to which research and teaching activities actually overlapped. She found modest overlap, somewhat greater in the sciences than in the humanities. Her study points to the importance of considering disciplinary differences. Porter and Umbach (2001) using hierarchical modeling of 1,104 academics from the 1993 NSOPF survey also found strong discipline/department effects. Shin (2009) reported a significant relation between the participation in collaborative relations, especially with international partners, and research productivity. In contrast, Lee and Bozeman (2005) offered a more conservative interpretation of these relations.

4.5.1.3

Summary Statistics

Table 4.3 presents the frequencies (or in the case of age and research hours per week, the averages) for each correlate of research productivity for the five selected countries. Table 4.4 compares these statistics in terms of relative national rank, with a low ranking representing a value favorable to research productivity and a high value an unfavorable ranking. For example, since the literature indicates that foreign-born academics are more productive than the native-born, and Australia is the country with the highest percent of foreign-born, we give Australia a ranking of 1, Hong Kong a ranking of 2, etc. What stands out is the predominance of favorable rankings for Korea followed by Japan and the high frequency of unfavorable rankings for Australia, the USA, and Hong Kong.

4.5.2

Comparing the Regression Coefficients

The variables in Table 4.4 were entered into an ordinary least squares multiple linear regression. Overall, the model provides a good fit for the five selected nations. The adjusted r-squares in all cases are above 20% which is respectable for an analysis of this kind, and in three instances, the r-squares are near or above 40%. It is notable that, regardless of society, the same sets of variables tend to be significant. This pattern is perhaps better illustrated by Table 4.5 which highlights those variables that make a significant contribution at the .01 level (by two ++’s) and at the .05 level (one +); if the direction is negative, a minus sign is displayed.

58

4

Comparing the Research Productivity of US Academics

Table 4.4 Rank ordering of countries in terms of characteristics supportive of research productivity: USA, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Australia, 2007 USA HK KR JP AU Personal Female 4 3 2 1 5 Foreign-born 3 2 5 4 1 Professor 2 4 3 1 5 Tenured 2 4 5 1 3 Full time 3 4 1 2 5 Mean age 5 2 1 4 3 Motivation Research-oriented Teaching and research compatible Research is original

5 1 4

3 3 1

2 2 3

1 5 2

4 4 5

Support Research funds available Research equipment available Research labs available

4 3 2

5 5 1

1 1 3

2 2 5

3 4 4

Effort Mean research hours in normal week

5

3

1

2

4

Connections Collaborate internationally Collaborate domestically Publish in foreign journals

4 2 5

3 4 3

1 1 1

5 3 4

2 5 4

Policies Commercial research Restrictions on publicly funded research Restrictions on privately funded research Research stressed in personnel decisions

3 1 1 3

5 3 3 1

1 5 4 5

2 4 5 2

4 2 2 4

3.4

3.2

9.3

4.7

1.3

Mean number of #1 and #2 rankings Source: 2009 CAP US data file

Table 4.5 Predictors of research productivity in five countries: USA, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Australia 2007 USA HK KR JP AU R-squared 0.36 0.36 0.21 0.27 0.44 Variable name Age Research hours/week Female Foreign-born Research-oriented Teaching and research compatible Research is original

++

++

++

++

++

++

− ++

++ + (continued)

4.6 Looking Backward

59

Table 4.5 (continued) USA University Research stressed Research funds available Research equipment available Research labs available Professor Tenured Full time Commercial research Restrictions on publicly funded research Restrictions on privately funded research Collaborate internationally Collaborate domestically Publish in foreign journals Source: 2009 CAP US data file

HK

KR

JP

++ +

++ −−

++

++ ++ ++

AU

++ +

++ ++

++ −−

+

++

++ ++ ++

++ ++ ++

++ ++ ++

++ ++

+ ++ ++ ++

In sum, the preference for research over teaching, the number of hours devoted to research, the tendency to engage in both domestic and international collaboration, and the practice of publishing in international journals are the most important factors in accounting for differential research productivity across the five countries. An increased score on any or all of these is associated with increasing average individual research productivity.

4.6

Looking Backward

With the above model in mind, what can be said about recent trends in average productivity? The 1992 Carnegie survey posed the identical question about the number of research articles published over the past 3 years as did the CAP survey. Table 4.6 adds the 1992 figures to those presented in Table 4.2 for 2007. In most of the countries for which data is available for the two periods, the averages are up, but for the USA they are down. What accounts for the downward trend in the USA and the positive trend in several of the other countries? Again, for several of the independent variables shown to be related to individual productivity, there are identical measurements for both 1992 and 2007. Table 4.7 compares the summary statistics for these variable for our five countries, first in terms of actual magnitude for the two time periods and then in terms of the changes in this magnitude from 1992 to 2007. For example, an increase in the proportion of academics who say they are inclined to do research is considered a change favorable to research productivity. Similarly, an increase in the average weekly number of hours devoted to research is considered a favorable change. For all of the variables for which data is available for the two time periods, the values for the USA are down in 2007 relative to 1992. In contrast, all of the values

Table 4.6 Change in mean number of science and engineering articles and percent nonpublishers by country: all countries, 1992–2007 Mean number articles Percent nonpublishers Country 1992 2007 Direction 1992 2007 Direction USA 6.59 4.95 − 8.4 26.2 + CA 6.6 10.9 MX 1.66 3.16 + 62.6 40.7 − BR 2.37 4.74 + 52 21.4 − FI 5.5 21.1 NO 5.22 18 UK 5.18 6.88 + 27.8 10.9 − IT 8.8 6.2 PT 5.64 19.3 CH 9.2 15.8 HK 5.01 10.6 + 23.8 7.1 − JP 8.51 9.71 + 11.9 11.3 − KR 6.94 11.59 + 7 1.9 − MY 4.77 29.3 AU 4.87 7.25 + 26.2 11.4 − Source: 2009 CAP US data file Table 4.7 Percent reporting various personal characteristics, research orientation and effort, collaboration patterns, and institutional policies supportive of research productivity by country: USA, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan, Australia, 1992 and 2007 USA HK KR JP AU (a) Percent (or average) who have the attribute in 1992 Motivation Research-oriented 58.4 66 66.4 78.9 55.1 Support Research equipment available 58.8 50.7 10 12.9 32 Research labs available 57.9 55 9.7 11.8 35.7 Effort Mean research hours in normal week 18.5 14.9 17.6 22 14.7 (b) Percent (or average) who have the attribute in 2007 Motivation Research-oriented 47.6 Support Research equipment available 30.6 Research labs available 28.4 Effort Mean research hours in normal week 13.6

64.6

69.1

73.6

58.1

47 40.7

25.4 25.9

32.1 25.3

28.8 25.6

16.3

18.3

17.1

14.1

+

−

− −

0 +

+

+

(c) Direction of change favorable (+), unfavorable (−) or neutral (0) for increased research productivity* Motivation Research-oriented + 0 − Support Research equipment available + 0 − Research labs available + + − Effort Mean research hours in normal week + − − Source: 2009 CAP US data file *Where difference is less than 5%, considered neutral change

References

61

are either up or neutral in the case of Korea, and in the three other countries there is a mixed pattern. It would appear that over the past 15 years that there have been some important shifts in the attractiveness of the research environments and in research productivity around the world. The environment is down in the USA as is average research productivity. In contrast, the environment has considerably improved in Korea as has productivity. The three other countries covered in our analysis are in between.

4.7

Conclusion

Our analysis does not catch all facets of the recent changes. For example, the government of the Republic of Korea has placed a high priority on promoting academic productivity (Shin 2009) and has significantly increased the resources available for academic research; in contrast, these facilitating conditions have experienced little improvement in the USA. Also the promotion and tenure procedures have become much more rigorous in Korea whereas they have possibly relaxed in the USA. A major finding of our analysis is the importance of collaborative relations for stimulating research productivity. Clearly, collaboration, both domestic and international, is receiving much stress in Korea and the other Asian systems, whereas collaboration at least of the international variety has not received as much stress in the USA. This difference is one of several where the US academy does not seem to be transforming itself with the same pace as its Asian neighbors. Insofar as research productivity is an important priority of national policy, this study suggests the importance of reviewing practice particularly in the USA.

References Adams, J. D. (2010). Is the United States losing its preeminence in higher education? In C. T. Clotfelter (Ed.), American universities in a global market. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, and satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bland, C., et al. (2006, January/February). The impact of appointment type on the productivity and commitment of full-time faculty in Research and Doctoral institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 89–123. Clotfelter, C. T. (Ed.). (2010). American universities in a global market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Colbeck, C. L. (1998, November-December). Merging in a seamless blend: How faculty integrate teaching and research. Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 647–671. Corley, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2007). Foreign-born academic scientists and engineers: Producing more and getting less than their U.S. –born peers? Research in Higher Education, 48(8), 909–940. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005, October). The Impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

62

4

Comparing the Research Productivity of US Academics

Mamieseishvilli, T., & Rosser, V. J. (2010). International and citizen faculty in the United States: An examination of their productivity at research universities. Research in Higher Education, 51(8), 88–107. Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2004, November-December). Do babies matter (part II)? Closing the baby gap. Academe, 90(6), 10–15. Milem, J. F., Berger, J. B., & Dey, E. L. (2005, July-Augsut). Faculty time allocation. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 454–475. National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 171–196. Sax, L. J., Hagedom, L. S., Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi, F. A., III. (2002, August). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 423–446. Shin, J. C. (2009). Building world class research university: The Brain Korea 21 Project. Higher Education, 58(5), 669–688. Shin, J. C., & Cummings, W. K. (2009, December). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 10(1), 1–14. The Change Academic Profession (2009). Original U.S. weighted data file. U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Wildavsky, B. (2010). The great brain race: How global universities are reshaping the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (1998, December). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847–870.

Chapter 5

The “Glass Ceiling” Effect: Does It Characterize the Contemporary US Academy?*

5.1

Introduction

The “glass ceiling effect” has been proposed by many to characterize the barriers women foreign born, and minorities encounter as they seek advancement on career ladders toward top professional and managerial positions in their workplaces. A report by the US Government Accountability Office (2010) issued in October 2010 highlights persistent gender inequality in pay and promotion to the top managerial positions in corporations, particularly for working women with children. Over the past 7 years, the proportion of women in the managerial ranks did not change (39–40%), and female managers still earn only 81% of what their male counterparts do (up only 2% over the past decade). In terms of advancement to top managerial posts, only 13.5% of the chief executive officers of US corporations are women, and when the spotlight shifts to the CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations, only 2.6% are women (Sabbatini et al. 2010). These reports come on the heels of new data that indicate that the number and the proportion of women in the USA earning doctoral degrees continue to grow: in 2009 women earned the majority or near majority of doctorates awarded in every broad field except physical sciences and engineering, and 46.8% of all doctorates (NSF 2010).1 So turning to academic women, the issue of the glass ceiling may appear puzzling. US higher education enables women to earn advanced degrees and position themselves competitively in the academic labor market, but how do these women actually fare in initial placement and subsequent advancement to senior rank? According to the NCES data, the proportion of full-time faculty who are women is 41.8%, while the proportion of full professors who are women is

*This chapter was prepared in collaboration with Olga Bain of The George Washington University. 1 According to the Survey of Earned Doctorates, female US citizens and permanent residents, earning doctorates, have been already in the majority since 2002 (NSF 2010).

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4_5, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

63

64

5

The “Glass Ceiling” Effect: Does It Characterize the Contemporary US Academy?

only 26.5%.2 Meanwhile, a disproportionate number of US women are finding academic employment in nontenured fixed-term positions (Gappa et al. 2007). Similar observations can be raised about the experience of minorities and foreign born in the US academy. For example, in many of the science and engineering fields in the USA well over one third of the current graduate students are foreign born, yet a much smaller proportion of the US academy are foreign born. And minorities are underrepresented even in graduate education.

5.2

Equity or Discrimination: The Analytical Question

Academic work has its attractions—both the teaching and research are intellectually stimulating, colleagues tend to be both supportive and challenging, individual academics have considerable control over what they do and when, and the pay is usually reasonable. But as various studies (including earlier chapters in this book) have indicated, over the past two decades, academic work in the USA has undergone major changes: there has been an increase in the proportion of nontraditional positions, that is, positions in primarily teaching institutions, positions that are part time or otherwise off the career ladder, and positions that are exclusively for teaching with very heavy loads. Meanwhile, the average salaries for academics in real terms have not increased, partly because the salaries for these secondary positions are relatively modest (Schuster and Finkelstein 2006). Arguably, the 1970s was the golden age in terms of the relative attractiveness of the responsibilities and rewards associated with academic work—and there has been a decline since then. If so, we can say that entrants to the US academy from the 1980s on have faced less favorable working conditions and benefits than at least two generations of their predecessors. Concurrent with the decline in the attractiveness of academic work, there have been important shifts in the composition of the more recent entrants to the academy—more women, more foreign born, and more minorities. National surveys have documented these shifts, as does the CAP data: Table 5.1, Sect. 11.1.1 shows that the most recent entrants (those joining the profession between 2000 and 2007) are more diverse than the older generations.3 There are at least two perspectives on the changing social composition of the new entrants. First is the equity hypothesis: academia has not only welcomed but actively courted and supported the members of these new groups, recognizing that the social composition of the student body is changing and that the faculty should mirror that shift. The contrary perspective is that academia, in response to declining revenues, has created a new array of second-class academic positions with reduced prospects

2

This figure is for all institutions of higher education; the CAP study only surveyed 4-year institutions, and thus the percentage who are women is slightly less, 38%. 3 Additionally, the 2007 CAP data indicates a higher proportion of female academics in 2007 compared to the Carnegie data of 1992 (38% compared to 25%). The Carnegie study did not inquire about minority status or country of birth.

5.3

The Determinants of Advancement in Academia

65

for advancement and rewards. In order to guard the privileges of the majority group, the new entrants or more particularly those with female, minority, and/or foreign born social characteristics have been shuffled off into the academy’s new secondary labor market. This chapter will evaluate the merits of these two perspectives.

5.3

The Determinants of Advancement in Academia

While the relative position of marginal groups in academia has improved over the 15-year period from 1992 to 2007, nevertheless, proportionate representation at the upper academic ranks has not been achieved. According to the CAP survey, women in 2007 make up 38% of the academy but only 29% of those with the rank of full professor, minorities make up 22% of the academy but only 15% of those with the rank of full professor, and foreign born make up 22% of the academy but only 17% of those with the rank of full professor. Are these gaps due to the lack of experience and achievement of the members of these new subgroups, or is it possible that discrimination plays a role? To address this question, we propose a model of advancement in the academic labor market borrowing from an earlier analysis (Bain and Cummings 2000). The original model specifies several sets of factors that can influence advancement: personal, organizational, disciplinary, institutional, and societal factors.4 The question we pose is, after considering the impact of all of the other factors, does gender, being foreign born, or being a member of a minority group have an independent effect on advancement to the rank of full professor? The CAP data offer several advantages for addressing this question. While the sample size is modest, there are sizeable numbers of respondents for all three subgroups. To a limited degree, we can make direct comparisons with the 1992 Carnegie survey. Also, we can make selected comparisons with other CAP countries. Below, we will review the relevance of each of the variables that will be included in the analysis along with some observations on generational differences in the prevalence of the factors, but first a few clarifications about the method that will be employed. Concerning the determinants of advancement in the US academy, we will engage in a series of multivariate analyses where academic rank (professor = 1 and others = 0) is the dependent variable, with additional independent variables progressively entered in such a manner as to clarify the determinants of advancement. For the initial analysis, we will enter a set of variables that, according to the current literature, influence the career advancement of all academics. In the next analysis, we will add gender (female = 1 and male = 0). If gender has a statistically significant negative relation to rank, it will be argued that, despite the importance of the other factors, there is female gender bias. If the relation (coefficient) of gender is insignificant (or significant but positive), it will be argued that there is no bias. We will then repeat the procedure replacing gender with a variable measuring minority status. Finally, we will replace minority status with foreign born. 4

The actual operations for each of the variables are detailed in Sect. 11.1.1.

66

5

The “Glass Ceiling” Effect: Does It Characterize the Contemporary US Academy?

For the multivariate analysis, it is permissible to use either or both ordinary least squares regression (OLS) and logit regression. Logit regression tends to be preferred by statisticians as it minimizes the impact of the dichotomous independent variables—though in the analysis we have carried out, we found essentially the same results with both of the multivariate procedures. For the main presentation, we will use logit regression. For the respective tables, we present the unstandarized coefficients (B) for each independent variable and their probability of statistical significance. As the size of the CAP sample is large, even relatively small coefficients in the respective equations are statistically significant. Hence, we will present the Wald coefficient to suggest the relative strength of the respective coefficients.

5.4

The Dependent Variable: Rank

For all of these analyses, rank is the dependent variable. According to the CAP survey in 2007, nearly two thirds of US academics had senior rank (e.g., associate or full professor), and this proportion has slightly increased relative to 1992. Focusing on only the highest rank, 37% were full professors in 2007. As noted above, women, minorities, and the foreign born were somewhat less likely to be full professors.

5.5

Independent Variables

5.5.1

Sociodemographic

5.5.1.1

Gender

The initial focus of the analysis is on the role of gender in advancement. A prominent recent trend not only in the USA but around the world has been the feminization of the academy. According to the Carnegie study of 1992, at that time, 25% of US academicians were women. The 2007 CAP data indicate an increase over this 15-year period to 38%. Similarly, as illustrated in Table 5.1, women are a larger percentage of the US academics beginning their careers since 2000 than of academics who began prior to 1979 (44% versus 23%). In some fields, notably education and the humanities, women have become the majority. On the other hand, women are notably underrepresented in the physical sciences as well as in engineering. Internationally, the USA is toward the high end in terms of feminization, surpassed by Australia and several of the Latin American and Scandinavian countries. 5.5.1.2

Minority Status

The US academy is predominantly white, though nearly one fifth of the US professors have other ethnic/racial backgrounds. The most numerous are African-Americans (2.3%), South Asian (2.2%), Chinese (1.9%), Mexican and other Latino (1.8%),

5.5 Independent Variables

67

Table 5.1 Demographic, career characteristics, and work activities by academic generation: all faculty, 2007 (percent or mean) 2000–2007 1990–1999 1980–1989 1970–1979 Total Gender: female 44 48 36 23 38 Race/ethnicity: minority 21 23 18 17 22 Country of birth: foreign born 17 21 22 17 21 Father’s education: college 60 59 44 45 53 Children at home 40 45 33 12 33 Time-out to care for child or parent 20 17 11 9 15 Highest degree: doctorate 67 78 83 85 77 Work experience outside of academia 34 34 31 20 30 Current employer 79 72 77 76 76 Appointment type: tenure track 50 69 71 75 65 Appointment type: tenured 8 56 65 74 49 Mean teaching hours, weekly 22 22 20 19 21 Mean articles for the last 3 years 2.8 5.1 4.9 4.1 4.2 Source: 2009 CAP US data file

Caribbean (1.1%), and Black African (0.8%). Regrettably, the Carnegie study did not seek information on this variable, so we cannot compare 2007 with 1992. But the comparison of new entrants to seniors in Table 5.1 suggests a trend toward increased diversity. 5.5.1.3

Foreign Born

According to the CAP survey, in 2007, 21% of the US academy was foreign born. The largest numbers come from continental Western Europe (2.5%), the UK and Ireland (1.9%), India (1.9%), Canada (1.8%), China (1.5%), and South America (1.1%). Again, this question was not asked in 1992, so we cannot tell from CAP data if there is any trend. However, it is notable that the proportions for recent hires and more senior faculty are similar, suggesting the practice of hiring foreign faculty has not significantly increased in recent years. The US foreign born percentage of 21% is toward the high end in international comparison—while Australia and Hong Kong exceed the US proportion, the academies in most of the other countries in the CAP study had fewer than 10% foreign born; indeed in Korea and Japan, the percentage was circa 1% (or less).

5.5.2

Other Personal Factors

5.5.2.1

Family Status

The academic career is highly competitive and demanding, particularly in the early years when new members have to prepare new courses and also engage in active research that leads to publications. These challenges tend to occur at the very same time that most young people consider marriage as well as childbirth (McElrath 1992). Those who actually decide to build families tend to experience considerable strain,

68

5

The “Glass Ceiling” Effect: Does It Characterize the Contemporary US Academy?

finding they do not have as much time to devote to their work as their colleagues (Ward and Wolf-Wendel 2004; Perna 2001; Sax et al. 2002; Mason and Goulden 2004). This may lead to downward mobility or other adjustments that narrow opportunities. According to the CAP survey, the younger academics are more likely to have children at home (with the qualification that many wait until they feel secure in their careers before they start their families) and to have taken time off from their academic work to tend to their newborn. 5.5.2.2

Cultural Capital

The academic job involves the management and development of knowledge, and individuals who come from homes with educated parents are more comfortable with these occupational demands. The proportion whose fathers had received at least a college education steadily increased with more recent entry to the profession. 5.5.2.3

Educational Background or Training

An important factor influencing women’s (and men’s) opportunities is their relative success in completing high-quality professional training including attendance at a prestigious graduate school, completion of high-impact research, obtaining an advanced degree, and spending time as a postdoctoral student in a prestigious research setting (Tierney and Bensimon 1996). The great majority of US professors (85%) have PhDs or other doctorates. But it is interesting that this proportion has not increased since 1992, and internationally, it is not exceptional—the percentage in several of the European nations exceeds 90%. In the USA there is no difference in the percentage of holding a doctorate among men and women. Surprisingly, the foreign born are less likely than US native born to have doctorates. One explanation for the moderate proportion of US academics with doctorates may be the relative openness of the US system to hiring professors who have relevant experience outside of academia, even though they lack doctorates—especially in the nonuniversity sector. Foreign Trained While nearly one fifth of the US academy is foreign born, only 5% of the 2007 sample is foreign trained—and this is slightly less than in 1992. So while the USA is open to foreign born faculty, most institutions appear to prefer foreign born candidates that have been trained in the USA—and, of course, the USA remains a premier destination for graduate education worldwide. 5.5.2.4

Age

The average age of the US academics has increased over the last 15 years—52.0 compared to 48 in 1992. The averages for women (50.4 years), nonwhite (51.6 years),

5.5 Independent Variables

69

and foreign born (51.5 years) are modestly lower than for the sample as whole. The average age of the US academics is the highest of all of the 19 countries in the CAP survey, and this certainly reflects the elimination of a formal retirement age in the USA. If 65 years old is thought of as a typical retirement age, 9.9% of the contemporary US academy is over this age. For the analysis below, years of experience in academia will be included which is closely correlated with age.

5.5.3

Organizational Variables

5.5.3.1

Research University

Higher educational systems are composed of a variety of subsectors and layers. A crucial differentiating factor influencing women’s opportunities for advancement is whether the employing institution is a research or a teaching institution. The former places greater stress on the research accomplishments of faculty and on the obtainment of research funding; keeping with those goals, the research institutions offer relatively more support for research and for obtaining research funding. Women, insofar as they are somewhat new to the system, may not have as strong a network as men, and hence may be at a disadvantage in gaining positions in research institutions (Aquirre 2000). The CAP indicators suggest some modest changes over the past 15 years. A comparison of the two samples suggests that the proportion of academics working in private institutions in 2007 has slightly declined relative to 1992, and the proportion in doctoral-granting institutions is also slightly down. Seventy percent of the CAP sample is in research universities, down from 84% in 1992. Women are less likely to be in doctoral-granting institutions, whereas whites and the foreign born are more likely to be in doctoral-granting institutions.

5.5.3.2

Appointment Type

Systems vary widely in the predictability of job security, with some offering all academics a stable job, whereas others may rely heavily on fixed-term contracts and/or part-time contracts for many academic appointments. Academics who obtain these “contingent” jobs are likely to feel insecure and may have heavier workloads and lower pay (Gappa et al. 2007). To the extent academics have contingent jobs, they may tend to be disadvantaged in the competition for advancement. In general, women are more likely to be contingent faculty than men. A prominent recent trend has been the increase in contract appointments. The proportion of US academics with contingent positions is higher than most of the other systems in the CAP study. Women and nonwhites are more likely to have contingent status while the foreign born are about the same as the total sample. In 2007 in the USA 22% were on fixedterm appointments, but 40% of the women were. Contingent faculty are less likely to have a doctorate. It is important to keep in mind that the CAP sample was

70

5

The “Glass Ceiling” Effect: Does It Characterize the Contemporary US Academy?

restricted to faculty with at least a half-time appointment. So the CAP data do not provide information on adjunct professors, individuals hired to teach a single course. However, from other sources, it is well established that the adjunct numbers are rapidly increasing.

5.5.4

Professional and Disciplinary Variables

5.5.4.1

Discipline

The academic field that an individual is in can influence their opportunities in a variety of ways (Becher 1989). Women who find themselves in fields with many other women are more likely to receive psychological support as well as professional support. Again, the US academy is disciplinarily highly diversified. Over the past 15 years, there has been a clear increase in the proportion of academics who work in the life sciences and the professions while the proportion in the humanities is slightly down. The other fields are relatively stable. Women are “over” represented in teacher education, a so-called female niche, while they are underrepresented in the natural sciences. Men and women are about equally represented in the social sciences and humanities. Foreign born academics are most prominent in the physical and life sciences and engineering.

5.5.4.2

Previous Academic Experience

In virtually any career, one of the most important determinants of advancement is how long the individual has been in the labor market. Bain and Cummings (2000) in their previous research found that women were a relatively new presence in academia and thus were more concentrated in the lower academic ranks. The small numbers of women who had more lengthy experience were in fact achieving advancement on par with their male colleagues. Length of experience is highly correlated with age, but from the point of view of influencing career advancement, experience is more important.

5.5.4.3

Nonacademic Work Experience

Arguably for some fields, especially the more professional fields such as education, law, business, and engineering, there would seem to be advantages to spending part of one’s career in a practical or applied role. This experience might enhance one’s ability to convey relevant knowledge and establish useful research links with outside entities. On the other hand, extensive time outside of academia may make it difficult for an individual to adapt to the somewhat unique work demands of academia.

5.7 The Basic Academic Advancement Model

5.5.4.4

71

Time on Task

One of the best predictors of how well an individual fares in work is the amount of time they put into it (Bellas and Toutkoushian 1999). And in academia where academic research is highly valued as a precondition for advancement, particularly critical would seem to be the amount of time that individuals devote to research (Porter and Umbach 2001). These generalizations apply equally to men and women.

5.5.4.5

Research Productivity

The outcome of time devoted to research is, hopefully, the completion of highquality academic publications. An individual’s research productivity has bearing both on the likelihood of initially securing an academic job and on the speed of advancement (Xie and Shauman 1998). Again, this generalization applies equally to men and women.

5.6

Interactions

Distinct from the direct impact of each of these variables on academic advancement is the possibility that particular variables in combination have a significant impact. For example, we will show below that being female is negatively correlated with holding a senior rank. We will also show that having a doctorate is positively correlated with holding a senior rank. There is additionally the possibility that women who hold the doctorate have a higher probability of advancement than do men with a doctorate; if so, we can say that there is a significant interaction between being female and holding a doctorate. At different stages in the analysis below, we will examine the interaction of the “sociodemographic” variables with other independent variables of interest.

5.7

The Basic Academic Advancement Model

Our analytic strategy for identifying the determinants of senior rank follows essentially the same approach as our earlier work on the 1992 dataset (Bain and Cummings 2000). First, we considered the relation of the core set of personal variables to senior rank, and this suggested that having a highly educated father and obtaining a doctorate were all positively related to senior rank. In contrast, having dropped out of the labor market to provide care to a relative were all negatively related to obtaining a senior position. To this base model, we added several variables reflecting the organizational and professional environment (Table 5.2). The full base model is promising; using the

72

5

The “Glass Ceiling” Effect: Does It Characterize the Contemporary US Academy?

Table 5.2 Predictors of the attainment of senior rank: all faculty, 2007 Exp(B) Sig. Father’s education: college 1.07 0.73 Children at home 1.02 0.92 Time-out to care for child or parent 0.74 0.27 Highest degree: doctorate 2.11 0.000*** Years since 1st faculty appointment 1.15 0.000*** Work experience outside of academia 0.78 0.16 Current employer: research university 1.1 0.62 Appointment type: tenure track 3.24 0.000*** Mean research hours, weekly 1.01 0.43 Collaborating with USA 0.78 0.24 Collaborating internationally 2.16 0.000*** Mean articles for the last 3 years 1.35 0.01** Constant 0.01 0.000*** ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

S.E. 0.2 0.19 0.28 0.24 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.26 0.01 0.21 0.23 0.11 0.42

cox formula, it accounted for 39% of the variance (and with the Nagel formula, it accounted for 52%) in attainment of full professor rank. While the directions of the coefficients of all of the personal variables did not change, most of the coefficients were statistically insignificant. The exception was holding a doctorate which continued to be statistically significant. As for the new variables entered in the equation, length of experience was the strongest predictor of advancement to full professor. Related to our earlier discussion of secondary labor markets, it is noteworthy that being in a tenure-track position was the second strongest predictor of advancement; opportunities for promotion are apparently limited for those academics that hold contingent appointments. Additionally, collaborating internationally and having a strong publication record all had significant positive associations with senior rank. In contrast, having worked outside of higher education was negatively related to gaining a senior position and statistically insignificant. Interestingly, the number of hours an academic devoted to research (independent of any resultant publications) did not have a significant relation to advancement.

5.7.1

The Impact of Discipline

Building on the above model, we added dummy variables reflecting the several academic fields. There are some variations by field in terms of the proportion of academics in senior ranks. Specifically, there are proportionately more senior rank positions in the humanities, business–law, and engineering and fewer in the life sciences and medicine. But introducing these disciplinary variables did not add much to the explanatory power of the equation (e.g., the increase in the adjusted R-squared after adding the academic fields was less than 1%).

5.7 The Basic Academic Advancement Model Table 5.3 Predictors of attainment of senior rank with gender added: all faculty, 2007 Exp(B) Sig. Father’s education: college 1.08 0.700 Children at home 0.99 0.980 Time-out to care for child or parent 0.79 0.420 Highest degree: doctorate 2.13 0.000*** Years since 1st faculty appointment 1.15 0.000*** Work experience outside of academia 0.78 0.160 Current employer: research university 1.1 0.610 Appointment type: tenure track 3.24 0.000*** Mean research hours, weekly 1.01 0.460 Collaborating with USA 0.78 0.230 Collaborating internationally 2.15 0.000*** Mean articles for the last 3 years 1.34 0.01** Gender: female 0.88 0.500 Constant 0.010** 0.000*** ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

73

S.E. 0.2 0.2 0.29 0.24 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.26 0.01 0.21 0.23 0.11 0.19 0.43

We also considered the interactions of gender (as well as minority status and foreign born) with discipline, but these were largely insignificant and added little to the adjusted R-squared. For example, there was only a weak suggestion that women who specialized in business-law or physical sciences were less successful in achieving advancement than men. Hence for subsequent steps in this analysis, we dropped the field and field interaction variables.

5.7.2

Gender and Advancement

Having confirmed the effectiveness of the model, we added gender (Table 5.3). The coefficient was negative but statistically insignificant. The remaining variables retained an essentially identical role in the equation: experience was the strongest predictor followed by having a tenure-track position, collaborating internationally, holding a doctorate, and publishing articles. In sum, controlling for these other factors, being a woman did not have a significant negative influence on achieving senior rank.

5.7.3

Advancement of Minorities in the US Academy

Over the past two decades, there has been a major push to increase the presence of minorities in the US academy. Table 5.1 above suggested an increased proportion in

74

5

The “Glass Ceiling” Effect: Does It Characterize the Contemporary US Academy?

Table 5.4 Predictors of attainment of senior rank with race/ethnicity added: all faculty, 2007 Exp(B) Sig. S.E. Father’s education: college 1.06 0.78 0.2 Children at home 1.05 0.81 0.19 Time-out to care for child or parent 0.7 0.2 0.28 Highest degree: doctorate 2.15 0.000*** 0.24 Years since 1st faculty appointment 1.15 0.000*** 0.01 Work experience outside of academia 0.77 0.13 0.18 Current employer: research university 1.07 0.72 0.19 Appointment type: tenure track 3.25 0.000*** 0.26 Mean research hours, weekly 1.01 0.33 0.01 Collaborating with USA 0.74 0.16 0.21 Collaborating internationally 2.26 0.000*** 0.23 Mean articles for the last 3 years 1.32 0.01** 0.11 Minority 0.51 0.000*** 0.23 Constant 0.01 0.000*** 0.42 ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

recent years. But how do they fare? Table 5.4 suggests, after controlling for the various factors that are normally related to advancement, they do not do as well as the majority group. Minority status has a negative coefficient that is statistically significant at the .001 level. We tested this finding by introducing various interactions into the equation, but none of these tests fundamentally changed the finding that minority academics do not advance at the same rate as majority academics.

5.7.4

Advancement of the Foreign Born in the US Academy

Systems vary widely in their openness to academics that are foreign born as well as foreign trained. Where systems are open, it expands the range of talents that can be considered when making new appointments. Given this opportunity for increased selectivity, it might be presumed that foreign born academics might be more qualified than the native-born and hence would experience more rapid mobility. On the other hand, the foreign born may be handicapped in terms of the personal contacts that are useful in academic work, and they may also lack some of the personal and communication skills that are essential for maximizing communication in the classroom and in academic publications (Corely and Sabharwal 2007). Twenty-one percent of the US CAP sample is foreign born, which, compared to the other CAP countries, is high. Table 5.5 presents an analysis for foreign born academics that parallels the earlier analyses of gender and minority status. The model explains over half of the variance in advancement to full professor, and most of the coefficients

5.7 The Basic Academic Advancement Model Table 5.5 Predictors of attainment of senior rank with nativity added: all faculty, 2007 Exp(B) Sig. Father’s education: college 1.03 0.89 Children at home 1.06 0.77 Time-out to care for child or parent 0.72 0.23 Highest degree: doctorate 1.94 0.01** Years since 1st faculty appointment 1.15 0.000*** Work experience outside of academia 0.77 0.14 Current employer: research university 1.07 0.73 Appointment type: tenure track 3.19 0.000*** Mean research hours, weekly 1.01 0.31 Collaborating with USA 0.77 0.23 Collaborating internationally 2.29 0.000*** Mean articles for the last 3 years 1.36 0.000*** Foreign Born 0.62 0.04* Constant 0.01 0.000*** *** p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

75

S.E. 0.2 0.19 0.28 0.24 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.26 0.01 0.21 0.23 0.11 0.23 0.42

have a similar pattern to the two prior analyses; it suggests that foreign birth, like minority status, is a negative and statistically significant predictor of attainment of full professor rank.

5.7.5

Lingering Discrimination?

In the analysis, we reviewed the relation to professorial academic rank of four sets of variables—the social composition variables of gender, ethnicity, and nationality; the personal variables of father’s education, family structure, age, and holding a doctorate; the work environment variables of type of appointment and institutional type; and the professional variables of academic and nonacademic experience, international collaboration, research time, research productivity, and academic discipline. We found that women, nonwhites, and the foreign born are somewhat less likely to have advanced to the rank of professor than the sample as a whole. We considered the possibility that the relative underachievement of these groups could be explained away by other factors such as their younger age, their relative lack of advanced degrees, their contingent faculty status, or their discipline. Or, we asked, was their underachievement, at least in part, due to discrimination? One way to address these questions is to evaluate a model where academic rank (professor or not) is the dependent variable and the several social composition, personal, work environment, and professional variables introduced in this chapter are the independent variables. While the variables considered in this chapter may be only a subset of those that are typically used to explain academic rank, they nevertheless can provide a meaningful insight into the question.

76

5

The “Glass Ceiling” Effect: Does It Characterize the Contemporary US Academy?

Our analysis of the base model provided a strong explanation for advancement— The cox r-squared was 38%, Nagel was 52%. Previous academic experience, appointment on the tenure track, international collaboration, holding a doctorate, and publications were the key factors. If after entering all of the above variables into a multivariate equation the social composition variables have no significant effect, then we can conclude that there is no evidence of discrimination. However, if any of the social composition variables have a significant effect on rank, there will be a need to take a more thorough look at the advancement process. The inclusion of gender added little to the explanation. While gender had a negative coefficient, it was statistically insignificant. In contrast, both minority status and being foreign born were negatively related to advancement. It is noteworthy that contingent faculty status played a strong role in the respective equations. We checked with the 1992 Carnegie data and found for that period that being on tenure track was only of modest importance—a clear reinforcement of our findings reported in Chap. 3 on the increasing salience of appointment type as an arbiter of academic careers. Clearly there have been substantial changes in the structure of the academic labor market over the past 15 years that have worked to the disadvantage of minority academics. Regrettably, we lack trend data for the foreign born.

5.8

Conclusion

Our finding on gender fits with the equity hypothesis—the “glass ceiling” for women appears to have been broken, at least as far as the attainment of full professor rank is concerned5—whereas our finding on minorities and foreign born fits with the secondary labor market hypothesis. While there has been significant social pressure to protect the rights of all three of these marginal groups, it may be that there has been a much stronger push for equity by women than by the other groups. It may also be that women have more successfully adapted to the new rules relating to academic advancement. While there has been some movement toward greater equity in the academy for the members of these three “marginal” groups, it needs to be stressed that the overall quality of working conditions in the US academy has significantly deteriorated over the past two decades. Thus, while new groups are finding ways to get ahead, the academic life they are experiencing is not what it used to be—overall, more academics hold contingent positions, more work longer hours, more are engaged in teaching only positions, and the average pay is falling behind relative to other sectors of the labor market.

5

The data on gender equity in compensation is less encouraging. See Academe 91 (February/ March), 2005.

References

77

Appendix: Variables Included in 2007 Regressions Variable Children at home Care Father has tertiary education Professor Outside PhD or equivalent Full time Seniority (experience) Research time Research university Product

Collaborating internationally Collaborating domestically Humanities Social sciences Business and law Education and psychology Life sciences Health Engineering Natural sciences Gender Minority Foreign born

Details Children at home as 1, none as 0 Stops work to care for child or elder as 1, others as 0 Father has tertiary education as 1, others as 0 Respondent has senior rank Works outside academia as 1, others as 0 Doctorate as 1, others as 0 Self-response that current job is full time Number of years employed in higher education Self-report of hours spent on research per week when classes are in session Employed at research or doctoral university as 1, others as 0 An index giving differential weight to a robust list of academic achievements realized over the past 3 years. The natural log of the total score is used in the analysis Reports international collaboration as 1, others as 0 Reports domestic collaboration as 1, others as 0 Literature, language, arts, and philosophy Anthropology, economics, geography, political science, and sociology

Biology, agriculture, and veterinary sciences Medicine, nursing, and public health Engineering, technology, and computer science Physics, chemistry, and mathematics Female as 1, male as 0 Minority as 1, others as 0 Foreign born as 1, others as 0

References AAUP. (2005, March/April). Academe 91. Aquirre, A. (2000). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace: Recruitment, retention, and academic culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bain, O., & Cummings, W. K. (2000). Academe’s glass ceiling: Societal, professional-organizational, and institutional barriers to the career advancement of academic women. Comparative Education Review, 44(4), 493–514. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Bellas, M. L., & Toutkoushian, R. K. (1999). Faculty time allocations and research productivity: Gender, race, and family effects. The Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 367–390. Corely, E. A., & Sabharwal, M. (2007). Foreign-born academic scientists and engineers: Producing more and getting less than their U.S. –born peers? Research in Higher Education, 48(8), 909–940.

78

5

The “Glass Ceiling” Effect: Does It Characterize the Contemporary US Academy?

Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Science Foundation (NSF). (2010, December). Doctorate recipients from U.S. universities. Washington, DC: NSF. Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2004, November-December). Do babies matter (part II)? Closing the baby gap. Academe, 90(6), 10–15. McElrath, K. (1992). Gender, career disruption, and academic rewards. The Journal of Higher Education, 63(3), 269–281. Perna, L. W. (2001). The relationship between family responsibilities and employment status among college and university faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(5), 584–611. Porter, S., & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 171–196. Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi, F. A., III. (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 423–446. Sabbatini, L., Warren, A., Dinolfo, S., Falk, E., & Castro M. (2010, September). Beyond generational differences: Bridging gender and generational diversity at work. Available online at http://www.catalyst.org/publication/446/9/beyond-generational-differences-bridging-genderand-generational-diversity-at-work. Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. The Change Academic Profession (2009). Original U.S. weighted data file. Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe. Albany: SUNY Press. U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). (2010, October 23). Women in management: Analysis of female managers’ representation, characteristics, and pay (GAO-10–892R). Washington, DC: U.S. GAO. Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2004). Academic motherhood: Managing complex roles in research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 27(2), 233–257. Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. (1998). Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle. American Sociological Review, 63(6), 847–870.

Chapter 6

The Internationalization of the US Academy: A Disciplinary Perspective*

6.1

Introduction

In the emerging global village, there is a widespread conviction that nations and their citizens need to enhance their international competence (Rychen and Salganik 2003). Higher education through the promotion of international studies and activities is considered the front-line institution for fostering international competence (Cummings and Hawkins 2001). Additionally, the international scholarship of professors in higher education may contribute to innovativeness in the economy and creativity in international affairs (National Academy of Sciences et al. 2005; American Association for the Advancement of Sciences 2001). Thus, the academic faculty through their roles as teachers and researchers play a central role in the process or processes of internationalizing US higher education. While virtually any academic activity in the realms of teaching, research, and service potentially has an international dimension, individual faculty may or may not decide to pursue that potentiality. To the extent more US academics see more of their work linked to the work of academics in other countries, we can say that the US academy is highly internationalized. In this descriptive study, drawing on the CAP database, we seek to understand the current level of internationalization of the US academy and what factors dispose individual academics to see their work as internationally linked. The role of academic field will be especially highlighted.

6.2

The Background of Academic Internationalization

From the earliest days of US higher education, the international dimension has been prominent. The first US colleges were founded by immigrants, and these institutions sought the approval of the English crown for offering courses and degrees *This chapter was prepared in collaboration with Olga Bain of the George Washington University.

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4_6, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

79

80

6

The Internationalization of the US Academy: A Disciplinary Perspective

(though the actual authority was channeled through the crown-appointed governors of the respective English colonies). To strengthen the academic stature of the first colonies, many of the staff traveled to Europe to seek academic training. An important watershed in US higher education was the founding of several graduate schools at Clark, Johns Hopkins, and Chicago to indigenize academic training in the latter half of the nineteenth century; however, these institutions based their programs on prominent European models.

6.2.1

Internationalization of Research Universities

Following World War I, the Institute of International Education was founded with the aim of expanding and systematizing the study abroad sojourns of US students and scholars. And from roughly this time, the US government began to invest in international research in such fields as agriculture, energy, and engineering; later this support of international research was carried out by such federal agencies as the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health. Following World War II, as part of President Truman’s pledge to reduce poverty around the world, the US government made a major commitment to applied research and development in the third world and looked to US universities, in many instances, for the implementation of these ideals. Thus many of the major land-grant universities became heavily engaged in international technical assistance. As the Cold War evolved, many US foundations as well as the US government became acutely aware of the shortage of individuals with expert knowledge of foreign countries and international affairs, and thus, programs were launched to develop area studies and foreign language expertise. These programs, largely focused on the leading research universities, were described as promoting US national security or national defense. Through the 1980s, arguably the main foci of US government support for higher education’s international studies/activities continued to be in the areas of science/ engineering and area studies. Such agencies as NSF and NIMH funded a variety of international endeavors in science and engineering. And the US State Department and the Bureau of Education (now the Department) provided support for area studies—the study of the languages, cultures, polities, and other facets of selected foreign societies. Various studies considered the effectiveness of funding in the above fields (ACE 2002; National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy 1995; McCaughey 1984). Beyond the pioneering work of Goodwin and Nacht (1991), however, the only early effort to take a comprehensive look at the involvement of US faculty in international studies/activities was the 1992 Carnegie International Survey of the Academic Profession under the leadership of Ernest Boyer (Boyer and Altbach 1997). This study found that the overall level of involvement was moderate, especially when compared with the major European and Asian

6.2

The Background of Academic Internationalization

81

countries (Altbach and Lewis 1997)1; reflecting the abovementioned federal support of international studies in science/engineering and area studies, professors in these fields were somewhat more likely to be involved than professors in other fields.

6.2.2

Expanding to the Professions

Over the past 15 years, a broader understanding of international studies/activities has emerged which might be described as “all research and instructional endeavors that intellectually and/or personally cross national borders” (Knight 2003). So, such activities as scholarly collaboration, exchanges of personnel in all fields (including study abroad, the hosting of international students and scholars, and the sending of students and scholars), and the development of overseas campuses are included in this broader understanding. Concurrent with the broadening of the understanding of international studies and activities has been a broadening of the academic fields targeted for support. Especially notable is the new funding for schools of law, business, policy studies, and health. Of course, while federal funding of international studies/activities has thus broadened, it has not notably increased in real terms. Federal funding of international studies currently thus tends to focus both on area studies and on a broader range of initiatives that include the promotion of more internationalized professional fields, international science and technology initiatives, and on the “soft diplomacy” of promoting scholar exchanges between selected foreign countries and the USA.

6.2.3

Reaching Out to Liberal Arts Colleges and School

The main focus of the above initiatives was on major universities capable of supporting multifield area studies programs and/or big science projects. As part of the broadened understanding of international studies, from the early 1980s, support for area studies programs came to be conditioned on outreach efforts to other educational venues such as smaller higher educational institutions, museums, and local schools. From the 1990s, the stress on outreach to small colleges intensified. Whereas the earlier efforts to promote international studies were largely faculty driven, the more recent efforts have relied more extensively on the initiatives of higher educational administrators who believe their institutions will be enhanced by new study abroad programs or new branch campuses in strategic foreign settings. 1

For example, only 55% of the US sample agreed that “connections with scholars in other countries are very important to my professional work” in contrast to Germany where 78% agreed, Japan where 88% agreed, the Netherlands where 81% agreed, or Russia where 89% agreed.

82

6

The Internationalization of the US Academy: A Disciplinary Perspective

In many instances, administrators have pursued these initiatives without extensive consultation with other campus constituencies including the faculty. However, it is frequently asserted that the long-term success of these more comprehensive efforts depends on faculty buy-in. So have these recent efforts been able to enlist faculty support beyond area studies and science/engineering, thus broadening the base of international studies in US higher education?

6.2.4

Individual Characteristics

Support for many modes of international studies is competitive, with scholars of all ranks enjoying equal opportunities in the competition. In recent years, it has been argued that junior scholars are having less success in these competitions due in part to their relative lack of experience and abbreviated time to prepare impressive lists of publications. On the other hand, younger scholars have received their training in the new global era when international issues have received more attention, so arguably, they are more motivated to compete than senior scholars for internationally oriented funds. Women are a notable minority in the academic profession, but they are proportionately better represented in the humanities and arts, two fields that tend to be international. Foreign-born scholars are also a minority in the US academy, and traditionally they have tended to be concentrated in the sciences and engineering; however, in recent years, they have become more prominent across the academic landscape. Foreign-born scholars often retain contacts with their compatriots and thus are in a good position to build international collaborative relations. On the other hand, they may feel some pressure to obscure their “foreignness” and to focus their research on domestic issues.

6.3

Research Questions

The critical role of faculty involvement in international studies suggests several research questions: • What is academic internationalization? Are the various components of internationalization tightly linked, or are their multiple empirical dimensions of this concept? • What is the current level of US faculty involvement in international studies/ activities? • Is the current level of faculty involvement of US academics comparable to the levels of faculty involvement in other advanced societies? • Has the level of US faculty involvement in international studies increased over the last 15 years both in level and scope? Have there been shifts in the characteristics of those faculty most involved?

6.5

Level of Interest

83

• What are the correlates of US faculty involvement in international studies? For example, are there differences in involvement by personal characteristics, such as rank, age, gender, or national origin, type of institution, or by academic field?

6.4

Methods

The Carnegie International Survey of the Academic Profession in 1992 asked a number of questions about faculty involvement in international studies in 14 countries. Some of these questions were repeated in the 2007 CAP survey, while others were added to probe issues more relevant to recent times. The questions cover both faculty beliefs about the importance of an international emphasis in their teaching and research and actual faculty involvement in teaching courses with international content, faculty involvement in teaching international students (both at the home and branch campuses), faculty involvement in study abroad, faculty involvement in research on international topics, faculty collaboration with foreign colleagues, and faculty involvement in international service.

6.5 6.5.1

Level of Interest 2007 Level Compared to Other Nations

First, we present selected data on the level of interest of US academics relative to that of academics in 14 other countries so the reader can gain a sense of the types of indicators available for analysis. As illustrated in Table 6.1, US interest is lower than the level of interest of academics in all of the other countries with advanced economies for all of the indicators (for two US interest is lower than all of the countries including China). Concerning the several indicators, a distinction can be made between those which capture the academic’s beliefs about internationalization and those which measure actual behavior. American academics are closer to the other countries on beliefs in internationalization than on actual practice. For example, only 8% of US academics indicate that they have recently published in a foreign journal compared to 78% of Hong Kong’s academics.

6.5.2

2007 Level Compared to 1992 Level

Given the recent attention to globalization in both academia and the broader society, it might be expected that the level of US academic interest would have increased in recent years. While the two surveys asked many “international” questions that were

AU 68 68 59 45

MY 50 60 32 21

6

Table 6.1 Attitudinal and behavioral aspects of internationalization in teaching and research by country: all countries, 2007 (in percent) USA MX AR DE FI NO UK IT CH HK JP KR Beliefs International scope in research 41 44 45 60 60 70 65 75 67 65 47 33 International content in courses 53 77 58 65 51 68 66 61 67 72 51 74 Practice International collaboration 33 35 47 58 70 67 61 59 13 60 24 29 Publish in a foreign country 8 53 32 61 58 62 37 46 11 78 26 31 Source: 2009 US CAP data file

84 The Internationalization of the US Academy: A Disciplinary Perspective

6.6

A Model of Academic Internationalization

85

Table 6.2 Percent engaged in international collaboration and publication: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 1992 2007 International collaboration 39 34 Publish in a foreign country 43 31 Publish in a foreign language 11 10 Source: 2009 US CAP data file

similar in intent, we will focus here on the three indicators that used the identical wording; all three are practice questions. As reported in Table 6.2, it is interesting that the US levels in 2007 for the three indicators are about the same as they were in 1992. In other words, over the past 15 years, there has essentially been no aggregate change in the prevalence of international behavior among US academics.

6.6

A Model of Academic Internationalization

The previous section presented comparisons of several of the key indicators of academic internationalization in comparative and historical perspective. The literature to date tends to assume that a higher interest/practice in any one of these indicators is strongly associated with a higher interest/practice in the others. But as suggested in Table 6.3, the CAP respondents suggest this is far from the case.2 For example, going across the top row, we find that a strong interest in international research is linked to international collaboration, coauthoring, publishing, and providing an international stress in course content. But an international research interest is only moderately associated with a recent experience of teaching abroad. Also, while providing an international emphasis in course content is strongly associated with an international focus in research, it is but weakly to moderately associated with collaborating and coauthoring with international partners and with publishing in international journals. There is a stronger association of the belief of stressing international content in courses with the practice of teaching abroad than with any of the other more research-related practices. These differences in level of association suggest that there are at least two dimensions to academic internationalization, which might be described as (1) an implementation focus between beliefs and practice and (2) a role focus on an international research orientation as contrasted to an international instructional orientation. In the next section, as we explore the factors associated with academic internationalization, we will pay special attention to these two dimensions. As the key indicators reflecting these two dimensions are numbers 1 (international emphasis in research) and 5 (international emphasis in courses) of Table 6.3, we will concentrate our analysis primarily on these two indicators. 2

Note in this table, the values for all the indicators have been recoded so that a more “international” response is given a higher value.

86

6

The Internationalization of the US Academy: A Disciplinary Perspective

Table 6.3 Spearman rank order correlation matrix of attitudinal internationalization in teaching and research: all countries, 2007 Models Models 2 3 1. International scope in research 0.366 0.305 2. International collaboration 1 0.599 3. Coauthor with international colleagues 1 4. Publish in a foreign country 5. International content in courses 6. Teaching abroad Source: 2009 US CAP data file

6.7 6.7.1

and behavioral indicators of

4 0.334 0.284 0.409 1

5 0.479 0.128 0.057 0.182 1

6 0.197 0.147 0.149 0.171 0.213 1

Some Factors Accounting for Differential Interest in 2007 University Type

In our review of the US experience with internationalization, we noted that the early emphasis was on the research universities and primarily sought to boost the basic and applied research activities of these universities. Thus, as indicated in Table 6.4, it is not surprising that a greater proportion of the faculty in the research and doctoral universities express an interest in research that has an international scope than do faculty in the comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions. It should also be noted that for each institutional type (research, doctoral, comprehensive), academics at private institutions are more likely than those at public institutions to express an interest in international research. In contrast, as indicated in Table 6.5, concerning the belief that courses should emphasize international content, the pattern is somewhat reversed. Academics in research universities are least likely to espouse this belief, whereas those in comprehensive and baccalaureate institutions are somewhat more likely to affirm this belief. Again, for each institutional type, academics at private institutions are more likely than those at public institutions to express an interest in the international dimension.

6.7.2

Academic Field

Academic field is also an important differentiating factor for the international beliefs of academics. As illustrated in Table 6.6, academics in the fields of humanities and arts and agriculture are the most likely to indicate that their research is international in scope, whereas those in medicine and the life sciences are the least likely to believe their research is international in scope. Given the rhetorical linkage of national strength in science and technology with economic competitiveness, it may

Table 6.4 Percent agreeing that their “research is international in scope or orientation” by institutional type: all US faculty, 2007 Strongly Neither agree Strongly agree Agree or disagree Disagree disagree Total Public research 20 22 21 17 21 100 Private research 27 24 24 10 15 100 Public doctoral 17 21 17 14 32 100 Private doctoral 27 20 20 15 18 100 Public comprehensive 13 18 15 14 39 100 Private comprehensive 18 21 11 12 38 100 Public baccalaureate 16 16 53 16 0 100 Total 19 21 19 15 26 100 Source: 2009 US CAP data file Table 6.5 Percent agreeing that “in your courses, you emphasize international perspectives or content” by institutional type: all US faculty, 2007 Strongly Neither agree Strongly agree Agree or disagree Disagree disagree Total Public research 18 31 28 15 8 100 Private research 25 26 28 13 8 100 Public doctoral 24 31 27 13 4 100 Private doctoral 34 24 26 11 3 100 Public comprehensive 21 27 29 15 8 100 Private comprehensive 30 33 19 12 6 100 Public baccalaureate 30 – 48 21 – 100 Total 23 28 28 14 7 100 Source: 2009 US CAP data file

Table 6.6 Percent agreeing that their “research is discipline: all US faculty, 2007 Strongly agree Agree Life and medical sciences Life sciences 11 27 Medicine 4 20

international in scope or orientation” by Neither agree Strongly or disagree Disagree disagree Total 19 26

18 17

24 32

100 100

Physical sciences and engineering Physical sciences 16 Engineering 14

24 25

19 36

12 14

29 12

100 100

Humanities and social sciences Humanities and arts Social and behavioral sciences

34 22

23 15

14 19

11 16

19 28

100 100

25 13 8

31 18 22

19 9 24

6 23 22

19 37 22

100 100 100

27 20

20 21

27 19

20 15

7 25

100 100

Professions and Other Law Education Business administration, economics Agriculture Total Source: 2009 US CAP data file

88

6

The Internationalization of the US Academy: A Disciplinary Perspective

Table 6.7 Percent agreeing that “in your courses you emphasize international perspectives or content” (percent agreeing) by discipline: all US faculty, 2007 Strongly Neither agree Strongly agree Agree or disagree Disagree disagree Total Life and medical sciences Life sciences 8 22 30 27 12 100 Medicine 10 35 33 18 4 100 Physical sciences and engineering Physical sciences 4 Engineering 11

23 23

36 31

18 21

19 13

100 100

Humanities and social sciences Humanities and arts Social and behavioral sciences

40 30

33 28

20 26

6 12

1 4

100 100

29 26 23

18 24 30

35 33 33

12 12 11

6 6 3

100 100 100

33 23

40 29

13 28

13 14

7

100 100

Professions and others Law Education Business administration, economics Agriculture Total Source: 2009 US CAP data file

–

come as a surprise that academics in the science and technology fields are somewhat less disposed to think of their research as being international in scope. Their reluctance may reflect their understanding that science is universal rather than national or international, so this particular phrasing of the question may not adequately capture their perspective. As indicated in Table 6.7, the pattern with respect to stressing international content in courses significantly mirrors the pattern above. That is, academics in the humanities and arts, agriculture, and in this case, the social and behavioral sciences as well as law are most likely to emphasize international content in their courses, whereas academics in physical and life sciences say they are least likely to emphasize international content. Though academics in the basic and to a lesser degree the applied sciences are less likely than those in the humanities and social sciences to indicate their research and teaching is international in scope, when we turn to their actual behavior, they appear very international. For example, as illustrated in Table 6.8, a relatively high proportion of the academics in these hard science fields indicate that they collaborate with international colleagues. While not presented here, it is also the case that academics in the hard science fields are also most likely to obtain international funding for their research, to copublish with foreign researchers, and to publish in foreign journals and in foreign languages. Thus it is apparent that the distinction between international beliefs and international practice is particularly relevant when we compare academics across fields.

6.7

Some Factors Accounting for Differential Interest in 2007

89

Table 6.8 Percent reporting that they “collaborate with international colleagues” by discipline: all US faculty, 2007 Yes No Total Life and medical sciences Life sciences 54 46 100 Medicine 33 67 100 Physical sciences and engineering Physical sciences Engineering

52 47

48 53

100 100

Humanities and social sciences Humanities and arts Social and behavioral sciences

25 28

75 72

100 100

14 25 35 67 34

86 75 65 33 66

100 100 100 100 100

Professions and others Law Education Business administration, economics Agriculture Total Source: 2009 US CAP data file

Table 6.9 Percent agreeing that their “research is international in scope or demic rank: all US faculty, 2007 Strongly Neither agree agree Agree or disagree Disagree Professor 21 26 20 12 Associate professor 20 21 15 14 Assistant professor 16 16 21 16 Source: 2009 US CAP data file

6.7.3

orientation” by acaStrongly disagree 20 29 31

Total 100 100 100

Academic Rank

Various personal characteristics of US academics were also considered in our exploration of the factors that influence international beliefs and behavior. In general, these personal characteristics did not have as powerful an influence as institutional type or academic field. For example, in Tables 6.9 and 6.10, we present the findings by academic rank. There is a suggestion in these tables that senior faculty were somewhat more international in the scope of their research, whereas junior faculty were somewhat more disposed to include international content in their courses. However, the differences are not large. Foreign-born faculty were somewhat more inclined to indicate an international orientation in their research and in collaboration but not in their instruction. Female academics were somewhat more inclined to an international orientation in their teaching but not in their research or collaboration. So concerning personal characteristics, there are some interesting albeit relatively modest differences.

90

6

The Internationalization of the US Academy: A Disciplinary Perspective

Table 6.10 Percent agreeing that “in your courses, you emphasize international perspectives or content” by academic rank: all US faculty, 2007 Strongly Neither agree Strongly agree Agree or disagree Disagree disagree Total Professor 21 29 28 15 6 100 Associate professor 26 29 26 12 7 100 Assistant professor 23 30 27 15 5 100 Source: 2009 US CAP data file

6.8

Discussion and Implications

The above and other studies indicate that the US academy overall is surprisingly insular in its approach to academic work, compared to the academies in societies with similar economic levels. This study first presents evidence on the insularity of the US academic profession and then considers several possible explanations: • Internationalization is a multidimensional concept with some academics placing greater emphasis on internationalization in research, while others place more stress on internationalization in teaching. • The academy is differentiated in terms of the scope of its work with, for example, research universities aspiring to communicate in international networks, whereas other institutions have a more national focus. • The academy is differentiated between some institutions that are highly international and others that are more local. • International beliefs are more characteristic of the humanities and social sciences which are the beachheads of most area studies programs. • International practice is more characteristic of the natural and biological sciences which are the loci of international scientific communication and collaboration. • Internationalization is more characteristic of certain professional schools (business and law) that are most influenced by globalization than of others (education). • International research takes time and a maturation of academic perspectives—as well, perhaps, as the security of tenure—and thus is more characteristic of senior faculty. • The academy is differentiated between an older generation that is more national in its teaching and a younger generation, more exposed to global issues, that is more international. There is widespread consensus that the advancement of international studies and IHE internationalization depends in considerable part on faculty involvement. Existing research provides information on student and visiting scholar flows by field and country (IIE 2006), and on selected indicators of student involvement (Green and Olson 2003).

References

91

But to date, beyond Goodwin and Nacht (1991), the only systematic information on faculty involvement is the 1992 Carnegie survey. The descriptive study above updates the 1992 Carnegie survey as well as adds new dimensions to the analysis. It provides the most comprehensive picture of the level and breadth of the current involvement of US academics in international studies. One strategy for reducing the insularity of the US academy may be to foster internationalization efforts at the campus level. American Council for Education (Green and Olson 2003; Siaya and Hayward 2003) and National Association of Foreign Student Advisors (2003) initiatives illustrate this strategy, and they seem to make a difference. One finding from these approaches is that the strengthening of international studies in US higher education may have to stress greater reliance on incentives for faculty involvement.

References Altbach, P. G., & Lewis, L. S. (1997). The academic profession in international perspective. In E. Boyer & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), The international academic profession (pp. 3–48). New York: Carnegies Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2001, December). In pursuit of a diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce. Washington, DC: AAAS. American Council on Education. (2002). Beyond September 11: A comprehensive national policy on international education. Washington, DC: ACE. Boyer, E., & Altbach, P. G. (1997). The international academic profession. New York: Carnegies Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Cummings, W. K., & Hawkins, J. (Eds.). (2001). Transnational competence. Albany: SUNY Press. Goodwin, C. D., & Nacht, M. (1991). Missing the boat: The failure to internationalize American higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, M. F., & Olson, C. (2003). Internationalizing the campus: A user’s guide. Washington, DC: ACE. Institute of International Education. (2006). Open doors. New York: IIE. Knight, J. (2003). Updated definition of internationalization. International Higher Education, 33, 2–3. McCaughey, R. (1984). International studies and the academic enterprise. New York: Columbia University Press. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (1995). Reshaping the graduate education of scientists and engineers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Academy of Sciences, et al. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Association of Foreign Student Advisors. (2003). Internationalizing the campus 2003: Profiles of success at colleges and universities. Washington, DC: NAFSA. Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and a wellfunctioning society. Cambridge: Hogrefe & Huber. Siaya, L., & Hayward, F. (2003). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses. Washington, DC: ACE. The Change Academic Profession (2009). Original U.S. weighted data file.

Chapter 7

Internationalization of Work Content and Professional Networks*

7.1

Introduction

As noted in Chap. 6, the 1992 Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s International Faculty Survey hit at least one discordant note in describing a strong—even comparatively preeminent—corps of half a million scholars that made up the American faculty1: whatever their scientific and scholarly accomplishments, reflected in a disproportionate share of international prizes such as the Nobel, American professors tended to be relatively insular and provincial in their orientation, turning inward rather than outward to the larger world. Indeed, Altbach and Lewis (1996) reported that only about one-third of the American faculty had taken at least one trip abroad for study or research—securing for the USA a position of “last place” among the 14 countries studied just behind Russia and Brazil. Moreover, the USA also came in dead last in the proportion of faculty reporting that “connections with scholars in other countries are very important to my professional work” (about half compared to more than four-fifths in all other countries except the UK) (Altbach and Lewis 1996). While this may reflect to some extent the large segment of the American professorate working outside the research university sector vis-àvis other nations, this inward orientation more likely parallels, and indeed reflects, the self belief that the USA is the “center” of the scientific—and economic— universe (Goodwin and Nacht 1991). Since 1992, of course, the world has changed—what with the emergence of free trade, the Internet, the increasingly globalized, knowledge-based, multinational corporate economy (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). Science and technology are now

*This chapter was prepared in collaboration with Elaine Walker and Rong Chen, both of Seton Hall University. 1

The 13 countries included Australia, Brazil, Chile, England (UK), Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, and Sweden in addition to the USA.

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4_7, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

93

94

7 Internationalization of Work Content and Professional Networks

globalized to a greater extent than ever, and, as argued in Chap. 4, the center of gravity for scientific research and development is demonstrably shifting away from the USA toward Asia, and to a lesser extent, Europe and Australia (See, for example, Cummings 2008). In the context of these developments, what would once have been considered a relatively harmless bit of self-indulgence could now be considered a serious disability—one with potentially far-reaching consequences for the future of America’s role in scientific research and development. Chapter 6 focused on assessing the extent to which the American academic community has adapted to the emerging shift in the center of gravity of the world economy and the global scientific enterprise since 1992, the emergence of a “post-American” world (Zakaria 2008). It sought to answer the question: To what extent are American academics more integrated now, in 2007, into the international scientific order in their research and scholarship? This chapter addresses a second order question: To the extent that we have identified at least some definable subgroup of American faculty internationalists, what distinguishes them from their more insular peers? And to the extent that internationalization in research and teaching is increasingly recognized by American college presidents and the federal government as a key to the future for American economic competitiveness and constructive foreign relations, how, from a national and institutional policy perspective, can an increasing focus on internationalization be nurtured and advanced in the USA? The first seeds of answers to questions like these are contained in the new international survey, the Changing Academic Profession, undertaken in 2007 as a 15-year follow-up to the original 1992 Carnegie Foundation International Faculty Survey.

7.2

Theoretical Framework

Chapter 6 explicitly focused descriptively on the dimensionality of the internationalization concept along belief/practice and research/teaching. It also examined the correlates of internationalization along those two dimensions. This chapter seeks to apply multivariate techniques, specifically logistic regression, to an analysis of the predictors of two specific aspects of American faculty internationalization in research: (1) the extent to which faculty have “internationalized” the scholarly networks within which they work as reflected in (a) collaboration on research projects with international colleagues and (b) coauthorship of scholarly publication with foreign colleagues, and (2) the extent to which faculty have “internationalized” the content of their academic work as reflected in the extent to which their research is international in scope or focus. These aspects were chosen both because they constitute the basic dimensions of faculty work and because they permitted broad comparability with the earlier Carnegie International Faculty Survey. They parallel the distinction between practice and belief highlighted in the disciplinary comparison of Chap. 6. The design of this study was shaped, most generally, by the available literature on the determinants of academic work and careers in the USA (See, for example, Wilson 1979; Clark 1987; Finkelstein 1984; Blackburn and Lawrence 1995; Fairweather 1996; Schuster and Finkelstein 2006. As suggested in Chap. 3, Burton

7.2

Theoretical Framework

95

Clark first postulated the critical roles of institutional type and academic field as forming the two major axes that differentiate the American academic profession. Faculty at research universities perform different and more complex roles than faculty at other 4-year institutions or at 2-year colleges. Moreover, the shaping force of institutional type is mediated by the shaping influence of academic field: faculty in the natural sciences engage in fundamentally different kinds of work activities and share different norms for teaching and research activity than faculty in the humanities and social sciences. This disciplinary socialization typically occurs well before one takes up a first faculty appointment, during the graduate school period—and even during the undergraduate period. Thus, academic field represents the culmination of a socialization process begun much earlier. Within the shaping contexts of institutional type and academic field, the literature on the American academic profession also suggests that at the individual level, faculty professional orientations to tasks like teaching and research, individual political and social values tend to further differentiate the nature and focus of academic work and careers (Finkelstein 1984, 2008). More recently, the infusion of women into the American academic profession as well as modest increases in foreign-born and minority faculty have underscored the power of demographic differences as arbiters of the selection of faculty to academic fields and institutional types—adding demographic factors as filters into individual niches in the academic firmament—as well as conveyors of their own distinctive and shaping socialization onto the individual academic role and career (Schuster and Finkelstein 2006; Gappa et al. 2007). Based on this reading of the literature, the authors conceptualized a four-stage model for understanding the nature and extent of individual faculty “internationalization” in their research foci and scholarly networks. The model proceeded from basic demographic givens (including gender, nativity, age) through preservice socialization experiences (place of birth and early education, place of doctoral education, choice of academic discipline, experience abroad) which we know to shape ultimate disciplinary and institutional affiliation, institutional pressures at current employer (institutional type, especially research university vs. other academic settings; increased presence of international students; administrative vs. faculty-driven leadership of internationalization initiatives at the institutional level; administration support for research), to the specific nature of the current work role—relative orientation to teaching vs. research, level of teaching assignment (undergraduate vs. graduate), and level of research involvement, primary focus of research (basic vs. applied vs. commercial)—as determinants of faculty internationalization. The basic model is depicted in Fig. 7.1.

7.2.1

Independent or Predictor Variables

Within the bounds of the core CAP survey instrument, we initially selected a set of independent variables that operationalized each of the four stages or dimensions of the model predicting faculty internationalization in their research foci and scholarly networks. The independent variables included (See Table 7.1):

Graduate/ doctoral socialization

Undergraduate socialization

First language socialization

Early socialization and educational background

Socialization

Institutional pressures

Admin supports academic freedom (E5)

Level of institutional support for research (E4-8)

Level of institutional support for teaching (E4-7)

Who has primary influence on establishing international linkages ? (E1)

Region in which institution is located (A9a)

Carnegie / NCES institutional type (A9)

Current teaching unit (A2-b)

Primary research language (F12)

Primary teaching language (non-English) (F11)

Years post 1st degree living and working outside U.S.(F13)

Earned doctorate or other advanced prof degree outside U.S.(A1-5-b)

Residence at time of 1st degree (F9B-1)

Citizenship at time of 1st degree (F9A-1)

Mother tongue (F10)

Non - US at birth (F9b-1)

Nativity : Residence

Fig. 7.1 Faculty internationalization, US CAP study, 2007

Year of 1st faculty appointment (A6-2)

2-5 Years since 1st degree employed outside higher education (A4)

Year of highest degree (post 2000, 1990 -1999, pre -1990) (A1)

Racial/ethnic background (F14)

Spouse’s education level (F8-3)

Children Under 18 at home ? (F6)

Academic partner / spouse? (F5)

Spouse Employed ? (F4)

Marital Status (F3)

Gender (F1)

Democraphics

Nativity : Citizenship Non - US at birth (F9a-1)

Involvement in research activities (D3)

Collaborate or not on research (D1)

Emphasis of primary research (D2)

Interest primarily in teaching or research? (B2)

Importance of academic field (B4-1)

Orientation to teaching vs. research (B2)

Level of students taught (C1)

Concurrent employment (yes or no) (A8)

Tenured,tenureable or term ? (A11)

Full-time or not (A7)

Current work situation

Published in foreign country (D5-4)

Coauthored with colleagues in foreign countries (D5-3)

Collaborate with international colleagues (D4-1)

Primary research is international in scope (D2-5)

Emphasize international perspectives or content

Professional network

Work content

Faculty Internationalization (Dependent Variable)

96 7 Internationalization of Work Content and Professional Networks

F9a-1 F9b-1 F10 F9b-1 F9b-2 A1-5b F13 F11 F12 A2-b

A9 A9a E1

Early socialization and educational background

Institutional pressure

E4-7 E4-8 E5

F1 F3 F4 F5 F6 F8-3 F14 A1 A6-2 A4

Demographics

Table 7.1 The independent variables

Carnegie/NCES institutional type Region in which institution is located Who has primary influence on “establishing international linkages?” (individual faculty vs. administration) Level of institutional support for teaching Level of institutional support for research Administration supports academic freedom

F9a-1 Non-US at birth Non-US at birth Mother tongue: English vs. others Citizenship at time of first degree (US vs. foreign) Residence at time of first degree (US vs. foreign) Earned doctorate or other advanced professional degree outside the USA Years post first degree living and working outside the USA Primary teaching language (non-English) Primary research language Current teaching unit

Gender Marital/family status (married or not) Spouse employed? Academic partner/spouse? Children <18 at home? Spouse’s education level Racial/ethnic background Year of highest degree (post-2000, 1990–1999, pre-1990) Year of first faculty appointment 2–5 Years since first degree employed outside higher education

(continued)

Graduate/Doctoral (Post 1st degree) socialization

Nativity: citizenship Nativity: residence First language socialization Undergraduate socialization

7.2 Theoretical Framework 97

Table 7.1 (continued) Current work situation

D1 D3

A7 A11 A8 C1 B2 B4-1 B2 D2

Full time or not Tenured, tenureable, or term? Concurrent employment (yes or no) Level of students taught Orientation to teaching vs. research Importance of academic field Interest primarily in teaching or research? Emphasis of primary research (basic vs. applied? disciplinary or multidisciplinary? commercial vs. social) Collaborate or not on research (a general factor) Involvement in research activities

98 7 Internationalization of Work Content and Professional Networks

7.3 Logistic Regression Analysis

7.2.2

99

Data Analysis

The descriptive data analysis in which we sought to compare faculty internationalization in work content and professional networks in 1992 to that in 2007 as well as describe the basic frequencies for the 2007 data was reported in Chap. 6. Here, we seek to extend the examination of the correlates of international activity in the research area to a true multivariate analysis in which we identify and test the predictors of American faculty internationalization in 2007. The independent and dependent variables—with the exception of years since first faculty appointment—were dichotomized through a recoding procedure. It should be noted that in some cases, the variables themselves (gender; yes–no responses) were inherently dichotomous; in other cases (institutional type, rank, and tenure status), dichotomization was undertaken as a means of finding common metrics across 19 national higher education systems (i.e., the dichotomous recode was undertaken to provide a common metric for all 19 national data files); while in yet other cases, several attitudinal items (orientation to teaching vs. research; characterization of primary research as basic, applied, etc.; perceptions of administrative support) were dichotomized at the median owing to their ordinal nature and their actual distribution characteristics in the sample. The specifications of that recode are included, in Appendix, at the end of this chapter. In our multivariate analysis, we conducted Spearman Rho’s correlation tests identifying the most powerful potential predictors of the dependent variables. To avoid potential multicollinearity problems, we also performed variance inflation tests on the independent variables. The authors selected the maximum number of predictors based on whether statistical significance with the dependent variables emerged in the crosstabs and correlation matrices. These predictors were then entered into a four-stage logistic regression model. We performed our model specification in such a way that we eliminated multicollinearity problems and achieved optimal parsimony in the predictors.

7.3

Logistic Regression Analysis

While, then, the American academic profession appears to be maintaining its comparative insularity from the world, the 2007 CAP survey in the USA found a significant minority—about one-third of those who are active in research (two-thirds of all respondents are “active”)—who reported that they collaborated and/or copublished with foreign colleagues. Is there something “distinctive” about this emerging subgroup of “internationalists” among the American faculty? In addressing this question, we examined two categories of variables: (1) the extent to which national boundaries restricted faculty professional networks or were relatively permeable (i.e., the extent to which they collaborated with foreign colleagues in research) and (2) the extent to which international perspectives shaped the content of faculty research.

100

7.3.1

7 Internationalization of Work Content and Professional Networks

Dependent Variable: Collaborate with International Colleagues in Research

Reported in Table 7.2 are the logistic regression results for the dependent variable “collaborate with international colleagues in research.” In this discussion, we specifically address the fourth and final model, that is, the results obtained in the fourth step in the regression analysis when entering the individual work orientation predictors, following the successive entry of, and control for, demographic, preservice Table 7.2 Predictors of collaboration with international colleagues in research: research active US faculty only, 2007 Logistic models Exp(B) Sig. S.E. First model (demographic variables) Gender: male 1.403 0.079 0.193 Constant 0.472 0.001 0.159 Second model (preservice, socialization, and educational background variables) Gender: male US citizen at birth Years abroad post-BA: 1–2 years Years abroad post-BA: 3+ years Discipline: STEM Constant

1.029 0.709 2.667*** 2.624*** 3.469*** 0.358

0.89 0.216 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002

0.209 0.278 0.261 0.264 0.215 0.335

Third model (demographics, preservice socialization, and institutional pressure variables) Male US citizen at birth Years abroad post-BA: 1–2 years Years abroad post-BA: 3+ years Discipline: STEM Institutional type: research university Faculty drive campus international initiatives Administration supports research Constant

1.094 0.59 2.991*** 2.527** 2.896*** 2.723*** 2.768*** 1.762** 0.074

0.684 0.077 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.029 0.001

0.222 0.298 0.281 0.282 0.229 0.28 0.205 0.259 0.46

Fourth model (demographics, preservice socialization, institutional pressure, and current work role variables) Male US citizen at birth Years abroad post-BA: 1–2 years Years abroad post-BA: 3+ years Discipline: STEM Institutional type: research university Faculty drive campus international initiatives Administration supports research Years since first faculty appointment Appointment status: tenured or tenure eligible Primarily teach undergraduates

0.968 0.715 3.077*** 2.642** 2.277** 1.414 2.158*** 1.41 1.015 1.724 0.958

0.893 0.302 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.281 0.001 0.207 0.131 0.094 0.853

0.24 0.325 0.3 0.301 0.26 0.322 0.219 0.272 0.01 0.325 0.233 (continued)

7.3 Logistic Regression Analysis

101

Table 7.2 (continued) Logistic models Primarily teach oriented Primary research: “basic” Primary research: “applied/practical” Primary research: “commercial”/technology transfer Primary research: “socially oriented” for the better society Primary research: based in one discipline Primary research: multidiscipline High involvement in research Constant

Exp(B)

Sig.

S.E.

.436** 1.027 1.203 1.947** 0.89 1.286 1.474 2.492*** 0.028

0.001 0.918 0.558 0.008 0.664 0.284 0.239 0.001 0.001

0.256 0.259 0.316 0.253 0.269 0.235 0.33 0.24 0.799

Note: Chi-square values for models = model 1, 2.145 p £ .143; model 2, 37.481, p £ .000; model 3, 65.523, p £ .000; model 4, 118.534, p £ .000 ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05

socialization, and institutional pressures predictors. What is particularly striking is the large and persistent strength of the preservice socialization and educational background variables—in particular, the number of years spent abroad postbaccalaureate—as predictors of faculty collaboration with international scholars in the area of research. The odds of international collaboration in research for those US faculty who reported spending between 1 and 2 years abroad postreceipt of their undergraduate degree were three times that of faculty who had not spent any postbaccalaureate time abroad for study and/or research. Disciplinary socialization also showed a persistently strong and independent shaping influence on collaboration with foreign colleagues (Exp (B) = 2.277): the odds of collaboration with foreign colleagues in research for faculty in the STEM fields were more than twice that of their counterparts outside STEM fields. Among institutional context factors, the degree to which campus internationalization efforts are driven by faculty (rather than administrators) was significantly associated with the likelihood of faculty collaborating with foreign colleagues. The odds ratio (Exp (B)) for this predictor is 2.158 indicating that those faculty working in higher education institutions in which the primary leadership in establishing international linkages resides in the faculty are significantly more likely to collaborate with international colleagues in research than those faculty in institutions where internalization initiatives are administratively driven. The emergence of this “faculty leadership” predictor is a key distinguishing feature. Among the current work role variables that are examined in Model 3, three were found to have a significant influence on collaboration with international colleagues in research. These were (1) high involvement in research (Exp (B) = 2.492), (2) primary research is commercially oriented (Exp (B) = 1.947), and (3) orientation primarily to teaching (Exp (B) = 0.436). This means that faculty who characterized themselves as “active” in research and those who characterized their research as commercial in orientation were more likely to collaborate with international colleagues than their less research-active and noncommercially oriented colleagues.

102

7 Internationalization of Work Content and Professional Networks

Conversely, those faculty who reported that they were primarily oriented to teaching (as opposed to research) were less likely to collaborate with international colleagues on research projects than their more research-oriented counterparts.

7.3.2

Dependent Variable: Coauthor with Foreign Colleagues

Coauthoring with foreign colleagues was the second outcome measure that was used to test the tenability of the model. The findings for the fourth and final regression model for this dimension of faculty internationalizing behavior, presented in Table 7.3 below, closely parallel those for collaboration with international colleagues in terms of the independent, strong shaping influence of years spent abroad postbaccalaureate degree and disciplinary socialization. The odds of coauthorship Table 7.3 Predictors of coauthorship with foreign colleagues: research-active US faculty only, 2007 Logistic models Exp(B) Sig. S.E. First model (demographic variables) Gender: male 1.706** 0.019 0.228 Constant 0.248 0.001 0.195 Second model (preservice, socialization, and educational background variables) Gender: male US citizen at birth Years abroad post-BA: 1–2 years Years abroad post-BA: 3+ years Discipline: STEM Constant

1.232 .560* 2.244** 2.616*** 3.421*** 0.218

0.396 0.047 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.001

0.245 0.292 0.294 0.287 0.23 0.375

Third model (demographics, preservice socialization, and institutional pressure variables) Male US citizen at birth Years abroad post-BA: 1–2 years Years abroad post-BA: 3+ years Discipline: STEM Institutional type: research university Faculty drive campus international initiatives Administration supports research Constant

1.328 .511* 2.020* 2.451** 2.802*** 4.010*** 1.838** 0.904 0.061

0.263 0.025 0.021 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.716 0.001

0.253 0.3 0.305 0.292 0.239 0.382 0.228 0.277 0.534

Fourth model (demographics, preservice socialization, institutional pressure, and current work role variables) Male US citizen at birth Years abroad post-BA: 1–2 years Years abroad post-BA: 3+ years Discipline: STEM Institutional type: research university

1.316 0.572 2.001* 2.256** 2.266** 2.554**

0.303 0.085 0.03 0.008 0.002 0.024

0.266 0.324 0.319 0.308 0.268 0.414 (continued)

7.3 Logistic Regression Analysis

103

Table 7.3 (continued) Logistic models Faculty drive campus international initiatives Administration supports research Years since first faculty appointment Appointment status: tenured or tenure eligible Primarily teach: undergraduates Primarily teach oriented Primary research: “basic” Primary research: “applied/practical” Primary research: “commercial”/technology transfer Primary research: “socially oriented” for the better society Primary research: based in one discipline Primary research: multidiscipline High involvement in research Constant

Exp(B)

Sig.

S.E.

1.499 0.711 1.009 1.272 0.976 .510** 0.79 0.895 1.184 0.825 0.953 1.301 2.384** 0.065

0.094 0.24 0.373 0.485 0.922 0.019 0.41 0.743 0.538 0.496 0.851 0.481 0.002 0.002

0.241 0.29 0.01 0.345 0.251 0.289 0.287 0.338 0.275 0.283 0.256 0.374 0.279 0.88

Note: Chi-square values for models = model 1, 2.165 p £ .141; model 2, 32.508 p £ .000; model 3, 45.333, p £ .000; model 4, 87.748, p £ .000 **Predictor is statistically significant based on Wald Test at .00 probability level; *predictor is significant at the .05 probability level

with foreign colleagues for those faculty who spent more than 1 year abroad were twice as great as for those who spent no time abroad, and the odds of coauthorship with foreign colleagues for STEM faculty were twice as great as for non-STEM faculty. Among individual work orientation variables, both high research involvement (Exp (b) = 2.384) and teaching orientation (Exp (B) = 0.510) emerge as significant predictors: the odds of coauthorship with foreign colleagues for highly research-involved faculty are nearly two and one-half times greater than lessinvolved faculty, and the odds of copublication for teaching oriented faculty are half as great as their more research-oriented colleagues. Overall, institutional factors seem less predictive of copublication than they were of general research collaboration: only institutional type proved a statistically significant predictor—with the odds of copublication with foreign colleagues two and a half times as great for research and doctoral university faculty as for other 4-year faculty. The primacy of faculty (vs. administration) in driving campus internationalization efforts, which had significantly predicted research collaboration, did not significantly predict actual international copublication activity.

7.3.3

Dependent Variable: Primary Research Emphasis This Year Is International in Scope

The results of the fourth and final logistic regression model for the dependent variable, “The emphasis of your primary research this year is international in scope” are presented in Table 7.4. A cursory review of the table reveals a somewhat distinctive,

104

7 Internationalization of Work Content and Professional Networks

Table 7.4 Predictors of primary research is international in scope: research active US faculty only, 2007 Logistic models Exp(B) Sig. S.E. First model (demographic variables) Gender: male 1.219 0.289 0.186 Constant 1.436 0.017 0.151 Second model (preservice, socialization, and educational background variables) Gender: male US citizen at birth Years abroad post-BA: 1–2 years Years abroad post-BA: 3+ years Discipline: STEM Constant

1.02 1.086 2.746*** 3.932*** 1.223 0.944

0.921 0.782 0 0 0.35 0.866

0.196 0.298 0.272 0.291 0.215 0.339

Third model (demographics, preservice socialization, and institutional pressure variables) Male US citizen at birth Years abroad post-BA: 1–2 years Years abroad post-BA: 3+ years Discipline: STEM Institutional type: research university Faculty drive campus international initiatives Administration supports research Constant

1.054 1.069 2.724*** 3.819*** 1.129 1.227 1.685** 0.922 0.704

0.791 0.825 0.001 0.001 0.583 0.358 0.006 0.721 0.381

0.199 0.302 0.277 0.295 0.221 0.222 0.191 0.226 0.401

Fourth model (demographics, preservice socialization, institutional pressure, and current work role variables) Male US citizen at birth Years abroad postbaccalaureate: 1–2 years Years abroad postbaccalaureate: 3+ years Discipline: STEM Institutional type: research university Faculty drive campus international initiatives Administration supports research Years since first faculty appointment Appointment status: tenured or tenure eligible Primarily teach: undergraduates Primarily teach oriented + T28 Primary research: “basic” Primary research: “applied/practical” Primary research: “commercial”/technology transfer Primary research: “socially oriented” for better society Primary research: based in one discipline Primary research: multidiscipline High involvement in research Constant

0.95 1.017 2.768*** 3.663*** 0.931 0.824 1.407 0.794 1.024** 1.116 1.875** 0.752 2.286*** 0.68 1.982** 1.925** 1.084 2.444** 2.355*** 0.074

0.814 0.961 0.001 0.001 0.777 0.478 0.109 0.35 0.012 0.685 0.006 0.225 0.001 0.214 0.005 0.008 0.713 0.002 0.001 0.001

0.219 0.334 0.3 0.316 0.251 0.273 0.213 0.247 0.009 0.271 0.227 0.234 0.232 0.31 0.242 0.247 0.219 0.287 0.222 0.735

Note: Chi-square values for models = model 1, 6,290 p £ .012; model 2, 34.649, p £ .000; model 3, 40.446, p £ .000; model 4, 90.263, p £ .000 **Predictor is statistically significant based on Wald Test at .00 probability level; *predictor is significant at the .05 probability level

7.4 Discussion and Conclusion

105

albeit consistent, pattern. Among early socialization variables, time spent abroad postbaccalaureate emerges as the only significant predictor and indeed seems to demonstrate increased strength: the odds of reporting their primary research as international in scope for faculty who spent three or more years abroad were almost four times as great as for their counterparts who had not and the odds for those with 1 or 2 years abroad were three times greater. Institutional variables, be it institutional type of faculty role in internationalization efforts, do not emerge as significant predictors. Conversely, a whole host of individual faculty work orientation variables emerge as significant predictors. These include the usual high involvement in research (Exp (B) = 2.355), but now include several characteristics of the type of research faculty conduct: primary research is basic (Exp (B) = 2.286), primary research is “multidisciplinary” (Exp (B) = 2.444), primary research is commercially oriented (Exp (B) = 1.982), and primary research is “socially oriented” (i.e., for the betterment of society) (Exp (B) = 1.925). That means that the odds of reporting their primary research as international in scope for those faculty who are highly involved in research, who are involved in basic research, in multidisciplinary, commercial, or socially oriented research were twice as great as those less involved in research or in research that is less characterized as basic, multidisciplinary, or applied. Somewhat unexpectedly, it is the faculty who primarily teach undergraduates (rather than graduates) who are twice as likely to pursue an international focus in their research. With respect to the years since first appointment variable, the Exp (B) implies that for each year since the first appointment, the odds that an individual will pursue an international research agenda increase by 1.022. In sum, the integration of international perspectives in one’s research is most strongly predicted by the common socialization variables—years spent abroad postbaccalaureate degree—and relatively impervious to basic demographic influences, including gender and nativity, and institutional pressures. In terms of work role, those highly involved in research and whose research focus is “basic” are more likely to report their research as international in scope as are those who characterize their research as socially or commercially oriented. Finally, faculty in the later stages of their careers are slightly more likely to report an international focus to their research than new faculty.

7.4

Discussion and Conclusion

The above analyses suggest that while the American faculty remains among the most insular in the world, there is a significant—and modestly growing—segment of the academic professions in the USA that is integrating international perspectives into its research and reaching out to international networks of colleagues worldwide in their research and publication. The bulk of this paper has sought to identify and illuminate the determinants of such incipient internationalization. Table 7.5 below summarizes the predictors that attained statistical significance in our analyses of three dimensions of US faculty internationalization. A few overarching generalizations seem to be warranted.

106

7 Internationalization of Work Content and Professional Networks

Table 7.5 Summary: significant predictors of attitudinal and behavioral aspects of internationalization, research-active US faculty only, 2007 Collaborate Research is with Co-author with international international international Predictors in scope colleagues colleagues 1. Children at home 2. US citizen at birth 3. Years abroad post-BA: 1–2 years X X X 4. Years abroad post-BA: 3+ years X X X 5. Discipline: STEM X X 6. Institutional type: research university X 7. Faculty drive campus international initiatives X 8. Years since first faculty appointment X 9. Primary research: “basic” X 10. Primary research: “commercially oriented” X X 11. Primary research: “socially oriented” to X better society 12. Primary research: multidisciplinary X 13. High involvement in research X X X 14. Collaborate in research Source: 2009 CAP US data file

First, preservice socialization factors, especially adult years spent abroad, emerged as the most pervasive and powerful predictors of US faculty internationalization across all three dimensions examined. A second key socialization factor, academic discipline, emerged as a somewhat less pervasive and powerful predictor. Faculty in the STEM fields were more likely to bring international content/perspectives to bear in their research and to collaborate/copublish with international colleagues. Institutional pressures were only modestly predictive. The effects of institutional type were neither pervasive nor powerful, when current work role and faculty research involvement and interests were controlled. Moreover, they were highly localized to the outcome of copublication with international colleagues (reflecting the institutional pressure specifically focused on publication). Indeed, current faculty work roles emerged as second only to preservice socialization variables in their power and pervasiveness as significant predictors of the three dimensions of faculty internationalization. Faculty research involvement and involvement especially in applied research significantly predicted international perspectives. Demographic factors, including gender and nativity, were largely insignificant when controlling for socialization, institutional pressures, and current work roles— with one notable exception. Career age was significantly associated with a broadening in the scope of faculty research. Senior faculty were more likely to lend an international focus to their research, while new entrants were less likely to do so. It is not clear to what extent these findings represent a developmental maturation process—as they age and mature as scholars, faculty turn their sights outward and

Appendix: Coding Summary of Variables in the Study

107

broaden their perspectives, a trend noted in the literature (Finkelstein 1984)—or rather the effective operation of the ever more narrow academic reward system that is in effect deterring junior faculty from engaging in international activities and cultivating international relationships insofar as that may require extended stays abroad, something that may be incompatible with pretenure publication pressures as well as family obligations. As with most research results, these answer a few questions but raise or beg many more. In terms of those answered are some strategies related to increasing the international involvements of the American faculty. It is clear that institutionally channeled pressures to internationalize are not likely to drive faculty—except in the limited arena of publication. The powerful role of preservice socialization and individual work role factors suggest that the surest road to internationalizing the US faculty is to make sure that they receive some international experience. That suggests that merely importing foreign-born faculty—on a permanent or temporary basis—is not likely to suffice (although we would certainly not want to discourage campus initiatives to promote demographic diversification of the faculty). While the precise nature of that international experience is not clear, what is clear is that it needs to be sustained (more than a few weeks or months in duration), that it is quite distinctive in its effects from those of birth or early residence in a foreign country, and that institutions need to build upon that experience to engage their faculties in charting the trajectory of internationalization. Our findings suggest, moreover, that that trajectory may be shaped by individual faculty interests and orientations: their level of research interest/involvement and the focus of those interests (e.g., basic, commercial, social, multidisciplinary). One size will not likely fit all. Our findings, of course, provide no indication of whether, or the extent to which, the factors that shape the American faculty’s internationalization resemble, or differ from, those that shape the internalization of faculties in other developed or developing nations. To what extent, and in what ways, do faculty in other developed and emerging economies resemble the American faculty in the determinants of internationalization of teaching and research—notwithstanding clear differences in magnitude of such activity? Addressing questions such as these will no doubt contribute further to illuminating the insular condition of the American faculty.

Appendix: Coding Summary of Variables in the Study

Variable name In your courses, you emphasize international perspectives Collaborate with international colleagues Your primary research is international in scope

Original name(s) in CAP C4_05_QC4

Description 1 = “yes” (1, 2); 0 = “no” (3, 4, 5)

D1_1_02_QD1_1

1 = “yes”; 0 = “no”

D2_05_QD2

1 = “yes” (1, 2); 0 = “no” (3, 4, 5) (continued)

108

7 Internationalization of Work Content and Professional Networks

(continued) Variable name Coauthor with foreign colleagues Publish in foreign countries Male Have children at home US birth citizenship Highest degree obtained in the USA

Years abroad postbaccalaureate (1–2 years) Years abroad postbaccalaureate (3+ years) Discipline: STEM International student increase Institutional type: research or doctoral granting

Faculty drive campus international initiatives Administration supports of research Years since first faculty appointment Tenure status: tenured or tenure eligible

Original name(s) in CAP

Description

D5_03_QD5 D5_04_QD5 F1 F6 GRQF9_1_01_QF9_1 A1_01_A1_2; A1_02_A1_2; A1_03_A1_2; A1_04_A1_2; A1_05_A1_2; A1_06_A1_2 (1) F13_02_QF13

1 = “yes”; 0 = “no”

F13_02_QF13

1 = “yes”; 0 = “no”

A2_02_QA2_1 C4_09_QC4 A9

1 = “yes”; 0 = “no” 1 = “yes” (1, 2); 0 = “no” (3, 4, 5) 1 = “yes, research or doctoral granting” 0 = “no, comprehensive or baccalaureate” 1 = “yes”; 0 = “no”

E1_11_QE1 E4_08_QE4 A6_01_QA6 A11

1 = “yes” (>0); 0 = “no” 1 = “yes” (>0); 0 = “no” 1 = “male”; 0 = “female” 1 = “yes”; 0 = “no” 1 = “yes”; 0 = “no” 1 = “yes, highest degree is from USA” 0 = “no”

Primarily teach undergraduates

C1_01_QC1_1

Orientation primarily to teaching

B2

Primary research is “basic” Primary research is “applied/ practical” Primary research is “commerce or technology” Primary research is “socially oriented” for the betterment of society Primary research is based in one discipline Primary research is multidisciplinary

D2_01_QD2 D2_02_QD2

1 = “yes”; 0 = “no” From “1” to “50s” 1 = “yes, either tenured or tenure eligible” 0 = “no, other” 1 = “yes, 2/3 or more of my instruction time is spent on undergraduate students” 0 = “no, less than 2/3 of my instruction time” 1 = “yes, either tenured or tenure eligible” 0 = “no, other” 1 = “yes”; 0 = “no” 1 = “yes”; 0 = “no”

D2_03_QD2

1 = “yes”; 0 = “no”

D2_04_QD2

1 = “yes”; 0 = “no”

D2_06_QD2

1 = “yes”; 0 = “no”

D2_07_QD2

1 = “yes”; 0 = “no” (continued)

References

109

(continued) Variable name High involvement in research

Collaborate with others in research

Original name(s) in CAP D4_01_QD4; D4_02_QD4; D4_03_QD4; D4_04_QD4; D4_05_QD4; D4_06_QD4; D4_07_QD4; D4_08_QD4; D4_09_QD4; D4_10_QD4; D4_11_QD4 D1_02_QD1

Description 1 = “yes”; 0 = “no”

1 = “yes”; 0 = “no”

References Altbach, Philip, & Lewis, Lionel. (1996). The academic profession in international perspective. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, and satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Clark, B. L. (1987). Academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation. Cummings, W. K. (2008). The context for the changing academic profession: A survey of international indicators of research in higher education. In: The changing academic profession in international comparative and quantitative perspective. Hiroshima, JP: RIHE, Hiroshima University. Fairweather, J. S. (1996). Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and public service in American life. Needham Heights: Simon and Schuster Company. Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American academic profession: A synthesis of social scientific inquiry since World War II. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. Finkelstein, M. J. (2008). Recruiting and retaining the next generation of college faculty: Negotiating the new playing field. In D. E. Heller & M. B. d’Ambrosio (Eds.), Generational shockwaves and the implications for higher education. New York: TIAA CREF Institute. Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategic imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Goodwin, C. D., & Nacht, M. (1991). Missing the boat: The failure to internationalize American higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, states, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Wilson, L. (1979). American academics: Then and now. New York: Oxford University Press. Zakaria, F. (2008). The post American world. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Chapter 8

Historical and Comparative Perspectives on the Faculty Role in Governance*

8.1

Introduction

The period from the Second World War through the end of higher education’s great expansion in the mid-1970s represents something of a watershed in the history of US faculty engagement and influence in the governance of college and universities. Haggerty and Works (1939) chronicled the widespread emergence of faculty governance committee structures at the majority of US campuses in the 1930s. The AAUP issued its Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure in 1940 (AAUP 2006a) followed in 1958 by its Statement on the Governance of Colleges and Universities which laid down a prescriptive vision of “shared governance” (AAUP 2006b). Indeed, the 1960s and the 1970s saw the emergence of an entire literature on shared governance, as well as the emergence of collective bargaining as a legal framework buttressing the faculty role in governance (see, e.g., Baldridge 1971; Baldridge et al. 1978; Birmbaum 1988). The American situation was both similar to, but also different from, dominant patterns in Western Europe. While ministries of education traditionally controlled the undergraduate curriculum and admissions in ways unknown in the USA, the faculty in Europe largely controlled graduate education, faculty appointments, but most importantly, the immediate conditions of their work. The recession of the 1980s, the concurrent ascension of conservative political rule on both sides of the Atlantic—reflected most cogently in Reagan and Thatcher—the fall of the Soviet Union, and the apparent triumph of global capitalism ushered in an era of privatization and commodification in higher education across the globe. The new credo argued that higher education was more an individual, private benefit than a social good and that, as such, ought to pay for itself—rather than feed at the public trough (Gumport 1997). In light of the increasing size and criticality of the “industry,”

* We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Ming Ju of Seton Hall University in preparing this chapter. Another version appeared in Locke, W., W. Cummings and D Fisher (2011) Changing Governance and Management in Higher Education, (pp. 199–222), published by Springer.

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4_8, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

111

112

8

Historical and Comparative Perspectives on the Faculty Role in Governance

it increasingly required a managerial focus, subject to outside scrutiny. Public subsidy needed to be replaced by individual entrepreneurism on the part of the faculty. The general implications for colleges and universities was at once increasing decentralization and increasing accountability at the local level. In some sense, then, just as the golden age of faculty (shared) governance was achieving something of the full measure of its potential, a changing political and economic environment was sealing its doom. By the early 1990s, the baseline period of this analysis, the die had already been cast in the direction of increased managerialism, faculty prerogatives were perceived to be in retreat, and the only question that remained was one of time horizon. Was this simply a swing of the pendulum to be “corrected” with the return of prosperity in the late 1990s and the dawn of the twenty-first century? Or, rather, was this a new era in university governance which represented the thorough penetration of the university by global capitalism that roughly parallels the penetration of industrial capitalism into the university at the turn of the twentieth century? The analysis that follows is intended to provide a perspective on the period between the early 1990s and 2007 in the United States. Once we have reported our own findings, we will seek to contextualize them in two ways. First, we will compare them to those of the only large-scale national study of institutional governance in the USA in the past decade—the 2001 Survey on Higher Education Governance sponsored jointly by Committee T of the American Association for University Professors and the American Conference of Academic Deans and conducted by Professor Gabriel Kaplan of Harvard University (Kaplan 2002). Second, we will compare them to the concurrent findings reported in five other developed countries that participated in the 2007 Changing Academic Profession International Survey.

8.2

The Current Study

The current study is part of a 19 nation international survey of the academic profession that replicates in 2007 the first international survey conducted in 1992 by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Altbach 1996). As such, it provides a unique window on changing faculty perceptions and self-reports over a largely ignored 15-year period.1

8.2.1

Dependent Variables

The current study addressed four dimensions of governance as follows: first, faculty perceptions of working conditions at their institutions and changes therein between 1

While other national surveys of faculty were conducted during this period in the USA, most notably the National Center for Education Statistics 1993, 1999, and 2004 surveys, they did not address items related to faculty governance as the earlier Carnegie surveys had.

8.3

Support for Academic Work

113

1992 and 2007; second, faculty perceptions of which internal or external stakeholders exercised primary influence over decisions on faculty and administrative appointments, budget priorities, and new academic programs; third, faculty self-reports of the time they spent as individuals on governance and their perceptions of the influence they exercised as individuals on their academic departments, the larger academic units to which their departments belonged, and their institutions overall; and finally, their general perceptions of overall faculty engagement in governance at their institution as well as their perceptions of the competence of administrative leadership. These dimensions of governance were selected for two basic reasons. First, and most immediately, they were dimensions that were addressed in both the 1992 and 2007 surveys, thus allowing for direct comparisons of responses over a 15 years period. Second, these dimensions represented areas that the authors deemed of key importance historically for assessing the faculty role. Over the past century, faculty in the USA have exercised a major shaping influence in the twin areas of faculty appointments and curriculum or academic programs. These are both viewed as “key” areas of faculty influence. It follows that any perceived changes in these two areas would be considered critical for establishing “change” or “stability” in their governance role. Historically, faculty have not exercised substantial authority in budget matters, so this is an area that promises less value as an indicator.2 As a counterpoint to general perceptions of the faculty as a whole, we added as indicators faculty perceptions of their individual influence at three levels of campus organizational life as well as an empirical self-report on the time devoted to governance matters. This focus on the individual in contradistinction to the corporate faculty as a whole recognizes the duality emerging in the literature between faculty perceptions of their own situations versus those of their colleagues in general. (see, e.g., Schuster and Finkelstein 2006). Finally, to these perceptions of the overall campus faculty role in these specific areas, we also add two other general indicators: their perceptions of faculty engagement in campus life overall and their perceptions of the competence of administrative leadership.

8.3

Support for Academic Work

To support the teaching and research work of the core units, the institutions that employ academics are engaged in a great variety of other tasks, including the selection of students, the provision of student housing, the construction and maintenance of classroom and research buildings, the provision of educational and research technology, the acquisition of library resources, and the management of finances. Effective governance and management hopefully leads to steady improvement in the facilities, resources, and personnel necessary to carry out academic work. The CAP survey asked academics what they felt about different facets of their working

2

Except insofar as we found in 2007 a significantly enhanced role in budget matters—a possibility that appeared on the face of it quite remote.

114

8

Historical and Comparative Perspectives on the Faculty Role in Governance

conditions. Concerning most items, the respondents were about equally divided between those who felt the conditions were excellent or good and those who felt they were in need of improvement. Interestingly, telecommunications, classrooms, and the technology for teaching tended to get the highest ratings whereas research equipment and support for research and teaching tended to get lower ratings. In the 1992 study, a similar question was asked. Comparing the recent findings with those for 1992, the academics in those countries with more advanced economies such as the USA, the UK, and Japan reported little improvement whereas academics in several of the emerging societies reported significant improvement (see Table 8.3). Overall academics in Hong Kong gave the highest rating to their facilities, resources, and personnel (Table 8.1). Focusing on the US situation, it is noteworthy that a somewhat larger proportion of the faculty at private institutions perceived their facilities to be excellent or good. However, there was little difference within the private sector in the perceptions of faculty at research universities and those at nonresearch institutions.

8.4

Decision-Making in Academia

To accomplish the task of supporting academic work, additional more inclusive organizational units are likely to be formed including the offices of department chairs, deans, provosts, and presidents with their related staff. The appointees to these offices, while often having a background as an academic, are usually regarded as managers. Those at the department and decanal level are sometimes described as middle-level managers while those at the presidential and provost levels are considered senior-level managers. Finally, in state and national settings where governments play an important role in the provision and financial support of higher education, ministries or departments of education and state higher education boards may be established to coordinate the activities of higher educational institutions.

8.4.1

Faculty Perceptions of the Influence of Internal and External Stakeholders in Five Decision Areas

The 1992 and 2007 surveys posed a similar set of questions providing respondents with a series of decision areas (faculty appointments, approving new academic programs, selecting top administrators, etc.) and asking them to rate the relative influence of key stakeholders in making those decisions. For purposes of simplicity, we focused on five decision categories that we believed were representative of the continuum of decisions from purely personnel and curricular (the typical domain of the faculty) to budgetary and administrator selection (traditionally outside the faculty’s purview) and sought to compare the responses in 1992 to those in 2007 for three

CH 62 54 39 33 46 47 37 28 43 40 30 18 43

PT 55 48 39 33 44 47 51 29 55 24 17 16 43

Percent rating each of the following facilities, resources, or personnel as “excellent” or “very good” 2007 USA CA MX BR DE FI NO UK Classrooms 53 52 47 57 51 71 56 32 Technology for teaching 60 63 43 46 56 72 60 39 Laboratories 25 33 37 46 64 53 49 39 Research equipment and instruments 27 36 30 36 62 52 54 34 Computer facilities 61 57 47 52 72 71 77 43 Library facilities and services 57 66 46 51 56 75 74 55 Your office space 57 62 44 40 68 67 71 42 Secretarial support 41 44 35 47 50 53 30 28 Telecommunications 72 72 47 56 84 80 84 42 Teaching support staff 28 32 25 37 26 43 17 35 Research support staff 17 28 18 24 38 33 19 34 Research funding 16 23 14 18 34 20 24 17 All (mean) 48 52 41 47 60 64 59 39

HK 68 82 50 52 76 82 59 47 80 36 29 30 64

HK 51 60 42 38 69 49 50 40 50

KR 48 44 2 24 40 43 48 19 73 14 11 14 33

KR 19 9 9 7 13 7 21 6 11

JP 33 53 9 9 37 39 35 16 53 9 9 18 29

JP 15 14 12 14 25 31 17 12 18

MY 43 45 35 24 55 50 48 22 55 27 19 24 40

MY – – – – – – – – –

AU 47 52 41 42 62 75 62 27 67 28 26 23 51

AU 31 35 33 28 53 40 40 36 37

Decision-Making in Academia

IT 38 37 29 31 45 54 46 35 65 16 17 8 39

CH – – – – – – – – –

Table 8.1 Percent faculty rating facilities as excellent or very good: 1992 (nine countries), 2007 (16 countries) Percent who say the following are excellent or very good at their institution 1992 USA CA MX BR DE FI NO UK IT PT Classrooms 55 – 47 39 43 – – 31 – – Technology for teaching 49 – 32 21 42 – – 32 – – Laboratories 54 – 32 22 48 – – 32 – – Research equipment and instruments 53 – 22 15 46 – – 22 – – Computer facilities 68 – 43 25 60 – – 43 – – Library facilities and services 62 – 39 34 53 – – 39 – – Your office space 45 – 34 29 37 – – 34 – – Secretarial support 44 – 33 35 44 – – 33 – – All (mean) 54 – 35 27 47 – – 33 – –

8.4 115

116

8

Historical and Comparative Perspectives on the Faculty Role in Governance

Table 8.2 Percent rating various stakeholders as influential or very influential (having primary influence) on selected decisions: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 Central administration and external stakeholders Deans and chairs Faculty bodies 1992 2007 1992 2007 1992 2007 Selecting key administrators 83.7 76.9 11.3 14.7 4.9 8.3 Choosing new faculty 17.6 5.6 19.8 33.0 62.5 61.4 Making faculty promotion and 31.9 18.3 30.9 30.5 37.2 51.1 tenure decisions Determining budget priorities 86.5 55.4 9.3 42.4 4.2 2.2 Approving new academic 47.4 47.7 27.6 16.6 25.0 35.6 programs Data source: CAP Kassel International Survey, 2009

stakeholder groups: faculty (including individual faculty, faculty committee, and senates/unions), middle managers (deans and department chairs), and central administration (including boards and external groups). The results are displayed in Table 8.2 below. If we examine the results for the two areas of faculty personnel which have traditionally fallen within the purview of the faculty (choosing new faculty and making faculty promotion and tenure decisions), a clear pattern emerges. Between 1992 and 2007, central administration and external groups lost influence in these matters while deans/department chairs and faculty gained or retained their influence. According to this data, by 2007, the faculty had clearly consolidated its hold over faculty personnel decisions. At the other end of the decision spectrum, that is, establishing budget priorities, a very different trend emerges. Central administrators and external groups lost influence between 1992 and 2007, while middle management (deans and department chairs) gained influence. While central administration was perceived as retaining the major share of influence in budgetary matters (55.4% of respondents still saw them as the primary arbiters in matters of budget), it was, however, the deans who relative to the faculty gained influence during this period. In 1992, deans and faculty were perceived to be about equally ineffectual in budgetary matters (perceived as primary influencers by 4.2–9.3% of respondents). By 2007, the deans were perceived as primary influencers by more than two fifths (only marginally below central administration). In the area of selection of administrators, central administration retains its primary influence during this period. Neither deans nor faculty appear to have made any inroads in this area. The key area of approving academic programs shows yet a different trend. The declining influence on the part of deans and department chairs, and steady or increasing influence on the part both of central administration and faculty bodies. That administrators continue to retain the highest share of influence in academic program approval suggests the key role of resources (budget) in the start-up of new programs. That the faculty have increased their influence may be attributable to two forces: the

8.4

Decision-Making in Academia

117

persistence in faculty efforts to exert their control over academic program (an area traditionally the domain of the faculty) as well as the increasing entrepreneurial activity of faculty in the area of new academic program development through securing external grant support. In sum, the overall pattern is one of continued ascendance of central administration in matters of budget, administrative staffing and new academic programs, the consolidation of faculty influence in the area of faculty personnel decisions, and the increasing influence of deans and department chairs (middle management), especially in budgetary matters.

8.4.2

Faculty Self-Reported Involvement and Influence in Governance

The 1992 and 2007 surveys posed an identical set of questions asking respondents, first, the number of weekly hours they spent in committee work and governance (one of several areas that included teaching, research, etc.), and second, how influential they deemed themselves as individuals to be in decision-making at the level of their department, their school or college, and at the level of their institution as a whole. Table 8.3 shows the mean number of weekly hours faculty reported spending on governance matters in 1992 and in 2007 as well as the proportion of respondents in each year that rated themselves as “very influential” at each of the three levels. A review of the data suggests minor or no change in the allocation of time to governance activities between 1992 and 2007. Almost 7 h weekly in 1992 and about 7.5 in 2007 accounting for about one seventh of the nearly 50-h weekly workload reported by faculty. Moreover, notwithstanding the allocation of effort, it suggests faculty do not consider themselves “very influential” at any level beyond the department. In 1992, just over one quarter self-reported themselves as “very influential” at the department level, and by 2007, that had risen to one third. Beyond their own department, however, a very slim minority reported themselves influential at the school or college level (although that proportion increased from 6.7% in 1992 to 10.4% in 2007) and almost none at the institutional level. Thus, despite an apparent uptick between 1992 and 2007, the pattern of perceived influence is quite modest. In the context of the analyses of the previous section on stakeholder influence, it would appear that the discernable modest increase in faculty influence is likely focused in the area of faculty appointments and promotion and, to a lesser extent, the launching of academic programs. When we examine the 2007 data controlling for institutional type and academic field, an interesting and slightly counterintuitive pattern emerges. Faculty at research universities spend an average of half an hour more on governance activities weekly than other 4-year faculty, but on average are less likely to see themselves as very influential on departmental decision-making. This suggests that whatever increase we saw in the proportion of faculty reporting, high departmental influence between

118

8

Historical and Comparative Perspectives on the Faculty Role in Governance

Table 8.3 Mean weekly hours in administration and percent rating themselves as very influential at various organizational levels: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (by institutional type and discipline) 1992 2007 2007 2007 Life and Other Research medical Other All All 4 year university sciences disciplines Mean administration 6.84 7.55 7.32 7.68 7.84 7.49 hours, weekly % Very influential at 27.5 33.0 40.4 30.9 34.0 32.7 department level % Very influential at 6.7 10.4 12.3 11.8 13.7 9.5 faculty or school level % Very influential at 2.1 3.2 5.0 3.2 4.3 2.9 institutional level Data source: CAP Kassel International Survey, 2009

1992 and 2007 may be attributable to greater empowerment of the faculty outside the research university sector. Presumably, as the buyer’s market for faculty has allowed nonresearch institutions to hire ever larger numbers of doctorates from the top research universities. The latter’s stellar professional credentials require a greater measure of institutional recognition. When we control for academic field, faculty in the life and medical sciences spend more time on governance and perceive themselves as more influential than faculty in other fields, especially beyond their own academic departments. We assume this pattern squares with the traditional influence on most US campuses of medical schools as large budget centers and as recipients of large federal research grants.

8.4.3

Perceptions of Administrative Competence and Faculty Engagement

The 1992 and 2007 surveys included several identical items asking respondents to register their level of agreement or disagreement with a series of statements about the “competence” of administrative leadership on their campus, the quality of facultyadministrative communication, and the level of engagement of the faculty in campus affairs. The percentages of faculty agreeing or “strongly” agreeing with each of the three focal statements in 1992 and 2007 are displayed in Table 8.4. The table shows about a 7% increase between 1992 and 2007 in the percentage of faculty agreeing that “administrative leadership is competent” and no change in the percentage agreeing that faculty are “kept informed about what is going on at this institution (just over two fifths).” Moreover, it shows a 13% drop in the percentage of faculty reporting that “lack of faculty involvement is a real problem here.” While the majority of faculty in both 1992 and 2007 did not attest to administrative competence or healthy

8.4

Decision-Making in Academia

119

Table 8.4 Percent agreeing that administration is competent and faculty are institutionally engaged: all US faculty, 1992 and 2007 (by institutional type and discipline) 1992 2007 2007 2007 Life and Other Research medical Other All All 4 year university science disciplines Top level administrators are 37.9 45.3 43.1 42.0 51.4 43.3 providing competent leadership I am kept informed about 41.6 42.8 45.9 40.2 46.7 41.5 what is going on at this institution Lack of faculty involvement is 43.7 30.3 34.5 32.3 22.5 32.6 a real problem here Data source: CAP Kassel International Survey, 2009

communication between faculty and administrators, nonetheless, the trend is clearly in the direction of stabilization or modest improvement. When we control the 2007 data for institutional type, we find there is virtually no difference between faculty in research universities and other 4-year institutions in perceptions of administrative competence, faculty involvement, and communication quality. When we add academic field, we find faculty in the life and medical sciences differ substantially from their colleagues in other fields. These faculty, who had perceived themselves in greater proportion as influential in decision-making, especially beyond their own department (vide supra), now report in higher proportions agreement that administrators are competent and faculty are informed. Thus, it would appear that while interinstitutional difference may have attenuated between 1992 and 2007, those between academic fields, especially between the sciences and nonsciences, endure. In summary, between 1992 and 2007, the locus of influence on faculty appointments and promotions moved away from central administrators and toward deans and faculty. Faculty consolidated their influence on faculty appointments and promotions and reported a modest uptick in their perceived influence, especially at the department level. Central administration maintained its influence on selecting administrators and on budgetary matters, and on establishing new academic programs (albeit the latter shared with faculty). Deans increased their influence over budget priorities at the expense both of central administration and faculty, and faculty perceived no change or a modest increase in administrative competence and faculty institutional engagement. In 2007, relatively modest differences were discernable by institutional type and academic field. At research universities, faculty appear to be losing ground vis-à-vis other 4-year institutions and deans and central administrators gaining ground. In the life/medical sciences, faculty have retained their influence, and what influence they have lost has been ceded to deans rather than central administration.

120

8.5

8.5.1

8

Historical and Comparative Perspectives on the Faculty Role in Governance

The Cap Governance Findings in Comparison to Other US National Surveys The 2007 CAP Survey Compared to the 2001 Kaplan and the 2002 USC Survey

How do the findings reported here compare with the results of other national studies of higher education governance in the USA? As we averred earlier, for all the wringing of hands, there has been precious little systematic investigation of academic governance in the past decade beyond the 2001 Survey of Higher Education Governance conducted by Gabriel Kaplan in his doctoral dissertation at Harvard University and the 2002 survey by USC’s Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (Tierney and Minor 2003). The Kaplan survey included responses from two subgroups—senior administrators and faculty leaders at 883 colleges and universities—to a complex instrument probing questions of general organizational structure (composition and membership of governing board, central administrative structures, etc.), as well as structure and processes for faculty participation in governance at the institutional and subunit levels. The USC survey included responses from 1,199 faculty, 400 faculty senate leaders, and 411 academic vice presidents at more than 700 4-year colleges and universities. For our purposes, three areas of these surveys provide relevant comparisons to the 2007 CAP survey: first, a series of questions in both surveys about the faculty role in decision-making in a series of specific areas, including faculty personnel, curriculum, budget, and administrator appointments; second, a question in the Kaplan survey about changes over the past 20 years (1981–2001) in the powers of specific groups on campus; and finally, a series of questions in both surveys on levels of faculty engagement in campus governance and the quality of faculty-administrative communication.

8.5.2

Faculty Role in Decision-Making

In the 2001 Kaplan survey, senior administrators and faculty leaders were asked to rate the relative influence of faculty (vis-à-vis administrators) in several areas of governance including faculty appointments and promotions, curriculum, administrator selection, and budget. Specifically, the survey asked respondents to determine faculty influence on a continuum from faculty determination, at one extreme, to no faculty participation, at the other. In the middle were progressive alternatives including: joint faculty-administrative action, administration consults with faculty, and administration explains decisions to faculty. The data in Table 8.5 corroborates the strong faculty role in faculty appointments and promotion, and in curriculum (less so in establishing degree programs), and the diminished role in administrator selection and budget.

Table 8.5 Percent reporting various levels of faculty influence in eight decision areas, 2001 Joint action Administration Faculty authority between faculty consults with Faculty status and determination and administration faculty Appointment of full-time faculty 14.1 58.3 24.4 Tenure and promotions for faculty 12.7 57.8 26.4 Decisions about the content of the 62.8 30.5 5.3 curriculum Setting degree requirements 54.2 36.8 6.9 Types of degrees offered 22.7 53.6 18.0 Admin appointment: academic dean 2.8 29.8 53.6 Admin appointment: department chairs or 15.9 37.9 36.2 heads Short-range budgetary planning 2.0 15.9 38.7 Data source: AAUP Higher Education Governance Survey, 2001

0.6 1.5 4.7 3.7 12.6

30.8

No faculty participation 0.8 1.6 0.4 1.5 4.2 8.9 6.3

Administration explains policies adopted to faculty 2.4 1.5 0.9

8.5 The Cap Governance Findings in Comparison to Other US National Surveys 121

122

8

Historical and Comparative Perspectives on the Faculty Role in Governance

Table 8.6 Percent reporting substantial faculty influence in various areas by position, 2002 Venue AVP Chair Undergraduate curriculum 96 84 Tenure and promotion standards 84 69 Standards for evaluating teaching 82 65 Evaluation of the quality of academic programs 71 55 Undergraduate educational policy 64 47 Graduate educational policy 63 52 Standards for posttenure review 53 48 Setting strategic priorities 50 30 Faculty-related personnel policies 47 27 Policies of intellectual property 45 34 Selection of the President and AVP 42 28 Setting budget priorities 24 10 Evaluation of the President and AVP 21 17

decision Faculty 85 66 64 56 44 44 48 28 28 30 22 11 15

Source: Tierney and Minor(2003). Reprinted with permission

Table 8.7 Top three areas cited for different types of faculty authority, 2002 % Claiming types Nature of authority Area of authority Formal authority Undergraduate curriculum 67 Tenure and promotion standards 59 Standards for evaluating teaching 50 Informal authority Selection of the President and AVP 52 Setting strategic priorities 59 Setting budget priorities 53 No authority Evaluation of president 41 Evaluation of AVP 33 Setting budget priorities 31 Source: Tierney and Minor (2003). Reprinted with Permission

The 2002 USC survey asked faculty, faculty senate leaders, and chief academic officers to rate the level of faculty influence in 13 areas, ranging from undergraduate curriculum, through faculty appointments and promotion, to administrator selection and budget matters. Table 8.6 shows the percentage of all respondents rating faculty influence in each of the 13 areas as substantial by position. These results suggest much the same pattern of influence—although undergraduate curriculum, in particular, emerges as a bulwark of faculty influence (an area not specifically focused upon in other studies). Moreover, the results suggest that administrators uniformly perceive faculty influence as higher than do the faculty themselves. When respondents were asked to distinguish between the faculty’s formal and informal authority, as in Table 8.7, a slightly more nuanced pattern emerges: while faculty do not indeed possess formal authority over administrator selection and setting budget priorities, there is nonetheless a perception that informal influence may not infrequently be exercised.

8.5

The Cap Governance Findings in Comparison to Other US National Surveys

123

Table 8.8 Percent reporting change since 1981 in the formal governance roles and influence of various constituencies: US faculty senate and union leaders, 2001 Group More authority No change Less authority Governing board 21.4 74.3 4.3 President 21.3 74.4 4.3 Deans and other heads of key divisions 37.9 56.6 5.5 Department chairs 23.5 67.8 8.7 Main governance bodies of the faculty 35.5 56.5 8.0 State coordinating board for higher 30.8 58.1 11.1 education Data source: AAUP Higher Education Governance Survey, 2001

Table 8.9 Percent rating level of participation and influence of various constituencies on budget preparation and allocation: US faculty senate and union leaders, 2001 Group A great deal Somewhat Not at all Governing board 24.0 37.9 38.1 President 67.1 27.3 5.6 Deans and other heads of key divisions 81.0 18.0 0.9 Department chairs 28.9 58.6 12.5 Faculty at department level 4.8 48.4 46.8 Faculty at institutional level 8.8 46.7 44.5 Students 1.0 20.1 78.9 Data source: AAUP Higher Education Governance Survey, 2001

8.5.3

Trends in Governance Roles, 1981–2001

Senior administrators and faculty leaders were asked how the allocation of governance power had changed over the past 20 years for various groups on campus. Their responses below suggest that deans and faculty bodies are the constituencies that had gained the most governance power during the 20-year period (see Table 8.8). Nothing, however, is suggested about the absolute magnitude of power held by these groups. Moreover, when asked about budgetary matters, in particular, the deans emerge as the most active and involved actors in the budgetary process (see Table 8.9). This confirms their key budgetary role as documented in the US CAP data.

8.5.4

Faculty Engagement and Faculty-Administrative Communication

When the 2001 Kaplan survey asked faculty and administrative leaders to rate the level of governance involvement of faculty on a five-point scale (with “1” indicating that most faculty ignore governance and “5” indicating that many faculty take an interest and participate in governance), the mean rating across the 883 campuses was 3.3 increasing to 3.6 at private institutions and 3.75 at private undergraduate

124

8

Historical and Comparative Perspectives on the Faculty Role in Governance

liberal arts colleges which suggested a modestly engaged (and certainly not a clearly disengaged) faculty. On matters of faculty-administrative communication, the 2001 Kaplan survey inquired into the “tenor” of faculty administrative communication: 47% of the faculty leaders described it as “cooperative,” 44% as “some conflict, but collegial” (while they rarely see eye to eye, they nonetheless work together), and less than 10% described it as “adversarial.” The 2002 USC survey specifically asked whether the levels of communication and trust between faculty and administrators were “sufficient” (or insufficient) to permit shared governance to function. More than three-fourths of the faculty and nearly nine of ten administrators rated both trust and communication as sufficient. While not directly confirmatory of the CAP survey findings, these certainly are consistent with those findings of modest faculty engagement and basic support for administrative leadership.

8.6

The US CAP Survey Data in Comparative Perspective

In an effort to further contextualize the US CAP governance data, we used the international dataset prepared by colleagues at Kassel University to compare our findings for the USA to the findings in five developed countries, including Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, and Japan, each with historically strong academic systems. Table 8.10 compares faculty perceptions of the primary decision maker in the five areas examined earlier across the six countries. Another perspective emerges when we compare the percentage of faculty in each nation who report that faculty have the primary influence in each decision area (see Table 8.11). In the area of their greatest perceived influence around faculty appointment and promotion (where about 50–60% report primary influence), the US faculty are about in the middle of the international distribution. While more influential than faculty in Australia and Germany (about two fifths report that faculty are the prime “deciders”), they are about on par with faculty in the UK but not nearly as influential as faculty in Canada and Japan (where about 70–80% report primary faculty influence). In the area of their lowest influence, selecting administrators and determining budgetary priorities, US faculty are at the bottom of the international distribution. They are slightly below Canada and Germany but well below faculty in Australia, the UK, and Japan. Finally, in the area of new academic programs, US faculty rate themselves at the lower end of the international distribution. Just over a third of USA faculty report a primary decision role here as compared to about two fifths of the faculty in Australia and Canada and about three fifths in the UK and Japan. German faculty report slightly less influence than the USA. When we examine weekly hours spent in governance/administration and faculty perceptions of their personal influence at the departmental, school/college, and institutional levels, US faculty are at about the middle in weekly time spent on governance matters (see Table 8.12). They report about 7.5 h weekly as compared to nearly 9 and 9.5 h in Australia and the UK, respectively. At the lower end, Germany

8.6

The US CAP Survey Data in Comparative Perspective

125

Table 8.10 Percent rating various constituencies as influential or very influential (having primary influence) on selected decisions: USA compared to five countries, 2007 USA CA UK GM JP AU Selecting key administrators Faculty bodies 8.3 34.7 29.0 24.1 43.8 18.5 Central administration/external stakeholders 76.9 51.4 57.0 60.3 39.8 67.1 Deans/chairs 14.7 13.6 13.7 15.5 16.3 14.4 Choosing new faculty Faculty bodies Central administration/external stakeholders Deans/chairs

61.4 5.6 33.0

85.3 3.5 11.2

54.1 16.4 29.1

42.8 35.6 21.6

83.1 9.1 7.8

42.9 26.4 30.8

Making faculty promotion and tenure decisions Faculty bodies Central administration/external stakeholders Deans/chairs

51.1 18.3 30.5

65.8 12.5 21.6

52.5 30.5 16.7

36.0 27.7 36.3

75.5 16.4 8.0

50.7 33.3 16.0

Determining budget priorities Faculty bodies Central administration/external stakeholders Deans/chairs

2.2 55.4 42.4

6.9 61.2 31.9

29.5 55.5 14.8

13.3 67.9 18.9

35.6 46.0 18.4

22.3 57.2 20.5

Approving new academic programs Faculty bodies 35.6 Central administration/external stakeholders 47.7 Deans/chairs 16.6 Data source: CAP Kassel International Survey, 2009

40.3 43.2 16.5

60.8 29.2 10.1

27.4 53.9 18.8

64.8 18.3 16.8

46.1 41.1 12.8

Table 8.11 Percent reporting that faculty are influential or very influential (have the primary influence) on selected decisions: USA compared to five countries, 2007 USA CA UK GM JP AU Selecting key administrators 8.3 34.7 29.3 24.1 43.8 18.5 Choosing new faculty 61.4 85.3 54.5 42.8 83.1 42.9 Making faculty promotion and tenure decisions 51.1 65.8 52.8 36.0 75.6 50.7 Determining budget priorities 2.2 6.9 29.7 13.3 35.6 22.3 Determining the overall teaching load of faculty 11.0 21.0 40.0 N/A 68.0 37.4 Setting admission standards for undergraduates 21.6 38.5 50.6 31.2 66.8 32.1 Approving new academic programs 35.6 40.3 60.8 27.4 64.9 46.1 Evaluating teaching 27.3 23.2 63.1 28.4 45.3 51.8 Setting internal research priorities 43.1 51.9 53.3 59.3 42.2 44.7 Evaluating research 53.1 56.9 42.0 36.5 41.5 39.7 Establishing international linkages 41.3 51.2 56.4 61.5 36.4 51.5 Data source: CAP Kassel International Survey, 2009

and Japan reported 3.5 and 6.5 h, respectively. In terms of perceived influence, however, American academics see themselves as more influential at most organizational levels than do academics in any other nation. Only Germany and Canada are on par at the departmental level with about two thirds reporting that they are very or somewhat

126

8

Historical and Comparative Perspectives on the Faculty Role in Governance

Table 8.12 Faculty involvement (mean weekly hours) and perceived personal influence (% very influential) at various organizational levels by discipline: USA and five countries, 2007 USA CA UK GM JP AU Involvement (mean hours weekly) All 7.6 7.9 9.5 3.5 6.8 8.8 Life and medical science 7.8 8.2 9.4 2.1 5.3 9.6 Other 7.5 7.9 9.6 4.0 7.7 8.6 % Very influential at the level of department All Life and medical science Other

33.0 34.0 32.7

20.1 16.2 20.6

12.5 10.2 12.6

22.3 7.3 16.6 4.9 23.5 8.5

14.9 13.7 14.0

% Very influential at the level of faculty and school All Life and medical science Other

10.4 13.7 9.5

6.1 6.1 6.0

5.5 5.1 5.1

5.9 4.2 3.4 2.3 6.1 5.0

3.7 2.7 3.4

3.2 4.3 2.9

2.3 2.2 2.3

2.1 0.5 2.8

2.9 2.8 2.2 1.6 2.9 2.8

1.2 1.2 1.1

% Very influential CS2 at the institutional level All Life and medical science Other Data source: CAP Kassel International Survey, 2009

Table 8.13 Percent (strongly) agreeing that administrators are competent and faculty are institutionally engaged by discipline: USA compared to five countries, 2007 USA CA UK GM JP AU Top level administrators are providing competent leadership All 45.3 39.3 24.8 31.2 54.7 32.0 Life and medical science 51.4 40.9 27.0 25.0 54.5 27.6 Other 43.3 39.0 22.8 34.9 55.1 31.9 I am kept informed about what is going on at this institution All 41.5 Life and medical science 41.5 Other 40.6 Lack of faculty involvement is really a problem here All Life and medical science Other Data source: CAP Kassel International Survey, 2009

37.5 37.4 37.5

45.2 50.3 44.1

48.9 42.9 52.9

30.1 37.9 42.8 32.4 37.3 46.7 29.1 35.7 41.5

38.1 38.5 38.3

43.9 49.6 40.7

42.7 38.0 30.3 45.0 30.7 22.5 41.7 41.0 32.6

influential. In no nation do a majority of faculty see themselves as influential beyond their own departments. When we compare US faculty perceptions of administrative competence and faculty institutional engagement with those of colleagues in Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and the UK, American faculty, along with Japanese faculty, are the most likely to describe administrative leadership as competent (nearly half) as compared to one quarter to one third in other nations (see Table 8.13). Moreover, US

8.7 Summary and Conclusions

127

faculty are among the most likely to report that they are kept informed about developments at their institution (two fifths) and the least likely to report that a lack of faculty involvement is “a real problem here” (about one third compared to two fifths elsewhere).

8.7

Summary and Conclusions

What emerges from this analysis is a largely stable portrait of campus governance in the USA over the past 15 years. This analysis is lent greater confidence by the largely convergent findings of not one, but two US national surveys since 2001 (CAP and AAUP). While American faculty are hardly in charge of their institutions or even its academic programs and staffing (nor have they ever been!), in 2007, they reported consolidating their influence in the area of faculty appointments and promotion/tenure—their historical sphere of influence—maintaining their slightly ebbing influence in the area of academic programs, and conceding (confirming) their limited role in budgetary matters and administrator selection. Yet it must be clear that the interpretation of the findings regarding faculty influence on academic programs requires some nuance. The 2001 AAUP survey shows a clear difference in perceived faculty influence as between general curriculum and degree requirements versus establishing new degree programs. Within the context of the AAUP findings, the slightly declining influence of faculty in establishing new academic programs should not be interpreted as a general decline in their supervision of college/university curricula, but rather a circumscription of that influence when new programs are being established and budgetary considerations are paramount. Similarly, we should understand that while faculty influence on academic appointments remains strong in the “filling” of faculty positions, there remains the matter of deciding whether or not to fill a vacant (or create a new) faculty position and, if it is to be filled, the type of appointment for which a prospective candidate would be eligible, that is, a tenure eligible or limited term appointment. Our data probably says more about the faculty role in “filling” a position than about the faculty role in deciding whether a position should be filled and, if so, by what kind of appointment. In this sense, these findings on the parameters of faculty influence and changes therein may be in and of themselves evidence of the intrusion of an increasingly managerial perspective. Beyond these interpretive caveats, the data suggest that US faculty influence has tended to localize increasingly in their academic departments while declining slightly at the school/college or division level and, even more markedly, at the institutional level. Such self-perceptions of influence, of course, at whatever organizational level may be grossly exaggerated—a tribute more to an inflated sense of self-importance than real influence on concrete, specific decisions. When the AAUP survey analysts compared the perceptions of faculty influence by faculty leaders vs. senior administrators, they generally found that administrators rated

128

8

Historical and Comparative Perspectives on the Faculty Role in Governance

faculty influence higher than the faculty did themselves, suggesting to the contrary that faculty may actually underestimate their influence. That may, of course, be as much administrative myth as anything else; nonetheless, it does provide an interpretive rudder, suggesting that campus constituencies may underestimate their own influence and overestimate the influence of their “adversaries.” Speaking of adversaries, it appears that faculty are, on the whole, more satisfied with the competence of administrative leadership now than in the past (see 1992 Carnegie Survey) and more sanguine about the engagement of their colleagues than earlier. The AAUP data seems to confirm a relatively stable state of affairs. The most surprising finding about the spheres and levels of perceived US faculty influence is the relative lack of difference by institutional type. Historically, both institutional type (the distinctive character of the research university or the elite, freestanding liberal arts college) and academic field (the natural and health sciences and the professions, on the one hand, in comparison to the humanities and the arts, on the other) have been major shaping influences on the American academic system. The CAP findings suggest that while disciplinary differences in faculty influence remain, those attributable to institutional type are barely discernible. Those differences seem to be muted in this data. In part, that may represent an institutional perspective, the increasing penetration of the research university model throughout the American system. This in effect minimizes interinstitutional differences by way of bolstering the fortunes and influence of faculty at nonresearch institutions. While that phenomenon may certainly be at work here, the data seem to suggest an actual decline in faculty influence at the research universities between 1992 and 2007. When this decline is combined with the bolstering of faculty at the nonresearch university sector, we see a muting of historic interinstitutional differences in faculty power and authority. In no small part, faculty influence at the research universities has been siphoned off not by central administration or external stakeholders but by the rising influence of academe’s middle managers, namely deans and department chairs. The most important story in these analyses is the rise of middle management in modern higher education governance, especially in budgetary matters. Deans have increased their influence nearly across the board, but especially in budget matters. This has been especially prominent in the research university sector. We see the growing pattern of increased, albeit decentralized managerialism, illustrated most starkly among America’s research universities. Finally, when the governance role of American academics is placed in comparative perspective, we find a clear break with the past. While we Americans have always assumed the academics staffing our higher education system are the most productive, best compensated, and most powerful in the world, the CAP data strongly suggests otherwise, at least in the matter of organizational power and influence. Japanese, German, and Canadian faculty appear to play a more prominent role in steering their institutions than Americans do, and academic managerialism may be more decentralized, but more prominent and decisive, here in the USA.

References

129

References AAUP. (2006a). 1940 Statement on academic freedom and tenure (10th ed.). Washington, DC: AAUP. AAUP. (2006b). 1958 Statement on college and university governance. Washington, DC: AAUP. Altbach, P. G. (Ed.). (1996). The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation. Baldridge, J. V. (1971). Power and conflict in the university: Research in the sociology of complex organizations. New York: New York University Press. Baldridge, J. V., Curtis, D. V., Ecker, G., & Reilly, G. L. (1978). Policy making and effective leadership: A national study of academic management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Birmbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. Gumport, P. (1997). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67–91. Haggerty, W., & Works, G. (1939). Faculties of colleges and universities accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, 1930–1937, publication 12. Chicago: Commission on Institutions of Higher Education. Kaplan, G. E. (2002). Preliminary results from the 2001 survey on higher education governance. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors. Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tierney, W. G., & Minor, J. T. (2003). Challenges for governance: A national report. Los Angeles: Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, University of Southern California.

Chapter 9

Declining Institutional Loyalty

9.1

Introduction

How sensitive are academics to changes in the physical, socioeconomic, and political dimensions of their workplace? In the previous chapter, we noted that a majority of the US academies believe that the physical aspects of their workplace are relatively attractive and nearly as many suggest there may have been some improvements over the past 15 years. But when it comes to institutional decision-making, the majority feel that they have little influence, especially concerning decisions on institutional level issues. And when the focus shifts to salaries, academics are acutely aware that their take-home pay (Clark and D’Ambrpsio 2005) and Job security have declined in recent years (Gappa et al. 2007). Does this sense of powerlessness and deprivation impact the way academics order their priorities and go about their work? Albert Hirschman (1970) once argued that individuals have three distinctive options when they encounter shortcomings or obstacles in an organization or social group with which they are engaged. They can suspend their reservations about current developments, trusting in the wisdom of current leaders to identify and rectify the shortcomings. They can voice their concerns in the hopes that the group will listen and attempt improvements. Or they can decide there is little hope for improvement, and thus, the best solution is an early exit. We suggest here that a substantial number of US academics, in response to their sense of increased powerlessness and deprivation, are inclined to the exit option (Cheryl and Jay 2006; Matthew and Heinz Josef 2009). One of the most striking findings of the CAP survey is the strong sense of commitment that US academics express toward their academic disciplines both in 1992 and 2007. But they express a sharp decline in their loyalty to their employing institutions over this same 15-year period. This chapter is devoted to understanding what is behind the tendency of American academics to express or not express a feeling of loyalty to their employing institution. We will first look at the determinants of institutional commitment or loyalty and then reflect on several apparent consequences.

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4_9, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

131

132

9.2

9 Declining Institutional Loyalty

The Multidimensional Nature of Academic Work

An important key to the answer may lie in the multidimensional nature of academic work and the commitments academics make to accomplish this work. Burton Clark (1986), in his seminal study of The Higher Education System, reminds us that the core purposes of the academy are to create, apply, and disseminate knowledge. While academia is committed to these core purposes, individual academics have considerable discretion in deciding which among these purposes they will primarily identify with—and what proportion of their energies they will devote to each. To further these purposes, academics affiliate with a variety of organizations. On the one hand, academics obtain employment in institutions of higher education and research institutes where they receive space, time, and support in exchange for their work as teachers and researchers. On the other hand, they become members of professional associations that sponsor conferences and journals where they publicize, debate, and codify their knowledge products. Additionally, academics may affiliate with private companies that facilitate their consulting work, they may join unions to protect their jobs and their working conditions, and they may join other organizations that promote social and political agendas.

9.2.1

The Perception of Relative Benefits

In the USA there has been much attention to the relative salience of these diverse affiliations. Some researchers (Merton 1957; Gouldner 1960) have depicted a cosmopolitan versus local polarization with one group of academics placing primary emphasis on the operations of their workplace while a second group emphasizes research and participation in academic societies and networks. But other researchers (Berger and Grimes 1973) observe that there are a variety of ways that academics arrange their priorities with at least a substantial minority placing high priority on both their disciplinary and institutional commitments. The degree of loyalty that academics feel to these different entities may reflect the relative sense of benefit they derive from each (Dwivedi and Anju 2007). If the contributions they make to their workplace’s administration are appreciated, they may devote increasing energies to these activities—serving on committees and in administrative roles. But if academics find the disciplinary work rewarding, whether materially or intellectually, they may come to place more value in their professional disciplinary affiliations. We will suggest below that disciplinary affiliations seem to have become more salient in recent years not only for US academics but for academics worldwide. In contrast, attachment to the workplace seems to be waning, at least in the more mature academic settings. While US academics express a high degree of satisfaction with their work, the grounds for this satisfaction would appear to have shifted in recent times.

9.3

Which Factors Have the Greatest Influence on Institutional Loyalty?

9.3

Which Factors Have the Greatest Influence on Institutional Loyalty?

133

Institutional commitment or loyalty is a matter of considerable importance to employers (Peters and Waterman 1982; Collins and Porras 1992) as loyal employees are thought to approach their work with more energy, are more likely to share insights on improving work processes, and are less likely to be sick or to unexpectedly leave the organization. Thus, there is an extensive literature on the determinants of institutional loyalty (Lewis 1967; Becker et al. 1996; Smeenk et al. 2009; Fjortoft 1993). This literature indicates that the employees in more professional settings including institutions of higher education tend to be among the most satisfied with their work and loyal to their workplaces. But as with other groups of workers, among academics there is significant variation. The following are some of the factors believed to be associated with institutional loyalty: • Demographic factors such as gender, nationality, or age • Employment stability as expressed in a tenured versus limited contract appointment • Work duties as expressed in work load or average size of classes • Other work duties such as pressure to raise external funds • Physical aspects of the work environment • Support in carrying out academic duties (secretarial, course preparation, research support, noncumbersome bureaucratic process) • Extent of discretion in work (minimal evaluation, sense of academic freedom and professional autonomy) • Extent consulted on decisions (e.g., sense of collegiality, sense of being informed, quality of communication with managers, top-down style) and perception of personal influence in various decisions • Overall sense that management is competent We propose to look, to the extent the CAP data allows, at the relation of each of these factors to institutional loyalty. For the measure of institutional loyalty, we will use the survey question: “Please indicate the degree to which each of the following affiliations is important to you: my academic discipline/field; my department (at this institution); my institution.” In the survey instrument, the rating of the affiliation variable ranges from 1 for very important to 5 for not at all important. For clarity of presentation in the analysis below, we have reversed the rank order so that 1 refers to weak commitment and 5 to strong. Similarly, most of the potential impact variables use a scale of 1–5. As we take up each of the impact variables, we will describe the measurement. Then we will highlight relations where the correlation between the independent variable and institutional loyalty is highly significant (p < .001). For most cases, we will rely on the Spearman rank-order correlation. Finally, with multiple regression, we will consider which among these promising variables seems most important. One limitation of the analysis stems from the fact that all of the measurements are taken at the same time. Thus, while we may be able to identify interesting pat-

134

9 Declining Institutional Loyalty

terns, we cannot really comment on causation. But at least for several of the variables we can develop a plausible causal argument.

9.4

Recent Trends in the Commitments of US Academics

While most of the published research has focused on differences in commitment and loyalty within nations, there may also be interesting differences between nations. In national settings where there is a strong research tradition and professors are very powerful, it might be presumed that academics lean toward the cosmopolitan pole. In contrast, in a society like Japan or Korea where workplace identity is highly valued, it might be presumed that academics lean to the local pole (Cummings and Amano 1977). Table 9.1 compares across several countries the percentage of academics who express a strong sense of commitment respectively to their disciplines, their departments, and their institutions. In both 1992 and 2007, over nine of every ten US academics indicated a strong or moderate sense of commitment to their discipline. Similarly in 1992, nine of ten indicated a strong or moderate sense of loyalty to their institution. However, by 2007, only six out of ten US academics indicated a strong or moderate sense of institutional loyalty, a drop of nearly 30%. The 2007 proportion is among the lowest for the 19 countries in the 2007 CAP study, and the decrease relative to 1992 is among the greatest.

9.5

Findings from Correlation Analysis

Table 9.2 presents the Spearman rank-order correlations of institutional loyalty with selected variables,1 roughly following the order that these variables have been introduced in this book. Those correlations with a value of .08 or greater are, in most cases, significant at the .001 level. What stands out in the table is the relative weakness of the correlation of institutional loyalty with the variables in the first three groups—demographic, status, and work factors—and then the tendency for the strength of correlations to increase as one moves down the table. Physical facilities are somewhat important, support staff for work more so, the perception of personal influence even more so. Then finally, most notable are the strong correlations of institutional affiliation with the variables in the management and communication cluster. Thus a tentative working hypothesis is that institutional loyalty is greatest in institutions where communication and collegiality are prevalent. Loyalty is also higher when top-level administrators are perceived to be providing competent leadership. 1

The numerical values for the Spearman rank-order correlations were in all instances very close to the values using the Pearson product–moment formula. For example, age’s value with the Spearman formula was .10 compared to .09 with the Pearson formula.

Source: 2009 CAP US data file

Table 9.1 Percent rating of their commitment to their department, institution, and discipline as strong: US compared to seven countries, 2007 Discipline Department Institution % Indicating strong % Indicating strong % Indicating strong % Indicating strong % Indicating strong % Indicating strong commitment to their commitment to their commitment to their commitment to their commitment to their affiliation with their discipline in 1992 discipline in 2007 department in 1992 department in 2007 institution in 1992 institution in 2007 USA 96 92 89 78 90 61 MX 98 97 95 90 94 93 BR 99 94 95 72 96 79 UK 93 81 66 56 84 38 GM 91 90 52 51 34 51 HK 93 90 87 72 78 60 KR 99 89 88 89 97 74 JP 96 93 85 69 80 63

9.5 Findings from Correlation Analysis 135

136

9 Declining Institutional Loyalty Table 9.2 Demographic, career, institutional support, and governance correlates of institutional loyalty: USA and seven other countries, 2007 Variable Correlation* Demographics and status Gender: female −0.02 Country of birth: foreign-born 0.02 Date of birth −0.1 Children home 0.01 Rank: professor −0.03 Appointment type: tenured −0.01 Work Teaching hours, weekly 0.06 Research hours, weekly 0.12 Service hours, weekly −0.01 Administration hours, weekly 0.08 Total work hours 0.01 Do you collaborate with persons at other institutions in your country? −0.01 Do you collaborate with international colleagues? −0.02 The pressure to raise external research funds has increased −0.1 Facilities Classrooms 0.26 Technology for teaching 0.2 Laboratories 0.27 Research equipment and instruments 0.24 Computer facilities 0.26 Library facilities and services 0.26 Your office space 0.22 Telecommunications (Internet, networks, and telephones) 0.24 Support Secretarial support 0.29 Teaching support staff 0.26 Research support staff 0.25 Research funding 0.24 A cumbersome administrative process −0.28 A strong performance orientation 0.23 The administration supports academic freedom 0.3 Sense of influence At the level of the department or similar unit 0.17 At the level of the faculty, school, or similar unit 0.23 At the institutional level 0.23 Management and communication Good communication between management and academics 0.41 I am kept informed about what is going on at this institution 0.36 Collegiality in decision-making processes 0.32 A top-down management style −0.2 Top-level administrators are providing competent leadership 0.4 Source: 2009 CAP US data file *Correlations stronger than +/− .08 are significant at the .001 level

9.7

9.6

Implications for Academic Work

137

Findings from Multiple Regression

To better understand these relations, several multiple regression analyses were carried out. In the initial model to predict institutional loyalty, all of the variables featured in Table 9.2 were included. As there were many missing values for the variables measuring the physical aspects of the work environment, the total n was cut nearly in half. Nevertheless, the regression confirmed the importance of the management and communication variables, especially the importance of being kept informed and the perception that the administration protects academic freedom. In a second model with institutional loyalty as the dependent variable and a reduced set of predictor variables (all facilities variables were dropped), the management variables were again the strongest predictors, especially competent leadership, strong performance orientation, and a sense of personal influence at the faculty and institutional levels. This model predicted 26% of the variance in institutional loyalty. In view of the importance of competent leadership in the second model, a third regression was carried out with this variable as the dependent variable. The third model accounted for 46% of the variance; being kept informed, the perception that the administration protects academic freedom and the perception that the institution has a strong performance orientation were the strongest predictors of competent leadership.

9.7

Implications for Academic Work

Arguably, institutional loyalty has consequences for the way academics go about their work. Considering the different components of academic work, it can be argued that some components such as teaching and service are mandatory whereas other components such as administration and research are largely voluntary. Table 9.3 focuses on the relation between the relative sense of institutional loyalty of academics and the number of hours they devote to mandatory and voluntary dimensions of their work. Regardless of degree of institutional loyalty, the average time that academics devote to the mandatory work of teaching is constant. However, the average time that academics devote to department and university administration decreases significantly with the decreased sense of institutional loyalty; and the average time that academics devote to self-employed consulting and research increases substantially with a decreased sense of institutional loyalty. In sum, professors who feel less commitment to their employing university devote less time to the “voluntary” side of institutional life and more time to their research and remunerative opportunities that are opened up by their status as academics. The decline in institutional loyalty appears to be accompanied by a decline in the involvement of academics in those voluntary activities that lead to a responsible academic voice in university governance and management.

Source: 2009 CAP US data file

Table 9.3 Mean weekly hours in various mandatory versus discretionary work activities by level of institutional loyalty: US faculty only, 2007 Mandatory activities Discretionary activities Administration hours, Strength of commitment Teaching hours, weekly Service hours, weekly Other hours, weekly weekly Research hours, weekly Very strong 20.1 4.9 3.2 9.1 11.1 Strong 21.7 4.2 2.8 8 11.8 Neutral 21 4.9 2.7 6.9 13.7 Somewhat important 22.8 4.8 2.1 5.6 12.9 Not important 22.5 4.2 2.5 5.6 14.1

138 9 Declining Institutional Loyalty

References

139

An alternate interpretation is the local–cosmopolitan argument that some academics choose to emphasize the local combination of teaching and administration while others choose research and consulting; hence these choices shape loyalties rather than vice versa. However, in the 1992 Carnegie Survey of the International Academic Profession, it was found that the academics who emphasized so-called cosmopolitan activities were as likely to express a strong commitment to their institution as those who emphasized local activities. The difference was that the locals put fewer total hours into academic work than did the cosmopolitans. In the 2007 survey, the cosmopolitans continue to work longer hours, but they have reduced the time they devote to institutional governance, management, and administration. Academics who do not feel a strong sense of institutional loyalty are slightly less satisfied with their career choice of academic work when compared to their more loyal colleagues. But the more striking outcome is their tendency to be more actively engaged in a job search, either for a better position in academia or in some other venue.

9.8

Conclusions

While the literature on institutional loyalty tends to focus on the cosmopolitan–local continuum with the suggestion that the locals are most loyal, our analysis does not support this argument. Also while the literature emphasizes the link of demographic factors and employment stability with loyalty, again the analysis above does not find these factors to be determinative. Additionally, variations in the level of assigned work duties are not strongly related to institutional loyalty. On the other hand, the quality of the physical conditions for the conduct of work is somewhat more important as is the level of human support (secretaries, service personnel). But what stands out as most important is management style—the perception of a performance orientation, the sense of being consulted, the sense of having influence in decision-making, and the perception that management supports academic freedom. These variables lead to a perception of competent management and in turn to a feeling of commitment or loyalty to the institution. Their absence leads US academics to consider exiting their current place of employment in the hopes of finding a better place to practice their profession.

References Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464–482. Berger, P. K., & Grimes, A. J. (1973). Cosmopolitan-local: A factor analysis of the construct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(2), 223–235. Cheryl, J. D., & Jay, R. D. (2006). Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 776–803.

140

9 Declining Institutional Loyalty

Clark, B. (1986). The higher education system. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clark, R. L., & d’Ambrosio, M. B. (2005). Recruitment, retention, and retirement: Compensation and employment policies for higher education. Educational Gerontology, 31(5), 385–403. Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1992). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Business. Cummings, W. K., & Amano, I. (1977, May). The changing role of the Japanese professor. Higher Education, 6, 209–234. Dwivedi, Y. K., & Anju, D. (2007). A practitioner perspective on drivers of employee loyalty. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 7(3/4), 276–285. Fjortoft, N. (1993). Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research: Factors Predicting Faculty Commitment to the University, Chicago. Gappa, J. M., Austin, A., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategic imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gouldner, H. P. (1960). Dimensions of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4(4), 468–490. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Lewis, L. S. (1967). On prestige and loyalty of university faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11(4), 629–642. Matthew, A., & Heinz-Josef, T. (2009). All powerful voice? The need to include “exit”, “loyalty” and “neglect” in empirical studies too. Employee Relations, 31(5), 538–552. Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe: Free Press. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s bestrun companies. New York: Warner Books. Smeenk, S., Christine, T., Rob, E., & Hans, D. (2009). Managerialism, organizational commitment, and quality of job performances among European university employees. Research in Higher Education, 50(6), 589–607.

Chapter 10

Conclusion: New Rules and Roles

10.1

Introduction

At the beginning of this volume, we chronicled the rapidly shifting context in which US colleges and universities (and the academic enterprise, globally) find themselves. That included a philosophical shift from the notion of higher education as a public good, and ipso facto a responsibility of public authorities, to one of higher education as a private good, a private investment in individual social mobility (Labaree 1997). That philosophical shift supported the widespread introduction of “market forces” into the enterprise: focusing on competitiveness, efficiency, the linkage of resources to performance, the restructuring of employment relationships, etc. What we wondered was: What are the impacts, if any, of these tectonic environmental shifts on the character and quality of academic work and the nature of academic careers? We argued, if indirectly, that descriptively charting the actual contours of change in how the enterprise is conducted and operating constitutes a first level of analysis in determining where we—and the academic enterprise—are headed. We argued further that such an assessment was critical both for negotiating the posture that American academics and those Americans who have a stake in the health of the enterprise take and also for shaping the lessons that much of the rest of the globe who look to the US system as something of a model take with them and apply to their own national systems. In what follows, we summarize the basic descriptive contours of change as they have been mapped in these pages and explicitly address the question of what these changes may mean for the enterprise. In so doing, we seek to place these academic developments in the larger context of concurrent changes in the organization of work and the restructuring of employment relationships across the developed world. We then seek to frame the sorts of questions that the higher education community— in the USA and elsewhere—ought to be asking as we collectively consider how as individuals and as a community we respond to the emerging new order.

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4_10, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

141

142

10.2

10

Conclusion: New Rules and Roles

What Have We Learned About the Contours of Change?

So, what kind of picture emerges from the more focused analyses of this volume? Surely, a mixed one, but one in which certain generalizations about the American academic profession can be hazarded with some confidence.

10.2.1

Teaching and Research

First, in terms of the essence of the enterprise—teaching and research—two trends seem clear: the teaching emphasis of faculty work has grown, while the resources and actual faculty effort devoted to research have slightly declined. And these trends are corroborated more broadly (Schuster and Finkelstein 2006; Clotfelter 2010). Some of that may be attributable to the rise of full-time non-tenure-eligible, limitedcontract faculty with more highly specialized roles. More American faculty are now engaged in either teaching or research than at any time in the last half century, and it is the “pure” teacher contingent that is growing. Moreover, the actual publication productivity of American academics has declined over the past 15 years (1992– 2007)—that is, fewer resources and less time invested have resulted in less productivity by the conventional standard of scholarly publications. This pattern is in stark contrast to academics in most other countries, and especially those in the rapidly developing nations of East Asia (Korea and China). Moreover, it suggests that the unchallenged role of the USA as the center of scientific productivity and innovation is shrinking— owing not only to the rising activity of others but also (and this is a critical point) to our own declining activity level.

10.2.2

Internationalization

While the balance between teaching and research in the work life of American academics is shifting, the lenses they bring to their teaching and research work seem as insular as ever. American academics seem no more likely now than they were 15 years ago to bring international perspectives into their teaching and research or to collaborate with international colleagues in research and publication. In both 1992 and 2007, American professors emerged near the bottom of the distribution of professors from 19 nations in both of these areas: in 1992 sharing the bottom with Russia and Brazil and in 2007 sharing the bottom with China, Brazil, and Japan. That American academics are no more likely to look outward as their supremacy in research and scientific publication is declining in absolute magnitude and proportionate representation and as the market for research publications in English is expanding across the world even as scientific journals globally shift to publication in English (Borghans and Corvers 2010), the new lingua franca, is certainly a troubling set of convergences!

10.2

What Have We Learned About the Contours of Change?

143

Beyond the US academy’s continued overall insularity, the analyses suggest that our approach to “internationalization” requires some nuance. It is more likely a multidimensional than a unidimensional construct in at least two respects. First, integrating an international perspective in one’s teaching seems to be largely independent of doing so in one’s research. Some people do one, but not the other; and this seems, in part, to vary by academic field. Natural scientists, for example, routinely collaborate on research projects and publications with colleagues outside the USA; they rarely, on the other hand, explicitly integrate international perspectives into their teaching (after all, from a substantive content perspective, science is science wherever it is studied!). Second, the attitudinal integration of an international perspective seems independent of its behavioral expression. That is, faculty may collaborate with foreign colleagues in research and publication but may not report that they integrate international perspectives into their teaching and/or research. Of course, most American academics have what now amounts to the good fortune of using English as their native language; and the pressure of foreign academics to publish in English by their indigenous higher education systems may serve to strongly reinforce whatever limited behavioral inclinations in that direction that American academics may show.

10.2.3

Faculty Demographics and Careers

Speaking of the increasing specialization of function in academic work, declining research productivity, and persistent insularity, what do our analyses tell us about the changing nature of faculty demographics and academic careers in the USA? In the first place, and most generally, they tell us that faculty careers in the USA are increasingly being pursued “outside” their historical institutionally based context. The US system has produced two new variants on academic appointments allowing, indeed requiring, academics to pursue concurrent part-time appointments at multiple institutions or serial short-term, if full-time, appointments at multiple institutions—not unlike what “free agency” has brought to US professional sports! With the persistent weakening of academic tenure, the historic umbilical cord between US faculty and their institutions is fraying. In the second place, we have corroborated what other sources have heralded for some time: the emergent “feminization” of academic work in the USA. That women are swelling the ranks of the American faculty at the very historic moment when that faculty is restructuring itself into a multitracked, diversified workforce ineluctably shapes the very “problematic” portrait we sketched of their limited access and advancement into the upper echelons of the profession. Indeed, women are now a majority in several of the disciplinary fields of the US academy, but they have joined during the period that the academic job has been restructured, and thus a disproportionate number of women have contingent appointments of junior rank. Foreign-born faculty also have come to be quite numerous in the US academy, making up one fifth of the appointments at degree-granting universities and colleges, yet they appear to be even more marginalized than women. While academics with minority backgrounds are not as numerous

144

10

Conclusion: New Rules and Roles

as the above groups, they also disproportionately receive contingent rather than tenure-track appointments. Faculty who begin their careers with contingent appointments face significant obstacles to the realization of senior rank positions.

10.2.4

Faculty Governance and Institutional Engagement

The relatively clear picture of discernable, if gradual, shifts in the balance of teaching and research and in the demographics of the profession (who the academics are) is counterbalanced by a more uneven picture of the institutional life of the US academic profession.

10.2.4.1

Governance Trends

What emerges from this latter analysis is a largely stable portrait of campus governance in the USA over the past 15 years.1 Moreover, that analysis is lent greater confidence by the largely convergent findings of not one, but two, national US surveys in the past decade (Kaplan 2002; Tierney and Minor 2003). While American faculty are hardly in charge of their institutions or even its academic programs and staffing (nor have they ever been!), in 2007, they report consolidating their influence in the area of faculty appointments and promotion/tenure—their historical sphere of influence—maintaining their slightly ebbing influence in the area of academic programs, and conceding (confirming) their limited role in budgetary matters and administrator selection. Yet it must be clear that the interpretation of the findings regarding faculty influence on academic programs does require some nuance. The 2001 AAUP survey shows a clear difference in perceived faculty influence as between general curriculum and degree requirements versus establishing new degree programs. Within the context of the AAUP findings, the slightly declining influence of faculty in establishing new academic programs should not be interpreted as a general decline in their supervision of the college/university curricula but rather as a circumscription of that influence when new programs are being established and budgetary considerations are paramount. Similarly, we should understand that while faculty influence on academic appointments remains strong in the “filling” of faculty positions, there remains the matter of deciding whether or not to fill a vacant (or create a new) faculty position and, if it is to be filled, the type of appointment for which a prospective candidate would be eligible, that is, a tenure-eligible or limited-term appointment. Our data probably say more about the faculty role in “filling” a position than about

1

Of course, it should be noted that the stability of the past 15 years follows the gains that the American faculty achieved in their academic influence on campus in the 1960s and 1970s, the period of extraordinary expansion, and the seller’s market for faculty.

10.2

What Have We Learned About the Contours of Change?

145

the faculty role in deciding whether a position should be filled and, if so, by what kind of appointment. In this sense, these findings on the parameters of faculty influence and changes therein may be in and of themselves evidence of the intrusion of an increasingly managerial perspective.

10.2.4.2

Declining Salience of Institutional Type

The most surprising finding about the spheres and levels of perceived US faculty influence is the relative lack of difference by institutional type. Historically, both institutional type (the distinctive character of the research university) and academic field (the natural and health sciences and the professions, on the one hand, and the humanities and the arts, on the other) have been major shaping influences on the American academic system. The CAP findings suggest that while disciplinary differences in faculty influence remain, those attributable to institutional type are barely discernible. In part, that may represent from an institutional perspective, the increasing penetration of the research university model throughout the American system. This in effect minimizes interinstitutional differences by way of bolstering the fortunes and influence of faculty at nonresearch institutions. While that phenomenon may certainly be at work here, the data seem to suggest an actual decline in faculty influence at the research universities between 1992 and 2007. When this decline is combined with the bolstering of faculty at the nonresearch university sector, we see a muting of historic interinstitutional differences in faculty power and authority. In no small part, faculty influence at the research universities has been siphoned off not by central administration or external stakeholders but by the rising influence of academe’s middle managers, namely, deans and department chairs. The most important story in these analyses is the rise of middle management in modern higher education governance, especially in budgetary matters. Deans have increased their influence nearly across the board, but especially in budget matters. This has been especially prominent in the research university sector. We see the growing pattern of increased, albeit decentralized, managerialism, illustrated most starkly among America’s research universities.

10.2.4.3

The USA in Comparative Perspective

Finally, when the self-perceived governance role of American academics is placed in comparative perspective, we find a clear break with the past. While we Americans have always assumed the academics staffing our higher education system are the most productive, best compensated, and most powerful in the world, the CAP data strongly suggests otherwise, at least in the matter of organizational power and influence. Japanese, German, and Canadian faculty appear to play a more prominent role in steering their institutions than Americans do; and academic managerialism may be more decentralized, but more prominent and decisive, here in the USA.

146

10

Conclusion: New Rules and Roles

And it appears that this “creeping” managerialism is affecting the relationship between US academic staff and their institutions. Indeed, the result of our analyses shows that management style—the perception of a performance orientation, the sense of being consulted, the sense of having influence in decision-making, and the perception that management supports academic freedom—more than any other factor shapes the sense of commitment and loyalty that faculty feel toward their institution. And in interpreting the significance of this finding, it is important to remember the distinctive centrality of the institution’s role in the career of American academics vis-à-vis those of other nations. In France, Germany, and other nations who have followed those national models, it is the discipline at the national level—rather than institutions—that have historically shaped individual academic careers and defined the academic labor market (Musselin 2010). Academic vacancies are listed centrally at the national level by academic field, and those deemed most qualified are given their choice of vacant positions to accept. In the USA it is the individual institutions themselves—all autonomous corporate actors—that make hiring decisions and provide the institutional structure for academic careers, so that the stakes in the US context extend to the changing compact between the professor and his/her institution historically enshrined in faculty tenure.

10.3

What Do These Changes Portend?

What are the implications—short- and long-term—of these changes for the American academic profession and its individual members? Some seem obvious— lowered job security, less attractive compensation, longer hours of obligated work— although the precise toll they take on the individual is not easily measureable; nor can we expect the toll to be strictly linear over time. Others are less clear. With these changes in economic and political drivers, is the profession perceived as less attractive and hence less able to recruit new members? This is certainly an interpretation one can make of the feminization trend—not unanalogous to the trend in the public school teacher corps in the early twentieth century. Has the profession lost some of its traditional autonomy to academic managers and other stakeholders? Well, yes, but, if so, has that loss of autonomy made a difference in the quality of the work output? A difference quite beyond any that might logically attend demonstrably declining investments of time and money? And if loss of autonomy has indeed compromised research output, has whatever damage been offset by the benefits to students and the larger community of the concomitant rise in responsiveness to constituency needs? Has a bifurcated workforce—half full-time and half part-time —managed their research and teaching functions as well as heretofore if in a more compartmentalized fashion? Or have improvements in efficiency been achieved by compromises in effectiveness? At the individual level? The institutional level? The system level? Is the overall health of the enterprise improving? or in danger of deteriorating?

10.3

What Do These Changes Portend?

10.3.1

147

Establishing Some Basic Parameters and Distinctions

A first cut at meaningfully addressing any of these questions requires establishing some basic parameters and drawing some basic distinctions. First, the impact of changing incentives and activities can be viewed at multiple levels—at the level of the individual, the academic unit, the institution, the state, and the national system. At what point do changes at the individual level translate into changes in the actual functioning of the academic unit? The institution? Second, there is the temporal dimension: individuals are resilient and can absorb increasing pressures without compromising their performance—up to a point. Much the same can be said about academic units and entire institutions. Where is the threshold or “tipping” point at which changes in quantity morph into qualitative changes? Third is the matter of stakeholders, or the lenses through which the developments we have chronicled are filtered. While this volume has focused on one critical internal stakeholder in the system—the faculty—a major concomitant of near universal access has been the emergence of new and powerful stakeholders, internal and external, to the system. Internal stakeholders include corporate boards of directors (trustees), the growing corps of nonfaculty professional staff (information technology, instructional design, institutional research, budget and business function staff), and the growing corps of professional managers. External stakeholders include not only government officials, labor unions, and the business community, but increasingly parents and students directly. As we access impacts, we need to be mindful of differential perspectives on just what constitutes academic quality. Finally, there is the question of the assumptions we make about the interrelationships among components of the system. Take, for example, the assumptions that inhere in our use of the metaphor of “competitiveness.” When we have introduced comparisons with other nations, the assumption has been that we are engaged in a zero-sum game where national boundaries continue to be “relevant” to our own outcomes. Thus, a decline in US scientific publications and an increase in such publications in East Asia suggest that the US system is “losing” or “becoming less effective.” And yet, Michael Wines of the New York Times (2011, January 29, Saturday) recounted the case of a Chinese-born naturalized US citizen, a world class geneticist, who holds a tenured appointment at the Yale medical school but who spends 3 months per year conducting research and running a state of the art genetics laboratory specifically built for him at Fudan University in China (Wines 2011). The scale both of the facilities and the work was probably not possible at this moment in history in the USA and in a sense, the work (but not the scientist) has been subcontracted to China. Is this a “win” for China at the expense of the USA? A clear defeat for the USA? or, rather, an example of the fallacy of the “win–lose” dichotomous thinking? While we will not resolve this here, we must simply be aware of our assumptions about how the world and the scientific enterprise work— as we begin to assess likely impacts and consequences of the “new order” on the American academic enterprise.

148

10.3.2

10

Conclusion: New Rules and Roles

Implications for Faculty as Individuals

So, with these parameters and considerations in mind, what can we say about the current status and future prospects of the enterprise and the profession that supports it? The first conclusion to be drawn is that there are indeed realignments occurring within the system—realignments in the internal operations of individual components (e.g., the faculty) and realignments in how the various components interrelate to each other. The nature of academic work, including specifically the balance between teaching and research, is in the midst of a historical shift to increasing specialization of function, and the powerful role of higher educational institutions in providing the locus anchoring academic careers is diminishing. What is emerging in the USA is what we refer to as the diversified academic workforce of the twenty-first century characterized by differentiated functions (teaching, research, program administration, clinical service), differentiated career patterns (more itinerant, a shrinking minority institutionally anchored), differentiated demography (primarily female), differentiated experiential/disciplinary background (more commonly trained in the professions than in traditional liberal arts disciplines), and differentiated work experience (more likely to include significant previous nonacademic work experience). For the traditional full-time, institutionally anchored faculty playing an integrated (nonspecialized) role including teaching, research, and service on campus, this will mean that fewer individuals are available to shoulder the organizational responsibilities for academic programs and departmental governance, raising workloads and work-related stressors for the “chosen” few. For those in peripheral or contingent appointments, it may mean some perceived sense of marginality to the functioning of the campus community qua community and, in this sense, may be dissatisfying. But more circumscribed roles with less pervasive responsibilities may mean more manageable work lives and greater opportunities to bring “balance” to academic careers, especially vis-à-vis family roles. And it is precisely these issues of work–family balance that seem to be uppermost on the minds of many of the prospective new faculty (Gappa et al. 2007)—suggesting that changes that may compromise a faculty member’s objective organizational status may, in fact, provide compensatory rewards.

10.3.3

Implications for Institutional Functioning

Whatever the impact on individual faculty, there is the second-order matter of academic unit and institutional functioning. What does it mean for an academic unit or institution to rest on a much narrower foundation of permanent members? Especially in an environment of heightened economic challenges and entrepreneurial pressures? It likely means that the corporate faculty qua faculty is going to be less involved in steering the institution and cede much of that responsibility to managers. Certainly, our data suggests that this process is already well underway in the USA. The question that remains unanswered by our data—even tangentially—is

10.5

The Search for Indicators or Benchmarks

149

how this diminished faculty role is likely to be reflected not merely in self-reports of institutional loyalty but in the effectiveness of the operation of academic units and entire institutions. To what extent will threats to the effectiveness of academic operations be offset by increases in responsiveness to students, parents, and the business community by the growing corps of professional administrators who are increasingly taking on responsibilities once held by faculty on a part-time basis?

10.4

Putting Change in the Academy in Perspective

In some fundamental sense, of course, the sorts of changes the CAP survey has chronicled in the academic sphere are merely reflections or examples of the broader changes sweeping through the professions and, more generally, the world of work in the globalized information-based economy. Handy (1994), and, more recently, Osterman (2001) and Musselin (2010) have examined the reorganization of work that has been transforming advanced economies in the past one or two decades. The practice of medicine and law has become increasingly corporatized, and contract or contingent employment forms have risen to prominence. In the business world, fulltime employment is on the wane and part-time and contract work is in vogue. So, in an important sense, the changes we see in the American academy are generic structural ones that are likely to endure in the foreseeable future. If their precise impacts on the enterprise are not yet discernable, what is clear is that assessing them will be a complex task. Our initial analyses here have suggested that any one of the developments we have identified is likely to have multiple ripple effects—for different stakeholders, different levels of the organizations, etc.—that are not likely to be unidimensional, that is, uniformly good or bad for every stakeholder.

10.5

The Search for Indicators or Benchmarks

The question, we would argue, is whether the US academy has the wherewithal to engage in the sort of continuous self-reflection and assessment that will be required to “take the pulse” of various rapidly evolving aspects of the enterprise and identify potential problems as they arise. The business community has the enormous benefit of a common metric that is easily quantifiable—a bottom line—that can be easily monitored, and that provides unambiguous feedback. A drop in quarterly earnings is clear evidence that something is amiss and is almost certain to spur serious soul searching (or, at least, creative accounting gimmicks). In the university sector, we have no such unambiguous bottom line. Institutional graduation rates may be one such “bottom line” indicator to which public policy makers are increasingly turning. But graduation rates are full of ambiguities. For one thing, aggregate rates may hide substantial and troubling subgroup differences. For another, the mere fact of increased graduation rates begs the question of academic standards and what, if any,

150

10

Conclusion: New Rules and Roles

actual learning may—or may not—be reflected in a degree. Indeed, the recent study by an NYU sociologist suggests that college graduation may be entirely independent of students’ achieving any substantive learning outcomes (Arum and Roksa 2011). In the research area, publication counts may serve as an indicator—but, again, not without ambiguities. How does one factor in quality or impact of the publications? Or disciplinary differences in modes and frequency of publication? To what extent do aggregates hide substantial variations by academic field or even by subspecialty within academic fields? The troubling lack of clear indicators is further complicated by the organization and governance of American higher education. As a constellation of autonomous corporate entities each of whom consists internally of several dozen nearly equally autonomous subentities, this radically decentralized behemoth would require a dizzying array of concurrent continuous, appropriately nuanced self-assessment exercises—a scope of common activity almost unprecedented—in the absence of an external mandate! Such external mandates may, of course, be coming and, in some instances— states linking institutional funding to graduation rates—may have already arrived. What is absolutely crucial in this regard is that we not so much resist benchmarking in principle as that we avoid being seduced by simplistic benchmarks like aggregate graduation rates and insist publicly on multiple indicators and multiple-measure benchmarks that may consistently raise as many questions about the enterprise— and the indicators themselves—as they answer. Nothing, we believe, could be more damaging for the US academic enterprise than the single-minded pursuit of the wrong benchmark—all efficiency, but questionable effectiveness. Higher education is a peculiar enterprise in the sense that it functions as much as a social institution as a firm. We can no longer treat it as exclusively one or the other. To do so damages the enterprise in the long term. While we as a society and as an economy can readily absorb the loss of one or more firms (even General Motors, however large an employer), we can much less readily absorb the loss of a basic social institution on which we all depend. We need to provide the intellectual and practical infrastructure that allows us to benchmark both Janus-like faces of the enterprise The challenge that the US system faces, then, is one of reflective vigilance, to be exercised in a rapidly changing environment that provides only ambiguous signals in the service of calculating complex cost–benefit trade-offs. And it is a challenge that must be addressed jointly by multiple stakeholders, each aware of the larger social purpose of higher education. We invite the readers of this volume to enjoin that challenge—as stakeholders working with other recognized stakeholders, cognizant of the faculty’s unique, albeit shared, role as stewards of the enterprise.

References Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Borghans, L., & Corvers, F. (2010). The Americanization of European higher education and research. In C. Clotfelter (Ed.), American universities in a global market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

References

151

Clotfelter, C. (Ed.). (2010). American universities in a global market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gappa, J., Austin, A., & Trice, A. (2007). Rethinking faculty work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Handy, C. (1994). The age of unreason. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Kaplan, G. E. (2002). Preliminary results from the 2001 survey on higher education governance. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors. Labaree, D. F. (1997, March). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 39–81. Musselin, C. (2010). The market for academics. London: Routledge. Osterman, P. (2001). Work in America. Cambridge: MIT Press. Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tierney, W. G., & Minor, J. T. (2003). Challenges for governance: A national report. Los Angeles: Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, University of Southern California. Wines, M. (2011, January 29, Saturday). A U.S.-China odyssey: Building a better mouse map. The New York Times, p. A8.

Chapter 11

Appendices

11.1 The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Survey 11.1.1 The Changing Academic Profession, 2007–2008: The US Component of an International Survey [Paper Version, February 2008] Directions: Please place an “X” in the appropriate box(es). I. B1A.

General Work Situation and Activities Are you teaching now or did you teach during the previous (2006–2007) academic year?

1 2

Yes No

B1

Hours per week when classes are in session

��

�� ��

Considering all your professional work, how many hours do you spend in a typical week on each of the following activities when classes are and are not in session? (If you are not teaching during the current academic year, please reply to the second column only.) Hours per week when classes are not in session �� Teaching (preparation of instructional materials and lesson plans, classroom instruction, advising students, reading and evaluating student work) �� Research (reading literature, writing, conducting research, fieldwork) �� Service (services to clients and/or patients, unpaid consulting, public or voluntary services)

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, 153 The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4_11, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

154

11  Appendices

B1

Considering all your professional work, how many hours do you spend in a typical week on each of the following activities when classes are and are not in session? (If you are not teaching during the current academic year, please reply to the second column only.)





 

 

B2 1 2 3 4

Administration (committees, department meetings, paperwork) Self-employment Other academic activities (professional activities not clearly attributable to any of the categories above)

Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research? Primarily in teaching In both, but leaning toward teaching In both, but leaning toward research Primarily in research

B3 Excellent 1            

B4 Very important 1   

At this institution, how would you evaluate each of the following facilities, resources, or personnel you need to support your work? Poor Not applicable 2 3 4 5      Classrooms      Technology for teaching      Laboratories      Research equipment and instruments      Computer facilities      Library facilities and services      Your office space      Secretarial support      Telecommunications (Internet, networks, and telephones)      Teaching support staff      Research support staff      Research funding

Please indicate the degree to which each of the following affiliations is important to you. Not at all important 2 3 4 5     My academic discipline/field     My department (at this institution)     This institution

11.1  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Survey B5 Strongly agree 1        

155

Please indicate your views on the following: Strongly disagree 2 3 4 5     Scholarship is best defined as the preparation and presentation of findings on original research     Scholarship includes the application of academic knowledge in real-life settings     Scholarship includes the preparation of reports that synthesize the major trends and findings of my field     This is a poor time for any young person to begin an academic career in my field     If I had it to do over again, I would not become an academic     My job is a source of considerable personal strain     Teaching and research are not compatible with each other     Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to apply their knowledge to problems in society

B6 Very high 1 

B7 Very much improved 1  

II.

How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your current job at this institution? Very low 2 3 4 5     Since you started your career, have the overall working conditions in higher education improved or declined? Very much deteriorated 2 3 4 5     Working conditions at this institution     Working conditions in higher education and academic research generally Teaching

Refer to the current academic year or the previous academic year—if you are not teaching this year. If you did not teach during the current or previous academic year, please skip to C3.

C1 Percent of instruction time

�� �� �� �� ��

Please indicate the proportion of your teaching responsibilities during the current (or previous) academic year that are devoted to instruction at each level below and the approximate number of students you instruct at each of these levels. Approximate average number of students per course ��� Undergraduate programs ��� Master programs ��� Doctoral programs ��� Continuing professional education programs ��� Others

156

C2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

C3 1 2 3 4 5 6

11  Appendices During the current (or previous) academic year, have you been involved in any of the following teaching activities? (Mark all that apply.) Classroom instruction/lecturing Individualized instruction Learning in projects/project groups Practice instruction/laboratory work ICT-based learning/computer-assisted learning Distance education Development of course material Curriculum/program development Face-to-face interaction with students outside of class Electronic communications (e-mail) with students None of the above Does your institution set quantitative load targets or expectations for individual faculty for the following? (Mark all that apply.) Number of hours in the classroom Number of students in your classes Number of graduate students for supervision Percentage of students passing exams Time for student consultation None of the above

C4 Strongly agree 1            

Please indicate your views on the following: Strongly disagree 2 3 4 5     You spend more time than you would like teaching basic skills due to student deficiencies     You are encouraged to improve your instructional skills in response to teaching evaluations     At your institution there are adequate training courses for enhancing teaching quality     Practically oriented knowledge and skills are emphasized in your teaching     In your courses you emphasize international perspectives or content     You incorporate discussions of values and ethics into your course content     You inform students of the implications of cheating or plagiarism in your courses     Grades in your courses strictly reflect levels of student achievement     Since you started teaching, the number of international students has increased     Currently, most of your graduate students are international     Your research activities reinforce your teaching     Your service activities reinforce your teaching

11.1  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Survey

C5 1 2 2

157

During the current (or previous) academic year, are you teaching any courses… (Mark all that apply.) Abroad In a language different from the language of instruction at your current institution Neither

III. D1aa.

Research Are/were you active in research in this or the previous academic year?

1 2

Yes No

     If “no,” please skip to D4.

D1 Yes 1 2 3 4

How would you characterize your research efforts during this (or the previous) academic year? No 1 Are you working individually (without collaborators) on any of your research projects? 2 Do you have collaborators in any of your research projects? If you have collaborators in any of your research projects, 3 Do you collaborate with persons in the USA? 4 Do you collaborate with international colleagues?

D1a.  Mexico

If you have collaborated with international colleagues, from which principal country or region do they originate? (Mark all that apply.)  European Union  Canada  South or  United Kingdom  Asia Central America

 Africa 

D2 Very much 1       

How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research this (or the previous) academic year? Not at all 2 3 4 5     Basic/theoretical     Applied/practically oriented     Commercially oriented/intended for technology transfer     Socially oriented/intended for the betterment of society     International in scope or orientation     Based in one discipline     Multidisciplinary

158

11  Appendices

D3 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 8

Have you been involved in any of the following research activities during this (or the previous) academic year? (Mark all that apply.) Preparing and conducting experiments, inquiries, etc. Supervising a research team or graduate research assistants Writing academic papers that contain research results or findings Technology transfer Answering calls for proposals or writing research grants Managing research contracts and budgets Purchasing or selecting equipment and research supplies None of the above

D7      

In the current (or previous) academic year, what percentage of the funding for your research came from? (Round to whole percents.) Your own institution Government entities Business firms or industry Private not-for-profit foundations/agencies Your own household or personal income Others (please specify).........................................................................................................

If you had any funding for your research from sources external to you and your D8 institution, what percentage of any such external funding for your research came from?  US organizations/entities  International organizations/entities

D4            1

How many of the following scholarly contributions have you authored, edited, or presented in the past three years? (If none, please mark box at bottom ONLY. Do not enter “0” for each row.) Scholarly books you authored or coauthored Scholarly books you edited or coedited Articles or chapters published in an academic book or journal Research report/monograph written for a funded project Paper presented at a scholarly conference Professional article written for a newspaper or magazine Patent secured on a process or invention Computer program written for public use Artistic work performed or exhibited Video or film produced Others (please specify) ......................................................................................................... Have not contributed to any of the above in the past 3 years (skip to D6)

11.1  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Survey

D5      

If you had publications in the last three years, what percentage (in whole percents) were Published in a language different from the language of instruction at your current institution Coauthored with colleagues located in the USA Coauthored with colleagues located in other (foreign)countries Published in a foreign country On-line or electronically published Peer-reviewed

D6 Strongly agree 1          

159

Please indicate your views on the following: Strongly disagree 2 3 4 5 NA      Restrictions on the publication of results from my publicly funded research have increased since my first appointment      Restrictions on the publication of results from my privately funded research have increased since my first appointment      External sponsors or clients have no influence over my research activities      The pressure to raise external research funds has increased since my first appointment      Inter- or multidisciplinary research is emphasized at my institution      Your institution emphasizes commercially oriented or applied research      Your research is conducted in full compliance with ethical guidelines      Research funding should be concentrated on the most productive researchers      High expectations to increase research productivity are a threat to the quality of research      High expectations of useful results and application are a threat to the quality of research

Management

At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions? (Please check only one column on each decision.) Faculty Deans or Don’t know/not department committees/ Individual Central unions faculty Students applicable administration chairs       Selecting key administrators       Choosing new faculty       Making faculty promotion and tenure decisions       Determining budget priorities       Determining the overall teaching load of faculty       Setting admission standards for undergraduate students       Approving new academic programs       Evaluating teaching       Setting internal research priorities       Evaluating research       Establishing international linkages

IV.

E1 Government or external stakeholders           

160 11  Appendices

11.1  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Survey E2 Very influential   

How influential are you, personally, in helping to shape key academic policies? Somewhat A little Not at all Not influential influential influential applicable     At the level of the department or similar unit     At the level of the faculty, school, or similar unit     At the institutional level

By whom is your teaching, research, and service regularly evaluated? (Mark all that apply.) Your Your research service 1 1 Your peers in your department or unit 2 2 The head of your department or unit 3 3 Members of other departments or units at this institution 4 4 Senior administrative staff at this institution 5 5 Your students 6 6 External reviewers 7 7 Yourself (formal self-assessment) 8 8 No one at or outside my institution 8 8 Not applicable/don’t know

E3 Your teaching 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8

E4 Strongly agree

161

1 

At my institution there is… Strongly disagree Don’t know/not 2 3 4 5 applicable     













 

 

 

 

 

 













 

 

 

 

 

 

























A strong emphasis on the institution’s mission Good communication between management and academics A top-down management style Collegiality in decision-making processes A strong performance orientation A cumbersome administrative process A supportive attitude of administrative staff toward teaching activities A supportive attitude of administrative staff toward research activities Training for administrative/management duties performed by individual faculty, e.g., chairs

162 E5 Strongly agree 1     

E6 Very much 1         

11  Appendices Please indicate your views on the following issues: Strongly disagree Don’t 2 3 4 5 know      Top-level administrators are providing competent leadership      I am kept informed about what is going on at this institution      Lack of faculty involvement is a real problem here      Students should have a stronger voice in determining policy that affects them      The administration supports academic freedom

To what extent does your institution emphasize the following practices? Not at all Don’t 2 3 4 5 know      Performance based allocation of resources to academic units      Funding of departments substantially based on numbers of students      Funding of departments substantially based on numbers of graduates      Considering the research quality when making personnel decisions      Considering the teaching quality when making personnel decisions      Considering the practical relevance/applicability of the work of colleagues when making personnel decisions      Recruiting faculty who have work experience outside of academia      Encouraging academics to adopt service activities/ entrepreneurial activities outside the institution      Encouraging individuals, businesses, foundations, etc., to contribute more to higher education

11.1  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Survey V.

A1 Degree Associate’s degree First degree: bachelor’s First master’s (if applicable) Second master’s (if applicable) Doctoral degree (if applicable) Other advanced professional degree (if applicable) e.g., JD, MD, DDS, second doctorate, postdoctoral. Please insert name of degree [________]

163

Career and Professional Situation For each of your degrees, please indicate the year in which the degree was awarded and whether the granting institution was in or outside the USA. If “no,” please specify Year granted Earned in USA? country where earned _________ Yes  No  ____________________ _________ Yes  No  ____________________ _________ Yes  No  ____________________ _________ Yes  No  ____________________ _________ Yes  No  ____________________ _________ Yes  No  ____________________

Please identify the academic discipline or field of your highest degree, of the current primary academic department or unit with which you are affiliated, and of your current primary teaching focus. A2 Highest Current primary Current primary degree academic unit teaching area 1 1 1 Teacher training and education science 2 2 2 Humanities and arts 3 3 3 Social and behavioral sciences 4 4 4 Business and administration, economics 5 5 5 Law 6 6 6 Life sciences 7 7 7 Physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences 8 8 8 Engineering, manufacturing and construction, architecture 9 9 9 Agriculture 10 10 10 Medical sciences, health-related sciences, social services 11 11 11 Personal services, transport services, security services 12 12 12 Others (please specify) 13 13 13 Not applicable

A3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9

If you indicated in A1 that you hold one or more doctoral degrees, how would you characterize the training you received in pursuing your first doctoral degree? (Mark all that apply.) You were required to take a prescribed core or set of courses You were required to write a thesis or dissertation You received intensive faculty guidance of your research You chose your own research topic You received a scholarship or fellowship You received an employment contract during your studies (for teaching or research) You received training in teaching methods You participated in research projects (outside your dissertation) with faculty or senior researchers You served on an institutional or departmental (unit) committee Do not hold a doctoral degree

164

A4 Full time      

A5 Bachelor’s degree   A6    

11  Appendices Since your bachelor’s degree, how many years have you been employed in the following sectors either full-time or part-time? (Round to the nearest whole year; enter “0” if you were never employed in that sector.) Part time  Higher education institutions  Private, nonprofit institutions (outside higher education)  (Others) government or public sector institutions  (Others) business and industry (for profit)  Self-employed If you reported some employment outside institutions of higher education, how many continuous (consecutive) years did you work in academe without interim phases of employment in other sectors? By how many separate institutions have you been employed since your … Highest degree (beyond BA)  

Higher education institutions or research institutes Other nonacademic institutions

Please indicate the following: Year of your first full-time faculty appointment (beyond research and teaching assistant) in higher education Year of your first appointment to your current institution (beyond research and teaching assistant) Year of your appointment/promotion to your current rank at your current institution For how long have you interrupted your service at your current institution for personal, medical, or family reasons, or for full-time education? (if “0,” so indicate; round to the next highest year)

A7 1 2

How would you best describe your employment situation at your institution during the current academic year? (Mark one only.) Full-time employed Part-time employed, at  % of full-time

3 4

Part-time with payment according to work tasks (e.g., courses taught) Others (please specify)..................................................................................................

A8 1 2 3 4 5 6

Did you work for an additional employer or do additional outside remunerated work during the current academic year? No In addition to your current employer, you also work at another research institute or higher education institution In addition to your current employer, you also work at a business organization outside of academe In addition to your current employer, you also work at a nonprofit organization or government entity outside of academe In addition to your current employer, you are also self-employed Others (please specify)

11.1  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Survey A9 

165

   

How would you describe your current institution? (Mark one only.) Public research university (extensive doctoral programs, professional schools including law and medicine and various research centers; multimillion dollars in federal research funds) Private research university (extensive doctoral programs, professional schools including law and medicine and various research centers; multimillion dollars in federal research funds) Public doctoral-granting university (limited number of doctoral programs in a few fields; limited federal research funding) Private doctoral-granting university (limited number of doctoral programs in a few fields; limited federal research funding) Public comprehensive college or university (no doctoral programs; master’s is highest degree offered) Private comprehensive college or university (no doctoral programs; master’s is highest degree offered) Public baccalaureate (Liberal Arts) college (no graduate programs) Private baccalaureate (Liberal Arts) college (no graduate programs) Public 2-year, associate degree granting college Private 2-year, associate degree granting college

A9A.     

In what region of the country is your institution located? Northeast Southeast Midwest Southwest (including Texas and Oklahoma) West

A10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

What is your academic rank? (If your institution does not have academic ranks, please choose the rank most closely corresponding to yours.) Professor Associate professor Assistant professor Instructor Lecturer Visiting professor Clinical or research professor Others (please specify).........................................................................................................

    

A11 1 2 3 4 5

What is the duration of your current employment contract at your institution? (Mark only one.) Permanently employed (tenured) Continuously employed (no preset term, but no guarantee of permanence) Fixed-term employment with permanent/continuous employment prospects (tenure-track) Fixed-term employment without permanent/continuous employment prospects (nontenure eligible) Others (please specify)........................................................................................................

166

11  Appendices

What is your overall annual gross income (including supplements) from the following sources? (Do not include commas in answer; enter whole numbers only.) A12  Your current home institution (base salary plus any additional overload, stipends, etc.)  All other concurrent employers (including self-employment)  Other income (investment income, spouse’s income, etc.) 1 I decline to answer

A13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9

During the current academic year, have you done any of the following? (Mark all that apply.) Served as a member of national/international scientific committees/boards/bodies Served as a peer reviewer (e.g., for journals, research sponsors, institutional evaluations) Served as an editor of journals/book series Served as an elected officer or leader in professional/academic associations Served as an elected officer or leader of unions Participated in local, national, or international politics Served as a member of a community organization or participated in communitybased projects Worked with local, national, or international social service agencies Others (please specify)................................................................................................ None of the above

3 4 4 5

Within the last five years, have you considered a major change in your job? Mark all changes that you considered in the 1st column. Then, for each change you considered, indicate in the 2nd column whether you took any concrete actions to make such a change. Concrete action taken? Yes No 1 1 Seeking a management position in your higher education/research institution 2 2 Seeking an academic position in another higher education/research institute within the USA 3 3 Seeking an academic position in another country 4 4 Seeking work outside higher education/research institutes 4 4 Retiring No, I have not considered making any major changes in my job

VI.

Personal Background and Professional Preparation

F1

What is your gender?

1 2

Male Female

F2 

Year of birth Year

A14

Considered 1 2

11.1  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Survey F3 1 2 3 4

What is your familial status? Married/partner Single, never married (skip to F6) Single, divorced or widowed (skip to F6) Others (please specify) (skip to F6)

F4 1 2 3

Is your spouse/partner employed? Yes, full-time Yes, part-time No (skip to F6)

F5 1 2

Is your spouse/partner also an academic? Yes No

F6 1 2 3 4

Do you have children under 18 living with you? Yes, 1 child Yes, 2 children Yes, 3 or more children No

F7 1 2

F8 Father 1 1 2 3 4 5

167

Did you ever interrupt your employment in order to provide child or elder care in the home? Yes No If “yes,” For how long did you interrupt your employment in order to provide child or elder care in the home? (Please enter number in both years and months as it applies to you.) I [___ ___] years [___ ___] months What is your parents’ highest, and if applicable, spouse’s/partner’s highest education level? Mother Spouse or partner 1 1 Entered and/or completed a graduate degree 1 1 Entered and/or completed an associate’s or baccalaureate degree 2 2 Entered and/or completed secondary education 3 3 Entered and/or completed primary education 4 4 No formal education 5 5 Not applicable/don’t know

168

11  Appendices

F9

At birth At the time of your bachelor’s degree Now

What was/is your country of citizenship and your country of residence at the following times? Citizenship Country of residence Non-USA Non-USA USA (please specify) USA (please specify)   ___________   __________   __________   __________ 

 __________



 __________

           

What is your first language/mother tongue? If bilingual, which two? (Mark one or two.) English Others (please check one) Spanish French German Other western European (e.g., Italian, Dutch) Russian or other Slavic language Arabic, Hebrew, or other Middle Eastern language Chinese Japanese Other East Asian language Hindi or other South Asian language Native African language Others (please specify)......................................................................................................

F11 1 2

Which language do you primarily employ in teaching? English Others (please specify).....................................................................................................

F12 1 2

Which language do you primarily employ in research? English Others (please specify)......................................................................................................

F13  

How many years since the award of your bachelor’s degree have you spent living and working … In the USA In other countries (outside the USA)

F10 

11.1  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Survey F14                

169

How would you describe your racial/ethnic background? (Please mark all that apply.) White or Caucasian Black, African Black, African-American Caribbean Islands (Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Trinidad, etc.) Mexico or other Latin America Arab or other Middle Eastern Chinese Japanese Korean Filipino or other Pacific Islander Southeast Asian (e.g., Cambodian, Indonesian, Laotian, Vietnamese) West Asian (Iranian, Afghan, Turkish) Aboriginal Peoples of North America (e.g., North American Indian, Métis, Inuit) Others (please specify) Unknown Decline to answer

This is the end of the survey. Thank you for your time!

If you would like further information on the survey results as they become available, please e-mail your request to: [email protected].

170

11  Appendices

11.2 CAP Letter of Solicitation 11.2.1 An Invitation to Participate in a New Global Initiative Dear ---------: In 1992, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, under the leadership of the late Ernest Boyer, conducted the first ever international survey of the academic profession. It reported that while the American professorate was somewhat insular in its orientation/perspective, it felt secure in its professional status, relatively comfortable in the work setting and reasonably influential on their campuses—relative to academics in 13 other nations. Since that time, of course, everything has changed—globalization, the Internet revolution, and privatization trends. The world we live in now seems barely recognizable to that in 1992. How have these global forces impacted the academic profession? Are we, like most national economies, globalizing? Internationalizing? How are powerful new economic forces reshaping us and our work? How is the university being transformed in its emerging role as the center of the new knowledge economy? In 2004, several of the scholars who led their nation’s 1992 survey—including Ulrich Teichler of Kassel University, Akira Arimoto of Hiroshima University, Juergen Enders of the University of Twente, and William Cummings, now of George Washington University—reconvened to consider the need for, and feasibility of, launching a second or follow-up snapshot of global academic life 15 years later. The concrete results of those deliberations are an international survey instrument and sampling protocol that have been adopted by teams of university-affiliated researchers (social scientists) in 22 countries—each supported by their own indigenous funding sources, usually in the public sector. This truly global initiative will provide the most systematic, comparable portrait to date of the changing academic sector globally. We are inviting you to be a part of the United States 2007 survey: The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) by hitting the attached link and completing the online instrument. Our working hypothesis is that American academics are increasingly challenged in their work lives by these new conditions/developments. They appear, in at least some respects, to be changing the rules of the game, and those changes may be all for good or may be eroding the quality of academic life and the competitiveness of the American academy especially vis-a-vis systems in Western Europe and East Asia. We need your assistance in painting an accurate picture of the American academy as it enters a new century on a reconfigured world stage—in a way that will allow us to look at ourselves on a comparable playing field with other developed and developing nations. The survey has six sections, three of which focus on the nature of academic work (separate sections on overall workload, teaching, and research), one of which focuses on the academic career, one on the changing nature of university governance, and the final section on basic demographics. The survey is an American

11.2  CAP Letter of Solicitation

171

English version of those being concurrently administered in 21 other countries. It is being administered online for the US team by the Research Services Division of SPSS Corporation (the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). It takes about 30–40 min to complete and is designed to allow you to complete your responses in multiple sittings. Further information on the scope of the international project as well as key personnel can be accessed at the project website: www.CAP2007.net. We want you to know that we will maintain your anonymity and will assure the confidentiality of the responses you provide. Each invitation is being sent to the US national sample of approximately 6,000 faculty at 100 colleges and universities with an individual identifier to be used for response tracking purposes by SPSS. The data files that SPSS turns over to us will be stripped of those individual identifiers so that we will have absolutely no capability of identifying specific individuals. Moreover, data will be reported only in aggregate categories. The US data file will reside at Seton Hall and George Washington universities and also as part of the entire international dataset at Kassel University in Germany. We will make reports on the US survey available to you and will provide access to a version of the US data file for any respondent who requests it in writing. If you have any questions about the content of the survey or plans for data analysis and storage, you may contact either of us [email protected] or [email protected]. If you have technical questions about the survey administration, you should contact Ms. Teresa Donner at SPSS at [email protected]. Thank you for taking the time to consider this invitation and for contributing to an understanding of the changing nature of academic careers and academic work at a critical juncture in a global economy. William Cummings, Martin Finkelstein

172

11  Appendices

11.3  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP)

Tables by Country (0) - Advanced Countries Weighted Data Date of Version: 20.09.2011 Created by Florian Löwenstein and René Kooij e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] International Centre of Higher education Research - INCHER-Kassel University of Kassel Germany http://www.uni-kassel.de/incher

11.3  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP)

173

Contents A.

Career and Professional Situation................................................................................... Table 11.1 Kind of degree obtained (percent; multiple responses)............................. Table 11.2 Age of award of degree (means)................................................................ Table 11.3 Year of award of degrees (means).............................................................. Table 11.4 First degree obtained in the country of current employment (percent of respondents having obtained a first degree)............................................................................... Table 11.5 Second degree obtained in the country of current employment (percent of respondents having obtained a second degree)......................................................................................... Table 11.6 Doctoral degree obtained in the country of current employment (percent of respondents having obtained a doctoral degree)....................................................................................... Table 11.7 Post-Doctoral degree obtained in the country of current employment (percent of respondents having obtained a post-doctoral degree)............................................................................... Table 11.8 Country where first degree was obtained (percent of respondents having obtained a first degree).......................................... Table 11.9 Country where second degree was obtained (percent of respondents having obtained a second degree)...................................... Table 11.10 Country where doctoral degree was obtained (percent of respondents having obtained a doctoral degree).................................... Table 11.11 Country where post-doctoral degree was obtained (percent of respondents having obtained a post-doctoral degree)........................................................................................................ Table 11.12 Discipline or field of the highest degree obtained (percent)...................... Table 11.13 Discipline or field of current academic unit (percent)............................... Table 11.14 Discipline or field of current teaching (percent)........................................ Table 11.15 Modes of doctoral training (percent of respondents naming modes of doctoral training; multiple responses)........................... Table 11.16 Modes of doctoral training (percent of doctoral degree holders; multiple responses)........................................................... Table 11.17 Duration of full-time employment in different sectors (means of years; respondents employed full-time at any time since the award of the first degree in each sector; zero is excluded)........................................................................................ Table 11.18 Duration of full-time employment in different sectors (means of years; all respondents employed full-time at any time since the award of the first degree in each sector; zero is included)............................................................................. Table 11.19 Duration of part-time employment in different sectors (means of years; respondents employed part-time at any time since the award of the first degree in each sector; zero is excluded)........................................................................................ Table 11.20 Duration of part-time employment in different sectors (means of years; all respondents employed part-time at any time since the award of the first degree; zero is included)................................................................................................. Table 11.21 Duration of employment in academia (means of years)............................ Table 11.22 Number of institutions employed at since the award of the first degree (means; zero is excluded).............................................

180 180 180 180 181 181 181 182 182 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189

190

191

192

193 193 193

174

11  Appendices Table 11.23 Number of institutions employed at since the award of the first degree (means; zero is included).............................................. Table 11.24 Number of institutions employed at since the award of the highest degree (means; zero is excluded)........................................ Table 11.25 Number of institutions employed at since the award of the highest degree (means; zero is included)......................................... Table 11.26 Year of first and current appointment (means)........................................... Table 11.27 Number of years since first and current appointment (means)....................................................................................................... Table 11.28 Current full-time and part-time employment (percent)............................. Table 11.29 Average proportion of full-time employment of respondents currently employed part-time (means of part-time employed respondents).......................................................... Table 11.30 Additional employment and remunerated work (percent; multiple responses; all repondents)............................................ Table 11.31 Type of current institution (percent).......................................................... Table 11.32 Academic rank (percent)............................................................................ Table 11.33 Duration of current employment contract (percent).................................. Table 11.34 Annual gross income (means of US$)....................................................... Table 11.35 Service activities in current academic year (percent of all respondents; multiple responses)........................................ Table 11.36 Service activities in current academic year (percent of respondents undertaking additional service activities; multiple responses).................................................................... Table 11.37 Considered major changes in job (percent; multiple responses).................................................................................... Table 11.38 Action taken for major changes in job (percent of respondents who reported major changes in their job; multiple responses)............................................................................. Table 11.39 Action taken for major changes in job (percent of all respondents of the question; multiple responses).............................

B.

General Work Situation and Activities............................................................................ Table 11.40 Hours spent on academic activities when classes are in session (arithmetic mean of hours per week)................................... Table 11.41 Proportion of time spent on teaching and research when classes are in session (means of percentages).................................. Table 11.42 Hours spent on academic activities when classes are not in session (arithmetic mean of hours per week)............................ Table 11.43 Proportion of time spent on teaching and research when classes are not in session (means of percentages)............................ Table 11.44 Preferences for teaching/research (percent)............................................... Table 11.45 Assessment institution’s support for own work (arithmetic mean)....................................................................................... Table 11.46 Positive assesment of institution’s support for own work (percent; responses 1 and 2)................................................ Table 11.47 Importance of affiliation (arithmetic mean)............................................... Table 11.48 Importance of affiliation (percent; responses 1 and 2).............................. Table 11.49 Views on scholarship and career (arithmetic mean).................................. Table 11.50 Positive views on scholarship and career (percent; responses 1 and 2)...................................................................................... Table 11.51 Job satisfaction (percent; arithmetic mean)............................................... Table 11.52 Perceived changes in working conditions in higher education (percent; arithmetic mean)........................................................

194 194 195 195 196 197 197 198 199 199 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 206 207 208 209 209 210 211 212 212 213 214 215 215

11.3  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP)

175

Table 11.53 Perceived changes in working conditions in research institutes (percent; arithmetic mean).......................................................... 216 C.

D.

Teaching.......................................................................................................................... Table 11.54 Proportion of instruction time spent on programs at different levels of study (arithmetic mean of percentages)................................................................................. Table 11.55 Average number of students taught on programs at different levels of study programs (means)............................................ Table 11.56 Involvement in types of teaching activities (percent; multiple responses)..................................................................... Table 11.57 Workload expectations set by institution (percent; multiple responses).................................................................................... Table 11.58 Views and activities about teaching (arithmetic mean)............................. Table 11.59 Positive views and activities about teaching (percent; responses 1 and 2)....................................................................... Table 11.60 Teaching abroad/ in foreign languages (percent of respondents with teaching responsibilities; multiple responses).................................................................................... Research.......................................................................................................................... Table 11.61 Collaboration in research (percent of respondents undertaking research work; multiple responses)....................................... Table 11.62 Collaboration in research (percent of all respondents; multiple responses).................................................................................... Table 11.63 Character of primary research (arithmetic mean)...................................... Table 11.64 Character of primary research (percent; responses 1 and 2)...................................................................................... Table 11.65 Research activities (percent of all respondents; multiple responses).................................................................................... Table 11.66 Number of research outputs in the past three years (arithmetic mean; only respondents with any research output)................................................................................... Table 11.67 Proportion of respondents producing different research outputs in the past three years (arithmetic mean; only respondents with respective research outputs)........................................................................................ Table 11.68 Proportion of respondents producing different research outputs in the past three years (percent of respondents with any research output; multiple responses).................................................................................... Table 11.69 Proportion of respondents producing different research outputs in the past 3 years (percent of all respondents; multiple responses)...................................................... Table 11.70 Modes of publications (means of percentages of respondents having published in the past 3 years)................................ Table 11.71 Proportion of respondents with publishing in different modes (percentage of respondents having published in each mode in the past 3 years; multiple responses).................................................................................... Table 11.72 Views on the conditions for research (arithmetic mean)........................... Table 11.73 Positive views on conditions for research (percent; responses 1 and 2)...................................................................................... Table 11.74 Sources of funding (means of percentages)............................................... Table 11.75 Sources of funding (means of adjusted percentages).................................

216 216 217 218 218 219 220 221 221 221 222 222 223 224 224

225

226 227 229

230 231 232 233 234

176

11  Appendices Table 11.76 Sources of external funding (means of percentages)............................... 235 Table 11.77 Sources of external funding (means of adjusted percentages)............................................................................................. 236

E.

F.

Management.................................................................................................................... Table 11.78 Actors having the primary influence on selecting key administrators (percent)........................................................................... Table 11.79 Actors having the primary influence on choosing new faculty (percent)............................................................................... Table 11.80 Actors having the primary influence on making faculty promotion and tenure decisions (percent).................................... Table 11.81 Actors having the primary influence on determining budget priorities (percent)........................................................................ Table 11.82 Actors having the primary influence on determining the overall teaching load of faculty (percent).......................................... Table 11.83 Actors having the primary influence on setting admission standards for undergraduate students (percent)....................................... Table 11.84 Actors having the primary influence on approving new academic programs (percent)........................................................... Table 11.85 Actors having the primary influence on evaluating teaching (percent)..................................................................................... Table 11.86 Actors having the primary influence on setting internal research priorities (percent)........................................................ Table 11.87 Actors having the primary influence on evaluating research (percent)..................................................................................... Table 11.88 Actors having the primary influence on establishing international linkages (percent)................................................................ Table 11.89 Personal influence at various institutional levels (arithmetic mean)..................................................................................... Table 11.90 High personal influence at various institutional levels (percent; responses 1 and 2)........................................................... Table 11.91 Evaluators of teaching (percent; multiple responses).............................. Table 11.92 Evaluators of research (percent; multiple responses).............................. Table 11.93 Evaluators of service activities (percent; multiple responses).................................................................................. Table 11.94 Views of institutional management and administration (arithmetic mean)...................................................... Table 11.95 Strong views of institutional management and administration (percent; responses 1 and 2)...................................... Table 11.96 Views on institutional practice (arithmetic mean)................................... Table 11.97 Strong views on institutional practice (percent; responses 1 and 2).................................................................................... Table 11.98 Perception of teaching and research related institutional strategies (arithmetic mean)................................................. Table 11.99 Strong perceptions of teaching and research related institutional strategies (percent; responses 1 and 2).................................

237

Personal Background and Professional Preparation........................................................ Table 11.100 Gender (percent)...................................................................................... Table 11.101 Year of birth (means)............................................................................... Table 11.102 Age of repondents at the time of the survey (2007) (percent)....................................................................................... Table 11.103 Marital status (percent)............................................................................ Table 11.104 Employment of spouse/partner (percent of respondents with a spouse/partner)......................................................

250 250 250

237 237 238 238 239 239 239 240 240 240 241 241 241 242 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249

250 250 251

11.3  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Table 11.105 Academic spouse/partner (percent of respondents with a spouse/partner).............................................................................. Table 11.106 Number of children (percent)................................................................... Table 11.107 Interruption of employment for care of child or elder (percent)...................................................................................... Table 11.108 Duration of interruption of employment for care of child or elder (means of years; respondents who interrupted employment).................................................................. Table 11.109 Educational attainment of father (percent)............................................... Table 11.110 Educational attainment of mother (percent)............................................ Table 11.111 Tertiary education attainment of parents (percent).................................. Table 11.112 Educational attainment of partner (percent of respondents with a partner).................................................................. Table 11.113 Citizenship at birth (percent)................................................................... Table 11.114 Citizenship at the time of your first degree (percent)............................... Table 11.115 Current citizenship (percent).................................................................... Table 11.116 Country of residence at birth (percent).................................................... Table 11.117 Country of residence at the time of your first degree (percent)........................................................................................ Table 11.118 Current country of residence (percent).................................................... Table 11.119 First language/mother tongue (percent)................................................... Table 11.120 Teaching language (percent).................................................................... Table 11.121 Other teaching language (percent of those not primarily teaching in first language/mother tongue)................................ Table 11.122 Other teaching language (percent of all respondents with teaching activities)........................................................................... Table 11.123 Research language (percent).................................................................... Table 11.124 Other research language (percent of those not primarily employing the first language/mother tongue).......................................... Table 11.125 Other research language (percent)........................................................... Table 11.126 Years spent outside the country of first degree (percent of all respondents; multiple responses)...................................... Table 11.127 Years spent in the country of first degree (means of years of all respondents who stayed in the country of first degree).......................................................................................... Table 11.128 Years spent in the country of current employment (means of years of all respondents since the award of the first degree).................................................................................... Table 11.129 Years spent outside the country of first degree and current employment (means of years of all respondents who were employed in other countries since the award of the first degree).......................................................... N.

New Variables.................................................................................................................. Table 11.130 International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship excluded)............................... Table 11.131 International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens)............................................................................. Table 11.132 International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens)............................................................................. Table 11.133 International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens).............................................................................

177

251 251 251 251 252 252 252 253 253 254 254 255 255 256 256 257 257 258 258 258 259 260 260 260

261 261 261 262 263 263

178

11  Appendices Table 11.134 International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens, Asia / Australia same regions)............................ Table 11.135 International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens, Asia / Australia different regions)............................................................ Table 11.136 International activities (means of index from 0 – low to 8 – high)......................................................................... Table 11.137 International activities – teaching (means of index from 0 – low to 3 – high)........................................................... Table 11.138 International activities – research (means of index from 0 – low to 5 – high)........................................................... Table 11.139 Infrastructural support (means of index from 0 – low to 8 – high)......................................................................... Table 11.140 Research – teaching ratio (percent).......................................................... Table 11.141 Varied teaching activities (means of index from 0 – low to 7 – high)......................................................................... Table 11.142 Publications (means of scores)................................................................. Table 11.143 Foreign language use (percent; missings excluded)................................ Table 11.144 Foreign language use (percent; missings included, just one answered variable needed)......................................................... Table 11.145 Dominant language – in terms of country (percent)................................

264

265 266 266 266 266 266 267 267 267 267 268

11.3  The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) Country Argentina Australia Brazil Canada China Finland Germany Hong Kong Italy Japan Korea Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Norway Portugal South Africa United Kingdom USA

Legend CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK

179 Date of Data Version 03-10-08 13-11-08 05-12-08 08-12-08 03-08-08 03-03-09 10-11-08 28-04-08 02-06-08 12-05-09 08-02-10 22-01-08 06-02-10 09-12-10 17-03-09 23-03-09 12-12-08 31-03-09 23-08-08

Canada United States of America Finland Germany Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal United Kingdom Australia Japan South Korea Hong Kong

180

11  Appendices

A.  Career and Professional Situation Table 11.1  Kind of degree obtained (percent; multiple responses) CA First degree Second degree Doctoral degree Post-doctoral degree Total Count (n)

US

98 85 92 23

FI

100 85 77 14

297 1151

DE

43 95 41 0

276 180 1105 1358

IT

99 17 64 22

NL

NO

PT

UK

100 0 45 0

61 80 37 0

63 94 53 0

98 75 40 5

202 145 1213 1702

178 1185

210 978

218 1424

AU

99 52 73 29

JP

98 66 73 0

87 67 74 0

KR

HK

100 99 97 98

97 80 79 7

253 236 228 395 262 1051 1254 1118 909 578

Question A1: For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country in which you obtained it.

Table 11.2  Age of award of degree (means) CA

US

Age of award of first degree Arithm. mean 23.1 23.4 Median 23.0 22.0 Count (n)

930

1085

FI

DE 25.6 24.0

424

Age of award of second degree Arithm. mean 27.3 28.6 28.3 Median 26.0 27.0 26.0 Count (n)

795

918

1246

Age of award of doctoral degree Arithm. mean 33.1 34.5 36.0 Median 32.0 32.0 34.2 Count (n)

849

845

533

Age of award of post-doctoral degree Arithm. mean 34.0 32.7 – Median 33.0 32.0 – Count (n)

202

153

0

IT

26.7 26.0 1067

NL 24.9 24.5 25.0 23.0

1656

469

29.8 – 29.0 –

28.1 26.0

176

0

31.5 31.0

629

31.4 33.5 30.0 32.0

683

734

39.1 – 38.9 – 232

NO 24.4 24.0 569 28.3 27.0 850 36.6 35.0

318

473

– –

– –

0

0

PT 26.5 24.0 877 32.5 31.0 670 36.9 36.0 361 40.4 39.3

0

50

UK 23.8 22.0 974 29.6 26.0 506 30.8 29.0 725

AU

KR

24.9 24.2 23.0 23.0 979

904

32.2 26.7 30.0 26.0 670

698

36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 736

31.5 – 30.0 – 272

JP

760 – –

0

23.9 23.0 888 27.7 27.0 871 34.6 34.0 874 35.8 35.0

0

243

HK 23.8 23.0 520 28.9 27.0 426 35.2 33.0 420 34.8 33.4 40

Question A1: For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country in which you obtained it.

Table 11.3  Year of award of degrees (means) CA

US

FI

DE

IT

NL

Year of first degree Arithm. mean 1984 1978 1987 1993 1982 1988 Median 1985 1978 1986 1996 1983 1987 Count (n)

1106 1100

442

1183 1689 724

Year of second degree Arithm. mean 1988 1984 1993 1993 – Median 1989 1983 1995 1995 – Count (n)

949

931

1280

190

1992 1992 0

953

NO

PT

1988 1993 1990 1995 607

1400

1991 2000 1995 2001 905

1061

UK

AU

JP

KR

HK

1987 1985 1980 1984 1986 1989 1986 1981 1984 1986 1037 1216

936

891

555

1992 1992 1983 1988 1991 1994 1993 1983 1987 1992 548

813

723

872

456

(continued)

A.  Career and Professional Situation

181

Table 11.3  (continued) CA

US

FI

DE

IT

NL

NO

PT

UK

AU

JP

KR

HK

Year of doctoral degree Arithm. mean 1994 1989 1997 1993 1996 1997 Median 1996 1990 2000 1995 1996 1998 Count (n)

1012

850

549

Year of post-doctoral degree Arithm. mean 1997 1988 – Median 1999 1989 – Count (n)

242

155

765

746

1995 – 1998 – 0

262

406 – –

0

1995 2001 1997 2003 499 – –

0

546 2002 2005

0

73

1995 1996 1991 1995 1997 1998 1999 1993 1994 1999 764

903

1997 – 2000 –

791 – –

284

874

448

1998 1997 2000 2001

0

0

243

41

Question A1: For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country in which you obtained it.

Table 11.4  First degree obtained in the country of current employment (percent of respondents ­having obtained a first degree) CA Yes No Total Count (n)

US

FI

DE

IT

NL

NO

PT

UK

AU

JP

KR

HK

72 28

87 13

86 14

93 7

99 1

92 8

80 20

97 3

80 20

74 26

99 1

99 1

45 55

100 1142

100 1105

100 606

100 1199

100 1689

100 732

100 771

100 1382

100 1036

100 1211

100 971

100 909

100 571

Question A1: For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country in which you obtained it.

Table 11.5  Second degree obtained in the country of current employment (percent of respondents having obtained a second degree) CA US FI DE NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Yes 73 91 93 66 90 89 91 80 71 95 81 34 No 27 9 7 34 10 11 9 20 29 5 19 66 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 972 936 1279 239 956 855 1038 544 784 740 909 472 Question A1: For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country in which you obtained it.

Table 11.6  Doctoral degree obtained in the dents having obtained a doctoral degree) CA US FI DE IT Yes 67 94 90 89 81 No 33 6 10 11 19 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1049 852 551 777 830

country of current employment (percent of responNL 86 14 100 439

NO 61 39 100 693

PT 72 28 100 544

UK 85 15 100 763

AU 74 26 100 866

JP 95 5 100 819

KR 58 42 100 888

HK 28 72 100 467

Question A1: For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country in which you obtained it.

182

11  Appendices

Table 11.7  Post-Doctoral degree obtained in the country of current employment (percent of respondents having obtained a post-doctoral degree) CA US DE PT UK KR HK Yes 49 87 84 73 66 90 23 No 51 13 16 27 34 10 77 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 275 157 292 73 300 908 44 Question A1: For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country in which you obtained it. Table 11.8  Country where first degree was obtained (percent of respondents first degree) CA US FI DE IT NL PT UK AU Argentina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Australia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 74 Brazil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada 72 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 China 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Finland 0 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 Germany 1 0 1 93 0 2 0 2 1 Hong Kong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Italy 0 0 1 1 99 0 0 1 0 Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Korea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Malaysia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexico 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 1 0 Norway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portugal 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 South Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 United Kingdom 4 2 1 1 0 1 0 80 8 US 8 87 1 2 0 1 0 2 3 Other 12 8 8 4 1 3 2 10 9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1140 1103 604 1199 1688 729 1381 1035 1210

having obtained a JP KR HK 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 46 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 9 0 0 8 100 100 100 970 906 566

Question A1: For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country in which you obtained it. Table 11.9  Country where second degree was obtained (percent of respondents having obtained a second degree) CA US FI DE NL PT UK AU JP KR HK Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 6 Brazil 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada 74 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 5 China 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 Finland 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Germany 0 0 1 80 2 0 2 1 0 2 1   (continued)

A.  Career and Professional Situation

183

Table 11.9  (continued) CA

US

FI

DE

NL

PT

UK

AU

JP

KR

HK

Hong Kong Italy Japan South Korea Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Norway Portugal South Africa United Kingdom US Other Total Count (n)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 95 1 100 897

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 100 1279

0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 7 100 196

0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 0 3 0 3 100 955

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 2 2 4 100 1034

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 80 5 9 100 541

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 7 8 100 777

0 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 100 721

0 0 3 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 100 909

35 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 19 5 100 459

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 8 100 968

Question A1: For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country in which you obtained it.

Table 11.10  Country where doctoral degree was obtained (percent of respondents having obtained a doctoral degree) CA US FI DE IT NL PT UK AU JP KR HK Argentina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Australia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 74 0 0 10 Brazil 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Canada 67 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 Finland 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Germany 0 0 0 93 1 3 0 2 1 0 5 0 Hong Kong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Italy 0 0 0 0 91 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 4 1 South Korea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 Malaysia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 86 1 0 1 0 0 0 Norway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portugal 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 South Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 United Kingdom 5 2 1 1 3 3 7 86 10 0 1 21 US 19 97 2 2 2 2 4 3 6 2 26 27 Other 7 0 4 4 2 4 16 6 6 1 2 4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1042 826 548 748 739 438 551 759 861 809 888 451 Question A1: For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country in which you obtained it.

184

11  Appendices

Table 11.11  Country where post-doctoral degree was obtained (percent of respondents having obtained a post-doctoral degree) CA US DE PT UK KR HK Australia 2 0 0 0 4 0 4 Brazil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada 54 2 0 0 3 0 13 Finland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Germany 3 0 98 2 2 0 1 Hong Kong 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Italy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 South Korea 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 Netherlands 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Norway 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Portugal 0 0 0 73 0 0 0 South Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom 4 3 0 4 72 0 14 US 27 95 0 5 12 9 41 Other 9 0 2 14 5 0 2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 252 143 254 73 279 909 43 Question A1: For each of your degrees, please indicate the year of completion and the country in which you obtained it.

Question A2: Please, identify the academic discipline or field of your.

Table 11.12  Discipline or field of the highest degree obtained (percent) CA US Teacher training and education science 6 10 Humanities and arts 18 18 Social and behavioural sciences 18 13 Business and ­administration, economics 6 8 Law 2 2 Life sciences 6 10 Physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences 14 15 Engineering, ­manufacturing and construction, architecture 9 4 Agriculture 2 2 Medical sciences, health related sciences, social services 16 10 Other 3 7 Not applicable 0 0 Total 100 100 Count (n) 1147 1108 DE 3 12 6 8 3 11 17 16 2 20 2 0 100 1163

FI 5 16 11 7 2 8 13 23 2 9 4 1 100 1282

2 11 6 5 7 11 25 11 5 17 0 0 100 1635

IT

NL 10 15 18 14 5 3 14 8 2 10 1 0 100 1189

NO 5 17 14 2 1 13 17 8 0 17 5 0 100 951

PT 10 7 9 13 3 4 14 24 2 11 2 0 100 1328 6 18 13 6 3 18 19 7 1 8 0 0 100 1046

UK 9 15 14 9 2 11 13 5 2 19 0 0 100 1257

AU

5 16 4 5 4 4 6 14 4 31 7 0 100 1104

JP

KR 5 24 7 7 2 9 5 21 4 14 0 1 100 909

HK 12 19 15 12 2 5 9 8 0 14 5 0 100 562

A.  Career and Professional Situation 185

Question A2: Please, identify the academic discipline or field of your…

Table 11.13  Discipline or field of current academic unit (percent) CA US Teacher training and education science 6 7 Humanities and arts 17 20 Social and behavioural sciences 16 11 Business and adminis­tration, economics 7 10 Law 2 2 Life sciences 6 9 Physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences 13 14 Engineering, manufacturing and construction, architecture 10 5 Agriculture 3 3 Medical sciences, health related sciences, social services 20 13 Other 0 0 Not applicable 0 6 Total 100 100 Count (n) 1094 1102 DE 2 12 6 8 3 10 17 16 3 22 2 0 100 1096

FI 6 14 9 7 1 8 12 26 2 11 3 1 100 1131

2 10 8 5 7 9 23 11 5 20 0 0 100 1699

IT

NL 11 9 14 20 5 3 11 11 2 10 4 0 100 1176

NO 5 16 14 3 2 12 15 8 0 20 5 0 100 906 8 7 6 15 2 4 10 26 3 17 0 1 100 1205

PT

UK 6 17 9 8 2 18 16 9 1 13 0 1 100 1043

AU 9 14 10 12 1 9 11 7 2 24 1 0 100 1108

6 15 4 6 4 4 4 15 3 34 6 0 100 1096

JP

KR 4 24 7 8 2 6 3 22 3 18 2 1 100 907

HK 13 19 15 13 1 4 8 7 0 16 4 0 100 536

186 11  Appendices

CA 6 17 15 7 2 5 14 9 2 20 1 0 100 1105 7 19 11 9 2 9 15 5 1 12 8 2 100 1099

US

Question A2: Please, identify the academic discipline or field of your…

Teacher training and education science Humanities and arts Social and behavioural sciences Business and administration, economics Law Life sciences Physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences Engineering, manufacturing and construction, architecture Agriculture Medical sciences, health related sciences, social services Other Not applicable Total Count (n)

Table 11.14  Discipline or field of current teaching (percent) 7 16 9 7 2 6 11 21 2 10 3 7 100 1051

FI 4 12 5 8 2 7 13 17 3 23 7 0 100 1033

DE 2 10 8 5 7 12 23 11 5 17 0 0 100 1656

IT

NL 12 10 17 18 5 2 11 10 2 10 4 1 100 1152

NO 5 15 15 3 2 9 14 7 0 18 6 7 100 791 9 7 8 13 2 4 13 24 3 15 1 0 100 1289

PT

UK 4 17 10 7 2 14 14 7 1 12 1 11 100 1030

AU 9 15 11 12 2 8 11 6 2 24 1 0 100 1039

6 15 4 5 4 5 6 13 3 33 6 1 100 1086

JP

KR 4 23 8 8 2 9 4 22 3 16 0 1 100 909

HK 13 17 15 13 1 3 8 7 0 16 6 0 100 552

A.  Career and Professional Situation 187

Question A3: How would you characterize the training you received in your doctoral degree?

Table 11.15  Modes of doctoral training (percent of respondents naming modes of doctoral training; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO You were required to take a prescribed set of courses 77 82 66 15 51 21 66 You were required to write a thesis or dissertation 97 97 94 100 97 77 94 You received intensive faculty guidance for your research 54 69 38 33 82 44 28 You chose your own research topic 79 81 68 57 60 55 63 You received a scholarship or fellowship 80 71 57 22 81 15 74 You received an employment contract during your studies 65 53 49 58 17 74 62 (for teaching or research) You received training in instructional skills or learned about 23 31 11 8 25 20 9 teaching methods You were involved in research projects with faculty or senior researchers 62 47 56 37 68 38 43 You served on an institutional or departmental (unit) committee 32 31 18 16 11 15 28 Total 567 563 456 346 491 358 467 Count (n) 1042 809 545 765 757 224 503

14 42 19 401 896

55 40 9 12 441 366 548 765

AU 16 99 28 75 69 40 17

11

PT UK 25 19 99 97 93 22 74 53 52 73 22 32

21 4 328 762

14

56 5 510 882

23

JP KR 36 80 85 94 62 62 59 79 43 62 5 49

41 13 460 444

21

HK 56 98 51 84 57 39

188 11  Appendices

Table 11.16  Modes of doctoral training (percent of doctoral degree holders; multiple responses) CA US FI DE You were required to take a prescribed set of courses 76 77 65 15 You were required to write a thesis or dissertation 95 92 92 99 You received intensive faculty guidance for your research 53 66 37 32 You chose your own research topic 78 77 67 57 You received a scholarship or fellowship 79 68 56 21 You received an employment contract during your studies 64 51 48 57 (for teaching or research) You received training in instructional skills or learned about 23 29 11 8 teaching methods You were involved in research projects with faculty or senior researchers 61 45 55 36 You served on an institutional or departmental (unit) committee 31 29 17 16 No answer 1 5 2 1 Total 561 539 449 342 Count (n) 1057 852 556 776 Question A3: How would you characterize the training you received in your doctoral degree? 19 42 8 27 48 2 233 458 433 516

68 11 1 488 764

9

10

25

NO 64 92 27 62 72 60

NL 11 40 23 28 8 38

IT 50 96 81 60 80 17

53 9 3 429 567

11

PT 24 95 90 72 51 22

40 12 1 364 771

17

UK 19 97 22 52 73 32

41 18 2 396 913

14

AU 16 97 27 74 67 39

19 3 8 309 831

13

JP 33 78 56 54 39 5

56 5 0 509 884

23

KR 80 94 62 79 61 48

40 13 2 452 454

21

HK 55 95 50 82 56 38

A.  Career and Professional Situation 189

190

11  Appendices

Table 11.17  Duration of full-time employment in different sectors (means of years; respondents employed full-time at any time since the award of the first degree in each sector; zero is excluded) CA

US

DE

Higher education institutions Arithm. mean 14.0 17.0 Median 11.0 15.0 Count (n)

1091

Research institutes Arithm. mean 4.8 Median 3.0 Count (n)

175

1051 7.2 5.0 225

10.6 7.0 881 5.7 4.0 113

IT

NL 19.7 17.0

1426 5.8 3.0 229

(Other) Government or public sector institutions Arithm. mean 6.5 8.6 5.5 6.3 Median 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Count (n)

222

251

124

Industry or private sectors institutions Arithm. mean 4.2 7.7 5.1 Median 3.0 4.7 3.7 Count (n)

179

Self-employment Arithm. mean 6.0 Median 3.4 Count (n)

102

285 6.7 4.0 134

185 6.7 3.8 66

225 3.8 2.0 103 6.2 5.0 82

12.8 10.0 846 5.8 4.0 99 8.9 6.0 256 7.7 5.0 216 8.5 6.0 113

NO 12.5 8.0 821 7.5 5.0 248 6.9 4.0 248 4.1 3.0 128 5.9 3.0 50

PT

UK

11.4 9.0 1247 4.5 3.0 267 6.2 4.0 224 5.7 3.0 175 6.6 4.0 197

12.7 11.0 911 4.9 3.0 161 7.6 5.0 198 5.4 3.0 200 6.0 2.0 46

AU

JP

12.3 10.0 1075 5.9 4.3 199 6.6 4.2 321 6.8 5.0 251 6.0 4.0 73

KR

18.7 18.0 921

13.5 13.0 731

9.8 7.0 142

4.3 3.0 179

8.1 4.0

4.9 3.0

90

50

9.1 6.0 92

4.6 3.0 101

7.0 3.0 16

Question A4: Since your first degree, how long have you been employed in the following? (years).

5.9 3.0 16

HK 12.4 12.0 511 4.0 3.0 48 6.6 5.0 139 5.2 3.0 125 10.5 9.0 25

0.3 0 1525

1.0 0 972

0.5 0 972

Industry or private sectors institutions Arithm. mean 0.7 2.0 Median 0 0 Count (n) 1123 1081

Self-employment Arithm. mean 0.5 Median 0 Count (n) 1123 1.0 0 965

1.7 0 965

2.3 0 965

0.6 0 965

0.3 0 902

0.6 0 902

1.9 0 902

2.1 0 902

1.0 0 1323

0.8 0 1323

1.0 0 1323

0.9 0 1323

Question A4: Since your first degree, how long have you been employed in the following? (years).

0.3 0 1525

0.9 0 1525

(Other) Government or public sector institutions Arithm. mean 1.3 2.0 0.7 Median 0 0 0 Count (n) 1123 1081 972

0.8 0 1081

0.9 0 1525

1.5 0 1081

0.7 0 972

Research institutes Arithm. mean 0.8 Median 0 Count (n) 1123

0.3 0 987

1.1 0 987

1.5 0 987

0.8 0 987

0.4 0 1154

1.5 0 1154

1.8 0 1154

1.0 0 1154

0.1 0 998

0.8 0 998

0.7 0 998

1.4 0 998

0.1 0 778

0.6 0 778

0.3 0 778

1.0 0 778

0.5 0 546

1.2 0 546

1.7 0 546

0.4 0 546

Table 11.18  Duration of full-time employment in different sectors (means of years; all respondents employed full-time at any time since the award of the first degree in each sector; zero is included) CA US DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Higher education institutions Arithm. mean 13.6 16.6 9.6 18.4 11.2 11.4 10.8 11.8 11.5 17.2 12.7 11.6 Median 11.0 15.0 6.0 16.0 8.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 16.0 12.0 10.0 Count (n) 1123 1081 972 1525 965 902 1323 987 1154 998 778 546

A.  Career and Professional Situation 191

192

11  Appendices

Table 11.19  Duration of part-time employment in different sectors (means of years; respondents employed part-time at any time since the award of the first degree in each sector; zero is excluded) CA US DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Higher education institutions Arithm. 5.7 6.1 4.2 7.4 9.6 5.3 5.5 5.3 5.5 4.9 4.7 4.8 mean Median 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 3.0 3.1 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 Count (n) 417 523 474 447 425 230 228 339 561 247 339 204 Research institutes Arithm. 4.9 4.9 mean Median 2.2 3.0 Count (n) 60 106

3.0

5.1

4.5

2.0 51

3.0 88

3.0 25

3.9

5.1

3.8

4.2

2.0 3.0 67 210

3.0 41

3.0 68

4.9

6.3

4.5

3.6

4.5

3.0 4.0 49 124

3.0 20

2.9 23

2.0 32

5.3

4.3

1.8

5.5

3.0 4.0 61 108

2.0 16

2.0 14

3.8 31

6.1

3.7

5.4

4.2

5.0 4.0 63 105

3.0 6

4.6 6

2.5 15

(Other) Government or public sector institutions Arithm. 4.3 4.4 4.6 5.4 9.5 5.2 mean Median 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 7.0 3.0 Count (n) 83 83 55 116 122 61 Industry or private sectors institutions Arithm. 3.1 5.1 3.2 4.7 mean Median 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 Count (n) 66 126 73 89 Self-employment Arithm. 9.2 8.7 mean Median 5.0 5.0 Count (n) 105 165

6.5

6.3 5.0 59

8.0

9.2

5.0 4.0 90 184

5.0 95

2.9

4.5 2.0 74 5.8

2.0 3.0 52 101 6.6

8.2

5.0 6.0 53 133

3.1

6.3

3.2

2.4

2.9

2.0 2.0 44 112

2.0 13

Question A4: Since your first degree, how long have you been employed in the following? (years).

Table 11.20  Duration of part-time employment in different sectors (means of years; all respondents employed part-time at any time since the award of the first degree; zero is included) CA US DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Higher education institutions Arithm. 4.7 5.1 3.6 5.5 8.6 3.7 2.3 4.6 4.9 4.1 4.0 4.2 mean Median 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 2.0 0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Count (n) 506 628 545 604 471 335 546 387 627 294 391 232 Research institutes Arithm. 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.8 1.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.2 mean Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count (n) 506 628 545 604 471 335 546 387 627 294 391 232   (continued)

A.  Career and Professional Situation Table 11.20  (continued) CA US DE

IT

193

NL

NO

PT

UK

AU

JP

KR

HK

(Other) Government or public sector institutions Arithm. 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.1 2.5 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 mean Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count (n) 506 628 545 604 471 335 546 387 627 294 391 232 Industry or private sectors institutions Arithm. 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.7 mean Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count (n) 506 628 545 604 471 335 546 387 627 294 391 232 Self-employment Arithm. 1.9 2.3 1.1 2.4 1.9 1.1 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 mean Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count (n) 506 628 545 604 471 335 546 387 627 294 391 232 Question A4: Since your first degree, how long have you been employed in the following? (years).

Table 11.21  Duration of employment in academia (means of years) CA US DE IT NL NO PT UK AU XXXX ATTENTION: INVALID DATA. DO NOT USE THIS QUESTION. XXX Count (n) 276 648 1052 691 1018 107 512 330 312

JP

HK

105

154

Question A4: Since your first degree, how long have you been employed in the following? (years).

Table 11.22  Number of institutions employed at since the award of the first degree (means; zero is excluded) CA US DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP HK Number of higher education institutions or research institutes Arithm. 3.1 3.2 2.4 3.7 1.6 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.6 mean Median 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Count (n) 946 906 1005 1361 617 622 1251 834 964 770 485 Number of other institutions (including self-employment) Arithm. 3.2 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.1 2.7 mean Median 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 Count (n) 431 500 349 894 286 238

2.7

2.9

2.1

2.2

2.6

1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 655 403 1117 177 176

Total number of institutions 4.3 4.5 3.0 4.9 2.3 3.6 3.8 3.7 4.2 2.8 3.5 Arithm. mean Median 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Count (n) 1018 984 1065 1527 674 664 1307 894 1220 820 488 Question A5: By how many institutions have you been employed since your first degree?

194

11  Appendices

Table 11.23  Number of institutions employed at since the award of the first degree (means; zero is included) CA US DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP HK Number of higher education institutions or research institutes Arithm. 2.8 2.6 2.0 3.3 1.4 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.4 mean Median 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Count (n) 1032 1107 1200 1532 674 687 1341 894 1221 862 518 Number of other institutions (including self-employment) Arithm. 1.4 1.4 0.7 1.6 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.9 0.4 0.9 mean Median 0 0 0 1.0 0 0 0 0 1.0 0 0 Count (n) 1032 1107 1200 1532 674 687 1341 894 1221 862 518 Total number of institutions Arithm. 4.2 4.0 2.7 4.9 2.3 3.5 3.7 3.7 4.2 2.7 3.3 mean Median 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 Count (n) 1032 1107 1200 1532 674 687 1341 894 1221 862 518 Question A5: By how many institutions have you been employed since your first degree?

Table 11.24  Number of institutions employed at since the award of the highest degree (means; zero is excluded) CA

US

DE

IT

NL

NO

PT

UK

AU

JP

KR

HK

Number of higher education institutions or research institutes Arithm. 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.6 2.6 2.2 3.3 2.2 4.1 1.9 mean Median 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 Count (n) 1068 1025 989 475 628 882 815 928 519 978 827 479 Number of other institutions (including self-employment) Arithm. 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.5 1.8 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.3 1.5 1.9 mean Median 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Count (n) 222 341 256 229 210 233 142 228 275 108 107

2.3 2.0 78

Total number of institutions Arithm. 3.0 3.5 2.6 3.1 2.4 3.3 3.1 2.7 3.9 2.4 4.3 2.2 mean Median 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Count (n) 1077 1031 1011 555 653 888 823 930 601 989 842 482 Question A5: By how many institutions have you been employed since your highest degree?

A.  Career and Professional Situation

195

Table 11.25  Number of institutions employed at since the award of the highest degree (means; zero is included) CA

US

DE

IT

NL

NO

Number of higher education institutions or research institutes Arithm. 2.4 2.5 1.8 1.6 1.8 2.6 mean Median 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 Count (n)

1080

1091

1200

694

655

896

Number of other institutions (including self-employment) Arithm. 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 mean Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count (n)

1080

1091

Total number of institutions Arithm. 3.0 3.3 mean Median 2.0 2.0 Count (n)

1080

1091

1200 2.2 1.0 1200

694 2.5 1.0 694

655 2.4 2.0 655

896 3.2 2.0 896

PT

UK

2.2 1.0 949 0.4

2.2 2.0 930 0.5

AU 2.6 2.0 658 1.0

JP

KR 2.2 2.0

998 0.2

3.8 2.0 889 0.2

HK 1.7 1.0 515 0.3

0

0

0

0

0

0

949

930

658

998

889

515

2.6 1.0 949

2.7 2.0 930

3.6 2.0 658

2.3 2.0 998

4.1 2.0

2.1 2.0

889

515

KR

HK

Question A5: By how many institutions have you been employed since your highest degree?

Table 11.26  Year of first and current appointment (means) (*) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU Year of first full-time appointment in the higher education/research sector Arithm. 1993 1990 1995 1994 1990 1995 1994 1997 1994 1994 mean Median 1995 1992 1998 1998 1991 1998 1997 1999 1997 1996 Count (n) 1114 1096 1159 895 1634 1170 919 1234 944 1099

JP

1987 1993 1993 1987 1994 1995 1032 814 524 

Year of first appointment to current institution Arithm. 1996 1994 1998 1991 1999 1996 1997 1998 1999 1993 1996 1999 mean Median 1999 1998 2000 1994 2002 2000 1999 2002 2002 1996 1997 2000 Count (n) 1112 1104 1144 0 1652 1155 918 1339 948 1150 1018 878 548 Year of appointment/promotion to current rank at current institution Arithm. 2001 2000 2002 2001 1999 2003 2001 2003 2003 2003 2000 2003 2003 mean Median 2003 2003 2004 2003 2001 2006 2003 2004 2004 2005 2002 2005 2005 Count (n) 1087 1104 1178 1045 1651 1008 809 1263 987 1133 992 851 545 Question A6: Please indicate the following (year) (*) Excluding employment in ancillary functions (teaching assistant, wissenschaftliche Hilfskraft).

4.4 3.0 987 2.0 1.0 87

9.8 8.0 1321 4.7 4.0 1148

Year since your appointment/promotion to your current rank at your current institution Arithm. Mean 6.0 7.0 4.9 6.4 8.5 7.4 6.4 Median 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 4.0 Count (n) 1082 1099 1152 1045 1651 1008 809

Years of interruption of service at current institution for family reasons, personal leave or full-time study Arithm. Mean 0.4 0.5 0.6 – 0.3 0.2 0.5 4.1 Median 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 0 Count (n) 1095 1108 952 0 1541 1060 847 1230

8.6 5.0 948

0.5 0 1170

4.1 2.0 1133

8.4 5.0 1150

13.2 11.0 1098

AU

0.3 0 802

6.8 5.0 992

14.0 11.0 1018

20.4 20.0 1032

JP

0.1 0 832

4.3 3.0 804

10.7 11.0 868

13.8 13.0 810

KR

Question A6: Please indicate the following (year) (*) Excluding employment in ancillary functions (teaching assistant, wissenschaftliche Hilfskraft).

10.9 8.0 1155

10.7 7.0 918

15.9 13.0 1652

Year since your first appointment to your current institution Arithm. Mean 11.1 12.7 9.2 – Median 8.0 9.0 7.0 – Count (n) 1109 1104 1140 0

12.6 10.0 944

10.6 8.0 1207

13.3 10.0 919

UK

PT

NO

Table 11.27  Number of years since first and current appointment (means) (*) CA US FI DE IT NL Year since your first full-time appointment in the higher education/research sector Arithm. Mean 13.9 17.5 11.6 12.8 17.5 14.8 Median 12.0 15.0 9.0 9.0 16.0 12.0 Count (n) 1114 1096 1157 895 1634 1170

0.2 0 529

4.4 2.0 545

8.2 7.0 548

13.6 12.0 524

HK

196 11  Appendices

A.  Career and Professional Situation

197

Table 11.28  Current full-time and part-time employment (percent) CA Full-time employed Part-time employed Part-time with payment according to work tasks Other Total Count (n)

US

FI

DE

IT

NL

NO

PT

UK

AU

JP

KR

HK

97

89

82

71

97

56

90

90

87

85

99

100

93

2

6

7

24

2

41

8

7

10

14

0

0

3

0

2

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

4

2

3

11

5

1

2

2

2

2

0

0

0

0

100 1150

100 1108

100 1355

100 1204

100 1705

100 1209

100 969

100 1369

100 1036

100 1223

100 1119

100 909

100 567

Question A7: How is your employment situation in the current academic year at your higher education institution/research institute? (Check one only).

Table 11.29  Average proportion of full-time employment of respondents currently employed part-time (means of part-time employed respondents) CA US FI DE NL NO PT UK AU JP HK Arithm. mean 59.4 43.3 56.7 55.3 66.5 58.2 50.4 58.1 57.6 89.4 39.2 Median 50.0 50.0 56.0 50.0 70.0 50.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 100.0 50.0 Count (n) 21 62 89 291 492 84 67 100 166 3 12 Question A7: How is your employment situation in the current academic year at your higher education institution/research institute?

UK 82 6

2 4

6 5 104 1369

PT 82 5

2 1

6 3 100 1510

4 103 1377

9

4

4

AU 77 5

2

6

3

64 18

7 100 1126

JP

2 100 909

1

2

2

KR 89 5

3 103 586

5

10

5

HK 71 9

Question A8: Do you work for an additional employer or do additional remunerated work in the current academic year? (*) Respondents not having stated any of the following categories.

Table 11.30  Additional employment and remunerated work (percent; multiple responses; all repondents) CA US FI DE IT NL NO None(*) 69 100 100 42 77 71 72 5 0 0 44 8 6 13 In addition to your current employer, you also work at another research institute or higher education institution In addition to your current employer, you also work at 3 0 0 5 2 3 3 a business organization outside of academe 6 0 0 4 4 5 4 In addition to your current employer, you also work at a non-profit organization or government entity outside of academe In addition to your current employer, you are also 18 0 0 14 7 14 8 self-employed Other 4 0 0 1 6 3 0 Total 105 100 100 110 104 103 100 Count (n) 1159 1109 1374 1215 1711 1209 986

198 11  Appendices

Table 11.31  Type of current institution (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK University 100 76 76 89 100 34 93 40 96 71 21 18 100 Other 0 24 24 11 0 66 7 60 4 29 79 82 0 institution Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1159 1109 1372 1196 1711 1209 970 1369 1074 1377 1126 909 586 Question A9: How would you describe your current institution?

Table 11.32  Academic rank (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Senior 64 51 21 21 62 50 44 11 32 22 79 69 34 position Junior/other 36 49 79 79 38 50 56 89 68 78 21 31 66 position Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1159 1109 1327 1184 1706 1209 970 1356 1029 1232 1122 909 568 Question A10: What is your academic rank (If you work in a research institutions with ranks ­differing from those at higher education institutions, please choose the rank most closely corresponding to yours)?

Table 11.33  Duration of current employment contract (percent) CA US FI DE NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 64 48 35 23 78 52 24 69 47 69 6 26 Permanently employed (tenured) 3 17 11 14 2 2 4 13 12 17 56 7 Continuously employed (no preset term, but no guarantee of permanence) 28 17 9 5 9 4 15 16 11 9 33 30 Fixed-term employment with permanent/ continuous ­employment prospects (tenure-track) 4 15 29 57 10 39 50 2 30 4 6 34 Fixed-term employment without permanent/ continuous employment prospects Other 1 3 16 1 1 3 6 0 1 1 0 3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1153 1109 1348 1202 1208 969 1333 1025 1233 1119 905 568 Question A11: What is the duration of your current employment contract at your higher education institution or research institute? (Check only one).

71111 63124 930

3906 0 930

18531 13922 237

62487 60041 930

NO

65210 39821 1161

1155 0 1160

32965 27151 94

61401 38787 1161

PT

67788 56200 1035

4474 0 1035

24030 8029 148

59873 56200 1035

UK

Question A12: What is your overall annual gross income (including supplements) from the following sources?

69649 67231 882

73578 62088 1366

Total income Arithm. mean Median Count (n) 62034 54302 1007

3177 0 882

7023 0 1366

54887 51459 1150

21114 12929 79

21890 12929 161

115089 95000 769

64590 64645 882

63978 58181 1366

83451 73467 1094

NL

IT

Table 11.34  Annual gross income (means of US$) CA US FI DE From current higher education institution/research institute Arithm. mean 73982 83299 50501 53497 Median 71834 72000 47837 51716 Count (n) 1094 769 1150 1007 From all other concurrent employers Arithm. mean 35387 23442 10692 38359 Median 8163 8205 5172 6465 Count (n) 74 215 257 121 Other income (e.g. self-employment) Arithm. mean 7080 25238 2001 3945 Median 0 0 0 0 Count (n) 1094 769 1150 1007 59541 55312 1118

2242 0 1118

14795 6914 119

55720 53929 1118

AU

109758 102000 1060

4350 0 1060

20652 10200 390

97803 102000 1060

JP

53203 52500 858

770 0 858

9876 7000 333

48595 49000 858

KR

110234 100370 517

4390 0 517

24063 10440 53

103399 95185 517

HK

200 11  Appendices

PT 42 45 15 26 4 6 19 6 9 16 188 908

NO 46 65 15 19 8 7 34 13 8 2 216 713

5 29 179 1127

10

21

3 4

17 11

57

UK 22

7 12 227 1196

12

43

2 5

20 27

70

AU 29

3 1 240 964

12

23

4 1

30 61

66

JP 42

Question A13: During the current academic year, have you done any of the following? (*) Respondents who did not state any of the categories.

Table 11.35  Service activities in current academic year (percent of all respondents; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL Served as a member of national/international 49 31 28 26 62 29 scientific committees/boards/bodies Served as a peer reviewer (e.g. for journals, 91 70 49 46 67 45 research sponsors, institutional evaluations) Served as an editor of journals/book series 25 21 17 32 12 18 Served as an elected officer or leader in professional/ 33 31 35 36 14 20 academic associations/organizations Served as an elected officer or leader of unions 7 2 37 2 1 3 Been substantially involved in local, national or 5 14 5 4 4 5 international politics Been a member of a community organizations or 39 51 25 0 17 30 participated in community-based projects Worked with local, national or international social 15 20 20 33 11 14 service agencies Other 6 6 10 4 6 11 No additional activities reported (*) 0 2 2 1 1 8 Total 271 250 228 182 194 183 Count (n) 1098 963 922 583 1415 807

12 0 364 882

13

24

4 3

62 79

82

KR 83

6 1 265 485

20

36

5 6

30 30

77

HK 54

A.  Career and Professional Situation 201

Question A13: During the current academic year, have you done any of the following?

Table 11.36  Service activities in current academic year (percent of respondents undertaking additional service activities; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP Served as a member of national/international 49 32 29 26 63 32 47 51 30 33 42 scientific committees/boards/bodies Served as a peer reviewer (e.g. for journals, 91 72 51 46 67 48 66 54 81 80 66 research sponsors, institutional evaluations) Served as an editor of journals/book series 25 22 17 32 12 19 15 18 23 23 30 Served as an elected officer or leader in professional/ 33 31 36 36 14 22 19 31 16 31 61 academic associations/organizations Served as an elected officer or leader of unions 7 2 38 2 1 3 8 4 5 3 4 Been substantially involved in local, national 5 15 5 4 4 5 7 7 5 5 1 or international politics Been a member of a community organizations 39 52 25 0 17 33 35 23 29 49 23 or participated in community-based projects Worked with local, national or international social 15 21 20 33 11 15 13 7 14 14 12 service agencies Other 6 6 11 4 6 12 8 11 7 7 3 Total 271 252 231 182 195 190 218 205 211 245 241 Count (n) 1098 945 901 577 1406 744 700 759 799 1047 958

HK 55 78 30 30 5 6 36 21 6 266 482

KR 83 82 62 79 4 3 24 13 12 364 882

202 11  Appendices

8 16 24 19 58 124 1676

32 24 33 40 146 1193

IT

DE 17

123 1129

55

13 21

22

NL 12

137 919

43

19 35

27

NO 13

135 1293

49

20 30

25

PT 11

175 998

21

35 43

50

UK 26

168 1184

26

33 45

45

AU 19

38

16 26

51

2

134 1078

JP

132 909

35

16 45

30

KR 5

Question A14: Within the last 5 years, have you considered a major change in your job? And did you take concrete actions to make such a change?

Table 11.37  Considered major changes in job (percent; multiple responses) CA US FI To a management position in your higher 19 23 11 education/research institution To an academic position in another higher 33 44 21 education/research institute within the country To an academic position in another country 23 17 20 To work outside higher education/research 22 27 44 institutes Not applicable, I have not considered making any 44 44 38 major changes in the job Total 141 154 135 Count (n) 1117 1011 1296

126 509

47

25 17

30

HK 6

A.  Career and Professional Situation 203

204

11  Appendices

Table 11.38  Action taken for major changes in job (percent of respondents who reported major changes in their job; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 36 29 23 33 26 22 39 40 29 22 3 9 19 To a management position in your higher education/ research institution To an academic position 46 74 32 51 29 39 41 42 60 50 91 74 55 in another higher education/research institute within the country To an academic position 30 17 24 25 39 35 18 13 28 31 6 8 30 in another country 16 28 48 34 31 39 19 28 22 28 8 10 14 To work outside higher education/research institutes Total 128 148 127 144 125 134 116 124 139 131 108 102 118 Count (n) 358 380 389 451 224 232 167 153 431 492 186 39 132 Question A14: Within the last 5 years, have you considered a major change in your job? And did you take concrete actions to make such a change?

9 21 13 12 26 33 113 1184

26 12 10 21 35 117 998

AU

UK 12

1 1 38

16

0

45 101 1078

JP

61 100 909

0 0 35

3

KR 0

27 105 509

8 4 47

14

HK 5

Question A14: Within the last 5 years, have you considered a major change in your job? And did you take concrete actions to make such a change? (*) Respondents who did not state any of the categories.

Table 11.39  Action taken for major changes in job (percent of all respondents of the question; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT To a management position in your higher 12 11 7 12 4 5 7 5 education/research institution To an academic position in another higher 15 28 10 19 4 8 7 5 education/research institute within the country To an academic position in another country 10 6 7 10 5 7 3 2 To work outside higher education/research institutes 5 10 14 13 4 8 3 3 Not applicable, I have not considered making any 44 44 38 40 58 55 43 49 major changes in the job No major changes reported (*) 24 18 32 23 29 25 39 39 Total 109 118 108 117 103 107 103 103 Count (n) 1117 1011 1296 1193 1676 1129 919 1293

A.  Career and Professional Situation 205

AU 17.3 14.2 2.9 8.7 2.8 45.9 830 19.4 16.4 5.4 6.8 2.9 50.9 1061

JP

KR 20.4 18.3 4.7 5.9 3.4 52.7 891

HK 20.2 14.2 3.6 7.2 3.2 48.4 528

Question B1: Considering all your professional work, how many hours do you spend in a typical week on each of the following activities? (hours per week) (A) Teaching: Preparation of instructional materials and lesson plans, classroom instruction, advising students, reading and evaluating student work (B) Research: Reading literature, writing, conducting experiments, fieldwork (C) Service: services to clients and/or patients, unpaid consulting, public or voluntary services (D) Administration: committees, department meetings, paperwork (E) Other academic activities: Professional activities not clearly attributable to any of the categories above.

Table 11.40  Hours spent on academic activities when classes are in session (arithmetic mean of hours per week) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK Teaching (A) 19.6 20.9 16.3 12.7 18.1 19.8 11.4 20.1 16.1 Research (B) 16.0 11.9 16.6 16.9 17.3 8.9 14.3 11.6 13.4 Service (C) 4.3 4.5 2.1 5.8 3.7 2.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 Administration (D) 7.9 7.5 4.5 3.4 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.1 9.5 Other academic activities (E) 2.8 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.9 2.0 2.4 3.2 Total hours per week 50.7 47.7 41.8 41.2 45.5 38.2 33.2 39.5 43.7 Count (n) 1014 1060 1240 1045 1635 919 712 1142 812

B.  General Work Situation and Activities

206 11  Appendices

B.  General Work Situation and Activities

207

Table 11.41  Proportion of time spent on teaching and research when classes are in session (means of percentages) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Teaching Arithm. Mean 40 45 39 32 41 54 34 54 38 40 39 39 47 Median 39 44 37 26 38 50 33 51 36 39 38 39 43 Count (n) 1014 1060 1240 1045 1635 919 712 1142 812 830 1062 891 528 Research Arithm. Mean 31 24 40 41 37 22 43 28 31 30 32 34 27 Median 29 20 29 36 36 17 38 25 20 23 29 33 24 Count (n) 1014 1060 1240 1045 1635 919 712 1142 812 830 1062 891 528 Question B1: Considering all your professional work, how many hours do you spend in a typical week on each of the following activities? (hours per week).

Table 11.42  Hours spent on academic activities when classes are not in session (arithmetic mean of hours per week) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Teaching (A) 5.4 6.5 5.9 5.9 7.4 10.1 4.8 9.5 6.9 6.4 7.2 7.5 7.8 Research (B) 28.5 20.0 23.0 24.0 27.1 15.1 29.1 20.7 22.3 23.1 23.3 27.0 24.7 Service (C) 4.0 5.0 2.0 6.6 3.9 2.8 1.6 1.7 1.5 3.0 4.3 5.5 4.2 Administration (D) 6.8 6.0 4.2 3.1 4.3 4.2 5.3 4.6 8.8 8.6 4.2 4.9 7.7 Other academic activities (E) 3.0 3.1 2.4 2.8 2.5 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.8 3.6 Total hours per week 47.7 40.6 37.5 42.4 45.1 35.7 44.2 39.4 43.0 44.6 42.4 48.7 48.0 Count (n) 844 1092 973 1023 1571 748 649 1023 852 931 956 819 486 Question B1: Considering all your professional work, how many hours do you spend in a typical week on each of the following activities? (hours per week).

208 11  Appendices

B.  General Work Situation and Activities

209

Table 11.43  Proportion of time spent on teaching and research when classes are not in session (means of percentages) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Teaching Arithm. 12 19 19 16 18 32 11 27 17 16 18 16 18 Mean Median 10 14 8 9 14 24 5 22 9 10 14 13 11 Count (n) 844 1092 973 1023 1571 748 649 1023 852 931 956 819 486 Research Arithm. 60 48 58 56 59 40 66 51 51 51 54 55 50 Mean Median 63 50 63 58 63 38 70 52 53 50 55 56 50 Count (n) 844 1092 973 1023 1571 748 649 1023 852 931 956 819 486 Question B1: Considering all your professional work, how many hours do you spend in a typical week on each of the following activities? (hours per week).

Table 11.44  Preferences for teaching/research (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT Primarily in 6 27 15 12 2 22 2 10 teaching 26 31 20 23 22 28 15 43 In both, but leaning towards teaching 54 33 36 39 64 36 51 40 In both, but leaning towards research Primarily in 15 10 29 26 12 14 31 7 research Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1085 1108 1353 1145 1691 1030 949 910 Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests research?

UK AU JP KR HK 10 7 6 3 11 23

23

23

29

28

40

40

57

60

49

27

31

14

8

12

100 100 100 100 100 931 1130 1106 908 574 lie primarily in teaching or in

NO 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.1 1.9 2.2 3.5 1.8

3.6 3.8 3.5 956

NL 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.2

3.0 3.2 3.5 988

2.9 3.1 2.6

2.8 2.7

2.7 2.7 2.9 3.2

3.3 3.8 3.9 1222

PT

2.9 3.1 3.7 935

2.9 3.2 2.6

2.7 2.6

UK 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.9

2.4 3.4 2.2

2.4 2.0

2.7 2.6 2.7 2.8

3.3 3.4 3.5 1125

AU

2.8 3.4 2.4

2.7 2.8

2.8 2.9 3.1 3.0

3.6 3.7 3.4 1120

JP

3.6 3.9 3.7 909

2.7 3.4 2.1

2.6 2.7

KR 2.6 2.7 3.2 3.3

3.0 3.1 3.2 577

2.5 2.8 2.0

2.1 1.9

HK 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.6

Question B3: At this institution, how would your evaluate each of the following facilities, resources, or personnel you need to support your work? (Scale of answers from 1 = Excellent to 5 = Poor).

Table 11.45  Assessment institution’s support for own work (arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT Classrooms 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.6 2.9 Technology for teaching 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.9 Laboratories 3.0 2.7 2.5 2.6 3.2 Research equipment 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.6 3.1 and instruments Computer facilities 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.7 Library facilities 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.6 2.5 and services Your office space 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.8 Secretarial support 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.8 3.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 2.3 Telecommunications (Internet, networks, and telephones) Teaching support staff 3.1 3.1 2.8 3.4 3.7 Research support staff 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.3 3.8 Research funding 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.5 4.2 Count (n) 1085 1109 1349 1142 1702

210 11  Appendices

NL 57 58 33 36 61 63 59 45 70 36 27 18 988

NO 58 61 44 51 75 78 68 25 84 22 16 23 956

PT 48 50 36 30 43 46 45 32 52 24 17 17 1222

UK 37 42 43 39 45 52 42 34 52 35 32 17 935

AU 47 51 41 42 62 75 61 28 67 28 26 23 1125

32 31 24 30 36 38 36 17 52 10 9 18 1120

JP

KR 49 45 26 25 51 45 47 17 75 15 11 15 909

HK 68 71 49 51 74 81 57 47 78 36 30 29 577

Question B3: At this institution, how would you evaluate each of the following facilities, resources, or personnel you need to support your work? (Scale of answers from 1 = Excellent to 5 = Poor).

Table 11.46  Positive assesment of institution’s support for own work (percent; responses 1 and 2) CA US FI DE IT Classrooms 50 54 71 50 37 Technology for teaching 60 65 70 53 36 Laboratories 32 44 53 53 29 Research equipment and instruments 36 40 53 53 31 Computer facilities 55 63 72 64 44 Library facilities and services 66 60 76 50 53 Your office space 63 57 67 60 44 Secretarial support 43 45 55 47 33 Telecommunications (Internet, networks, and telephones) 71 73 81 80 64 Teaching support staff 32 34 43 26 15 Research support staff 30 25 34 27 17 Research funding 23 19 22 24 8 Count (n) 1085 1109 1349 1142 1702

B.  General Work Situation and Activities 211

212 Table 11.47  Importance of affiliation (arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NL My academic 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 discipline/field My department (at 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.6 2.4 2.1 this institution) My institution 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.8 2.4 2.6 Count (n) 1084 1109 1343 1143 1693 981

11  Appendices

NO PT 1.3 1.8

UK AU 1.8 1.5

JP 1.5

KR HK 1.7 1.6

2.1 2.3

2.6 2.2

2.3

1.7 2.1

2.6 2.2 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.3 943 1208 931 1116 1102 907 578

Question B4: Please indicate the degree to which each of the following affiliations is important to you. (Scale of answers from 1 = Very important to 5 = Not at all important).

Table 11.48  Importance of affiliation (percent; responses 1 and 2) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT My academic 92 91 89 92 78 88 95 81 discipline/field My department (at 69 79 72 50 57 73 70 60 this institution) My institution 59 60 67 43 58 50 48 64 Count (n) 1084 1109 1343 1143 1693 981 943 1208

UK AU JP KR HK 81 89 94 89 90 54

67

64

89

73

39 51 64 73 60 931 1116 1102 907 578

Question B4: Please indicate the degree to which each of the following affiliations is important to you. (Scale of answers from 1 = Very important to 5 = Not at all important).

Table 11.49  Views on scholarship and career (arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Scholarship is best defined as the preparation and 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.9 presentation of findings on original research Scholarship includes the application of academic 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 knowledge in real-life settings 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 2.1 Scholarship includes the preparation of reports that synthesize the major trends and findings of my field This is a poor time for any young person to begin 3.2 3.5 2.8 2.9 1.9 3.2 3.6 2.9 2.6 2.8 4.1 3.5 3.0 an academic career in my field If I had it to do over again, I would not become an 4.2 4.1 3.8 3.9 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.7 4.0 3.8 academic My job is a source of considerable personal strain 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.9 3.3 2.5 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.8 3.7 3.8 2.9 3.2 3.9 3.4 3.8 3.2 3.5 3.4 2.6 3.7 3.4 Teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.7 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.2 Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to apply their knowledge to problems in society Count (n) 1082 1109 1347 1136 1700 903 954 1210 935 1109 1098 909 573 Question B5: Please indicate your views on the following (Scale of answers from 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree).

B.  General Work Situation and Activities 213

Table 11.50  Positive views on scholarship and career (percent; responses 1 and 2) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK Scholarship is best defined as the preparation and presentation 77 65 57 69 73 73 88 69 67 of findings on original research Scholarship includes the application of academic knowledge 66 79 84 68 59 50 63 78 67 in real-life settings Scholarship includes the preparation of reports that synthesize 60 68 60 67 47 47 59 53 66 the major trends and findings of my field This is a poor time for any young person to begin an academic 34 20 41 41 75 26 22 40 50 career in my field If I had it to do over again, I would not become an academic 11 10 16 18 11 14 16 23 25 My job is a source of considerable personal strain 42 34 46 38 30 56 35 46 58 Teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other 20 12 37 34 14 26 14 31 25 Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to apply 58 66 61 50 62 60 52 70 59 their knowledge to problems in society Count (n) 1082 1109 1347 1136 1700 903 954 1210 935 Question B5: Please indicate your views on the following (Scale of answer 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree).

80 9 12 59 52 67

67 45 22 51 28 64

8 68 11 78

21

90

83

KR 78

1098 909

77

74

1109

77

JP

AU 68

573

16 42 27 64

37

74

79

HK 80

214 11  Appendices

B.  General Work Situation and Activities Table 11.51  Job satisfaction (percent; arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NL 1 Very high 28 21 14 12 20 20 2 46 43 52 45 44 54 3 17 26 24 28 29 17 4 5 7 7 12 5 8 5 Very low 4 3 2 4 2 1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count 1083 1109 1352 1135 1703 935

215

NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 18 7 10 14 10 22 15 50 43 35 41 58 53 48 23 27 36 25 18 21 26 7 17 9 13 11 3 8 2 6 8 7 3 1 3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 952 1208 938 1112 1108 909 577

Recoded values 1,2 75 64 67 56 64 74 68 50 46 55 68 76 63 3 17 26 24 28 29 17 23 27 36 25 18 21 26 4,5 9 10 10 16 7 9 9 23 18 20 13 4 11 Arithmetic mean 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.4 Question B6: How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your current job? (Scale of answer 1 = Very High to 5 = Very Low).

Table 11.52  Perceived changes in working conditions in higher education (percent; arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 1 Very much 5 9 6 1 2 2 3 6 1 2 1 9 6 improved 2 18 30 23 9 11 18 12 20 15 7 12 44 24 3 40 39 37 35 31 43 43 29 24 29 25 34 28 4 25 17 24 39 35 26 32 27 43 33 40 11 28 5 Very much 13 6 10 16 20 11 10 19 18 30 22 2 14 deteriorated Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count 1051 1109 1326 1107 1703 846 916 1181 918 1098 1104 906 575 Recoded values 1,2 23 39 29 10 13 20 15 25 16 9 13 52 30 3 40 39 37 35 31 43 43 29 24 29 25 34 28 4,5 37 22 34 55 55 38 42 46 60 63 62 13 42 Arithmetic mean 3.2 2.8 3.1 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.7 2.5 3.2 Question B7: Since you started your career, have the overall working conditions in higher education and research institutes improved or declined? (Scale of answer from 1 = Very much improved to 5 = Very much deteriorated).

216

11  Appendices

Table 11.53  Perceived changes in working conditions in research institutes (percent; arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NO PT UK AU HK 1 Very much improved 4 3 4 2 2 3 7 1 3 5 2 17 17 19 13 7 11 24 15 13 24 3 52 55 52 60 33 60 39 41 43 39 4 19 21 19 20 34 20 21 33 26 23 5 Very much deteriorated 7 3 6 5 24 6 9 11 15 9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count 677 1107 848 707 994 536 932 520 801 484 Recoded values 1,2 22 20 23 15 9 14 31 15 16 29 3 52 55 52 60 33 60 39 41 43 39 4,5 27 25 25 25 58 26 30 44 41 32 Arithmetic mean 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.7 3.2 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.1 Question B7: Since you started your career, have the overall working conditions in higher education and research institutes improved or declined? (Scale of answer from 1 = Very much improved to 5 = Very much deteriorated).

C.  Teaching Table 11.54  Proportion of instruction time spent on programs at different levels of study (arithmetic mean of percentages) CA US FI DE IT NL PT UK AU JP KR HK Undergraduate 63.1 63.7 40.6 40.1 52.8 68.4 63.2 59.7 61.0 74.8 90.2 66.4 programs Master programs (*) 21.1 19.7 39.5 52.4 38.1 18.0 25.4 24.6 19.0 15.8 0 20.9 Doctoral programs 9.8 12.0 12.2 4.2 5.5 6.8 4.9 10.7 14.5 7.7 0   5.9 2.4 2.3 3.4 2.2 2.3 4.1 4.2 3.6 1.5 0 5.0   4.6 Continuing professional education programs Other programs 3.1 2.1 3.7 1.0 1.2 2.6 1.8 1.4 2.9 1.7 2.9   2.2 Count (n) 1009 1064 990 971 1636 847 1099 729 809 1048 879 533 Question C1: Please indicate the proportion of your teaching responsibilities during the current academic year that are devoted to instruction at each level below and the approximate number of students you instruct at each of these levels. (in percent) (*) Please note: Master programs in Germany include long initial degree programmes.

9.3 5.0

844

6.3 0

804

656

Doctoral programs Arithm. mean 5.0 Median 3.0

Count (n)

38

200

169

Count (n)

288

211

23.0 16.0

267

5.0 2.0

408

36.6 25.0

787

136

20.0 14.1

240

5.7 3.0

474

25.4 15.0

475

274

8.0 0

300

11.7 0.4

473

17.8 10.0

660

89

27.6 20.0

282

4.9 2.0

477

24.5 15.0

630

138

14.2 0

447

5.2 3.0

484

37.1 15.0

0

– –

484

5.1 2.0

694

10.8 6.0

1041

71.2 60.0

218.7 150.0 708

JP

AU

298

15.4 1.2

0

– –

0

– –

871

46.4 40.0

KR

78

39.7 30.0

120

6.1 3.0

274

26.9 22.2

470

55.9 40.0

HK

Other programs Arithm. mean 8.2 2.5 20.7 34.4 40.6 171.1 38.1 5.1 30.3 26.2 11.8 18.8 44.3 Median 0 0 15.0 20.0 25.0 38.5 0 0 15.0 1.0 0 0 30.0 Count (n) 109 736 162 17 134 36 77 207 36 148 219 230 27 Question C1: Please indicate the proportion of your teaching responsibilities during the current academic year that are devoted to instruction at each level below and the approximate number of students you instruct at each of these levels. (number of students per course) (*) Please note: Master programs in Germany include long initial degree programmes.

760

17.4 20.0

49.7 30.0

624

109

493

297

1277

38.9 25.0

1404

Continuing professional education programs Arithm. mean 14.3 6.2 16.8 Median 0 0 14.0

732

36.1 20.7

607

8.4 7.5

8.5 6.0

574

32.7 20.0

531

8.0 5.0

Count (n)

995

861

Count (n)

Master programs (*) Arithm. mean 9.8 Median 7.0

Table 11.55  Average number of students taught on programs at different levels of study programs (means) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK Undergraduate programs Arithm. mean 59.0 37.2 40.3 68.6 89.6 145.5 62.8 57.0 81.6 Median 45.0 25.0 25.0 40.0 70.0 100.0 35.0 30.0 50.0

C.  Teaching 217

Table 11.56  Involvement in types of teaching activities (percent; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP 98 99 88 91 99 94 94 97 95 93 100 Classroom instruction/ lecturing Individualized 78 79 79 37 95 66 86 21 82 80 77 instruction 45 54 45 38 33 66 49 44 57 50 25 Learning in projects/ project groups 39 40 66 45 53 29 42 79 44 41 59 Practice instruction/ laboratory work 24 23 39 13 16 25 20 28 42 41 31 ICT-based learning/ computerassisted learning Distance 11 24 32 2 9 11 7 15 20 35 5 education 88 86 75 33 85 78 46 85 82 87 28 Development of course material 62 73 65 29 33 68 61 74 69 74 25 Curriculum/ program development 94 92 65 42 83 72 78 77 83 85 67 Face-to-face interaction with students outside of class 96 92 86 45 85 69 86 91 93 92 55 Electronic communication (e-mail) with students

KR HK 98 97

56

78

45

59

51

38

7

29

12

9

63

77

49

62

85

88

66

89

Total 636 660 638 375 590 577 570 610 665 679 471 533 624 Count (n) 1048 1065 1108 1019 1687 848 720 1125 791 880 1089 906 547 Question C2: During the current (or previous) academic year, have you been involved in any of the following teaching activities? Table 11.57  Workload expectations set by institution (percent; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Number of hours 80 88 84 100 95 78 84 91 62 76 84 98 92 in the classroom Number of students 56 66 43 42 36 37 29 47 56 58 20 63 55 in your classes 18 18 17 16 12 32 40 14 49 49 15 23 33 Number of graduate students for supervision Percentage of students 9 7 9 15 4 36 14 14 35 20 13 12 18 passing exams Time for student 32 49 41 11 35 67 56 65 57 53 38 49 42 consultation Total 195 228 195 184 182 250 223 231 259 255 170 244 240 Count (n) 733 890 666 1022 1491 632 491 970 574 691 765 888 460 Question C3: Does your institution set quantitative load targets or regulatory expectations for individual faculty for the following:

Table 11.58  Views and activities about teaching (arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK You spend more time than you would like teaching 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.3 3.0 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 basic skills due to student deficiencies You are encouraged to improve your instructional 2.6 2.5 3.9 3.3 2.4 2.7 2.6 3.1 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.7 skills in response to teaching evaluations At your institution there are adequate training 2.5 2.9 2.9 3.4 4.5 2.6 2.9 3.7 2.5 2.6 3.7 2.8 2.9 courses for enhancing teaching quality Practically oriented knowledge and skills are 2.3 2.1 2.5 1.9 2.5 2.2 2.6 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.2 emphasized in your teaching In your courses you emphasize international 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.1 perspectives or content You incorporate discussions of values and ethics 2.3 2.1 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.9 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.7 2.4 2.3 into your course content You inform students of the implications of 1.8 1.7 2.8 2.8 3.3 2.3 3.0 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.8 2.3 1.9 cheating or plagiarism in your courses 1.8 1.8 1.5 2.3 1.9 2.7 2.0 2.5 1.9 1.8 2.4 2.1 2.0 Grades in your courses strictly reflect levels of student achievement Since you started teaching, the number of 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.0 3.8 3.6 2.6 international students has increased Currently, most of your graduate students are 3.7 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.7 3.7 4.4 4.7 3.2 3.5 4.4 4.2 4.0 international Your research activities reinforce your teaching 1.7 2.1 2.1 2.3 1.7 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.2 Your service activities reinforce your teaching 2.9 2.7 2.9 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.3 4.3 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.8 Count (n) 1050 1109 1080 1009 1684 817 718 1117 776 865 1091 909 548 Question C4: Please indicate your views on the following: (Scale of answer from 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree).

C.  Teaching 219

Table 11.59  Positive views and activities about teaching (percent; responses 1 and 2) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK You spend more time than you would like teaching 55 54 46 53 51 61 37 68 66 basic skills due to student deficiencies You are encouraged to improve your instructional 55 56 13 34 60 50 49 34 55 skills in response to teaching evaluations At your institution there are adequate training 58 39 38 29 3 51 37 20 58 courses for enhancing teaching quality Practically oriented knowledge and skills 60 71 54 79 54 70 50 79 68 are emphasized in your teaching In your courses you emphasize international 60 49 50 55 61 53 65 79 64 perspectives or content You incorporate discussions of values 64 68 48 41 38 59 41 67 70 and ethics into your course content You inform students of the implications 77 83 44 45 31 61 37 80 90 of cheating or plagiarism in your courses 84 86 92 63 80 48 74 53 83 Grades in your courses strictly reflect levels of student achievement Since you started teaching, the number 51 48 66 49 41 53 54 60 60 of international students has increased Currently, most of your graduate students 24 7 8 6 2 20 9 2 31 are international Your research activities reinforce your teaching 82 71 69 64 82 70 81 73 77 Your service activities reinforce your teaching 43 51 37 36 49 60 61 5 36 Count (n) 1050 1109 1080 1009 1684 817 718 1117 776 Question C4: Please indicate your views on the following: (Scale of answer from 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree). 61 67 21 53 53 48 49 57 12 8 78 47 1091

62 53 74 67 71 85 80 70 25 75 51 865

JP

AU 58

85 56 909

8

24

76

66

61

74

76

40

62

KR 58

70 44 548

13

51

79

79

63

71

69

40

52

HK 56

220 11  Appendices

D.  Research

221

Table 11.60  Teaching abroad/ in foreign languages (percent of respondents with teaching responsibilities; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Teaching abroad 14 9 15 12 14 13 22 4 13 15 4 8 11 8 4 43 24 24 44 61 12 4 4 12 31 15 Teaching in an language different from the language of instruction at your current institution None (*) 83 89 54 72 74 51 37 87 85 84 85 65 80 Total 105 102 112 108 112 108 119 103 102 102 101 105 105 Count (n) 1048 1069 1110 1020 1687 849 722 1127 791 880 1089 906 547 Question C5: During the current (or previous) academic year, are you teaching any courses … (*) Respondents who did not state any of the two categories.

D.  Research Table 11.61  Collaboration in research (percent of respondents undertaking research work; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 65 71 16 65 45 73 31 40 53 78 52 37 51 Are you working individually/ without collaboration on any of your research projects? 85 79 89 67 82 86 80 57 84 89 61 74 83 Do you have collaborators in any of your research projects? 68 61 68 58 77 59 56 65 67 67 49 64 53 Do you collaborate with persons at other institutions in your country? 63 33 69 44 59 52 60 45 60 59 22 29 57 Do you collaborate with international colleagues? Total 282 244 242 235 264 270 227 208 264 293 184 204 244 Count (n) 1022 835 1106 1053 1682 577 906 1043 796 1018 1080 884 481 Question D1: How would you characterize your research efforts undertaken during this (or the previous) academic year?

222

11  Appendices

Table 11.62  Collaboration in research (percent of all respondents; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 60 67 14 59 45 37 29 30 32 58 50 37 43 Are you working individually/ without collaboration on any of your research projects? 77 75 76 61 82 43 75 43 50 67 59 74 70 Do you have collaborators in any of your research projects? 62 59 58 52 77 30 52 49 40 51 48 64 45 Do you collaborate with persons at other institutions in your country? 58 32 60 39 59 26 56 34 36 44 21 29 48 Do you collaborate with international colleagues? 9 4 14 10 0 49 7 24 40 25 4 0 16 Not applicable, no research work (*) Total 266 237 222 221 264 186 219 181 199 244 181 204 222 Count (n) 1119 874 1288 1170 1682 1141 970 1380 1324 1358 1122 884 571 Question D1: How would you characterize your research efforts undertaken during this (or the previous) academic year? (*) Respondents without research work during this or the previous academic year

Table 11.63  Character of primary research (arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NL NO Basic/theoretical 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.2 Applied/practically- 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.5 oriented 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 Commerciallyoriented/intended for technology transfer 2.8 2.8 3.5 3.5 3.3 2.7 3.5 Socially-oriented/ intended for the betterment of society

PT 2.8 2.3

UK AU 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.0

JP 2.4 2.3

KR HK 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.2

3.8

3.9 4.0

3.9

3.6 4.2

2.8

3.0 2.4

3.4

3.3 2.8

(continued)

D.  Research Table 11.63  (continued) CA

223

US FI

DE

IT

NL NO PT

UK AU

JP

KR HK

2.6 3.1 2.5 2.8 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.8 3.1 2.4 International in scope or orientation Based in one 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.3 2.6 2.3 3.8 3.0 3.7 2.3 2.7 3.2 discipline Multi-/interdis­ 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.3 ciplinary Count (n) 1034 847 1126 1053 1684 578 912 1006 805 1026 1073 909 491 Question D2: How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research this (or the previous) academic year? (Scale of answer from 1 = Very much to 5 = Not at all)

Table 11.64  Character of primary research (percent; responses 1 and 2) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Basic/theoretical 58 52 56 58 57 50 67 42 55 52 64 61 59 Applied/practically69 68 66 70 61 73 59 64 66 77 68 75 71 oriented 14 19 21 20 15 14 14 18 17 18 18 21 11 Commerciallyoriented/intended for technology transfer 48 49 31 30 34 51 30 48 41 62 33 31 49 Socially-oriented/ intended for the betterment of society 57 39 59 50 75 61 67 51 62 68 49 34 63 International in scope or orientation Based in one 36 34 40 37 33 51 64 17 39 19 64 49 35 discipline 68 64 57 58 66 66 54 71 62 73 52 53 66 Multi-/interdis­ ciplinary Count (n) 1034 847 1126 1053 1684 578 912 1006 805 1026 1073 909 491 Question D2: How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research this (or the previous) academic year? (Scale of answer 1 = Very much to 5 = Not at all)

224

11  Appendices

Table 11.65  Research activities (percent of all respondents; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 60 40 57 60 56 34 51 32 32 38 60 62 37 Preparing experiments, inquiries etc. 63 0 50 58 54 30 41 31 31 37 68 72 41 Conducting experiments, inquiries etc. 61 39 38 39 63 23 31 16 27 39 43 53 48 Supervising a research team or graduate research assistants 81 62 65 74 79 39 76 46 52 66 79 87 75 Writing academic papers that contain research results or findings 18 14 27 14 14 7 10 9 10 14 11 15 11 Involved in the process of technology transfer 67 46 49 50 70 27 70 15 38 51 65 91 59 Answering calls for proposals or writing research grants 58 29 29 37 44 10 30 11 23 38 42 65 48 Managing research contracts and budgets 53 32 39 40 59 8 32 23 26 30 64 48 39 Purchasing or selecting equipment and research supplies No answer 14 29 18 17 4 55 13 42 44 28 8 0 19 Total 476 291 373 389 443 233 354 225 283 341 438 492 378 Count (n) 1159 1109 1374 1215 1711 1209 986 1510 1369 1377 1126 909 586 Question D3: Have you been involved in any of the following research activities during this or the previous) academic year?

Table 11.66  Number of research outputs in the past 3 years (arithmetic mean; only respondents with any research output) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.8 1.0 0.5 Scholarly books you authored or co-authored 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.4 Scholarly books you edited or co-edited 6.2 9.1 5.9 4.8 4.2 5.4 6.9 8.9 11.3 8.7 Articles published 6.4 4.2 4.6 in an academic book or journal (continued)

D.  Research Table 11.66  (continued) CA US FI

225

DE

IT

NL NO PT

UK AU JP

KR HK

1.4 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.1 0.6 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.1 2.6 1.5 Research report/ monograph written for a funded project 8.2 5.2 4.3 5.4 7.7 4.2 4.3 6.4 4.9 5.7 4.8 7.9 7.0 Paper presented at a scholarly conference 1.1 1.3 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.1 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.0 2.1 Professional article 1.3 1.5 written for a newspaper or magazine 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.2 Patent secured on a process or invention 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Computer program 0.1 0.1 written for public use 0.3 1.7 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 1.2 0.5 0.2 Artistic work performed or exhibited Video or film 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1   0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 produced Others 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2   0 0.5 0.6 Count (n) 993 939 1049 1007 1669 536 871 924 777 992 1045 906 471 Question D4: How many of the following scholarly contributions have you completed in the past 3 years? Table 11.67  Proportion of respondents producing different research outputs in the past 3 years (arithmetic mean; only respondents with respective research outputs) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.7 2.1 1.4 1.4 3.1 2.1 1.6 Scholarly books you authored or co-authored 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.8 1.5 2.4 1.4 1.5 2.3 2.3 1.6 Scholarly books you edited or co-edited Articles published 7.1 5.9 6.2 7.6 9.6 7.5 5.7 5.8 6.1 7.9 10.3 11.5 9.6 in an academic book or journal 3.2 5.2 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.8 3.1 3.7 2.6 3.5 3.2 Research report/ monograph written for a funded project 8.8 6.6 5.6 7.0 9.1 6.0 5.5 8.2 5.7 6.4 8.2 9.4 7.8 Paper presented at a scholarly conference (continued)

226 Table 11.67  (continued) CA US

11  Appendices

FI

DE

IT

NL NO PT

UK AU

JP

KR

HK

5.3 3.4 4.6 6.6 3.7 3.9 3.3 2.7 4.4 3.5 4.4 6.7 Professional article 3.4 written for a newspaper or magazine 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.5 3.7 2.6 Patent secured on a process or invention 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.6 2.1 2.6 3.5 1.9 3.2 1.6 2.6 1.8 1.7 Computer program written for public use 6.2 14.0 7.4 11.5 5.8 5.7 9.3 9.5 5.3 6.8 7.8 9.4 4.7 Artistic work performed or exhibited 1.9 4.0 1.6 3.9 4.5 1.3 3.3 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.7 2.4 2.1 Video or film produced Others 6.6 10.1 4.1 7.2 5.1 1.5 5.8 3.3 4.4 6.4 – 10.4 12.5 Count (n) 993 939 1049 1007 1669 536 871 924 777 992 1045 906 471 Question D4: How many of the following scholarly contributions have you completed in the past 3 years?

Table 11.68  Proportion of respondents producing different research outputs in the past 3 years (percent of respondents with any research output; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 23 17 24 21 48 26 26 26 21 20 61 49 29 Scholarly books you authored or co-authored 17 13 18 15 27 19 13 21 14 12 23 31 25 Scholarly books you edited or co-edited 90 73 75 81 95 79 85 74 89 89 87 98 91 Articles published in an academic book or journal 43 32 40 56 48 37 22 46 39 40 43 75 47 Research report/ monograph written for a funded project 77 78 86 71 79 80 86 90 59 84 90 Paper presented at a 93 81 scholarly conference 40 29 34 29 28 49 35 33 27 28 30 24 32 Professional article written for a newspaper or magazine (continued)

D.  Research

227

Table 11.68  (continued) CA US FI Patent secured on a process or invention Computer program written for public use Artistic work performed or exhibited Video or film produced Others Total Count (n)

DE

IT

NL NO PT

UK AU JP

KR HK

6

5

4

10

6

3

3

4

3

5

10

21

7

6

5

6

7

4

7

4

7

6

5

2

4

4

5

12

4

4

1

3

5

5

4

6

15

5

5

3

6

4

7

3

3

5

5

3

4

5

3

6

10 9 7 5 4 4 10 13 9 3 0 5 5 337 282 293 313 350 300 288 315 301 302 337 398 340 993 939 1049 1007 1669 536 871 924 777 992 1045 906 471

Question D4: How many of the following scholarly contributions have you completed in the past 3 years?

Table 11.69  Proportion of respondents producing different research outputs in the past 3 years (percent of all respondents; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 20 14 19 18 47 12 23 16 12 15 56 49 23 Scholarly books you authored or co-authored 15 11 14 12 26 8 12 13 8 9 21 31 20 Scholarly books you edited or co-edited 77 62 57 67 93 35 75 45 51 64 81 98 73 Articles published in an academic book or journal 37 27 30 47 47 17 19 28 22 29 40 75 38 Research report/ monograph written for a funded project 79 68 59 64 84 32 70 49 49 65 55 83 72 Paper presented at a scholarly conference (continued)

228 Table 11.69  (continued) CA US

11  Appendices

FI

DE

IT

NL

NO PT

UK

AU

JP

KR HK

34 25 26 24 28 22 31 20 15 21 28 24 26 Professional article written for a newspaper or magazine 5 5 3 8 6 1 3 2 2 3 10 21 6 Patent secured on a process or invention 5 4 5 6 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 Computer program written for public use 4 10 3 4 1 1 5 3 2 4 14 5 4 Artistic work performed or exhibited Video or film 3 5 3 6 3 1 4 3 2 3 5 3 5 produced Others 8 8 5 4 4 2 9 8 5 2 0 5 4 14 15 24 17 2 56 12 39 43 28 7 0 20 No research activity stated Total 303 254 247 276 344 189 266 232 214 246 320 397 293 Count (n) 1159 1109 1374 1215 1711 1209 986 1510 1369 1377 1126 909 586 Question D4: How many of the following scholarly contributions have you completed in the past 3 years?

Question D5: Which percentage of your publications in the last 3 years were … (percent)

Table 11.70  Modes of publications (means of percentages of respondents having published in the past 3 years) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Published in a language different from the language 19.6 2.8 58.7 56.5 59.4 62.8 75.3 48.7 3.8 1.6 39.1 37.0 12.5 of instruction at your current institution Co-authored with colleagues located in the country 43.6 44.2 52.9 56.8 55.5 45.7 53.9 44.7 48.2 51.0 49.2 40.8 39.0 of your current employment Co-authored with colleagues located in other 14.5 6.3 17.9 15.5 16.0 19.7 20.1 16.9 15.5 15.0 7.5 6.5 16.8 (foreign)countries Published in a foreign country 36.1 9.1 51.4 39.7 47.5 – 57.6 48.4 26.8 35.4 18.5 27.7 68.6 On-line or electronically published 24.0 16.2 20.6 42.5 27.4 9.5 36.9 31.3 25.9 24.5 10.2 18.5 16.6 Peer-reviewed 75.2 62.6 52.5 46.4 55.4 54.7 69.3 68.5 69.3 74.0 35.2 47.7 75.2 Count (n) 975 859 933 917 1706 499 826 843 727 944 920 871 449

D.  Research 229

230

11  Appendices

Table 11.71  Proportion of respondents with publishing in different modes (percentage of respondents having published in each mode in the past 3 years; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 8 79 80 86 82 93 71 11 6 73 68 28 Published in a language 32 different from the language of instruction at your current institution 73 71 76 83 85 77 76 64 79 78 76 86 68 Co-authored with colleagues located in the country of your current employment 43 24 44 40 47 47 46 41 43 40 29 28 47 Co-authored with colleagues located in other (foreign) countries 60 30 74 65 73 0 76 72 56 56 40 55 84 Published in a foreign country On-line or electronically 48 38 39 67 53 26 56 56 50 49 23 33 33 published Peer-reviewed 95 89 72 68 77 75 87 87 93 94 59 61 86 Total 351 261 383 403 422 307 433 392 332 323 300 332 346 Count (n) 965 782 912 917 1552 469 819 814 727 941 830 820 441 Question D5: Which percentage of your publications in the last 3 years were … (percent)

Question D6: Please indicate your views on the following (Scale of answer from 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree)

Table 11.72  Views on the conditions for research (arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 3.9 3.8 3.4 3.0 3.9 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.5 2.8 2.8 3.5 Restrictions on the publication of results from my publicly-funded research have increased since my first appointment 3.8 3.7 3.1 3.0 4.0 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.5 Restrictions on the publication of results from my privately-funded research have increased since my first appointment External sponsors or clients have no influence over 2 .4 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.4 my research activities The pressure to raise external research funds has 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.4 1.9 increased since my first appointment Interdisciplinary research is emphasized at my 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.3 institution Your institution emphasizes commercially-oriented 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.3 3.1 3.0 3.0 or applied research Your research is conducted in full-compliance with 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.9 1.5 ethical guidelines Research funding should be concentrated(targeted) 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.1 3.4 3.1 2.9 3.4 3.3 3.2 2.9 3.2 on the most productive researchers High expectations to increase research productivity 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.1 are a threat to the quality of research High expectations of useful results and application 2.3 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.3 are a threat to the quality of research Count (n) 1012 1037 1096 1035 1661 530 898 935 795 1013 1071 908 477

D.  Research 231

Table 11.73  Positive views on conditions for research (percent; responses 1 and 2) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK Restrictions on the publication of results from my publicly11 13 14 30 17 23 16 35 9 funded research have increased since my first appointment Restrictions on the publication of results from my privately11 14 18 27 12 19 17 20 10 funded research have increased since my first appointment External sponsors or clients have no influence over my 57 56 44 48 53 50 64 45 37 research activities The pressure to raise external research funds has increased 73 69 77 82 77 74 76 73 81 since my first appointment Interdisciplinary research is emphasized at my institution 59 56 63 54 37 56 50 41 68 Your institution emphasizes commercially-oriented or applied 40 41 42 36 36 42 34 39 52 research Your research is conducted in full-compliance with ethical 96 97 86 80 91 79 95 84 89 guidelines Research funding should be concentrated(targeted) 23 27 27 40 69 22 34 38 24 on the most productive researchers 72 54 72 50 53 68 68 56 76 High expectations to increase research productivity are a threat to the quality of research High expectations of useful results and application 61 46 47 53 50 58 56 42 58 are a threat to the quality of research Count (n) 1012 1037 1096 1035 1661 530 898 935 795 Question D6: Please indicate your views on the following (Scale of answer from 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree) 32 20 32 78 43 27 87 26 60 54 1071

15 45 85 65 63 95 29 73 58 1013

JP

AU 15

908

49

61

39

82

36 31

59

36

31

KR 45

477

60

70

34

90

61 34

76

54

11

HK 19

232 11  Appendices

FI 33.2 32.1 10.9 8.9 9.4 4.0 98.4 985

DE 40.8 26.9 10.7 12.4 7.3 1.7 99.9 999 48.7 17.8 14.6 8.4 5.1 3.5 98.1 1604

IT

NL 54.5 21.1 12.0 4.5 5.2 1.9 99.2 495

NO 51.5 30.4 7.0 4.1 4.5 1.8 99.4 881

PT 23.1 37.9 10.0 3.1 4.2 8.4 86.8 830

UK 37.0 27.4 19.9 4.6 7.6 3.6 100.0 654

Question D7: In the current (or previous) academic year, which percentage of the funding for your research came from …

Table 11.74  Sources of funding (means of percentages) CA US Your own institution 27.6 48.2 Public research funding agencies 39.2 0 Government entities 18.4 22.5 Business firms or industry 4.6 7.2 Private not-for-profit foundations/agencies 5.3 8.8 Others 3.5 2.4 Total percentage 98.7 89.1 Count (n) 969 832

AU 37.4 29.1 15.3 7.2 6.1 2.4 97.5 943

51.5 21.1 15.5 7.5 3.3 0.8 99.7 1037

JP

KR 32.0 30.4 24.1 8.2 3.1 2.2 100.0 840

HK 46.4 18.4 15.5 2.1 2.8 1.7 87.0 473

D.  Research 233

Table 11.75  Sources of Funding (means of adjusted* percentages) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Your own institution 28.0 54.1 33.8 40.8 49.6 55.0 51.8 26.6 37.0 38.4 51.6 32.0 53.3 Public research funding agencies 39.7 0 32.6 27.0 18.2 21.2 30.6 43.7 27.4 29.8 21.2 30.4 21.1 Government entities 18.7 25.3 11.1 10.8 14.9 12.1 7.1 11.6 19.9 15.7 15.5 24.1 17.9 Business firms or industry 4.7 8.1 9.0 12.4 8.5 4.5 4.2 3.6 4.6 7.4 7.6 8.2 2.4 Private not-for-profit foundations/agencies 5.4 9.8 9.5 7.3 5.2 5.3 4.5 4.9 7.6 6.3 3.3 3.1 3.2 Others 3.5 2.7 4.0 1.7 3.5 2.0 1.9 9.7 3.6 2.5 0.8 2.2 2.0 Total percentage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Count (n) 957 741 969 998 1574 490 876 720 654 919 1034 840 412 Question D7: In the current (or previous) academic year, which percentage of the funding for your research came from … * The stated percentages are adjusted to 100%

234 11  Appendices

DE 89.5 10.5 100.0 784

IT 58.5 12.4 70.9 1348

NL 74.1 13.6 87.6 374

NO 77.6 9.1 86.6 624

PT 65.3 15.9 81.2 754

UK 84.0 16.0 100.0 443

AU 73.1 7.7 80.8 719

Question D8: In the current (or previous) academic year, which percentage of the external funding for your research came from

Table 11.76  Sources of external funding (means of percentages) CA US FI National organizations/entities 81.7 60.1 79.8 International organizations/entities 6.6 4.0 12.4 Total percentage 88.3 64.1 92.3 Count (n) 797 643 689

JP 71.7 0.5 72.2 880

KR 98.3 1.7 100.0 779

HK 50.2 4.3 54.5 474

D.  Research 235

NL 84.5 15.5 100.0 328

NO 89.5 10.5 100.0 540

PT 80.4 19.6 100.0 612

UK 84.0 16.0 100.0 443

AU 90.4 9.6 100.0 581

JP 99.3 0.7 100.0 635

KR 98.3 1.7 100.0 779

HK 92.1 7.9 100.0 258

Question D8: In the current (or previous) academic year, which percentage of the external funding for your research came from * The stated percentages are adjusted to 100%

Table 11.77  Sources of external funding (means of adjusted* percentages) CA US FI DE IT National organizations/entities 92.5 93.8 86.5 89.5 82.6 International organizations/entities 7.5 6.2 13.5 10.5 17.4 Total percentage 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Count (n) 703 412 636 784 955

236 11  Appendices

E.  Management

237

E.  Management Table 11.78  Actors having the primary influence on selecting key administrators (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR 5 6 3 9 6 21 1 3 2 2 1 1 Government or external stakeholders Institutional 47 71 69 50 75 66 61 41 55 65 39 83 managers Academic unit 14 15 6 16 9 10 20 31 14 14 16 9 managers Faculty committees/ 30 8 17 21 7 1 16 16 22 14 36 6 boards Individual faculty 4 0 5 4 3 1 2 9 7 5 8 2 Students 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 944 974 1033 884 1384 619 831 914 766 903 1042 906 Question E1: At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions?

Table 11.79  Actors having the primary influence on choosing new faculty (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR 0 0 0 4 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Government or external stakeholders Institutional 3 6 18 26 4 5 24 6 16 26 9 27 managers Academic unit 11 33 15 23 33 52 23 33 29 30 8 28 managers Faculty committees/ 78 56 25 41 35 38 32 55 33 35 76 41 boards Individual faculty 8 5 41 6 25 4 20 6 21 8 7 4 Students 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 974 1097 1061 904 1485 662 843 944 796 916 1076 905 Question E1: At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions?

238

11  Appendices

Table 11.80  Actors having the primary influence on making faculty promotion and tenure decisions (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR 0 0 0 2 4 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 Government or external stakeholders Institutional 12 18 32 24 4 6 39 23 30 33 16 46 managers Academic unit 22 31 11 36 36 69 20 24 17 16 8 13 managers 64 49 37 13 34 19 32 47 43 47 73 36 Faculty committees/ boards Individual 2 2 20 25 22 5 5 3 10 4 3 4 faculty Students 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 972 1095 1040 902 1427 661 824 946 776 925 1057 908 Question E1: At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions?

Table 11.81  Actors having the primary influence on determining budget priorities (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP Government or external 3 2 4 5 2 1 2 8 3 2 0 stakeholders Institutional managers 58 53 49 63 40 35 52 51 52 55 46 Academic unit 32 42 10 19 30 53 23 35 15 20 18 managers Faculty committees/ 7 2 19 11 20 7 19 5 22 16 34 boards Individual faculty 0 0 18 2 7 2 3 1 8 6 2 Students 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 960 1054 1021 878 1435 653 830 941 759 920 1062

KR 1 78 13 7 1 0 100 901

Question E1: At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions?

Table 11.82  Actors having the primary influence on determining faculty (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO Government or external 0 1 3 100 2 0 4 stakeholders Institutional managers 22 29 21 0 13 10 38 Academic unit 57 59 13 0 32 56 31 managers Faculty committees/ 18 10 21 0 46 27 21 boards Individual faculty 3 1 42 0 7 6 7 Students 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 960 1066 1030 1215 1495 659 818

the overall teaching load of PT UK AU JP KR 1 1 1 0 1 10 36

24 35

21 40

13 19

52 23

50

22

24

44

16

4 17 14 24 8 0 1 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 947 755 906 1060 903

Question E1: At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions?

Table 11.83  Actors having the primary influence on setting admission standards for undergraduate students (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR Government or external 1 3 16 9 6 7 12 11 4 5 0 3 stakeholders Institutional managers 40 64 27 36 20 16 34 20 28 47 18 57 Academic unit 20 12 8 22 16 36 9 23 17 16 15 18 managers Faculty committees/ 37 21 33 31 54 36 40 45 35 24 62 21 boards Individual faculty 2 1 16 1 4 4 5 1 15 8 4 1 Students 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 955 960 1019 830 1451 620 786 927 734 892 1042 897 Question E1: At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions?

Table 11.84  Actors having the primary influence on approving new academic programs (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL PT UK AU JP KR Government or external 7 7 24 9 2 3 8 3 1 1 2 stakeholders Institutional managers 36 41 34 45 8 10 14 26 39 17 44 Academic unit 17 17 6 18 14 45 16 10 13 17 22 managers Faculty committees/ 39 35 31 25 69 36 57 54 42 59 31 boards Individual faculty 1 1 5 3 6 4 5 7 4 6 1 Students 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 960 1050 1012 865 1476 657 951 738 904 1036 902 Question E1: At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions?

240

11  Appendices

Table 11.85  Actors having the primary influence on evaluating teaching (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR Government or external 0 0 6 4 1 1 2 5 6 1 2 0 stakeholders Institutional managers 10 8 20 20 8 4 18 17 13 27 24 28 Academic unit managers 25 44 11 24 15 38 18 28 18 20 29 7 Faculty committees/ 19 23 19 23 35 39 20 28 28 19 30 8 boards Individual faculty 4 5 29 6 5 9 16 5 23 15 9 2 Students 42 22 15 23 36 8 26 17 12 19 6 56 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 967 1074 1009 873 1456 661 804 895 739 902 1035 905 Question E1: At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions?

Table 11.86  Actors having the primary influence on setting internal research priorities (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR Government or external 2 1 1 3 3 0 1 2 2 1 0 1 stakeholders Institutional managers 27 21 28 14 6 11 31 13 22 34 34 47 Academic unit managers 19 35 12 19 13 51 28 26 22 19 23 16 Faculty committees/ 18 19 13 11 13 26 15 30 20 21 24 31 boards Individual faculty 34 24 46 53 65 12 24 29 33 24 18 5 Students 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 926 893 974 886 1418 632 804 899 739 901 1014 904 Question E1: At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions?

Table 11.87  Actors having the primary influence on evaluating research (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR Government or external 8 4 12 10 15 6 20 21 18 10 3 2 stakeholders Institutional managers 13 8 32 24 11 10 20 14 19 31 27 26 Academic unit managers 22 34 16 25 18 43 14 20 21 18 29 10 Faculty committees/ 37 41 17 18 33 34 18 31 24 22 27 10 boards Individual faculty 20 13 22 22 23 6 29 14 17 19 15 52 Students 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 922 890 935 803 1339 626 767 858 712 877 1025 895 Question E1: At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions?

E.  Management

241

Table 11.88  Actors having the primary influence on establishing international linkages (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR Government or external 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 stakeholders Institutional managers 36 40 18 22 12 19 11 29 27 31 46 71 Academic unit managers 11 17 13 15 10 43 12 29 17 15 17 10 Faculty committees/boards 5 11 8 6 6 17 4 12 10 9 22 5 Individual faculty 46 30 61 56 71 20 72 29 46 42 14 13 Students 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 916 795 992 877 1437 637 815 920 714 900 1010 896 Question E1: At your institution, which actor has the primary influence on each of the following decisions?

Table 11.89  Personal influence at various institutional levels (arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 2.6 2.4 2.7 1.9 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.7 At the level of the 2.3 2.1 department or similar unit 3.0 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.9 3.4 At the level of the faculty, school or similar unit 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.6 At the level of the higher education institution Count (n) 984 1106 1237 1073 1685 781 895 970 839 1021 1088 907 558 Question E2: How influential are you, personally, in helping to shape key academic policies? (Scale of answer 1 = Very Influential to 4 = Not at all Influential)

Table 11.90  High personal influence at various institutional levels (percent; responses 1 and 2) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 65 38 56 43 77 36 45 37 41 47 58 36 At the level of the 60 department or similar unit 27 42 14 22 22 37 12 20 19 17 28 28 16 At the level of the faculty, school or similar unit 11 19 8 9 7 9 11 12 9 7 13 20 7 At the level of the higher education institution Count (n) 984 1106 1237 1073 1685 781 895 970 839 1021 1088 907 558 Question E2: How influential are you, personally, in helping to shape key academic policies? (Scale of answer 1 = Very Influential to 4 = Not at all Influential)

242

11  Appendices

Table 11.91  Evaluators of teaching (percent; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 35 51 35 21 20 51 25 41 64 33 20 21 39 Your peers in your department or unit 70 81 54 17 33 57 26 42 50 67 30 24 71 The head of your department or unit 11 16 5 4 4 8 5 27 11 11 5 7 10 Members of other departments or units at this institution 33 11 11 3 15 17 32 9 17 32 31 30 Senior administrative 29 staff at this institution Your students 91 91 82 77 86 91 88 60 92 85 50 80 93 External reviewers 8 8 11 4 9 23 11 44 32 6 9 4 25 Yourself (formal 39 57 0 38 24 39 29 31 53 53 40 21 46 self-assessment) 3 1 3 9 6 2 6 12 3 4 8 3 0 No one at or outside my institution Total 285 338 202 181 184 286 208 289 314 275 194 191 314 Count (n) 984 1107 1178 992 1711 745 748 839 732 840 1057 893 551 Question E3: By whom is your teaching, research, and service regularly evaluated?

Table 11.92  Evaluators of research (percent; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 41 41 51 47 38 40 52 20 47 36 17 29 36 Your peers in your department or unit 61 65 67 17 31 56 30 12 64 70 31 20 79 The head of your department or unit 16 17 23 9 8 15 8 9 21 16 4 16 20 Members of other departments or units at this institution 31 16 19 3 16 9 13 21 22 38 42 38 Senior administrative 31 staff at this institution Your students 3 3 3 3 2 5 5 55 5 4 2 3 2 External reviewers 60 38 52 37 43 50 37 24 62 55 15 36 57 Yourself (formal 36 51 0 41 24 34 26 26 54 43 43 29 48 self-assessment) No one at or outside 5 11 7 13 18 7 13 20 6 3 11 9 1 my institution Total 252 256 219 185 167 223 182 179 279 250 161 184 281 Count (n) 978 1085 1056 985 1711 531 855 842 737 956 1040 880 497 Question E3: By whom is your teaching, research, and service regularly evaluated?

E.  Management

243

Table 11.93  Evaluators of service activities (percent; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 42 45 27 32 13 33 19 49 34 27 11 14 30 Your peers in your department or unit 70 73 57 13 15 52 22 27 68 75 25 18 77 The head of your department or unit 12 21 9 5 3 11 7 41 13 10 2 11 13 Members of other departments or units at this institution 37 21 16 6 10 23 34 24 23 34 43 35 Senior administrative 31 staff at this institution Your students 4 5 10 10 5 33 9 26 21 10 1 1 4 External reviewers 8 6 14 6 5 18 8 9 12 6 10 12 8 Yourself (formal 31 48 0 33 11 38 16 25 42 38 33 19 41 self-assessment) 6 23 32 65 18 39 17 12 10 26 25 5 No one at or outside 13 my institution Total 211 241 160 147 122 214 144 229 226 200 143 143 213 Count (n) 930 1099 641 806 1711 448 307 810 620 842 1045 793 459 Question E3: By whom is your teaching, research, and service regularly evaluated?

Question E4: At my institution there is … (Scale of answer from 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree)

Table 11.94  Views of institutional management and administration (arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK A strong emphasis on the institution‘s mission 2.6 2.1 2.5 3.0 3.4 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.3 Good communication between management 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 and academics A top-down management style 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.4 3.3 2.6 2.1 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.0 Collegiality in decision-making processes 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.0 3.2 2.9 3.4 3.5 2.7 3.4 3.2 A strong performance orientation 2.6 2.6 2.3 3.3 2.5 2.5 3.2 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.3 A cumbersome administrative process 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.2 A supportive attitude of administrative staff 2.7 2.7 3.2 3.2 3.6 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.9 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.8 towards teaching activities A supportive attitude of administrative staff 2.8 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.7 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 2.9 towards research activities Professional development for administrative/ 3.1 3.6 3.2 3.6 4.4 3.2 3.9 4.0 2.8 2.9 3.8 2.6 3.2 management duties for individual faculty Count (n) 981 1103 1276 1062 1677 767 910 969 842 1014 1093 908 563

244 11  Appendices

Question E4: At my institution there is … (Scale of answer from 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree)

Table 11.95  Strong views of institutional management and administration (percent; responses 1 and 2) CA US FI DE IT NL A strong emphasis on the institution‘s mission 47 69 55 36 20 52 Good communication between management and academics 30 30 30 21 26 27 A top-down management style 55 65 56 43 52 54 Collegiality in decision-making processes 38 33 23 28 16 36 A strong performance orientation 51 48 60 0 22 52 A cumbersome administrative process 65 56 59 69 53 62 A supportive attitude of administrative staff towards 49 52 25 28 19 43 teaching activities A supportive attitude of administrative staff towards 48 49 25 23 17 27 research activities Professional development for administrative/management 32 18 24 19 5 23 duties for individual faculty Count (n) 981 1103 1276 1062 1677 767 PT 48 29 48 34 29 58 29 12 10 969

NO 43 34 28 25 50 55 44 36 10 910

842

40

32

UK 60 23 68 20 68 73 41

1014

38

37

AU 63 23 73 19 70 76 39

8

36

59 24 57 45 51 69 57

1093

JP

908

48

26

KR 50 20 54 17 62 50 29

563

24

39

HK 62 26 72 25 64 60 44

E.  Management 245

Question E5: Please indicate your views on the following issues. (Scale of answer 1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree)

Table 11.96  Views on institutional practice (arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Top-level administrators are providing competent 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.3 3.3 2.6 3.1 3.1 leadership I am kept informed about what is going on at this 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.0 institution Lack of faculty involvement is a real problem 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 Students should have a stronger voice in determining 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.9 policy that affects them The administration supports academic freedom 2.4 2.4 3.3 2.9 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.5 Count (n) 978 1104 1273 1056 1673 759 913 969 825 1005 1092 908 564

246 11  Appendices

32 41 39 31

IT

47 1673

DE 31 47 45 42 34 1056

37 759

NL 40 44 34 24 31 913

NO 38 40 34 28 36 969

PT 41 32 50 27

39 825

UK 25 38 38 30

39 1005

AU 32 42 37 36

Question E5: Please indicate your views on the following issues. (Scale of answer from 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree)

Table 11.97  Strong views on institutional practice (percent; responses 1 and 2) CA US FI Top-level administrators are providing competent leadership 39 45 38 I am kept informed about what is going on at this institution 45 43 43 Lack of faculty involvement is a real problem 38 30 32 Students should have a stronger voice in determining policy 23 25 29 that affects them The administration supports academic freedom 60 61 22 Count (n) 978 1104 1273

55 30 43 32 55 1092

JP

50 908

KR 27 41 40 46

53 564

HK 35 37 40 32

E.  Management 247

Question E6: To what extent does your institution emphasize the following practices? (Scale of answer 1 = Very much to 5 = Not at all)

Table 11.98  Perception of teaching and research related institutional strategies (arithmetic mean) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Performance based allocation of resources to 3.1 3.0 2.4 2.6 3.2 2.9 2.6 3.6 2.7 2.6 3.1 3.0 2.4 academic units Evaluation based allocation of resources to academic 3.4 – 2.9 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.7 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.0 2.5 units Funding of departments substantially based on numbers 2.1 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.6 2.9 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.2 of students Funding of departments substantially based on numbers 3.0 3.2 2.1 3.2 3.3 2.2 2.5 3.5 3.2 2.9 3.7 3.3 2.9 of graduates Considering the research quality when making 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 3.4 2.9 3.0 3.5 2.3 2.6 2.5 3.1 2.2 personnel decisions Considering the teaching quality when making 3.1 2.6 3.1 3.3 3.8 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.7 personnel decisions 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.3 3.8 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.1 Considering the practical relevance/applicability of the work of colleagues when making personnel decisions Recruiting faculty who have work experience outside 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.9 2.9 3.7 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.3 of academia Encouraging academics to adopt service activities/ 3.5 3.0 3.3 2.7 3.7 3.3 3.7 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.3 entrepreneurial activities outside the institution 2.8 2.3 3.3 2.8 3.4 2.9 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.6 3.2 3.0 2.7 Encouraging individuals, businesses, foundations etc. to contribute more to higher education Count (n) 963 1061 1173 1001 1622 688 871 960 796 969 1093 908 545

248 11  Appendices

UK 47 33 70 30 62 31 29 23 30 36 796

PT 16 15 40 20 22 17 15 33 32 29 960

969

51

26 36

AU 49 36 70 38 51 28 25

Question E6: To what extent does your institution emphasize the following practices? (Scale of answer 1 = Very much to 5 = Not at all)

Table 11.99  Strong perceptions of teaching and research related institutional strategies (percent; responses 1 and 2) CA US FI DE IT NL NO Performance based allocation of resources to academic units 34 38 55 49 30 37 53 Evaluation based allocation of resources to academic units 21 0 35 26 23 26 23 Funding of departments substantially based on numbers of students 70 49 46 45 54 75 51 Funding of departments substantially based on numbers of graduates 34 27 70 25 23 66 55 Considering the research quality when making personnel decisions 50 48 39 50 23 38 34 Considering the teaching quality when making personnel decisions 33 52 28 26 12 39 26 Considering the practical relevance/applicability of the work 19 31 31 22 11 31 20 of colleagues when making personnel decisions Recruiting faculty who have work experience outside of academia 15 30 25 34 7 39 13 Encouraging academics to adopt service activities/entrepreneurial 17 38 20 50 15 27 14 activities outside the institution Encouraging individuals, businesses, foundations etc. to contribute 42 65 19 45 22 37 20 more to higher education Count (n) 963 1061 1173 1001 1622 688 871

18

21 28

31 30 59 6 57 38 26

1093

JP

908

28

18 28

KR 35 33 62 23 33 23 15

545

46

22 23

HK 57 50 67 34 68 44 27

E.  Management 249

250

11  Appendices

F.  Personal Background and Professional Preparation Table 11.100  Gender (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK Male 66 62 55 67 68 65 60 57 54 Female 34 38 45 33 32 35 40 43 46 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 987 1097 1341 1100 1698 796 940 993 1162 Question F1: What is your gender?

Table 11.101  Year of birth (means) CA US FI DE Arithm. 1961 1955 1965 1966 mean Median 1961 1954 1966 1968 Count (n)   966 1094 1331 1093 Question F2: Year of Birth.

AU JP KR HK 43 83 82 65 57 17 18 35 100 100 100 100 1023 1112 909 575

IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 1957 1962 1963 1967 1963 1960 1956 1960 1962 1958 1962 1964 1968 1963 1960 1956 1960 1961 1677   776   920   982 1156 1016 1085   908   546

Table 11.102  Age of repondents at the time of the survey (2007) (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK up to 30 years 2 2 20 18 0 13 12 14 9 6 0 0 4 31–35 years 13 7 14 22 8 11 20 23 15 10 4 5 13 36–40 years 18 9 13 15 14 12 13 20 16 15 11 16 14 41–45 years 15 11 12 12 17 14 11 16 15 14 14 23 18 46–50 years 17 15 12 12 14 15 11 11 14 17 19 26 21 51–55 years 15 16 12 8 12 17 11 9 14 16 16 21 15 56–60 years 12 14 11 7 15 14 10 5 11 14 18 7 11 61–65 years 8 15 5 5 11 4 9 1 5 7 13 2 3 66 and older 2 11 0 1 8 0 4 1 1 1 4 0 1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n)  966 1094 1331 1093 1677 776 920 982 1156 1016 1085 908 546 Question F2: Year of Birth.

Table 11.103  Marital status (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Married/ 83 80 81 85 81 85 82 78 80 81 84 94 74 partner Single 15 9 14 15 16 12 15 15 17 16 15 6 23 Other 3 11 4 0 3 3 3 7 2 2 1 1 2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 976 1096 1328 1113 1687 796 937 989 1154 1013 1105 908 572 Question F3: What is your familial status

F.  Personal Background and Professional Preparation

251

Table 11.104  Employment of spouse/partner (percent of respondents with a spouse/partner) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Yes, full-time 64 64 79 54 67 36 82 89 62 63 25 36 62 Yes, part-time 16 15 9 26 15 48 10 4 21 23 21 14 10 No 20 22 13 20 18 16 8 7 17 14 54 50 28 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 813 873 1080 885 1360 630 765 769 927 820 928 849 423 Question F4: If married/partner, is she/he employed? Table 11.105  Academic spouse/partner (percent of respondents with a spouse/partner) CA US FI DE IT NO PT UK AU JP KR Yes 39 43 40 30 18 66 31 31 22 6 24 No 61 57 60 70 82 34 69 69 78 94 76 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 810 683 1078 888 1354 765 765 925 820 927 849

HK 24 76 100 431

Question F5: Is your spouse/partner also an academic? Table 11.106  Number of children (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP Yes, 1 child 19 14 16 16 22 16 19 25 17 20 24 Yes, 2 children 24 13 22 18 22 25 24 28 17 23 23 Yes, 3 or more children 9 6 11 9 7 11 11 8 7 8 7 No 48 67 51 57 49 48 46 38 59 50 46 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 967 1092 1305 1071 1589 658 930 969 1141 1005 1096

KR HK 19 26 66 22 10 4 6 48 100 100 873 513

Question F6: Do you have children living with you? Table 11.107  Interruption of employment for care of child or elder (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Yes 14 15 22 10 13 6 35 13 18 28 4 36 8 No 86 85 78 90 87 94 65 87 82 72 96 64 92 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 972 1094 1286 1067 1627 767 920 970 1136 1000 1092 884 520 Question F7: Did you ever interrupt your employment in order to provide child or elder care in the home? Table 11.108  Duration of interruption of employment for care of child or elder (means of years; respondents who interrupted employment) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP HK Arithm. mean 1.8 2.8 1.8 2.2 0.6 4.8 1.7 5.4 4.0 4.2 1.7 3.2 Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 3.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 0.8 2.0 Count (n)

137

143

264

104

167

24

256

125

193

231

36

41

Question F7: Did you ever interrupt your employment in order to provide child or elder care in the home?

252

11  Appendices

Table 11.109  Educational attainment of father (percent) CA US FI IT NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Entered and/or completed 49 53 34 44 50 32 43 38 54 49 30 tertiary education Entered and/or completed 30 32 28 24 28 31 44 42 33 29 30 secondary education Entered and/or completed 18 11 21 25 17 34 12 17 10 15 26 primary education No formal education 2 3 11 5 4 2 1 3 0 5 13 Not applicable 1 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 982 1091 1278 1664 918 988 1148 1016 1081 885 563 Question F8: What is your parents‘ highest and if applicable, partners‘ highest education level?

Table 11.110  Educational attainment of mother (percent) CA US FI IT NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Entered and/or completed 37 48 28 26 37 28 30 29 33 21 20 tertiary education Entered and/or completed 43 38 34 32 32 29 57 50 56 41 30 secondary education Entered and/or completed 16 10 23 35 26 39 11 17 9 27 26 primary education No formal education 3 3 10 7 4 4 2 4 0 10 22 Not applicable 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 981 1091 1270 1661 915 987 1143 1013 1084 879 561 Question F8: What is your parents‘ highest and if applicable, partners‘ highest education level?

Table 11.111  Tertiary education attainment of parents (percent) CA US FI IT NO PT UK Father and mother 31 39 22 22 31 21 25 Father only 18 14 13 22 19 11 18 Mother only 6 9 6 4 6 7 5 None 45 37 60 52 44 61 52 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 982 1091 1278 1664 918 988 1148

AU 22 16 7 55 100 1016

JP 30 24 2 44 100 1081

KR 20 28 0 51 100 885

HK 16 14 3 67 100 563

Question F8: What is your parents‘ highest and if applicable, partners‘ highest education level?

F.  Personal Background and Professional Preparation

253

Table 11.112  Educational attainment of partner (percent of respondents with a partner) CA US FI IT NO PT UK AU JP KR Entered and/or completed 93 91 78 81 88 93 87 0 94 98 tertiary education Entered and/or completed 6 6 19 17 10 7 12 0 6 2 secondary education Entered and/or completed 1 2 2 2 1 0 1 8 0 0 primary education No formal education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 Not applicable 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 78 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 738 868 981 1254 696 744 849 783 895 837

HK 88 10 1 1 1 100 366

Question F8: What is your parents‘ highest and oif applicable, partners‘ highest education level?

Table 11.113  Citizenship at birth (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL Argentine 0 0 0 0 0 0 Australian 1 0 0 0 0 0 Brazilian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canadian 66 2 0 0 0 0 Chinese 1 1 1 0 0 0 Finnish 0 0 92 0 0 0 German 2 0 1 93 0 2 Italian 1 0 0 1 99 0 Japanese 0 0 0 0 0 0 Korean 0 1 0 0 0 0 Malaysian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexican 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dutch 0 0 0 0 0 91 Norwegian 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portuguese 0 0 0 0 0 0 South African 0 0 0 0 0 0 British 6 2 0 0 0 1 American 8 83 0 1 0 0 Other 13 11 5 5 1 4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 958 1092 1321 1099 1682 728

NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 21 100 985

PT

UK AU KR 0 0 0 0 0 1 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 78 13 0 0 2 4 0 4 12 13 0 100 100 100 100 1001 1133 1010 904

Question F9: What was/is your nationality/citizenship and your country of residence?

HK 0 2 0 1 71 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 5 5 100 552

254

11  Appendices

Table 11.114  Citizenship at the time of your first degree (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU KR Argentine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Australian 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 70 0 Brazilian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canadian 69 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Chinese 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Finnish 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 German 1 0 1 94 0 2 0 0 3 1 0 Italian 1 0 0 1 99 0 0 0 1 0 0 Japanese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Korean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 Malaysian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexican 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dutch 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 1 0 0 Norwegian 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 Portuguese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 South African 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 British 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 80 10 0 American 8 85 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 Other 12 10 5 4 1 3 36 4 11 11 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 957 1092 1321 1095 1631 739 983 999 1065 1008 904 Question F9: What was/is your nationality/citizenship and your country of residence?

HK 0 3 0 3 66 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 6 4 100 557

Table 11.115  Current citizenship (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU KR Argentine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Australian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 88 0 Brazilian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canadian 85 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Chinese 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Finnish 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 German 1 0 1 95 0 2 0 0 3 1 0 Italian 0 0 0 1 99 0 0 0 1 0 0 Japanese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Korean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 Malaysian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexican 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dutch 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 1 0 0 Norwegian 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 Portuguese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 South African 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 British 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 81 2 0 American 5 92 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 Other 5 4 4 4 0 3 21 2 9 5 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 842 1092 1298 1101 1679 747 984 994 1065 1009 904 Question F9: What was/is your nationality/citizenship and your country of residence?

HK 0 6 0 4 59 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 6 100 558

Table 11.116  Country of residence at birth (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP Argentina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Australia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 64 0 Brazil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada 65 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 China 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Finland 0 0 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Germany 2 0 0 92 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 Hong Kong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Italy 1 0 0 1 98 0 0 0 1 1 0 Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 South Korea 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Malaysia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 1 1 0 Norway 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 Portugal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 0 South Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 United Kingdom 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 79 12 0 US 8 83 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 Other 14 12 4 6 1 5 23 6 10 12 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 880 1092 1280 995 1577 652 920 996 1149 986 1106 Question F9: What was/is your nationality/citizenship and your country of residence?

KR HK 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 14 0 0 0 1 0 63 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 0 6 100 100 789 554

Table 11.117  Country of residence at the time of your first degree (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Argentina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Australia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 74 0 0 5 Brazil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canada 71 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 China 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 Finland 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Germany 1 0 1 91 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 Hong Kong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 Italy 0 0 0 1 99 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 1 0 South Korea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 Malaysia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Norway 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portugal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 South Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 United Kingdom 5 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 84 8 0 0 11 US 7 86 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 6 9 Other 13 9 5 5 1 4 37 2 8 10 0 1 7 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 881 1092 1268 994 1544 652 920 987 1037 983 1100 790 557 Question F9: What was/is your nationality/citizenship and your country of residence?

256

11  Appendices

Table 11.118  Current country of residence (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Australia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 1 Canada 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Finland 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Germany 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hong Kong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 Italy 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 South Korea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 Malaysia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Norway 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portugal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 South Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 United Kingdom 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 US 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 2 0 0 0 1 14 1 1 0 0 0 2 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 882 1092 1270 992 1576 503 912 996 1080 989 1108 787 569 Question F9: What was/is your nationality/citizenship and your country of residence?

Table 11.119  First language/mother tongue (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Afrikaans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Akan 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amharic 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aragonese 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Arabic 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avaric 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aymara 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bengali 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Danish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 German 3 2 1 95 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 Greek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 English 55 87 1 1 1 2 0 0 85 86 0 0 17 Spanish; Castilian 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Finnish 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 French 32 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 Italian 1 0 0 1 99 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Japanese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 Korean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Malay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dutch; Flemish 0 0 0 0 0 92 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 (continued)

F.  Personal Background and Professional Preparation Table 11.119  (continued) CA US Norwegian Polish Portuguese Romanian Russian Swedish Tamil Turkish Chinese Other Total Count (n)

FI

DE

IT

NL NO PT

257

UK

AU

JP

KR HK

0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 76 2 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 960 1093 1326 1104 1682 821 752 997 1124 1012 1114 909 573

Question F10: What is first language/mother tongue? Table 11.120  Teaching language (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK First language/ 80 86 79 90 93 69 75 98 85 89 100 81 43 mother tongue Other: 20 14 21 10 7 31 25 2 15 11 0 19 57 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 966 1093 1070 1028 1692 576 691 925 716 784 1079 909 544 Question F11: Which language do you primarily employ in teaching? Table 11.121  Other teaching language (percent of those not primarily teaching in first language/ mother tongue) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Bashkir 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 German 1 1 2 49 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 English 73 92 78 45 74 94 100 53 92 94 100 100 100 Spanish; Castilian 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Finnish 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 French 25 2 1 5 9 6 0 3 3 4 0 0 0 Indonesian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Italian 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portuguese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 Russian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swedish 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chinese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mandarin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 195 145 222 102 95 175 51 33 113 120 4 174 310 Question F11: Which language do you primarily employ in teaching?

258

11  Appendices

Table 11.122  Other Teaching language (percent of all respondents with teaching activities) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Other teaching language Bashkir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 German 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 English 15 12 16 4 4 29 9 2 14 14 0 19 57 Spanish; Castilian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Finnish 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 French 5 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Indonesian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Italian 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Portuguese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Russian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swedish 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chinese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mandarin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 87 79 90 94 69 91 96 84 85 100 81 43 Not applicable; teaching in first language/ mother tongue Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 970 1083 1069 1028 1665 574 570 941 719 820 1079 909 544 Question F11: Which language do you primarily employ in teaching?

Table 11.123  Research language (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 85 35 50 32 43 28 50 83 88 87 57 32 First language/ 68 mother tongue Other 32 15 65 50 68 57 72 50 17 12 13 43 68 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 961 1051 1097 1027 1689 358 870 673 728 914 1042 909 484 Question F12: Which language do you primarily employ in research?

Table 11.124  Other research language (percent of those not primarily employing the first language/ mother tongue) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Afrikaans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Akan 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amharic 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aragonese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bashkir 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Czech 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 (continued)

F.  Personal Background and Professional Preparation Table 11.124  (continued) CA US FI German Greek English Spanish; Castilian Finnish French Indonesian Italian Korean Latin Dutch; Flemish Portuguese Russian Swedish Chinese Papua New Guinean Other Total Count (n)

DE IT

NL NO PT

259

UK AU JP

KR HK

0 3 1 5 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 91 87 97 94 96 100 100 94 85 95 89 100 98 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 302 147 721 523 1087 202 297 578 124 156 124 392 328

Question F12: Which language do you primarily employ in research?

Table 11.125  Other research language (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Other research language Afrikaans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Akan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amharic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aragonese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bashkir 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Czech 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 German 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Greek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 English 29 12 64 48 64 57 55 60 14 15 11 43 67 Spanish; Castilian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Finnish 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 French 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Indonesian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Italian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Korean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Latin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dutch; Flemish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (continued)

260

11  Appendices

Table 11.125  (continued) CA US

FI

DE

IT

NL NO PT

UK AU JP

KR HK

Portuguese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Russian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Swedish 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chinese 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Papua New 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Guinean 68 86 35 49 33 43 45 37 83 84 88 57 33 Not applicable; research employed in first language/ mother tongue Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 954 1040 1101 1034 1626 356 544 915 728 959 1030 909 484 Question F12: Which language do you primarily employ in research?

Table 11.126  Years spent outside the country of first degree (percent of all respondents; multiple responses) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK 78 85 73 86 94 54 78 56 79 71 87 89 89 A. In the country of first degree (no mobility) 35 13 13 9 11 8 27 10 29 24 14 43 49 B. In the country of current employment (if different from A) 40 14 36 13 24 30 34 29 51 C. In other countries 41 32 21 20 (if different from A and B) No answer to this 18 2 23 11 5 42 17 42 18 27 11 5 5 question Total 173 132 130 125 151 118 158 121 151 152 146 166 195 Count (n) 1159 1109 1374 1215 1711 1209 986 1510 1369 1377 1126 909 586 Question F13: Since the award of your first degree, how many years have you spent?

Table 11.127  Years spent in the country stayed in the country of first degree) CA US FI DE Arithm. mean 16.3 24.8 13.9 12.3 Median 14.0 26.0 11.0   8.0 Count (n)

of first degree (means of years of all respondents who IT 23.7 22.0

NL NO PT UK 18.6 17.9 14.9 16.8 19.0 15.0 13.0 15.0

947 1065 1052 1073 1621 684 789

AU JP KR HK 16.4 24.4 12.0 12.2 15.0 24.0   8.0 11.0

871 1106 999 987 853 555

Question F13: Since the award of your first degree, how many years have you spent?

N.  New Variables

261

Table 11.128  Years spent in the country of current employment (means of years of all respondents* since the award of the first degree) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Arithm. mean 17.4 20.4 12.1 13.2 21.0 12.8 17.6 16.2 13.3 13.7 22.6 16.2 10.2 Median 15.3 18.2   8.0   9.0 19.3   9.0 13.0 14.0 10.1 11.0 20.0 14.0   9.0 Count (n) 409 146 177 105 196 94 262 153 404 328 152 393 293 Question F13: Since the award of your first degree, how many years have you spent? * Years of employment in the current country if different from the country of the first degree.

Table 11.129  Years spent outside the country of first degree and current employment (means of years of all respondents who were employed in other countries* since the award of the first degree) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Arithm. mean 4.1 5.6 2.5 2.5 2.7 3.5 4.2 3.9 4.1 4.9 2.6 2.2 6.7 Median 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 Count (n) 489 358 336 250 686 164 359 198 344 423 434 273 302 Question F13: Since the award of your first degree, how many years have you spent? * Other countries: outside the country of first degree and current employment

N.  New Variables Table 11.130  International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship excluded) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU KR HK Foreign born non-mobile 1 1 0 4 0 1 1 4 1 1 0 1 academics Early immigrant foreigners 2 0 1 1 0 1 5 0 2 1 0 1 Early immigrant citizens 3 4 0 4 0 1 1 3 1 11 0 3 PhD immigrant foreigners 2 4 1 2 0 1 3 0 6 2 0 2 PhD immigrant citizens 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 0 1 Professional migrant 10 4 5 3 0 5 8 1 12 8 0 27 foreigners Professional migrant citizens 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 9 0 2 Study mobile academics 7 1 2 8 0 2 9 7 1 3 19 34 PhD mobile academics 10 0 2 2 8 1 18 6 1 3 25 10 Non-mobile academics 57 81 89 76 90 86 54 78 76 56 56 19 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 818 1081 1251 1070 1639 705 876 897 908 959 899 460 Question N1: Based on different variables (COUNTRY, F9_A_1, A1_B_1, A1_B_2, A1_B_3, F9_A_3 and F9_B_1)

Table 11.131  International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Foreign born non-mobile academics 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 Early immigrant foreigners 2 0 1 1 0 1 5 0 2 1 0 0 1 Early immigrant citizens 2 4 0 4 0 1 1 2 1 9 0 0 3 PhD immigrant foreigners 5 4 2 2 0 0 3 0 5 2 0 0 2 PhD immigrant citizens 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 1 Professional migrant foreigners 13 4 5 2 0 3 8 1 11 7 0 0 26 Professional migrant citizens 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 1 Study mobile academics 11 1 2 8 0 5 9 7 3 9 5 18 37 PhD mobile academics 9 0 2 2 8 1 18 7 1 3 2 25 10 Non-mobile academics 51 81 88 77 90 87 54 81 75 58 92 56 18 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1123 1098 1324 1181 1670 1169 877 1366 1042 1190 991 905 496 Question N2: Based on different variables (COUNTRY, F9_A_1, A1_B_1, A1_B_2, A1_B_3, F9_A_3 and F9_B_1)

262 11  Appendices

N.  New Variables

263

Table 11.132  International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Early immigrants 5 5 1 8 1 2 7 5 4 11 1 0 5 PhD immigrants 8 7 2 2 0 0 3 0 6 6 0 0 2 Professional 16 5 5 3 1 4 8 1 11 14 0 0 28 migrants Study mobile 11 1 2 8 0 5 9 7 3 9 5 18 37 academics PhD mobile 9 0 2 2 8 1 18 7 1 3 2 25 10 academics Non-mobile 51 81 88 77 90 87 54 81 75 58 92 56 18 academics Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1123 1098 1324 1181 1670 1169 877 1366 1042 1190 991 905 496 Question N3: Based on different variables (COUNTRY, F9_A_1, A1_B_1, A1_B_2, A1_B_3, F9_A_3 and F9_B_1)

Table 11.133  International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Migrants 29 18 8 13 2 7 19 6 21 31 1 0 35 Mobile 20 2 4 10 9 6 27 13 4 11 7 44 47 academics Non-mobile 51 81 88 77 90 87 54 81 75 58 92 56 18 academics Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1123 1098 1324 1181 1670 1169 877 1366 1042 1190 991 905 496 Question N4: Based on different variables (COUNTRY, F9_A_1, A1_B_1, A1_B_2, A1_B_3, F9_A_3 and F9_B_1)

Question N5: Based on different variables (COUNTRY, F9_A_1, A1_B_1, A1_B_2, A1_B_3, F9_A_3, F9_B_1, A1_C_1 and A1_C_3)

Table 11.134  International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens, Asia/Australia same regions) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Early immigrants – within the region 1 1 1 8 1 1 0 2 2 3 0 0 1 Early immigrants – outside the region 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 7 0 0 3 PhD immigrants – within the region 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 PhD immigrants – outside the region 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 2 Professional migrants – within the region 6 1 3 2 1 3 0 1 7 2 0 0 6 Professional migrants – outside the region 10 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 12 0 0 22 Study mobile academics – within the region 7 0 1 7 0 3 0 5 1 3 4 7 15 Study mobile academics – outside the region 4 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 6 1 11 23 PhD mobile academics – within the region 6 0 1 1 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 3 2 PhD mobile academics – outside the region 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 2 22 7 Non-mobile academics 52 88 89 78 95 89 100 81 75 58 92 56 19 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1114 1010 1312 1166 1582 1150 473 1363 1040 1189 988 904 480

264 11  Appendices

Question N6: Based on different variables (COUNTRY, F9_A_1, A1_B_1, A1_B_2, A1_B_3, F9_A_3, F9_B_1, A1_C_1 and A1_C_3)

Table 11.135  International mobility status (percent; respondents with missings in birth/current citizenship included, considered as citizens, Asia/Australia different regions) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Early immigrants – within the region 1 1 1 8 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 Early immigrants – outside the region 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 9 0 0 3 PhD immigrants – within the region 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 PhD immigrants – outside the region 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 2 Professional migrants – within the region 6 1 3 2 1 3 0 1 7 1 0 0 3 Professional migrants – outside the region 10 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 13 0 0 25 Study mobile academics – within the region 7 0 1 7 0 3 0 5 1 2 3 7 11 Study mobile academics – outside the region 4 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 7 1 11 27 PhD mobile academics – within the region 6 0 1 1 2 1 0 6 0 0 0 3 1 PhD mobile academics – outside the region 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 2 22 8 Non-mobile academics 52 88 89 78 95 89 100 81 75 58 92 56 19 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1114 1010 1312 1166 1582 1150 473 1363 1040 1189 988 904 481

N.  New Variables 265

266

11  Appendices

Table 11.136  International activities* (means of index from 0 – low to 8 – high) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP Arithm. mean 3.4 1.9 3.5 2.9 3.4 3.2 3.7 3.2 3.5 3.5 2.0 Median 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0

KR HK 2.4 3.5 2.0 3.9

Count (n) 1010 939 836 926 1664 509 668 950 662 794 1035 905 462 Question N7: Based on different variables (C4_5, C4_10, C5_1, D1_4, D8_2, D5_3, D5_4 and D2_5) * Index built based on 8 variables, at least two teaching variables and two research variables should be answered Table 11.137  International activities – teaching* (means of index from 0 – low to 3 – high) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Arithm. mean 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.0 Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Count (n) 1010 939 836 926 1664 509 668 950 662 794 1035 905 462 Question N8: Based on different variables (C4_5, C4_10 and C5_1) * Index built based on 3 teaching variables, at least two teaching variables and two research variables of 8 variables should be answered Table 11.138  International activities – research* (means of index from 0 – low to 5 – high) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Arithm. mean 2.5 1.3 2.8 2.2 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.4 1.4 1.5 2.5 Median 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 Count (n) 1010 939 836 926 1664 509 668 950 662 794 1035 905 462 Question N9: Based on different variables (D1_4, D8_2, D5_3, D5_4 and D2_5) * Index built based on 5 research variables, at least two teaching variables and two research variables of 8 variables should be answered Table 11.139  Infrastructural support* (means of index from 0 – low to 8 – high) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP Arithm. mean 4.4 4.7 5.5 4.7 3.4 4.6 5.4 3.5 3.5 4.6 2.8 Median 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 Count (n) 1082 1104 1338 1134 1700 984 944 1213 926 1114 1117 Question N10: Based on different variables (B3_1, B3_2, B3_3, B3_4, B3_5, B3_6, B3_9) * Index built based on 8 variables, at least four variables should be answered

KR HK 3.7 5.4 3.0 6.0 909 572 B3_7 and

Table 11.140  Research – teaching ratio (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Predominantly 18 13 39 41 20 12 38 6 25 24 23 16 17 research Mostly research 29 18 11 20 31 15 19 24 17 16 25 33 21 Mostly teaching 23 18 11 15 27 15 18 25 12 19 23 27 21 Predominantly 31 51 40 24 21 58 26 45 47 41 29 24 40 teaching Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1013 1060 1224 1043 1635 917 708 1139 801 828 1058 891 527 Question N11: Based on different variables (B1_A_1 and B1_A_2)

N.  New Variables

267

Table 11.141  Varied teaching activities* (means of index from 0 – low to 7 – high) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Arithm. mean 3.9 3.9 4.1 2.2 3.7 3.3 3.7 3.5 4.2 4.2 3.2 3.2 3.9 Median 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 Count (n) 1053 1108 1117 1022 1689 863 727 1134 794 889 1094 909 550 Question N12: Based on different variables (C2_2, C2_3, C2_4, C2_5, C2_6, C2_9 and C2_10) * Index built based on 7 variables, at least four variables should be answered

Table 11.142  Publications (means of scores)* CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Arithm. mean 26.7 19.4 19.2 24.4 35.4 22.2 18.5 21.4 20.4 25.2 32.9 41.9 32.0 Median 20.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 28.0 13.0 12.0 12.0 15.0 17.0 20.0 30.0 21.0 Count (n) 994 964 1063 1007 1674 536 876 944 777 999 1058 907 471 Question N13: Based on different variables (D4_1, D4_2, D4_3, D4_4, D4_5 and D4_6) * Scores built by giving different points to different sort of publications

Table 11.143  Foreign language use (percent; missings excluded) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Teaching and publications 7 1 35 20 21 38 46 11 2 1 11 25 8 in other languages Teaching (only) in other 1 2 10 3 2 20 4 4 3 3 2 6 8 languages Publications (only) in 25 6 42 60 57 29 46 58 11 6 56 39 20 other languages None 67 90 12 16 19 13 4 27 85 90 31 30 64 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 975 859 908 911 1707 575 822 843 614 774 911 872 445 Question N14: Based on different variables (C5_2 and D5_1)

Table 11.144  Foreign language use (percent; missings included, just one answered variable needed) CA US FI DE IT NL NO PT UK AU JP KR HK Teaching and publications 7 1 32 20 21 35 45 10 2 1 11 25 8 in other languages Teaching or publications 26 9 57 65 60 53 52 63 14 9 58 45 29 in other languages None 67 89 11 16 19 12 3 26 84 90 31 29 63 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 981 869 998 939 1707 620 848 852 618 775 920 879 455 Question N15: Based on different variables (C5_2 and D5_1)

Table 11.145  Dominant language – in terms of country (percent) CA US FI DE IT NL Dominant foreign language use in teaching and 0 0 14 3 5 16 research Dominant foreign language use (only) in teaching 0 1 2 1 0 8 Dominant foreign language use (only) in research 0 1 43 41 63 13 Dominant home country language use in teaching 99 98 41 55 32 63 and research Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Count (n) 1014 1078 1240 1123 1590 750 Question N16: Based on different variables (COUNTRY, F10, F11_A, F11_B, F12_A and F12_B) 1 0 48 51 100 1162

1 42 49 100 521

PT

NO 9

0

100 1242

1 1 98

UK

0

100 1255

0 0 99

AU

0 11 88

1

100 1065

JP

100 909

3 27 54

KR 16

100 569

0 1 98

HK 1

268 11  Appendices

About the Authors

William K. Cummings, who received his Ph.D. from Harvard University with a dissertation on “The Academic Marketplace and University Reform in Japan” in 1972, currently is Professor of International Education and International Affairs at George Washington University. Dr. Cummings has been involved in development work for over 25 years, including long-term residence in Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Singapore, and short-term consultancies in over 15 countries in Asia, the Middle-East, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Included in this work is experience in developing higher education programs and monitoring their progress for OECD, the World Bank, USAID, and the Ford Foundation. He has authored or edited over 100 articles and 25 books or monographs on education and development including The Institutions of Education published by Symposium books in 2004 and Crossing Borders in East Asian Higher Education published by Springer in 2010. Dr. Cummings is past president of the Comparative and International Education Society. Currently he is the international coordinator for The Changing Academic Profession Project, a survey of academics in 19 nations around the world; additionally he is co-editor of the Springer book series on The Changing Academy. Martin J. Finkelstein is professor of Higher Education at Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ. He received his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1978. Since then, he has taught at the University of Denver and Teacher’s College, Columbia University and has served as a Visiting Scholar at the Claremont Graduate University, the Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan, and Visiting Professor at the University of Hong Kong. Between 1989 and 1997, he served as the Executive Director of the New Jersey Institute for Collegiate Teaching and Learning. He is the author of The American Academic Profession (Ohio State University Press, 1988) and The New Academic Generation (with Robert Seal and Jack Schuster, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) and with Jack Schuster, The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

269

270

About the Authors

Work and Careers, (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006). He and Schuster are currently preparing a sequel to The American Faculty scheduled for publication by Johns Hopkins in 2013. Most recently, he served as co-director with William Cummings of the US component of the Changing Academic Profession Survey 2007 and as Fulbright Senior Specialist at the University of Hong Kong studying Hong Kong’s transition from a 3-year to a 4-year baccalaureate degree.

Index

A AAUP, 8, 111, 121, 123, 127, 128, 144 survey of higher education governance, 8, 121, 123 Academic capitalism, 10 discipline, 13, 27, 33–37, 95, 106, 131, 133, 154, 163 profession, 1–13, 15, 16, 21, 24, 27, 30, 51, 53, 80, 82, 83, 90, 94, 95, 105, 112, 139, 142, 146, 153–170 rank, 20, 22–23, 65, 70, 75, 89–90, 165 research, 7, 51, 61, 155 research productivity, 51–61, 71, 75, 143 socialization, 27, 95, 106 training, 80 work, 1–5, 11, 12, 16, 20, 27, 29, 31–32, 46, 49, 50, 64, 68, 74, 90, 94, 95, 113–114, 132, 137–139, 141, 143, 148, 170, 171 workforce growth, 51 Academic internationalization, two dimensions, 85 Academy as an educational organization, 3–4 Academy to promote research, 51–61 Age and productivity, 56–59 American model, 128, 145, 146 Area studies, 80–82, 90 Asian share growth, 52–53 Autonomy, 3, 12, 133, 146, 150

B Budgets, 13, 19, 56, 57, 113, 114, 116–125, 127, 128, 144, 145, 147, 158, 160

C CAP. See Changing Academic Profession Career stage, 30, 31, 33, 42, 50 Carnegie classification, 7, 23 Carnegie International Survey, 10, 20, 80, 83 Central administration, 116, 117, 119, 120, 125, 128, 145, 160 Change in academic work and careers, 148 in faculty influence, 13, 113, 127, 147, 148 in governance roles, 111–128, 148 in international practice, 88 in other sectors of the workforce, 3, 13, 15, 146 Change and impact on individual faculty, 148 on institutions, 148–149 Changing Academic Profession (CAP) planning, 10 study, 3, 10, 16, 53, 63, 67, 69, 96, 134 Cold war, 80 Collegiality, 124, 133, 134, 136, 161 Commodification, 28, 111 Comparative perspective on governance, 111–128 on research productivity, 51–61 on working conditions, 112–113 Compensation, 3, 76, 128, 145, 146, 148 Competence of administrators, 113, 118–119, 126 Conceptual framework, 10, 15–16, 32 Conditions of change, 112–113 Contingent faculty, 69, 75, 76 Core-periphery, 6 Corporate board, 5, 147 Cosmopolitan-local, 139 Cultural capital, 68 Curriculum, 13, 111, 113, 120–122, 127, 156

W.K. Cummings and M.J. Finkelstein, Scholars in the Changing American Academy, The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective 4, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-2730-4, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

271

272 D Data collection, 15, 21–22 Decentralized oligarchy, 8 Decline in attractiveness of academic work, 64 in public revenues, 2, 8 Demand for higher education, 7 Design effect (Deff) coefficient, 18 Differentiation of higher education, 15, 69 Disciplinary affiliation, 95, 132 Disciplinary organizations, 5, 65 Disciplines, 5, 6, 11, 13, 22, 27–29, 33–37, 40, 47, 48, 56, 57, 70, 72–73, 75, 87–89, 95, 100–104, 106, 108, 118, 119, 126, 131, 133–135, 146, 148, 154, 155, 157, 163 Discrimination in the academy, 64–65, 75 Drivers of change, 16, 146

E Emerging systems, 6 English model, 5 Enrollment expansion, 2 rate, 7 Entrepreneurial corporate model, 8 Established systems of higher education, 6, 9, 114 European models of higher education, 80 Experience, 6, 13, 15, 20, 27, 30, 52, 61, 64, 65, 67–70, 72–77, 82, 85, 86, 95, 107, 148, 162

F Faculty appointments, 28, 72–75, 95–97, 99, 100, 103, 104, 106, 108, 111, 113, 114, 117, 119, 120, 122, 127, 144, 164 engagement in governance, 111, 113, 120 influence, 13, 19, 101, 113–122, 124, 126–128, 137, 144, 145 interest in internationalization, 107 perceptions of their influence, 111–112, 114–117, 124 Family composition, 75 Feminization of the academy, 143 Foreign born and academic productivity, 56 Foreign born and advancement, 13, 63, 74–76 Foreign born in the U.S. academy, 74–75 Foreign language expertise, 80 Foreign trained, 68, 74 For profit institutions, 3

Index French model, 5, 12 Full-time appointments, 30, 49, 143 Funding for research and development, 2, 88, 158

G Gender, 22, 23, 28–31, 37–40, 42, 45–50, 56, 63, 65–67, 73–77, 83, 95–97, 99, 100, 102, 104–106, 133, 136, 166 and academic productivity, 52, 61 and advancement to top management positions, 63 composition of the U.S. academy, 75 and contingent faculty appointments, 69, 143–144 and earned doctorates, 68, 73, 75, 97 equity hypothesis, 64, 76 pay inequality, 63 German model, 5, 12 Glass ceiling effect, 63–77 Golden age, 1, 31, 64, 112 Governance, 3, 7–8, 10, 13, 19, 111–128, 136, 139, 144–146, 148, 150 Government priorities, 1, 61 Graduate education, 18, 64, 68, 111, 122

H Higher Education Act, 1972 Amendment, 1, 31 Homogenization of institutional mission, 28 Hours of work per week, 3, 146 Hours per week for research, 57

I Incentives for faculty involvement, 90 INCHER at Kassel University, 22 Independent variables, 30, 31, 56, 59, 65–71, 75, 95, 97, 99, 133 Indicators of academic performance, 137, 146, 162 of change, 69, 85 Influence of stakeholders, 114, 116, 117 Institute of International Education, 80 Institutional affiliation, 52, 95, 134, 135 correlates of, 134, 136 trends in comparative perspective, 27 Institutional type, 18, 21–23, 28–35, 37, 42, 46–50, 56–57, 75, 86, 87, 89, 95–97, 99, 100, 102–104, 106, 108, 117–119, 128, 145

Index International beliefs, 86, 89, 90 coauthorship, 94, 102–103 collaboration, 75–77, 84–86, 101 collaboration and research productivity, 75 funding for research, 88 practice, 59, 83, 84, 88, 90 research orientation, 85 students, 81, 83, 95, 108 Internationalization, 10, 11, 13, 19, 24, 79–86, 90, 91, 93–109, 142–143 and academic work, 10, 93–109 and competitiveness, 82, 94

J Job search and institutional affiliation, 52, 95, 134, 135, 139 Job security, 3, 69, 131, 146

L Liberal arts colleges and internationalization, 28, 57, 81–82, 123–124, 128, 165 Logistic regression, 31, 46, 94, 99–105 Loyalty, 4, 5, 13, 131–139, 146, 149 voice/exit, 4, 5, 13, 131–139, 146, 149, 162

M Managerialism, 12, 19, 24, 128, 145, 146 Mandatory work components, 137 Market driven, 146 Market ideology, 8, 10 Marketization of academic research, 28 Massification, 7 Matrix theory of academic work, 27 Middle managers, 116, 128, 145 Minorities and advancement, 13, 63, 73–74 Minority status in the U.S. Academy, 66–67 Missing data, 23–24 Multicollinearity, 31, 99

N National differences in academic productivity, 52 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 2004, 22

O OLS regression. See Ordinary least-squares regression

273 Online survey, 21, 23, 24 Ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression, 66

P Participating countries, 16 Part-time appointments, 2, 143 Pell Grants, 1 Personal characteristics, 54, 55, 60, 83, 89 Post-American world, 94 Private good, 3, 141 Privatization, 2, 170 Professionalized management, 12 Professional schools and internationalization, 11, 90, 165 Public higher education, 10

R Relevance, 11, 19, 24, 65, 162 Research environment, comparing nations, 61 on higher education, 9, 15, 166 inclination and research productivity, 37, 51–61, 71, 75, 143, 159 orientation, 13, 32, 33, 37, 42, 46–49, 55, 60, 85 productivity and national policy, 51–61, 71, 75, 143, 159 questions, 16, 29, 82–83 vs. teaching, 29–35, 42, 95, 96, 98, 99 Response rate, 18, 20–24

S Sample design for national surveys, 17–19, 53 Sample representativeness, 17 Sample selection, 19 Second class academic positions, 64 65 Shared governance, 111, 112, 124 Statism, 7 Students as consumers, 2 Survey instrument design, 19–20

T Teaching and research, 12, 15–16, 32–36, 38–41, 43–48, 57, 79, 94, 117, 148, 161 Teaching “correction”, 32, 49, 50 Teaching emphasized, 142 Tenure track appointments, 22, 23, 37, 45, 47–50, 67, 72–76, 144, 165 Transformation of management and governance, 7–8

274 U Unionization, 8 U.S model of higher education, 1, 5, 63, 79–80, 82, 91 U.S. share of research articles, 52

V Voluntary work components, 137

Index W Weighted sample, 22 Weighting data, 22 Working conditions, 64, 76, 112–113, 132, 155