Menendez - Policies and preferences of academic actors

Policies and preferences of academic actors: Explaining changes in academic employmentExplaining changes in academic employment

models

Luis Sanz-Menéndez & Laura Cruz-CastroLuis Sanz-Menéndez & Laura Cruz-Castro Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)Institute of Public Goods and Policies (IPP), MadridDepartment of Science and [email protected] [email protected]

OECD, Blue SKY III Conference, Informing science and Innovation Policies. Towards the next generation of data and indicators, Ghent,19-21 September 2016.

1Instituto de Políticas y Bienes Públicos (IPP) – Departamento de Dinámica de la Ciencia y la Innovación

www.ipp.csic.eswww.ipp.csic.es

Outline of the Messagesg• Understanding Science and Innovation Systems & Policies through the

analysis of opinions, attitudes and preferences of actors• Units of analysis and sources of information• Individuals are treated as informants of other levels of analysis, but less

about their own about their own. • Data collection in S&I analysis using surveys to individuals about

individuals:P bli d t di f iPublic understanding of sciencePolicy evaluation and impact analysisAcademic Careers expectations, ……………

• Facts Attitudes Opinions and Preferences• Facts, Attitudes, Opinions and Preferences• Some ways of use of surveys to individuals on individual issues:

Classical statistical approach (preferences of academics about employment models)Q i E i t l d i i l iQuasi Experimental design using survey analysis“Population-based survey experiments” (the future)

• Need for a global infrastructure for survey implementation to STI actors


Relevance of studying actors’ opinions, attitudes and preferences (on the employment models at universities)preferences (on the employment models at universities)• Organizations are adapting to survive, but Individuals are concerned

about: social acceptance, status and identityy• They are important to understand individual behavior (motivations leading

to action) • The actors’ opinions attitudes and preferences could matter for change orThe actors opinions, attitudes and preferences could matter for change or

stability in public policy• Their understanding is relevant for the comparative analysis of policies and

the diversity of national institutional arrangementsthe diversity of national institutional arrangements• Opinions, attitudes and beliefs shape organizational practices in institutions • Opinions, attitudes, beliefs and preferences’ formation have been widely

t di d i th fi ld b t b l i d ti t distudied in other fields, but very barely in career and promotion studies.• It is an area relatively unexplored in STI studies Bringing the “public opinion” approaches into STI analysisNeed for a better understanding of agency


1. Objectivesj• The work aims to study the Spanish academics’ opinions,

attitudes and preferences about some competing institutionallogics governing academia and the university organizationalpractices.Professional logic vs state logic• Professional logic vs state logic

• In the paper, the university employment models (universityselection and promotion systems),selection and promotion systems),

• Starting with understanding preferences about the“selection and promotion system”

• Preferences are rankings derived from comparative evaluation of objects’ attributes (prioritization among set of objects)objects)

• Preferences and attitudes are highly related


2. Explaining attitudes and preferences

A. Self-interest based explanations– Widely used in many fields of sociology interest structures set the– Widely used in many fields of sociology, interest structures set the

goals that people strive towards and help to form their attitudes and preferences (material, individual and imminent) (Sears & Funk 1991)

When a person’s defined interest (or expectation) benefits from a type of promotion system (i.e the one in place) she should be more likely to hold favorable attitudes towards it.

B. The role of beliefs and values in preference formation (ideology based explanations)based explanations)– Interest are not the sole determinant but the perception of the

situation in an area shapes the preferences too (Lau & Heldman2009)

Sociotropic factors emerge from beliefs about the situation of the university and the current access and promotion systems


university and the current access and promotion systems

2. Explaining attitudes and preferences

C. Personal experience and learning (exposure-based explanations)– Beliefs are stable but could change as a result of personal

experiences and learning (Holland et al 1986)Personal experiences with different hiring and promotion systems (and

duration of these experiences) or Managerial experiences induration of these experiences) or Managerial experiences in universities could shape the preferences.

D. Socialization and institutional factors– Formal education is a powerful mean thought which professional

norms are produced legitimated and diffused (Di Maggio & Powellnorms are produced, legitimated and diffused (Di Maggio & Powell 1983)

Education background (place of PhD) and trajectory (international i bilit ) t th f th li k ith th l l i itexperiences, mobility); strengths of the links with the local university

culture (inbreeding, family background etc.) It is not the direct experience but the exposure to ideas, experiences or beliefs (from


other employment models)

3. Relevance. Why Spain is a “critical” case?Dual model in the employment system: Civil servants (tenured) and

temporary contracted• Before 1983: National Exams called by the Ministry, national central evaluation

committees, public hearing (competitive tournaments), selected candidate gets a position automatically.

• Between 1983-2001: Local exams, decentralized selection at the university level, mixed evaluation committees (local + national members) public hearing (competitive tournaments), selected candidate gets a position automatically.

2001. Separation between evaluation and granting the positionBetween 2001 2007: National Habilitation exams National central evaluation• Between 2001-2007: National Habilitation exams. National central evaluation committees, public hearing (competitive tournaments), selected candidate gets habilitation, but he/she has to compete locally for a position at a further step.F 2008 t tl A dit ti CV b d l ti b ti l• From 2008 to currently: Accreditation. CV-based evaluation by national committees, approved candidate gets accreditation (non-competitive), but he/she has to compete locally for a position at a further step.


Academic employment models: Ideal Types and taxonomies

Selection and evaluation modes

Centralized De decentralizedCentralized De-decentralized

N ti l E L l EDirect

selection ( t ti

National Examsfor access to the

professoriate categories b di i li

Local Examsfor each university and position by discipline

(Spain: Between 1983 2001)

Employment/ Appointment

(automatic effects)

by discipline (Spain: Before 1983)

(Spain: Between 1983-2001)

effects (One or two steps

in the Accreditation

RequiredNational Exams for

Habilitation

Accreditation (CV based)

(Spain: since 2008 National f i il t iti dprocess) (Non-

automatic effects)

(Spain: 2002-2007 for civil servant positions)

for civil servant positions and since 2001 national/regional

for contracted positions)


4. Methods and Data• Population Targeted: Doctorate holders employed in Public

Universities (Academics in public universities).• Data Gathering: Specific designed questionnaire (30 questions• Data Gathering: Specific designed questionnaire (30 questions

approx.)• Data collection: Web-based survey• Implementation: between March and June 2015• Provisional data set for the analysis: 5,000 questionnaires and more

than 4 500 valid responses (May 2015) 37% femalesthan 4,500 valid responses (May 2015), 37% females.• Average rate of response of reference population: 20%• Universe: Academics in a sample of 20 Spanish Universities (of the 47 p p (

classroom universities) representing 43% of academics.• Unit of sampling: Universities.

We asked people to select (express their preferences) among 3• We asked people to select (express their preferences) among 3 viable systems of access and promotion to university employments (that have existed recently in Spain) and are in


place in different countries.

4. Preferences about the “selection and promotion systems”systems

System you most agree with

Accreditation Procedures

Accreditation Decentralized

Selection

National (Habilitation) Exams

Decentralized SelectionProcedures

48%

Selection30%

Decentralized Selection

National (Habilitation)

Exams22%22%


Preferences about the “selection and promotion systems”

Exposure effects: The younger the cohort the stronger the support to Accreditation

System you most agree with by age

60,1%60%

70%

System you most agree with by age

45,0%

51,1%

48,0%

42,2%

50%

33,8%

28,0%

32,7%

29,2%27,9%30%

40% Accreditation ProceduresNational (Habilitation) ExamsDecentralized Selection

Lineal (Accreditation24,0%

22,3%19,6%

12,0%

24,1%

20%

Lineal (Accreditation Procedures)Lineal (National (Habilitation) Exams)

0%

10%

70 & + 60 - 69 50 - 59 40 - 49 < 39


70 & 60 69 50 59 40 49 39

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Final ModelSelf-interest

5.Factors explaining preference for current accreditation

Accreditation to upper rank (yes) .522 *** .544 *** .537 *** .565 *** .593 ***Eligible for promotion (yes) .619 *** .625 *** .589 *** .557 *** .779 *Beliefs and valuesAccreditation is the best system for merit-based selection (yes) .167 *** .183 *** .183 *** .173 ***Index on the functioning of promotion in the university system 1.211 *** 1.192 *** 1.199 *** 1.194 ***

Personal experience and learningPromoted to current job under accreditation system (yes) .695 *** .710 *** .817 *Experience in university top management (yes) 1 694 ** 1 679 ** 1 520 *Experience in university top management (yes) 1.694 ** 1.679 ** 1.520 *Experience in accreditation processes (yes) .619 *** .624 *** .603 ***Degree of professional satisfaction 1.108 ** 1.126 ** 1.139 **Institutional and Socialisation factorsStrongly inbred (yes) 881 * 906Strongly inbred (yes) .881 * .906International experience (yes) .729 *** .816 **Index of disciplinary versus university identity 1.088 * 1.074Control VariablesSex (female) .907( )Age .972 ***Field of science (experimental sciences) 1.153 *

Top 10% researcher (yes) 1.304 *

P f i l i t ti t h ( )Professional orientation to research (yes) 1.208 *

Constant 1.659 2.332 1.899 1.477 3.728

Pseudo R‐square (R2 Nagelkerke) .045 .287 .308 .313 .327Observations (n) 4460 4460 4460 4460 4460


Observations (n) 4460 4460 4460 4460 4460Note: Coefficients shown are changes in the probabilities Odd Ratios (exp(B)) * < .05 ** <.01 *** <.001

6. Main Findings• INTERESTS MATTER The odds of preferring the current system for those holding an• INTERESTS MATTER. The odds of preferring the current system for those holding an

accreditation to a higher-level rank are 41% higher compared with those not holding it, a finding supported by the literature on self-interest attitudes and opinions.

• BELIEFS, OPPINIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITY PROBLEMS condition the preferences about selection and promotion systems even more. There is an strong association between having a negative vision on the quality of the selection of current system and supporting the return to a centralized model In fact these variables are thesystem and supporting the return to a centralized model. In fact, these variables are the most powerful contributors to the overall explained variance.

• PERSONAL EXPERIENCES. Academics tend to support the system that was in place when they were awarded with their positions (a 18% odds increase).

• MANAGEMENT EXPOSURE (LEARNING). Interestingly, experience in top-management positions is related to a higher support towards a “centralized system” (a 51% increase).

• CAREER SOCIALIZATION. Contribution of these variables is minor and has a weak association with academics’ preferences regarding promotion. The effect of international experience goes in favor of Accreditation (against expectations).

Age, “quality”, research orientation, and Natural & Experimental fields moderate support for accreditation


7. Some policy conclusions• Policies reforms in HE have questioned the dominance of local academics

communities versus evaluation agencies.• Visible tension between “policy regulation” and “collegial practices” • With the last reform university interests achieved the separation of the

evaluation of academics from the selection and recruitment keeping the control over the latter.

• According to our results academics will be supportive of the current accreditation system, unless there are concerns about quality criteria of evaluation agencies, and the suitability of departments as the

i f d i l timain arena for academic selection.• Hiring and promotion systems favor the creation of their own

constituencies and affect attitudesOur analysis implies that the situation is unstable and the community• Our analysis implies that the situation is unstable and the community divided. (48% of the respondents prefer the current system). At best, there is an unstable equilibrium which makes radical policy change unlikely to occuroccur.

• Conflicting logics regarding merit based selection (professional autonomy vs government quality control). Equilibrium solution under current governance university system?


current governance university system?

Thanks! Questions?

Contact:Contact:[email protected] or [email protected]


Data & Analytics

Menendez - Policies and preferences of academic actors